Registration Decision

Application name	Waanyi People #2 	
Name of applicant	Gary Rockland, Ada Walden, Lloyd O’Keefe, Terence George	
Federal Court of Australia No.	QUD747/2018	
NNTT No.	QC2018/004	
Date of Decision	9 November 2018	

Claim accepted for registration
I have decided that the claim in the Waanyi People #2 application satisfies all of the conditions in ss 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Therefore the claim must be accepted for registration and entered on the Register of Native Title Claims.

__________________________
Heidi Evans
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar
. 

Edited Reasons for Decision
CASES CITED
Corunna v Native Title Registrar [2013] FCA 372 (Corunna)
Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCAFC 178 (Griffiths)
Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 (Gudjala 2007)
Gudjala People # 2 v Native Title Registrar (2008) 171 FCR 317; [2008] FCAFC 157 (Gudjala 2008)
Martin v Native Title Registrar [2001] FCA 16 (Martin) 
Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 (Yorta Yorta)
Northern Territory of Australia v Doepel (2003) 133 FCR 112; [2003] FCA 1384 (Doepel)
Sampi v Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 (Sampi) 
State of Western Australia v Strickland [2000] FCA 652 (Strickland FC)
Stock v Native Title Registrar [2013] FCA 1290 (Stock)  
Strickland v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1530 (Strickland) 
Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93; [1999] FCA 1591 (WA v NTR)
Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (Ward HC)
BACKGROUND
[1]	The application was filed on behalf of the Waanyi People native title claim group on 17 October 2018. It covers two parcels of land, totalling approximately 442 square kilometres in the Gulf of Carpentaria region in Queensland. The two parcels sit south of a determination of native title in favour of the Gangalidda and Garawa People, and north of a determination of native title in favour of the Waanyi People, namely the same native title claim group making the present application. 
[2]	The Registrar of the Federal Court (the Court) gave a copy of this application and accompanying affidavits to the Native Title Registrar (Registrar) on 18 October 2018 pursuant to s 63 of the Act. 
[3]	If the claim in the application satisfies all the registration test conditions in ss 190B and 190C, then the Registrar must accept the claim for registration. If it does not satisfy all the conditions, the Registrar must not accept the claim for registration.
[4]	I have decided that the claim satisfies all of the registration test conditions and my reasons on each condition follow below.

Information considered
[5]	Section 190A(3) sets out the information to which the Registrar must have regard in considering a claim under s 190A and provides that the Registrar ‘may have regard to such other information as he or she considers appropriate’.
[6]	I have had regard to information in the application. I have also considered a document provided by cover letter of 25 October 2018 from the applicant directly to the Registrar for the purposes of this claim, received on 29 October 2018:
•	Waanyi Native Title Application – Area A and B, by Professor David Trigger and Pauline Cook, dated January 2018 (the Anthropological Report).
[7]	I note there is no information before me obtained as a result of any searches conducted by the Registrar of State/Commonwealth interest registers.
[8]	The State of Queensland (the State) has not provided any submissions in relation to the application of the registration test.
[9]	I have also considered information contained in a geospatial assessment and overlap analysis prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services in relation to the area covered by the application, dated 5 November 2018 (the geospatial assessment).
Procedural fairness
[10]	As noted above, I have considered the additional material received from the applicant on 29 October 2018. On 29 October 2018, I wrote to the State advising that I would be relying on this information in my application of the registration test and inviting the State to comment on the material. On that same day, the Tribunal’s senior officer for the matter received an email confirming that the State had no comments or submissions to make in relation to the additional material, nor did it wish to comment on the registration testing of the application generally. This concluded the procedural fairness process.
Merits of the claim (s 190B) – Conditions met
Identification of area subject to native title – s 190B(2) condition met
[11]	I am satisfied the claim meets the requirements of s 190B(2). The information provided about the external boundary and internally excluded areas are sufficient to identify with reasonable certainty the particular land or waters over which native title rights and interests are claimed.
What is required to meet this condition?
[12]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(2), the Registrar must be satisfied that the information and map contained in the application identify with reasonable certainty the ‘particular land and waters’ where native title rights and interests are claimed. The two questions for this condition are whether the information and map provides certainty about: 
(a)	the external boundary of the area where native title rights and interests are claimed; and 
(b)	any areas within the external boundary over which no claim is made.  
Does the information about the external boundary meet this condition?
[13]	A written description of the external boundary of the application area appears at Attachment B1. It describes the area by metes and bounds referencing land tenure boundaries, State and Territory borders, geographic coordinates and existing native title determination application boundaries. 
[14]	A map showing the external boundary of the application area appears at Attachment C. The map is a colour copy of an A3 map prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services and dated 25 May 2017. The map includes the application area’s external boundary as a bold dark blue outline, tenure, State and Territory borders, scalebar, locality diagram, legend, coordinate grid and notes relating to the source, currency and datum of data used to prepare the map.
[15]	The geospatial assessment provides that the map and description are consistent and identify the application area with reasonable certainty. I have considered the information before me about the external boundary of the application area, and agree with this assessment.
Does the information about excluded areas meet this condition?
[16]	The description in Attachment B1 specifically excludes all the land and waters covered by native title determinations Waanyi Peoples (QUD6022/1999) and Gangalidda and Garawa People #2 (QUD66/2005). Attachment B2 describes other areas not covered by the application using general exclusion clauses. I consider this method of describing excluded areas sufficient for the purposes of s 190B(2), and consider that these areas could be identified with precision once historical tenure searches for the area were completed.
Identification of the native title claim group – s 190B(3) condition met
[17]	I am satisfied the claim meets the requirements of s 190B(3). Schedule A describes the persons in the native title claim group sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in the group.
What is required to meet this condition?
[18]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(3), the Registrar must be satisfied that: 
(a)	the persons in the native title claim group are named in the application; or 
(b)	the persons in that group are described sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in that group.
[19]	The only question for this condition is ‘whether the application enables the reliable identification of persons in the native title claim group’: whether the claim has been made on behalf of the correct native title claim group is not relevant.
Does the description of the persons in the native title claim group meet this condition?
