Registration test decision

Application name	Kaurareg People #3	
Name of applicant	Pearson Wigness, Harry Seriat, Isaac Savage, Milton Savage	
State/territory/region	Torres Strait, North Queensland	
NNTT file no.	QC10/3	
Federal Court of Australia file no.	QUD362/10	
Date application made	30 August 2010	
Name of delegate	Lisa Jowett	
I have considered this claim for registration against each of the conditions contained in ss. 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth).
For the reasons attached, I am satisfied that each of the conditions contained in ss. 190B and 190C are met. I accept this claim for registration pursuant to s. 190A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth).

	Date of decision:	3 December 2010	

___________________________________

Lisa Jowett
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar pursuant to
sections 190, 190A, 190B, 190C, 190D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) under an instrument of delegation dated 2 August 2010 and made pursuant to s. 99 of the Act. 

Reasons for decision

Table of contents

Introduction
Application overview
Registration test
Information considered when making the decision
Procedural fairness steps
Procedural and other conditions: s. 190C
Subsection 190C(2) Information etc. required by ss. 61 and 62
Native title claim group: s. 61(1)
Name and address for service: s. 61(3)
Native title claim group named/described: s. 61(4)
Affidavits in prescribed form: s. 62(1)(a)
Application contains details required by s. 62(2): s. 62(1)(b)
Information about the boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(a)
Map of external boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(b)
Searches: s. 62(2)(c)
Description of native title rights and interests: s. 62(2)(d)
Description of factual basis: s. 62(2)(e)
Activities: s. 62(2)(f)
Other applications: s. 62(2)(g)
Section 24MD(6B)(c) notices: s. 62(2)(ga)
Section 29 notices: s. 62(2)(h)
Subsection 190C(3) No common claimants in previous overlapping applications
Subsection 190C(4) Authorisation/certification
Merit conditions: s. 190B
Subsection 190B(2) Identification of area subject to native title
Subsection 190B(3) Identification of the native title claim group
Subsection 190B(4) Native title rights and interests identifiable
Subsection 190B(5) Factual basis for claimed native title
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(a)
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(b)
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(c)
Subsection 190B(6) Prima facie case
Subsection 190B(7) Traditional physical connection
Subsection 190B(8) No failure to comply with s. 61A
Reasons for s. 61A(1)
Reasons for s. 61A(2)
Reasons for s. 61A(3)
Subsection 190B(9) No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(a):
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(b)
Result for s. 190B(9)(c)
Attachment A Summary of registration test result
Attachment B Documents and information considered

Introduction
This document sets out my reasons, as a delegate of the Native Title Registrar (the Registrar), for the decision to accept the application for registration pursuant to s. 190A of the Act. 
Note: All references in these reasons to legislative sections refer to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (the Act), as in force on the day this decision is made, unless otherwise specified. Please refer to the Act for the exact wording of each condition. 
Application overview
The Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) gave a copy of the Kaurareg People #3 claimant application to the Native Title Registrar (the Registrar) on 1 September 2010 pursuant to s.63 of the Act. This has triggered the Registrar’s duty to consider the claim made in the application under s. 190A of the Act.
Given that the claimant application was made on 30 August 2010 and has not been amended, I am satisfied that neither subsection 190A(1A) nor subsection 190A(6A) apply.
The Court has made 5 previous determinations in relation to Kaurareg People—Kaurareg People v Queensland [2001] FCA 657 (23 May 2001). The area of this Kaurareg People #3 application covers islands, islets and rocks within what is described as Kaurareg country in the Torres Strait.
Registration test
Section 190B sets out conditions that test particular merits of the claim for native title. Section 190C sets out conditions about ‘procedural and other matters’. Included among the procedural conditions is a requirement that the application must contain certain specified information and documents. In my reasons below I consider the s. 190C requirements first, in order to assess whether the application contains the information and documents required by s. 190C before turning to questions regarding the merit of that material for the purposes of s. 190B.
Pursuant to ss. 190A(6) and (6B), the claim in the application must be accepted for registration because it satisfies all of the conditions in ss. 190B and 190C. A summary of the result for each condition is provided at Attachment A.
Information considered when making the decision
Subsection 190A(3) directs me to have regard to certain information when testing an application for registration; there is certain information that I must have regard to, but I may have regard to other information, as I consider appropriate. 
I am also guided by the case law (arising from judgments in the courts) relevant to the application of the registration test. Among issues covered by such case law is the issue that some conditions of the test do not allow me to consider anything other than what is contained in the application while other conditions allow me to consider wider material.
Attachment B of these reasons lists all of the information and documents that I have considered in reaching my decision.
I have not considered any information that may have been provided to the Tribunal in the course of the Tribunal providing assistance under ss. 24BF, 24CF, 24CI, 24DG, 24DJ, 31, 44B, 44F, 86F or 203BK, without the prior written consent of the person who provided the Tribunal with that information, either in relation to this claimant application or any other claimant application or any other type of application, as required of me under the Act.
Also, I have not considered any information that may have been provided to the Tribunal in the course of its mediation functions in relation to this or any other claimant application. I take this approach because matters disclosed in mediation are ‘without prejudice’. Further, mediation is private as between the parties and is also generally confidential (see ss. 136A, 136E and 136F of the Act).
Procedural fairness steps
As a delegate of the Registrar and as a Commonwealth Officer, when I make my decision about whether or not to accept this application for registration I am bound by the principles of administrative law, including the rules of procedural fairness, which seek to ensure that decisions are made in a fair, just and unbiased way. I note that the common law duty to afford procedural fairness may be excluded by express terms of the statute under which the administrative decision is made or by any necessary implication. The steps that I and other officers of the Tribunal have undertaken to ensure procedural fairness is observed, are as follows:
•	On 3 September 2010, the Tribunal informed the applicant that the registration test would be applied to this application.
•	Also on 3 September 2010, the Tribunal provided a copy of the application and accompanying documents to the State, giving it the opportunity to provide any additional material to the Registrar to be considered for the purpose of the registration test. The State has not provided submissions.
As no adverse or additional material has been submitted in relation to this application, neither I, nor other officers of the Tribunal, have been required to undertake any further steps in relation to procedural fairness obligations.

Procedural and other conditions: s. 190C
Subsection 190C(2)
Information etc. required by ss. 61 and 62
The Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that the application contains all details and other information, and is accompanied by any affidavit or other document, required by sections 61 and 62. 
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190C(2), because it does contain all of the details and other information and documents required by ss. 61 and 62, as set out in the reasons below. 
In reaching my decision for the condition in s. 190C(2), I understand that this condition is procedural only and simply requires me to be satisfied that the application contains the information and details, and is accompanied by the documents, prescribed by ss. 61 and 62. This condition does not require me to undertake any merit or qualitative assessment of the material for the purposes of s. 190C(2)—Attorney General of Northern Territory v Doepel (2003) 133 FCR 112 (Doepel) at [16] and also at [35] to [39].
It is also my view that I need only consider those parts of ss. 61 and 62 which impose requirements relating to the application containing certain details and information or being accompanied by any affidavit or other document (as specified in s. 190C(2)). I therefore do not consider the requirements of s. 61(2), as it imposes no obligations of this nature in relation to the application.  I am also of the view that I do not need to consider the requirements of s. 61(5).  The matters in ss. 61(5)(a), (b) and (d) relating to the Court’s prescribed form, filing in the Court and payment of fees, in my view, are matters for the Court. They do not, in my view, require any separate consideration by the Registrar. Paragraph 61(5)(c), which requires that the application contain such information as is prescribed, does not need to be considered by me under s. 190C(2), as I already test these things under s. 190C(2) where required by those parts of ss. 61 and 62 which actually identify the details/other information that must be in the application and the accompanying prescribed affidavit/documents.
My consideration of each of the particular parts of ss. 61 and 62 (which require the application to contain details/other information or to be accompanied by an affidavit or other documents) is detailed below:
Native title claim group: s. 61(1)
The application must be made by a person or persons authorised by all of the persons (the native title claim group) who, according to their traditional laws and customs, hold the common or group rights and interests comprising the particular native title claimed, provided the person or persons are also included in the native title claim group.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 61(1). 
Section 190C(2) is framed in a way that ‘directs attention to the contents of the application and the supporting affidavits’. Thus, I have confined my assessment of this requirement to the details and information contained in the application itself. I am not required to look beyond the application nor undertake any form of merit assessment of the material to determine if I am satisfied whether ‘in reality’ the native title claim group described is the correct native title claim group—Doepel at [35], [37] and [39]. 
Under this section, I must consider whether the application sets out the native title claim group in the terms required by s. 61(1). If the description of the native title claim group in the application indicates that not all persons in the native title claim group have been included, or that it is in fact a subgroup of the native title claim group, then the relevant requirement of s. 190C(2) would not be met and I should not accept the claim for registration—Doepel at [36].
Schedule A of the application describes the persons in the native title claim group by means of their descent from 18 people, and lists the names of those ancestors.
There is nothing on the face of the application that leads me to conclude that the description of the native title claim group does not include all of the persons in the native title group, or that it is a sub-group of the native title claim group.
Name and address for service: s. 61(3)
The application must state the name and address for service of the person who is, or persons who are, the applicant.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 61(3).
The application contains both the name of the applicant and an address for service on page 14.
Native title claim group named/described: s. 61(4)
The application must:
(a)	name the persons in the native title claim group, or
(b)	otherwise describe the persons in the native title claim group sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is one of those persons.
The application  contains all details and other information required by s. 61(4).
The application at Schedule A does not name the persons in the native title claim group but provides a description of the persons in the group.
Affidavits in prescribed form: s. 62(1)(a)
The application must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant that:
(i)	the applicant believes the native title rights and interests claimed by the native title claim group have not been extinguished in relation to any part of the area covered by the application, and 
(ii)	the applicant believes that none of the area covered by the application is also covered by an approved determination of native title, and
(iii)	the applicant believes all of the statements made in the application are true, and
(iv)	the applicant is authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, and
(v)	setting out details of the process of decision-making complied with in authorising the applicant to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it. 