[20]	Attachment A to Schedule A contains the description of the native title claim group. Specifically, that description provides that:
The native title claim group is the Waanyi people.
A person is a Waanyi person if and only if:
1.	the other Waanyi people recognise that he or she is descended (which may include by adoption) from a person who they recognise as having been Waanyi; and
2.	the person identifies himself or herself as a Waanyi person.
It is accepted that adoption may take place and that where adoption has occurred it confers upon the adoptee the right to identify as being a Waanyi person.
The following deceased persons are recognised as having been Waanyi people from whom living Waanyi people may be descended:
[list of 15 apical ancestors]   
[21]	From this description, I understand that there are two criteria, both of which an individual must meet in order to qualify as a member of the Waanyi native title claim group. The first criterion is that the individual must be recognised by other Waanyi people as being a descendant of a person recognised by the group as having been Waanyi. A list containing the names of 15 deceased persons from whom the members of the claim group can be descended in order to meet that criterion is provided. Noting the third paragraph of the description above, it is my understanding that an individual may be a descendant of one of those 15 ancestors by birth (that is, a biological descendant), or by means of adoption.
[22]	It is likely that the task of identifying all such descendants would take some substantial research and/or inquiry. Genealogical information showing the family trees for each of the named ancestors would need to be produced. However, in my view, this does not prevent the description from being sufficiently clear. The named ancestors provide an objective starting point from which the inquiry could be commenced. Once the descendants (biological and adopted) were known, in ensuring an individual properly qualified as a member of the group under this criteria, other Waanyi persons could be consulted to confirm that they recognised the person as a descendant of one of the named ancestors.
[23]	The second criterion is more straightforward, and can be applied once those persons meeting the first criterion are identified. It merely requires the question of self-identification to be asked of those persons meeting the first criterion.
[24]	By undertaking this process of inquiry and research, explained above, I am satisfied that the members of the Waanyi native title claim group are described sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in the group. 
Identification of claimed native title – s 190B(4) condition met
[25]	I am satisfied the description in Attachment E is sufficient for me to clearly understand and identify the itemised rights as ‘native title rights and interests.’
What is required to meet this condition?
[26]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(4), the Registrar must be satisfied that the application’s description of the claimed native title rights and interests is sufficient to allow the rights and interests to be readily identified. The question for this condition is whether the claimed rights are described clearly, comprehensively and in a way that is meaningful and understandable, having regard to the definition of the term ‘native title rights and interests’ in s 223 of the Act.
Does the description of the native title rights and interests meet this condition?
[27]	The description of the rights and interests claimed is at Attachment E to the Form 1. Paragraph one of the description is a claim to a right of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the application area to the exclusion of all others. Paragraph two sets out nine non-exclusive rights claimed in relation to the application area. Paragraph three provides qualifications or limitations on the exercise of the rights claimed.
[28]	I have read the contents of the description in Attachment E together and am satisfied there is no contradiction within the description. In its entirety, the description is clear. Further, with reference to s 223(1) of the Act, I consider that the rights and interests described are understandable and have meaning as native title rights and interests. 
Factual basis for claimed native title – s 190B(5) condition met
[29]	I am satisfied that the factual basis on which it is asserted that the claimed native title rights and interests exist is sufficient to support the assertion. In particular, there is a sufficient factual basis for the three assertions of subsections 190B(5)(a), (b) and (c).
What is needed to meet this condition?
[30]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(5), the Registrar must be satisfied there is sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist. In particular, the factual basis must support the following assertions: 
(a)	that the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area;
(b)	that there exist traditional law acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to native title rights and interests; and
(c)	the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs. 
[31]	The question for this condition is whether the factual basis is sufficient to support these assertions. To answer that question, I must assess whether the asserted facts can support the existence of the claimed native title rights and interests, rather than determine whether there is ‘evidence that proves directly or by inference the facts necessary to establish the claim’. 
[32]	Section 62(2)(e) requires only a ‘general description’ of the factual basis. However, where the facts provided are not at a sufficient level of detail to enable a genuine assessment of the application by the Registrar, the application may not be able to satisfy the condition. The material must comprise ‘more than assertions at a high level of generality’ and address the particular native title, claimed by the particular native title claim group, over the particular land and waters of the application area.
[33]	Through reliance on the statements contained in the affidavits sworn by the applicant persons pursuant to s 62(1)(a) that accompany the application, that each deponent believes the statements contained in the application to be true, I have accepted the asserted facts as true.
[34]	The factual basis material appears in Attachments F, F.1, F.2, F.3, G and G.1, and in the additional material supplied by the applicant on 29 October 2018, set out above.
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(a)?
[35]	To meet s 190B(5)(a), the factual basis must support the assertion that ‘the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area.’ Generally, to satisfy this requirement:
•	it is not necessary for the factual basis to support an assertion that all members of the native title claim group have an association with the area at all times;
•	it is necessary that the material is sufficient to support that the group as a whole presently has an association with the area and to also support an association with the area by the predecessors of the whole group over the period since sovereignty, or at least since European settlement; and
•	the materials must support that the association both presently and by the group’s predecessors relates to the area as a whole.
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(a)?
[36]	As explained above in the background to the application, the application area comprises two parcels of land, which are situated to the north of a determination of native title in favour of the Waanyi People (the same native title claim group who make the present application) (QCD2010/007), and to the south of a determination of native title in favour of the Gangalidda and Garawa People (QCD2015/003). Both parcels are covered by the Turn Off Lagoons pastoral holding. The Lawn Hill pastoral holding borders the southern edge of the eastern parcel, Area B. This southern boundary of Area B is also marked by the Nicholson River.
[37]	Area A is referred to within the material as ‘Guyanda country’, after the Waanyi name for the local estate, and the name of a specific site known as Ti-Tree Spring on the Queensland-Northern Territory border. Area B is referred to within the material as Turn Off Lagoon/Corinda country, named after the surrounding pastoral lease, and the location on the Nicholson River where the police station was established in early settlement times.
[38]	Attachment F.3, the reasons of the Court in the Waanyi determination in 2010, set out some historical information relevant to the region within which Waanyi country is situated, in the southern part of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Justice Dowsett shared the findings from the research conducted for the claim, including that first exploration of the application area took place in 1841, and the first pastoral runs, marking the beginning of settlement, were established on the Gregory River and further east on the Leichhardt River in 1864. Lawn Hill pastoral holding was established in 1875.
[39]	Attachment F explains that historical accounts may indicate that the application area was once the traditional country of neighbouring groups, however, in accordance with customary routes of travel of the Waanyi ancestors across the application area (for the purposes of trade, intermarriage, ritual obligations and seasonal exploitation of resources), and as a result of the movements and dispersal of Aboriginal people that followed European settlement, traditional laws and customs have adapted to support a process of succession, such that the application area is now understood by the groups comprising the broader cultural bloc of which the Waanyi are members, to be Waanyi country. Notwithstanding this assertion, I have considered the factual basis material before me addressing an association of the Waanyi People with Areas A and B, at and over the period since, European settlement.
[40]	Regarding an association of the Waanyi People and their predecessors with the application area, Attachment F and the Anthropological Report explain that there are particular Waanyi family groups who have primary rights in each of Areas A and B. It’s asserted that Area A is considered to be the local estate of the descendants of Johnny Rockland, while Area B is accepted as an area with which the descendants of King George have a particular association. The Anthropological Report does explain that there is some debate surrounding which of the Waanyi skin groups or sections has primary rights in Area B, however it asserts that this does not detract from the generic rights that all Waanyi People have in Area B. While there are some 15 apical ancestors included in the description of the claim group, I accept that traditional Waanyi country extends beyond the particular land and waters of Areas A and B, and note that the Court was satisfied that those remaining ancestors had the required connection to the determination area. 
[41]	Attachment F states that Johnny Rockland was born around 1880 at Cliffdale Station near Corinda. He is said to have worked for a cattle station in the area between the Westmoreland and Wollogorang pastoral leases in 1893, in the vicinity of Area A country. Within Attachment F is a statement from Johnny’s son, [name deleted], sharing his knowledge of the path of the Red Kangaroo, the major dreaming story for Guyanda country. He describes the path of travel taken by the Red Kangaroo from coastal Gangalidda country, south through a number of sites within and in the vicinity of Area A. [name deleted] states that this is his Dad’s country. Attachment F also explains that [name deleted] and his family established an outstation on their estate country in the 1980s.
[42]	The Anthropological Report explains that the boundary of Guyanda estate is based on the Red Kangaroo dreaming story, and that it includes the upper reaches of the Scrutton, Cliffdale, Walford and Peters Creeks, as well as Ti-Tree Spring on the Northern Territory border, south west of Area A. The Anthropological Report explains that this testimony regarding the estate boundaries was known and shared by a number of Waanyi people, who all assigned that country to the Rockland family. It also explains how certain claim group members spoke of particular sites within Area A, one on Cliffdale Creek and the other on Peters Creek that are associated with the Red Kangaroo dreaming.
[43]	Addressing Area B, Attachment F explains that the main dreaming for the area is Emu, and that the area is one encompassing locations of much historical residence and ceremonial activities among Waanyi people. In particular, the Anthropological Report explains that the family of apical ancestor King George Gundawarinya, who have traditional connections to country in the adjacent areas of the Nicholson River and Elizabeth Creek, also have strong historical and spiritual connections to Area B. King George’s main camp is described as being on the south side of Nicholson River across from Barangu, or ‘12 Mile.’ This site is marked on the maps annexed to the Anthropological Report and is in the vicinity of Area B, to the west.  
[44]	The Anthropological Report also provides that in around 1907, King George Gundawarinya came in from the bush to the Corinda settlement, but left or escaped soon after, before being brought back in again and given a king plate and the title ‘King George’.
[45]	Attachment F explains that Aboriginal camps in the vicinity of Corinda and within Area B remained until 1936 when the police station was closed and Waanyi people moved to Mornington Island and Doomadgee missions. Despite the removal of some, certain Waanyi families lived through the 1940s and 1950s, gaining work in the pastoral industry on Lawn Hill station. [Names deleted], grandchildren of King George Gundawarinya, are asserted as being initiated at a ground near to Turn Off Lagoon in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
[46]	Further detail of the association of the claim group and its predecessors with Area B is given in the Anthropological Report:
Both [names deleted] recalled living at Corinda while they worked at Turn Off Lagoon, which was an outstation from Lawn Hill Station at the time. To quote [name deleted]: ‘I was born at Turn Off Lagoon in June 1925. At 1 Mile Lagoon there is an old initiation ground… and old camp for Blackfellas. We used to walk down to the station for work’. […] Similarly [name deleted][…] recounted how she lived at Corinda until 1961: “we lived at Corinda in humpies and used to pick up our rations then go to Kingfisher [the site Barangu]”.
During the 1980s the family of [name deleted] established a house at Corinda, where his son [name deleted] says the family continues to spend most weekends, camping and fishing. [name deleted] ([name deleted]’s son) was at Corinda with many of his grandchildren when we visited…
[47]	Further regarding an association of the claim group today with the area, Attachment F explains that most Waanyi people reside in the immediate region of the claim area, with a significant number living at Bidunggu and Doomadgee. An affidavit sworn by a member of the claim group provides further details of this present association. The claimant states:
I’ve been involved in cultural heritage surveys over the Guyanda area, and nearby country towards Barangu. That was for Aeon. This happened very recently. The area the survey covered is important to my family, and my dad and my dad’s brother used to speak for this area. It’s a big place, we call it Gorge Creek. It includes places where there is rock art and burial sites. People should stay away from them, they’re too sacred. I have been in the area fishing but not to the sacred places themselves. My dad told me to stay away from there and I have followed that.  
[48]	And elsewhere the claimant states:
At One Mile [in Area B], there’s another little lagoon. That’s where Dad mob been run ceremony there, my dad and his brother. That’s the same ceremony that’s happening now in Borroloola. That law ground there at One Mile is still a powerful place, I can feel it. One of my jobs is to protect these places in particular. I still go back there today to make sure that no one has damaged them, or no bloke from outside is coming in there mustering or camping there, or fishing. I had to ask a man to move away from there a couple of years ago. He was an Aboriginal man.