The application is accompanied by the affidavit required by s. 62(1)(a).

The application is accompanied, at Attachment R1, by affidavits from each of the persons comprising the applicant. Each affidavit is sworn on 1 March 2010 and witnessed by (Name deleted –Solicitor 1), the solicitor for the applicant. 

The affidavit of Isaac Savage is different to those of the other three persons comprising the applicant. Mr Savage’s affidavit addresses the matters required of s. 62(1)(a)(i) to (iv) at paragraph 5 and also comprehensively sets out the authorisation process undergone by the native title claim group to authorise the applicant to make and deal with the Kaurareg People #3 application. Annexed to Mr Savage’s affidavit is a document detailing the resolutions reached by the native title claim group for the purposes of authorisation. Under the heading of ‘method of decision-making – vote by show of hands’ it is stated that:

the Kaurareg Aboriginal People agree to and adopt a process of decision-making under which a majority of the Kaurareg Aboriginal People present at this meeting will decide whether to authorise a person or persons ... resolutions to be passed at this meeting will be passed if a vote is taken by a show of hands and a majority of those persons entitled to vote indicate that they are in favour of the motion—at page 2.

In my view, the above information sufficiently satisfies the requirements of subparagraph 61(1)(a)(v).

The affidavits of the other persons comprising the applicant, Milton Savage, Pearson Wigness and Harry Seriat, address the matters required of s. 62(1)(a)(i) to (iv) at paragraphs 2 to 5. Information about the decision-making process relevant to the requirements of subparagraph 62(1)(a)(v) is as follows at paragraph 6:

The basis for my belief that I am authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group to make this native title claim is as follows:
a.	On Saturday, 27 February 2010, a meeting was held for the Kaurareg Aboriginal People at the Wongai Hotel, Horn Island, in the Torres Strait.
b.	The purpose of the meeting was to consider the lodgement of this native title claim and to make decisions in relation to it.
c.	At the meeting, the Kaurareg Aboriginal people instructed Chalk & Fitzgerald Lawyers to prepare an application for determination of native title over part of Kaurareg island country in accordance with resolutions passed at the meeting in relation to the description of the claim group, the area to be claimed and the rights and interests to be claimed.
d.	At that meeting, the Kaurareg Aboriginal People also appointed myself, along with [persons to comprise the applicant other than the deponent], to act as the Applicant on the application, and authorised us to lodged this application on their behalf.

I am satisfied that the affidavits of Milton Savage, Pearson Wigness and Harry Seriat also comply fully with the requirements of s. 62(1)(a) because in addition to the above information, they all swear to the truth of the statements in the application and there is material within the application at attachments R1 and R2 which clearly identifies the relevant decision–making process.

Therefore, the affidavits of all of the persons comprising the applicant satisfy the requirement set out at s. s. 62(1)(a).
Application contains details required by s. 62(2): s. 62(1)(b)
The application must contain the details specified in s. 62(2). 
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(1)(b). 
The application does contain the details specified in ss. 62(2)(a) to (h), as identified in the reasons below.
Information about the boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(a)
The application must contain information, whether by physical description or otherwise, that enables the following boundaries to be identified:
(i)	the area covered by the application, and
(ii)	any areas within those boundaries that are not covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(a).
Schedule B of the application contains information about the area covered by the application and any areas within those boundaries that are not covered by the application.  
Map of external boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(b)
The application must contain a map showing the boundaries of the area mentioned in s. 62(2)(a)(i).
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(b).
Schedule C of the application refers to Attachment C, which contains a map that shows the boundaries of the application area.
Searches: s. 62(2)(c)
The application must contain the details and results of all searches carried out by or on behalf of the native title claim group to determine the existence of any non-native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters in the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(c).
Schedule D of the application states that the applicant has not carried out any searches to determine the existence of any non-native title rights in relation to the land and waters in the area covered by the application. 
Description of native title rights and interests: s. 62(2)(d)
The application must contain a description of native title rights and interests claimed in relation to particular lands and waters (including any activities in exercise of those rights and interests), but not merely consisting of a statement to the effect that the native title rights and interests are all native title rights and interests that may exist, or that have not been extinguished, at law.
The application contains all details and other information required by. 62(2)(d).
Schedule E provides a description of the native title rights and interests claimed in relation to the particular land and waters covered by the application area. The description does not consist only of a statement to the effect that the native title rights and interests are all the rights and interests that may exist, or that have not been extinguished, at law.
Description of factual basis: s. 62(2)(e)
The application must contain a general description of the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist, and in particular that:
(i)	the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area, and
(ii)	there exist traditional laws and customs that give rise to the claimed native title, and
(iii)	the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(e).
Schedule F refers to Attachments F and F1 to F3 which contain information going to the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist, and also for the particular assertions in the section. Further information in relation to the factual basis is contained in Schedules G and M.
Activities: s. 62(2)(f)
If the native title claim group currently carries out any activities in relation to the area claimed, the application must contain details of those activities.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(f).
Schedule G contains details of activities carried out by the native title claim group in the application area. 
Other applications: s. 62(2)(g)
The application must contain details of any other applications to the High Court, Federal Court or a recognised state/territory body of which the applicant is aware, that have been made in relation to the whole or part of the area covered by the application and that seek a determination of native title or of compensation in relation to native title.
The application contais all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(g).
Schedule H states that the applicant is not aware of any other native title claims in the area the subject of the application, however is aware of and lists four claims over adjoining land and waters.
Section 24MD(6B)(c) notices: s. 62(2)(ga)
The application must contain details of any notification under s. 24MD(6B)(c) of which the applicant is aware, that have been given and that relate to the whole or part of the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(ga).
Schedule HA states that the applicant is not aware of any notices issues under s. 24MD(6B)(c).
Section 29 notices: s. 62(2)(h)
The application must contain details of any notices given under s. 29 (or under a corresponding provision of a law of a state or territory) of which the applicant is aware that relate to the whole or a part of the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(h).
Schedule I lists three s. 29 notices of which the applicant is aware, the most recent of which was notifed 19 March 2008.
Subsection 190C(3)
No common claimants in previous overlapping applications
The Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that no person included in the native title claim group for the application (the current application) was a member of the native title claim group for any previous application if:
(a)	the previous application covered the whole or part of the area covered by the current application, and
(b)	the previous application was on the Register of Native Title Claims when the current application was made, and
(c)	the entry was made, or not removed, as a result of the previous application being considered for registration under s. 190A.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190C(3).
Section 190C(3) essentially relates to ensuring there are no common native title claim group members between the application currently being considered for registration (‘the current application’) and any relevant overlapping ‘previous application’. The requirement that the Registrar be satisfied in the terms set out in s. 190C(3) is only triggered if all of the conditions found in ss. 190C(3)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied—Western Australia v Strickland (2000) 99 FCR 33; [2000] FCA 652 (Strickland FC)—at [9]. 
The current application, being the Kaurareg People #3 application, was made when it was filed in the Court on 30 August 2010—see Strickland FC—at [44] and [45].  Therefore, any overlapping previous applications would need to have been on the Register on this date for it to become necessary to consider whether there are any common claimants in any previous overlapping applications and the current application.
On 9 September 2010, the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services provided a geospatial overlap analysis of the application area (geospatial analysis). That analysis confirms that one registered native title determination application falls within the external boundary of the Kaurareg People #3 application: QC96/77—People of Naghir—QUD6084/98. 
While the Kaurareg People #3 application excludes a number of native title determination applications in its description (at Schedule B) of the area covered by the application, the People of Naghir application is not one of those its excludes. The extent of the overlap appears to be over a single island, Travers Island. This People of Naghir application is therefore a previous application for the purposes of subparagraph (a) because it is overlapped by the current application.
The People of Naghir application was on the Register at the time the current application was made and therefore also satisfies the criterion of subparagraph (b).
Finally, the criterion of subparagraph (c) is also satisfied as the previous application’s entry onto the Register was made, or not removed, as a result of consideration under s. 190A on 3 September 1999. 
Consequently, the People of Naghir application is a previous application which overlaps the area covered by the current application in the sense discussed in s. 190C(3)(a) to (c).  I therefore need to be satisfied that there are no common claim group members between this previous application and the current application.
The Register Extract for the People of Naghir application states that the native title claim group is described as those persons ‘who are descended or adopted by (Name deleted – Ancestor 1) and (Name deleted – Ancestor 2). (Name deleted – Ancestor 2).  was the son of (Name deleted – Ancestor 3), the last chief of Naghir’.
Schedule A of the current application states the native title claim group is comprised of the descendants of 18 people. I have not been able to find any names in common between this list and the above mentioned ancestors from which the native title claim group for the previous application is said to descend. 
Finally, I have considered Schedule O of the application which provides for ‘Details of the membership of the applicant or any member of the native title claim group in a native title claim group for any other application that has been made in relation to the whole or part of the area covered by this application’. It is stated here that ‘the Applicants are not members of any other Native Title Claim Group in a native title application that has been made in relation to the whole of part of the area covered by this Application’. 
On the face of the current application before me and the description of the native title claim group on the Register for the previous application, I am satisfied that there are no common members between the People of Naghir application and the Kaurareg People #3 application.
Subsection 190C(4)
Authorisation/certification
Under s. 190C(4) the Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that either:
(a)	the application has been certified under Part 11 by each representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that could certify the application, or
(b)	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.

Note: The word authorise is defined in section 251B.