[49]	In light of the material before me discussed above, I am satisfied the factual basis is sufficient to support an association of the claim group and the Waanyi predecessors with Areas A and B at the time of settlement and over the period since that time, including a present association. It is clear that the apical ancestors who’s estates comprised Areas A and B were present in those areas around the time of settlement, or were born in the years shortly thereafter. The material gives details of the places within Areas A and B where members of the group and their predecessors were born, spent time gathering resources, carried out ceremonies, lived and were buried, and the way in which knowledge of the country in Areas A and B was passed down to members of the group by their parents and grandparents.
[50]	A spiritual as well as a physical association with the application area is supported by the factual basis. In particular, the materials speak to the way in which members of the claim group and their predecessors possessed knowledge of the dreaming stories for each of Areas A and B, and how they understood the landscape to have been formed in this way.
[51]	The requirement is that the factual basis speak to an association of the group with the whole of the application area. The material names many places with which the group and their predecessors are and were associated. This includes places where they were born, lived, hunted, fished, gathered resources, places they avoided due to spiritual beliefs and places where ceremony was conducted. Using the Tribunal’s mapping database, and in reliance on the maps annexed to the Anthropological Report, I have considered the location of these places referred to in the material in relation to the boundaries of Areas A and B of the application area. In my view, these places are spread across the extent of the application area such that I can consider the factual basis sufficient to support an association with the entirety of the area.
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(b)?
[52]	To meet s 190B(5)(b), the factual basis must support the assertion ‘that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests’. The wording of s 190B(5)(b) is almost identical to paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘native title rights and interests’ within s 223(1) of the Act. Dowsett J approached this in Gudjala 2007 by considering s 190B(5)(b) in light of the case law regarding s 223(1)(a), particularly the leading decision of the High Court in Yorta Yorta.
[53]	According to the High Court’s decision in Yorta Yorta, a law or custom is ‘traditional’ where:
(a)	it ‘is one which has been passed from generation to generation of a society, usually by word of mouth and common practice’;
(b)	the origins of the content of the law or custom concerned can be found in the normative rules of a society which existed before the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown;
(c)	the normative system has had a ‘continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty’; and
(d)	the relevant society’s descendants have acknowledged the laws and observed the customs since sovereignty and without substantial interruption.
[54]	Dowsett J found that a sufficient factual basis must therefore demonstrate that the laws and customs relied on by the claim group ‘have their source in a pre-sovereignty society and have been observed since that time by a continuing society.’ His Honour held that a ‘starting point must be identification of an indigenous society at the time of sovereignty’, and concluded that a sufficient factual basis must also establish a link between the native title claim group described in the application and the area covered by the application, which involves ‘identifying some link between the apical ancestors and any society existing at sovereignty.’
[55]	I understand that it is not appropriate that I impose too high a burden when assessing these matters, having regard to the limited nature of the enquiry when assessing the factual basis condition of s 190B(5).
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(b)?
[56]	The starting point at s 190B(5)(b) must be the identification of a society of people in the area at European settlement, bound by the common observance of normative laws and customs. In addressing this requirement, the applicant points to the finding of Dowsett J in the Waanyi determination, where His Honour affirmed the findings of Professor Trigger in a report prepared for the claim:
“Waanyi” is an Aboriginal language of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria region. The existence, name and territorial location of the language has been well documented by ethnographers since the coming of European and Asian people to the region.
I believe that it may be safely inferred from the earliest ethnographic accounts that at the time that the British Imperial Crown asserted sovereignty in relation to the relevant parts of the Australian continent (being, I understand, in 1788), there was a group of Aboriginal people in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria region who had in common that they spoke the Waanyi language and acknowledged and observed a common body of laws and customs, and by those laws and customs, had a connection with, and rights and interests in relation to country, including country within the present claim area and also beyond that claim area in the Northern Territory.
[57]	Attachment F explains that the report prepared by Professor Trigger had referenced an extensive ethnographic record in support of this summary statement, and includes those references in the footnotes to the excerpt. I note that the earliest of those sources is 1897, which I understand to be around the early settlement times of the region including the determination area, and the present claim area. As set out in my reasons above at s 190B(5)(a), settlement followed the establishment of various pastoral leases in the area in the 1860s and 1870s. In light of this material, I consider the factual basis sufficient in supporting a relevant Waanyi society, present in the region including the application area at European settlement.
[58]	It is further my understanding that the material asserts the apical ancestors to be persons who were members of, or persons born into that society, at about the time at which settlement took place. This is on the basis that Attachment F states Johnny Rockland was born around 1880, and the Anthropological Report provides King George Gundawarinya was recorded as coming out of the bush into the settlement of Corinda, as an adult, in 1907. I am satisfied, therefore, that the factual basis addresses a link between the apical ancestors from whom the claim group are descended, and the society at settlement in the area.
[59]	I now turn, therefore, to the factual basis addressing the laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the society at settlement, and the way in which those laws and customs have been handed down through the generations to the claim group today, such that the Waanyi native title claim group’s present laws and customs can be said to be rooted in those of the society at settlement.
[60]	The material speaks to various aspects of the system of laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the Waanyi society at settlement in Areas A and B of the application area. For example, Attachment F explains that prior to the arrival of European settlers, the Waanyi are documented as having followed customary routes of travel that took them through Areas A and B, for the purposes of intermarriage, ritual obligations, seasonal exploitation of resources and trade in resources with the neighbouring Injilarija and Nguburindi groups. Attachment F refers to a source dated 1901 in support of this statement.
[61]	The material also speaks to the way in which rights to country were held in accordance with the laws and customs of the Waanyi society at settlement. Attachment F explains that specific Waanyi forebears who were members of that society had primary rights in localised estates within the broader Waanyi traditional country. For example, Johnny Rockland is known through the oral testimony of his son and other claimants as having had primary rights in Guyanda estate (Area A), and as having taken on the name of his estate. 