For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the circumstances set out in s. 190C(4)(b) are met, including that the condition in s. 190C(5) is met.
As the application is not certified pursuant to s. 190C(4)(a), it is necessary to consider if the application meets the condition in s. 190C(4)(b); that the applicant is a member of the native title claim group and is authorised by all other persons in the claim group to make the application and deal with matters arising in relation to it.
Additionally, in my consideration of the authorisation condition at s. 190C(4)(b) I must also consider the requirements as set out in s. 190C(5):
If the application has not been certified as mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), the Registrar cannot be satisfied that the condition in subsection (4) has been satisfied unless the application:
a)	includes a statement to the effect that the requirement set out in paragraph 4(b) has been met; and
b)	briefly sets out the grounds on which the Registrar should consider that it has been met.
In Doepel, Mansfield J discusses the interaction between s. 190C(4)(b) and s. 190C(5) and how the Registrar is to be satisfied as to these conditions of the registration test:
In the case of subs (4)(b), the Registrar is required to be satisfied of the fact of authorisation by all members of the native title claim group. Section 190C(5) then imposes further specific requirements before the Registrar can attain the necessary satisfaction for the purposes of s. 190C(4)(b). The interactions of s. 190C(4)(b) and s. 190C(5) may inform how the Registrar is to be satisfied of the condition imposed by s. 190C(4)(b), but clearly it involves some inquiry through the material available to the Registrar to see if the necessary authorisation has been given—at [78].
Finally, a note to s. 190C(4) directs the Registrar to s. 251B of the Act, for the meaning of the word authorise:
251B	Authorising the making of applications
For the purposes of this Act, all the persons in a native title claim group or compensation claim group authorise a person or persons to make a native title determination application or a compensation application, and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, if: 
(a)	where there is a process of decision-making that, under the traditional laws and customs of the persons in the native title claim group or compensation claim group, must be complied with in relation to authorising things of that kind--the persons in the native title claim group or compensation claim group authorise the person or persons to make the application and to deal with the matters in accordance with that process; or
(b)	where there is no such process—the persons in the native title claim group or compensation claim group authorise the other person or persons to make the application and to deal with the matters in accordance with a process of decision-making agreed to and adopted, by the persons in the native title claim group or compensation claim group, in relation to authorising the making of the application and dealing with the matters, or in relation to doing things of that kind.
Information considered
In my consideration of the authorisation of the applicant to make this application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, I have had regard to the following material within the Kaurareg People #3 application:
•	Attachment R1 being the affidavit of (Name deleted - Solicitor 1), sworn 1 March 2010, to which is attached Annexure A—description of the native title claim group; and Annexure B—Authorisation by Kaurareg Native Title Claim Group, Resolutions
•	Attachment R2 being the affidavit of (Name deleted - Solicitor 1) , solicitor employed by the solicitors representing the applicant, affirmed 5 May 2010, to which is attached Annexure A—copy of the advertisement for the authorisation meeting, dated 10 - 16 February 2010
I have also considered the information set out in the affidavits of the persons comprising the applicant.
The requirements of s. 190C(5)
For the purposes of satisfying the requirements of s. 190C(5)(a), in my view, the affidavit of each person comprising the applicant makes the following statements:
I am a Kaurareg Aboriginal person and a member of the native title claim group making this application. 
And
I am authorised by all the persons in the Native Title Claim Group to make the application and to deal with matters arising on [sic] relation to it.
(Name deleted - Applicant 1) affidavit (R1) contains the statements relevant to satisfy the requirements of s. 190C(5)(b). Paragraphs 6 to 8 sets out the process followed by the native title claim group to authorise the applicant to make and deal with the application. Additionally Annexure B sets out the resolutions reached at the authorisation meeting, including the decision-making process complied with by the group. In my view this sufficiently sets out the grounds on which the Registrar should consider that the requirement of s. 190C(4)(b) has been met. 
I am satisfied that the application meets the requirements of s. 190C(5).
The interaction of s. 190C(4)(b) and s 190C(5) is considered in Doepel in that:
[It] may inform how the Registrar is to be satisfied of the condition imposed by s 190C(4)(b), but clearly it involves some inquiry through the material available to the Registrar to see if the necessary authorisation has been given—at [78].
It is therefore still necessary for me to consider whether I am satisfied that the applicant is authorised pursuant to s. 190C(4)(b), noting that I am not limited to what is in the application on the issue.
How was the authorisation process conducted?
Together the affidavits of Isaac Savage and (Name deleted - Solicitor 1), provide detail on the process by which the meeting of 27 February 2010 was notified, advertised, prepared, convened and conducted.
(Name deleted - Solicitor 1), is a solicitor employed by Chalk & Fitzgerald Lawyers and Consultants Chalk & Fitzgerald representing the applicant. She appears to have coordinated the authorisation process. Mr Savage is one of the persons comprising the applicant.
The following is a summary of the how the authorisation meeting was notified, taken from the information provided (Name deleted - Solicitor 1) in her affidavit:
•	(Name deleted - Solicitor 1) arranged for a notice of the authorisation meeting to be published in the Torres Strait News on 10 to 16 February 2010.
•	A copy of the notice, annexed to (Name deleted - Solicitor 1) affidavit, shows the date and location of the proposed meeting; the purpose of the meeting being to authorise a person or persons on behalf of the Kaurareg People to make a native title determination application over Kaurareg country; a list of the islands included in Kaurareg country; and an invitation to those who assert to be a Kaurareg person and also those who are the descendents of 18 listed people (the same as listed at Schedule A of the filed application).
•	Chalk and Fitzgerald provided copies of the notice to 11 regional community councils requesting that the notices be placed on community notice boards.
•	Copies of the notice were also provided to the Kaurareg Traditional Elders Corporation and the Kaurareg Native Title Aboriginal Corporation for placement on notice boards in their localities.
Having regard to the above information, I am satisfied that the 27 February 2010 meeting was sufficiently notified to allow every opportunity for members of the Kaurareg native title claim group to attend and participate in decisions about this application and to authorise an applicant to make and deal with the application.
How the meeting was attended
Details about the conduct of the 27 February 2010 claim group meeting are provided in Isaac Savage affidavit, who attests the following:
•	that notice was given by Chalk & Fitzgerald prior to the authorisation meeting, called for the purpose of the native title claim group to pass resolutions;
•	22 people attended the authorisation meeting which Mr Savage believes was a good attendance for a meeting of this kind;
•	the meeting was attending by people who fell within the description of the group at Schedule A and were all known to Mr Savage and recognised as holding Kaurareg identity;
•	all those who participated in the process were entitled to do so;
•	no suggestion was raised that there were people who had failed to attend which may have meant that it was not appropriate to deal with certain matters; and
•	those who participated in the process believed that they were the Kaurareg Aboriginal People who comprised the native title claim group and were the appropriate persons to be making the claim over the area covered by the application;
The authorisation meeting resulted in a number of resolutions about the making of the Kaurareg native title determination application and these are provided as Annexure B to Mr Savage affidavit.
Having regard to the above information, I am satisfied that those attending the 27 February 2010 meeting were sufficiently representative of the Kaurareg People #3 claim group and were sufficiently informed about the requirements of authorisation.

Decision-making process
Annexure B to Isaac Savage’s affidavit shows two particular resolutions were unanimously carried by those attending the authorisation meeting:
Resolution 2—Decision-making process
The attendees at the meeting who are Kaurareg Aboriginal people agree and confirm that there is no process of decision-making that must be complied with under traditional law and custom in relation to authorising a person or persons to make a native title determination application to the Federal Court and to deal with matters in relation to it—p. 1.
And
Resolution 2—Method of decision-making – vote by show of hands
The attendees at the meeting who are Kaurareg Aboriginal people agree to adopt a process of decision making under which a majority vote of the Kaurareg Aboriginal People present at this meeting will decide whether to authorise a person or persons ... Any resolutions to be passed at this meeting will be passed if a vote is taken by a show of hands and a majority of those persons entitled to vote indicate that they are in favour of the motion—at p. 2.
In total nine resolutions in relation to the ‘Kaurareg Native Title Island Claim’ were carried unanimously by the group in accordance with the decision-making process outlined above. Resolution 4 to lodge a claim over various Kaurareg islands sets out the nature of the claim which is to be made on behalf of the Kaurareg Aboriginal People, over islands identified in a list presented at the meeting along with the description of the boundaries and the rights and interests to be claimed.
The role of the ‘applicants’ is made clear to the group at Resolution 5. It was resolved that the people named as the Applicant:
a)	will act on behalf of the Kaurareg Aboriginal People as whole in making and dealing with the application,
b)	will sign the finalised Form 1 application (a draft of which was presented at the meeting), and
c)	are instructed by the Kaurareg Aboriginal People to act on the advice of Chalk & Fitzgerald.
The four persons who comprise the applicant were authorised by the group at Resolution 7, also unanimously carried.
Sufficient and cogent information is set out in the affidavits and attachments which accompany the application. I am satisfied that the decision-making process agreed to and adopted by those who attended the authorisation meeting of 27 February 2010 was followed in accordance with the requirements of s. 251B(b).
I am satisfied that the applicant has been authorised by the native title claim group to make the application and deal with matters arising in relation to it.
Merit conditions: s. 190B
Subsection 190B(2)
Identification of area subject to native title
The Registrar must be satisfied that the information and map contained in the application as required by ss. 62(2)(a) and (b) are sufficient for it to be said with reasonable certainty whether native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular land or waters.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(2). 
Schedule B states that the area covered by the application is the land and waters described in attachment B. Attachment B is entitled “Kaurareg People Island Native Title Determination Application”, dated 24/06/2010 and describes the application area as covering “all land and waters landward of the High Water Mark over the following islands, islets and rocks in the Torres Strait.” Attachment B then lists 41 islands with supporting lot on plan details.
Attachment B also includes a statement, ‘for the avoidance of any doubt, the application specifically excludes:
•	Any waters below the High Water Mark
•	Native Title Determination Application Areas:
o	QUD267/08 Kaurareg People #2 (QC08/7);
o	QUD266/08 Kaurareg People #1 (QC08/6); and
o	QUD6040/01 Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim (QC01/42).
•	The following Lots seaward of the High Water Mark of Thursday Island described as:
o	Lot 142 on SP152630;
o	Lot 1 on SP118062;
o	Lot 140 on SP108487;
o	Lot 191 on SP108475;
o	Lot 156 on SP108485; and 
o	Lot 4 on SP187418.
The description at Schedule B specifically excludes:
1.	The land waters subject to Federal Court proceedings in the following native title determination applications:
(a)	QUD267/08 (Kaurareg People #2);
(b)	QUD266/08 (Kaurareg People #1); and
(c)	QUD6040/01 (Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim); and 
4.	The land and waters which are the subject of :
(a)	Native Title Determination QUD6003 of 2002 – Manas on behalf of the Mualgal People v State of Queensland dated 13 April 2006;
(b)	Native Title Determination QUD6002 of 2002 – Baduagal and the Mualgal People v State of Queensland dated 13 April 2006; and
(c)	Native Title Determination Application QUD 6005 of 2002 - Noona on behalf the Badu People (Warral and Ului) filed 4 March 2002
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule B contain general exclusions. That is, the application area excludes areas of land and waters affected by any previous exclusive possession acts and category A past and intermediate period acts; category B past and intermediate period acts wholly inconsistent with the continued existence , enjoyment or exercise of of nay native title rights or interests. The description states that the application area also excludes any land or waters where native title has been otherwise wholly extinguished and any area for which there is an approved determination of native title as defined in the Act. These exclusions are stated to be subject to any land or waters falling within the provisions of s. 238 or ss. 47, 47A or 47B and would, therefore, be included in the area covered by the application.
Schedule C refers to Attachment C which is a monochrome copy of an A1 colour topographic map entitled ‘Native Title Determination Application – Kaurareg People’ prepared by Geospatial Services on 24 June 2010 and includes:

•	the application area depicted by bold outline and light fill;
•	native title determination areas depicted by a bold outline and stipple fill;
•	native title determination application boundaries depicted by a dashed outline;
•	a light grey topographic background;
•	a list of 43 islands included in the application area;
•	scalebar, northpoint, coordinate grid and location diagram; and 
•	notes relating to the source, currency and datum of data used to prepare the map.
Section 190B(2) requires that the information in the application describing the areas covered by the application must be sufficient for it to be said with reasonable certainty whether native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular land or waters. For the Registrar to be satisfied that this can be said, the written description and the map should be sufficiently consistent with each other and the reader should be able to work out the location of the area covered by the application on the surface of the earth with reasonable certainty.
Having regard to the identification of the external boundary in Schedule B and the map showing the external boundary, I am satisfied that the external boundaries of the application area have been described such that the location of it on the earth’s surface can be identified with reasonable certainty. 
The specific exclusions to the area of the application are clearly identifiable and whilst the written description at Schedule B contains some general exclusions, they are sufficient to offer an objective mechanism to identify which areas fall within the categories described.
The Tribunal’s geospatial assessment of the map and written description is that the description and map are consistent and identify the application area with reasonable certainty. I agree with that assessment.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the information and the maps required by paragraphs 62(2)(a) and (b) are sufficient for it to be said with reasonable certainty whether native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular areas of the land or waters.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(2) as a whole.
Subsection 190B(3)
Identification of the native title claim group
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.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(3).
Under this condition, I am required to be satisfied that one of either s. 190B(3)(a) or (b) has been met. The application does not name the persons in the native title claim group but contains a description.
Schedule A of the application contains this description of the group:
The Native Title Claim Group on whose behalf the claim is made is the Kaurareg Aboriginal People, being the descendants of the following people:
(Name deleted - Ancestor 4) & (Name deleted - Ancestor 5)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 6) 
(Name deleted - Ancestor 7) & (Name deleted - Ancestor 8)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 9)  & (Name deleted - Ancestor 10)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 11) 
(Name deleted - Ancestor 12)  & (Name deleted - Ancestor 13)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 14) 
(Name deleted - Ancestor 15) 
(Name deleted - Ancestor 16) 
(Name deleted – Ancestor 17)  & (Name deleted - Ancestor 18)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 19)  & (Name deleted - Ancestor 20)
(Name deleted - Ancestor 21   )
I note the comments of Mansfield J in Doepel at [51] and [37] respectively that the focus of s 190B(3)(b):
•	is whether the application enables the reliable identification of persons in the native title claim group; and
•	is not on ‘the correctness of the description . . . but upon its adequacy so that the members of any particular person in the identified native title claim group can be ascertained.
Carr J in State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93 (Western Australia v Native Title Registrar) was of the view that ‘it may be necessary, on occasions, to engage in some factual inquiry when ascertaining whether any particular person is in the group as described. But that does not mean that the group has not been described sufficiently-at [67].
Guided by the above authorities, I am of the view that the native title claim group is described sufficiently clearly to enable identification of any particular person in that group – whether they descend directly from the named ancestors. It may be that some factual inquiry is required to ascertain how members of the claim group are descended from the named apical ancestors but that would not mean that the group had not been sufficiently described.
Subsection 190B(4)
Native title rights and interests identifiable
The Registrar must be satisfied that the description contained in the application as required by s. 62(2)(d) is sufficient to allow the native title rights and interests claimed to be readily identified.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(4).
Section 190B(4) requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the description of the claimed native title rights and interests contained in the application is sufficient to allow the rights and interests to be identified—Doepel at [92]. In Doepel, Mansfield J refers to the Registrar’s consideration:
The Registrar referred to s. 223(1) and to the decision in Ward. He recognised that some claimed rights and interests may not be native title rights and interests as defined. He identified the test of identifiability as being whether the claimed native title rights and interests are understandable and have meaning. There is no criticism of him in that regard—at [99].