[62]	Attachment F explains that an individual’s connection to an estate must be based on the connection of a deceased forebear with the area, and that the forebears’ connection with that area in turn is reflected in their position within the Waanyi kinship and ‘skins’ systems, ‘as well as a publicly acknowledged set of relationships to particular Dreamings.’ Elsewhere, the material gives more detail regarding the skin system of the apical ancestors and their descendants, and the knowledge of dreamings possessed by those persons and passed down to the next generation. I consider, therefore, the factual basis supports skin systems, dreamings and inheritance of primary rights in localised estates as being key aspects of the system of laws and customs observed by the Waanyi at settlement.
[63]	Regarding the acknowledgment and observance of these laws and customs today, in the material, one claimant states:
My dad was junggayi for Najabarra country, for that top end Waanyi area. From Najabarra at the spring round to Turn Off Lagoon. It’s mambaliya country. Junggayi means the manager, who looks after the place and makes sure it doesn’t get damaged. He reports that to the owner, the mingaringgi. The other main family for that area is the [name deleted] family. [Name deleted] was my dad’s mum’s baby brother. He was the owner for that top end Waanyi country. 
Mambaliya is one of the skins. Country has skins like people do. My own skin is gamarangi. Skin is something we use for when we get married, to marry the right person. We talk to our elders about it if we’re not sure. 
[64]	I note that traditional laws and customs are those that have been passed down through the generations, by word of mouth or common observance. The material contains numerous examples of the way in which this has occurred. Regarding the laws and customs he has been taught about accessing and using resources within his country, one claimant states:
Everyone fishes, everyone gets turtle and sand goanna but only menfolk hunt for kangaroo or killer. Emu is another animal we eat but there are certain rules around emu. You are not allowed to touch his fat, and you need a song man to eat the emu. I don’t see people taking them home and cooking them in Doomadgee so much these days. The emu is one of the animals where you need to do him the right way when you cook him. If you make a mistake, you’re buggered. There aren’t the same kinds of rules around fishing. I learnt these rules from my old dad, who learnt them from his old dad and his ganggu, and his older brother. These are rules I still follow.
[65]	In light of this material discussed above, I am satisfied the factual basis speaks to normative laws and customs that were acknowledged and observed by the Waanyi people in the area at settlement, and which have been passed down through the generations to the members of the claim group today. In my view, the material clearly demonstrates laws and customs acknowledged and observed today that are rooted in those of the society at settlement. In this way, I am satisfied the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion of the existence of traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the Waanyi People.
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(c)?
[66]	To meet s 190B(5)(c), the factual basis must support the assertion ‘that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.’ In order for a delegate to be satisfied that there is a factual basis for s 190B(5)(c) there must be some material which addresses the following matters outlined by Dowsett J in Gudjala 2007:
•	that there was a society at settlement that observed traditional laws and customs from which the identified existing laws and customs were derived and were traditionally passed to the claim group;
•	that there has been a continuity in the observance of traditional law and custom going back to sovereignty or at least European settlement.
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(c)
[67]	As I have explained above, I am satisfied the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion of a society in the area at settlement, acknowledging and observing normative laws and customs, from which the present day laws and customs are derived. I am also satisfied that the factual basis supports an assertion that these laws and customs have been acknowledged and observed by the Waanyi People, without substantial interruption, since settlement. My reasons for reaching this view follow.
[68]	It is clear from the material that since settlement, the claim group and their predecessors have continued to be born on, and continued to live on, the application area. It is also clear that the predecessors of the group, over the period since sovereignty, while living on their traditional country, maintained and upheld the system of laws and customs handed down to them by their ancestors. The material gives specific examples about how particular individuals, and/or their parents and grandparents practiced certain laws and customs in relation to their country across the generations. 
[69]	For example, the information before me about the acknowledgement and observance of laws and customs around male initiation ceremonies and practices, in my view, clearly shows how the acknowledgement and observance of those laws and customs continued in an uninterrupted manner since settlement. The Anthropological Report refers to two specific male initiation grounds located within Area B, at which ceremonial activity continued to occur until the 1950s, despite the impacts of settlement in the region. It’s explained that [name deleted] was initiated at one of them in 1951 and [name deleted] was initiated at the same site around the same time. 
[70]	The [name deleted], in his affidavit, describes his own initiation ceremony as follows:
I’ve been through the law, in Borroloola. It happened when I was 22 or 23. I went through with my brother. One of the things that changes after you go through law is what you are able to learn about your own country. You get a stronger connection, you have more responsibilities. It’s a bit like a policeman job, the way that you now have to care for country. Going through law also means I am allowed to speak more directly to my elders, and they are able to talk more to me and show me things that they couldn’t before.
[71]	From this example discussed above, I consider the factual basis sufficient to support an assertion of a system of laws and customs that has been acknowledged and observed in a substantially uninterrupted manner since settlement.
Prima facie case – s 190B(6): condition met
[72]	I consider that all of the claimed rights and interests have been established on a prima facie basis. Therefore, the claim satisfies the condition of s 190B(6).
What is required to meet this condition?
[73]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(6), the Registrar ‘must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed can be established.’ I note the following comments by Mansfield J in relation to this condition:
1.	it requires some measure of the material available in support of the claim;
2.	although s 190B(5) directs attention to the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests are claimed, this does not itself require some weighing of that factual assertion as that is the task required by s 190B(6);
3.	s 190B(6) appears to impose a more onerous test to be applied to the individual rights and interests claimed.
[74]	Mansfield J found that the use of the words ‘prima facie’ in s 190B(6) means that ‘if on its face a claim is arguable, whether involving disputed questions of fact or disputed questions of law, it should be accepted on a prima facie basis.’ 
Which of the claimed native title rights and interests can be established on a prima facie basis?
Right of exclusive possession 
[75]	The nature of a native title right to exclusive possession was discussed in Ward HC, where the High Court held that:
A core concept of traditional law and custom [is] the right to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’. It is the rights under traditional law and custom to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’ that are expressed in common law terms as a right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy land to the exclusion of all others.
[76]	Since Ward HC, the following principles have emerged from the case law, indicating what the material may need to address in providing prima facie support for a right of exclusive possession:
•	a native title right to exclusive possession includes the right to make decisions about access to and use of the land by others;
•	the right cannot be formally classified as proprietary - its existence depends on what the evidence discloses about its content under traditional law and custom;
•	the material must speak to how, pursuant to their laws and customs, the group is able to ‘exclude from their country people not of their community’, acting as ‘gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing such harm and avoiding injury to the country’.
[77]	There is limited material before me that speaks specifically to a right of this nature. Attachments F.2 and F.3 demonstrate that in the Waanyi determination, it was agreed between the parties, and confirmed by the Court, that the Waanyi native title claim group held, pursuant to the group’s traditional laws and customs, exclusive rights of possession in relation to certain parts of the determination area where there had been no prior extinguishment.
[78]	In relation to the area subject of this application, the Anthropological Report sets out the authors’ opinion regarding the content of locality or estate-specific rights held by the Waanyi in relation to their country. The authors provide an excerpt from a previous report on the Waanyi and explain that the opinion stated has not changed in relation to the present application:
Locality-specific rights as we understand them to be articulated among Waanyi claimants according to traditional law and custom include:
•	The right to play a major role in decision-making about the future of the land;
•	The right to control access, entry and certain behaviour on the land, according to traditional law and custom;
•	In relation to other Aboriginal people (and those non-Aboriginal people recognised as understanding aspects of Waanyi law), applying access and entry protocols such as rules about dealing with species and locations on the land;
•	In relation to particular sites, the right to exclude certain categories of persons, such as tourists, or other non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal individuals;
•	In relation to some sites, placing restrictions based on gender, age or ritual status;
•	Control of the taking and use of bush resources by non-Waanyi Aboriginal persons;
•	Control of the taking and use of bush resources by non-Aboriginal persons;
•	Carrying out, with guidance from senior Waanyi people, traditional use of fire to manage the land;
•	Use of country for residential purposes, either permanent or temporary, including the right to erect various forms of dwelling and infrastructure; the latter may range from camping facilities to works that are relevant to longer term residence and/or to the carrying out of economically productive activities.
[79]	The other piece of information before me that I consider speaks to an exclusive right is a statement from a claimant, where the claimant says:
At One Mile, there’s another little lagoon. That’s where Dad mob been run [sic] ceremony there, my dad and his brother. That’s the same ceremony that’s happening now in Borroloola. That law ground there at One Mile is still a powerful place, I can feel it. One of my jobs is to protect these places in particular. I still go back there today to make sure that no one has damaged them, or no bloke from outside is coming in there mustering or camping there, or fishing. I had to ask a man to move away from there a couple of years ago. He was an Aboriginal man.
[80]	In my view, while the information addressing the right is limited, it is sufficient enough to allow me to consider the right established on a prima facie basis. In particular, the Anthropological Report, authored by experts who have worked with the claim group on their country over a number of years, explains the way in which localised primary rights in estate areas comprise rights to control access of others to the area, and a right to exclude people not of the Waanyi community. The statement above given by a claimant then illustrates how members of the group understand these rights to operate. In my view, particularly in the way the claimant refers to a site as ‘a powerful place’, the statement suggests that the control of access of others that he has exercised, is based on a belief in and respect for, spiritual forces in the landscape, such that he fears harm could arise from failing to uphold this duty to his country.
[81]	In light of this information, therefore, I consider the right established on a prima facie basis. 
Non-exclusive right to access, be present on and traverse the area
[82]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to access, be present on and traverse the application area, established on a prima facie basis.
[83]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
I move backwards and forwards through Waanyi country, including Turn Off Lagoon and Corinda, as I travel between Doomadgee and the Nicholson River Land Trust. We have three little houses and one big house at Dry Creek.
Non-exclusive right to hunt, fish, and gather on the area
[84]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to hunt, fish and gather on the application area, established on a prima facie basis.
[85]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
Everyone fishes, everyone gets turtle and sand goanna but only menfolk hunt for kangaroo or killer. Emu is another animal we eat but there are certain rules around emu. You are not allowed to touch his fat, and you need a song man to eat the emu. I don’t see people taking them home and cooking them in Doomadgee so much these days. The emu is one of the animals where you need to do him the right way when you cook him. If you make a mistake, you’re buggered. There aren’t the same kinds of rules around fishing. I learnt these rules from my old dad, who learnt them from his old dad and his ganggu, and his older brother. These are rules I still follow.
Non-exclusive right to take and use natural resources from the area
[86]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to take and use natural resources from the area, established on a prima facie basis.
[87]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
Sugar bag, bush honey, is another thing we get, from the white snapping gum. As you walk along, you listen. The bees sing out, and it’s a bit of a different sound when they’ve made honey. When we find the honey, we take the lot. The bees will make more. We use it for a lot of things, not just for eating. We use it for fixing car tyres, we use the honey as putty for making shovel edged spears. We heat it up a bit to allow us to work it, then it sets when it cools down. It sets hard. My dad taught me to do this. 
Non-exclusive right to live on the area, to camp, erect shelters and other structures
[88]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to live on the area, camp and erect shelters and other structures, established on a prima facie basis.
[89]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
Because it’s close to Doomadgee, Turn Off Lagoon is one of the easier bits of country for me to get to. I go there to keep an eye on things. We camp, or sleep in the tent, at Turn Off Lagoon as we travel through. I fish for black bream and catch short-neck turtles (wabanbarra) when I’m there. Whistle ducks are in the lagoon. You can get him with a rifle, or a shanghai, or a cross-bow if you have one. We catch them and eat them, after cooking them on an open fire.
Non-exclusive right to light fires on the area for domestic purposes
[90]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to light fires on the area including for the purposes of cooking and heating, established on a prima facie basis.
[91]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
There are plenty of goannas in the country between the Nicholson and Turn Off Lagoon itself. They have figured out how to kill the cane toads. When the toads first came, the goannas must have thought it was Christmas but the toads poisoned many of them. The big sand goannas, the yellow ones, are found in-between Barangu and Four Mile. They taste lovely. To prepare him for cooking, you cut the goanna under his arm and his back leg, on the same side, to gut him, and you break his legs. You cook the goanna in a big open fire, but you make it long to fit the goanna, and the goanna’s head has to be pointed to sun down. That’s a rule…
Non-exclusive right to conduct religious, spiritual and ceremonial activities on the area
[92]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to conduct religious, spiritual and ceremonial activities on the area, established on a prima facie basis.
[93]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
At One Mile, there’s another little lagoon. That’s where Dad mob been run ceremony there, my dad and his brother. That’s the same ceremony that’s happening now in Borroloola. That law ground there at One Mile is still a powerful place, I can feel it. One of my jobs is to protect these places in particular. I still go back there today to make sure that no one has damaged them, or no bloke from outside is coming in there mustering or camping there, or fishing. I had to ask a man to move away from there a couple of years ago. He was an Aboriginal man.
Non-exclusive right to be buried on, and bury Waanyi People on, the area
[94]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to be buried on, and bury Waanyi People on, the area, established on a prima facie basis.
[95]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
I know of a few burials out at Turn Off Lagoon. They include my dad’s sister. She is buried in a different spot from the cemetery out there, near an ironwood tree near the old homestead.
Non-exclusive right to maintain, in the area, places and areas of importance or significance and to protect those areas from physical harm
[96]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to maintain places and areas of importance or significance to the claim group under their traditional laws and customs and protect those places and areas, by lawful means, from physical harm, established on a prima facie basis.
[97]	The following statement by a claim group member is an example of this type of information:
I’ve been involved in cultural heritage surveys over the Guyanda area, and nearby country towards Barangu. That was for Aeon. This happened very recently. The area the survey covered is important to my family, and my dad and my dad’s brother used to speak for this area. It’s a big place, we call it George Creek. It includes places where there is rock art and burial sites. People should stay away from them, they’re too sacred. I have been in the area fishing but not to the sacred places themselves. My dad told me to stay away from there and I have followed that.
Non-exclusive right to share or exchange natural resources from the area
[98]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider a right of the claim group to share or exchange natural resources from the area, established on a prima facie basis.
[99]	The following statements by a claim group member are an example of this type of information:
We use sandalwood. You can find it along the river bed at Turn Off Lagoon, not too far out, along the sand ridges. We use the sandalwood for medicine, it’s good for using if you’ve got a cold or the flu. We boil the sandalwood like a tea, in a billy, and let it cool and put it into a bottle or glass. It will keep in the fridge for a few weeks. We drink the tea, it’s strong so it doesn’t take much. I prepare sandalwood tea whenever it’s needed. We know that sandalwood is valuable, especially overseas. Under Waanyi law I have the right to take sandalwood from that country and sell it.
[100]	And also:
I can also share what I take from the country with family. If we get something like sugar bag, for example, it’s a nice thing to share that around and to give younger members of the family their first experience of it. That goes for all kinds of bush tucker.
Physical connection – s 190B(7): condition met
[101]	I am satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with a part of the claim area.
What is required to meet this condition?
[102]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(7), the Registrar ‘must be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application.’
[103]	 The following principles have emerged from the case law about what is required at s 190B(7):
•	the material must satisfy the delegate of particular facts;
•	evidentiary material is, therefore, required; and
•	the focus is confined to the relationship of at least one member of the native title claim group with some part of the claim area;
•	the physical connection must be shown to be in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the claim group;
•	the material may need to address an actual presence on the area.
Is there evidence that a member of the claim group has a traditional physical connection?
[104]	The focus of this condition is upon one member of the claim group. From the information before me, I am satisfied that [name deleted] has a traditional physical connection with some part of the application area.
[105]	The material provides the following information about [name deleted]:
•	his father is [name deleted], grandson of apical ancestor King George Gundawarinya; 
•	he lives in Doomadgee;
•	he is junggayi for sites within the application area, as his father was;
•	it is his job to protect these sites and ensure no one harms them;
•	he knows the dreaming stories for his country;
•	he travels through the application area, keeping an eye on things, as well as camping, fishing, hunting and using the resources from the area;
•	his dad taught him how to catch and cook certain animals, and rules about how much of a particular resource should be taken.
[106]	It is clear from the information that [name deleted] is a member of the claim group, noting that he is a descendant of apical ancestor King George. It is also clear that he has a physical connection with parts of the application area, including sites such as One Mile, where his predecessors used to carry out initiation ceremonies. He explains that he visits these places to make sure no one is harming them.
[107]	In my view, the material also demonstrates that [name deleted]’s physical connection is in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. This is because the material explains the way [name deleted]’s father taught him about his country, and the sites and dreamings within that country while they spent time on the area. I have explained in my reasons above at s 190B(5)(b), the way in which I considered the factual basis sufficient to support a system of traditional laws and customs involving knowledge of dreamings and skin groups for country. The material demonstrates that [name deleted] has this knowledge.
[108]	I am satisfied [name deleted] has a traditional physical connection with some part of the application area.
No failure to comply with s 61A – s 190B(8): condition met
[109]	In my view the application does not offend any of the provisions of ss 61A(1), 61A(2) and 61A(3) and therefore the application satisfies the condition of s 190B(8):
Requirement	Information addressing requirement	Result	
s 61A(1) no native title determination application if approved determination of native title	Geospatial assessment 	Met	
s 61A(2) claimant application not to be made covering previous exclusive possession areas	Attachment B2, paragraph [1]	Met	
s 61A(3) claimant applications not to claim certain rights and interest in previous non-exclusive possession act areas	Attachment E	Met	
No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title – s 190B(9): condition met
[110]	In my view the application does not offend the provisions of ss 190B(9)(a), (b) and (c) and therefore the application meets the condition of s 190B(9):
Requirement	Information addressing requirement	Result	
(a) no claim made of ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas that are wholly owned by the Crown	Schedule Q	Met	
(b) exclusive possession is not claimed over all or part of waters in an offshore place	Schedule P	Met	
(c) native title rights and/or interests in the application area have otherwise been extinguished	Attachment B2, paragraph [8]	Met	
Procedural and other matters (s 190C)—Conditions met
Information etc. required by sections 61 and 62 – s 190C(2): condition met
[111]	I have examined the application and I am satisfied that it contains the prescribed information and is accompanied by the prescribed documents.
What is required to meet this condition?
[112]	To meet s 190C(2), the Registrar must be satisfied that the application contains all of the prescribed details and other information, and is accompanied by any affidavit or other document, required by ss 61 and 62. This condition does not require any merit or qualitative assessment of the material to be undertaken.
Section 61
[113]	The application contains the details specified in s 61.
Section	Details	Form 1	Result	
s 61(1)	Native title claim group 	Attachment A	Met	
s 61(3)	Name and address for service 	Part B	Met	
s 61(4)	Native title claim group named/described 	Attachment A	Met	
Section 62
[114]	The application contains the details specified in s 62.
Section	Details	Form 1	Result	
s 62(1)(a)	Affidavits in prescribed form	Annexed 	Met	
s 62(2)(a)	Information about the boundaries of the area	Attachments B1 and B2	Met	
s 62(2)(b)	Map of external boundaries of the area	Attachment C	Met	
s 62(2)(c)	Searches	Attachment D	Met	
s 62(2)(d)	Description of native title rights and interests	Attachment E	Met	
s 62(2)(e)	Description of factual basis 	Attachments F, F.1, F.2, F.3	Met	
s 62(2)(f)	Activities	Attachments G, G1	Met	
s 62(2)(g)	Other applications	Schedule H	Met	
s 62(2)(ga)	Notices under s 24MD(6B)(c)	Attachment I	Met	
s 62(2)(h)	Notices under s 29	Attachment I	Met	
No previous overlapping claim group – s 190C(3): condition met
[115]	I am satisfied that no person is included in the native title claim group for this application that was a member of the native title claim group for any previous overlapping application.
What is required to meet this condition?
[116]	To meet s 190C(3), the Registrar ‘must be satisfied that no person included in the native title claim group for the application (the current application) was a member of a native title claim group for any previous application’. To be a ‘previous application’:
1.	the application must overlap the current application in whole or part;
2.	there must be an entry for the claim in the previous application on the Register of Native Title Claims when the current application was made; and
3.	the entry must have been made or not removed as a result of the previous application being considered for registration under s 190A.
[117]	It is only where there is an application meeting all three of the criteria above, that is, a ‘previous application’, that the requirement for me to consider the possibility of common claimants is triggered.
What does the geospatial assessment say?
[118]	The geospatial assessment states that there are no applications as per the Register of Native Title Claims and Schedule of Native Title Determination Applications covering any part of the application area. As the first criterion is not satisfied, I have not considered this condition any further. The requirement is met.
Identity of claimed native title holders – s 190C(4): condition met
[119]	I am satisfied the requirements set out in s 190C(4)(a) are met because the application has been certified by each representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that could certify the application.
What is required to meet this condition?
[120]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190C(4), the Registrar must be satisfied that the application has been certified by all representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies that could certify the application in performing its functions. If the application has not been certified, the Registrar must be satisfied that the applicant is a member of the native title claim group and is authorised to make the application, and deal with matters arising in relation to it, by all the other persons in the native title claim group.
[121]	Schedule R states that the application is certified by the Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (CLCAC). A copy of the certification appears at Attachment R.
[122]	Where an application is certified, my consideration is restricted to two issues. Firstly, whether there is an appropriate body that can certify the application, and secondly, whether the certification contains the information required by ss 203BE(4)(a) to (c).
Is there an appropriate representative body that can certify the application?
[123]	The CLCAC is a representative body with the appropriate authority to certify the application.
[124]	Section 190C(4)(a) requires that I am satisfied the application has been certified by each representative body that could certify the application. The geospatial assessment provides that there is only one representative body in relation to the area of the application, namely, the CLCAC.
[125]	As above, the certification at Attachment R has been provided by the CLCAC, and is signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the CLCAC on the body’s behalf. It is dated 5 October 2018.
[126]	Paragraph [2] of the certificate states that CLCAC is ‘a body funded pursuant to section 203FE … to perform all of the functions of a representative body in relation to the Gulf of Carpentaria region.’ Paragraph [2] goes on to explain that s 203FEA(1) ‘provides that CLCAC has the same obligations and powers in relation to the performance of these functions as a representative body.’
[127]	With reference to the Tribunal’s National ‘Representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Body areas’ map, I have confirmed that the CLCAC is a body funded pursuant to s 203FE(1) to perform the functions of a representative body. From the information set out in the certificate, I am satisfied that CLCAC is funded to perform all of those functions, including the function of certifying native title determination applications, pursuant to s 203BE.
Does the certification comply with s 203BE(4)?
[128]	The certification contains the information required by s 203BE(4).
[129]	Section 203BE(4)(a) requires that the certification include a statement to the effect that the representative body is of the opinion that the requirements of ss 203BE(2)(a) and (b) have been met. This statement appears in paragraph [4] of the certification.
[130]	Section 203BE(4)(b) requires the certification to ‘briefly set out’ the body’s reasons for being of the opinion stated in relation to s 203BE(4)(a). This information follows the statements required by s 203BE(4)(a). The certificate explains that the CLCAC facilitated the research and preparation of the proposed claim, including commissioning anthropological and genealogical research, and also that the CLCAC assisted the claim group in relation to the preparation of the claim, such as by notifying, organising and attending meetings of the group. The certificate asserts that through this assistance, the CLCAC acquired knowledge of the group and its decision-making processes. The certificate then explains that at two meetings in 2016, notified and facilitated by the CLCAC, the Waanyi People confirmed there was no traditionally-mandated decision-making process to be used for authorising an applicant to make a claim, and used an agreed to and adopted process to authorise the claim. I consider this information sufficient for the purposes of s 203BE(4)(b).
[131]	Section 203BE(4)(c) requires that the certification, ‘where applicable’, set out what the representative body has done to meet the requirements of s 203BE(3). Section 203BE(3) requires a representative body to make all reasonable efforts to achieve agreement between native title holders for overlapping applications, and/or reduce the number of overlapping applications. 
[132]	The certificate states that the proposed Waanyi Native Title Claim does not overlap any other native title determination application or proposed native title determination application. The geospatial assessment confirms there are no overlapping applications. It follows that the circumstances referred to in s 203BE(4)(c) are ‘not applicable.’ Therefore, I consider this statement sufficient in the representative body addressing the requirement at s 203BE(4)(c).

End of reasons