I am of the view that for a description to be sufficient to allow the claimed native title rights and interests to be readily identified, it must describe what is claimed in a clear and easily understood manner.
Native title rights and interests are defined in the Act at s. 223(1), which states:
The expression native title or native title rights and interests means the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters, where:
(a)	the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; and
(b)	the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, by those laws and customs, have a connection with the land or waters; and
(c)	the rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia.
With this definition in mind it may be argued that rights and interests that have been found by the courts to fall outside the scope of s. 223 cannot be ‘readily identified’ for the purposes of s. 190B(4).
On another view, s. 190B(4) is only intended to consider those rights and interests that are not readily identified in the sense of them being unintelligible or not understandable. On this view, any rights that fall outside the scope of s. 223 should be considered under s. 190B(6) as not able to be prima facie established. I have adopted this latter view and do not consider under this condition whether or not any of the rights claimed fall outside the scope of s. 223.
The description of the native title rights and interests claimed in relation to particular land or waters is found at Schedule E:
The Applicants claim the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment as against the whole world.  The Applicants only claim a right of exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment in relation to those parts of the Claim Area which have not been the subject of a Previous Exclusive Act apart from those areas where ss.47, 47A or 47B apply.
Further and in the alternative, the Applicants claim the following non-exclusive rights in relation to the whole of the Application area:
(a)	The right to possession, occupation and enjoyment of the Application Area;
(b)	The right to access, traverse and be present on the Application Area;
(c)	The right to fish, hunt, gather and use natural resources on and from the Application Area;
(d)	The right to trade and exchange the natural resources of the Application Area;
(e)	The right to live on the Application Area;
(f)	The right to manage and conserve the land and the natural resources of the Application Area;
(g)	The right to speak for and about and make decisions with respect to the Application Area;
(h)	The right to access and to protect sites of spiritual or cultural significance on the Application Area;
(i)	The right to maintain and transmit knowledge in respect of the Application Area and its resources;
(j)	The right to conduct, transmit and maintain cultural, spiritual and religious practices in respect of the Application Area;
(k)	The right to inherit, succeed and transmit the Native Title Rights and Interests in the Application Area to other Native Title Holders;
(l)	The right to resolve disputes between the Native Title Holders in relation to the Application Area;
(m)	The right to build structures for the purposes of hunting, fishing and gathering in the Application area, including stone fish traps and dugong platforms;
(n)	The right to be buried on and bury native title holders on the Application Area; and
(o)	Such other rights and interests that the Court considers appropriate on the evidence.
I am satisfied that the description of the claimed native title rights and interests is sufficient to allow them to be readily identified in the sense that they are described in a clear and easily understood manner.
Subsection 190B(5)
Factual basis for claimed native title
The Registrar must be satisfied that the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist is sufficient to support the assertion. 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, and
(b)	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 interest, and
(c)	that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(5) because the factual basis provided is sufficient to support each of the particularised assertions in s. 190B(5), as set out in my reasons below.
I have considered each of the three assertions set out in the three paragraphs of s. 190B(5) in turn before reaching this decision.
For the application to meet this merit condition, I must be satisfied that a sufficient factual basis is provided to support the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist and to support the particularised assertions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of s. 190B(5). In Doepel, Mansfield J stated that:
Section 190B(5) is carefully expressed. It requires the Registrar to consider whether the `factual basis on which it is asserted' that the claimed native title rights and interests exist `is sufficient to support the assertion'. That requires the Registrar to address the quality of the asserted factual basis for those claimed rights and interests; but only in the sense of ensuring that, if they are true, they can support the existence of those claimed rights and interests. In other words, the Registrar is required to determine whether the asserted facts can support the claimed conclusions. The role is not to test whether the asserted facts will or may be proved at the hearing, or to assess the strength of the evidence which may ultimately be adduced to establish the asserted facts—at [17].
Consideration of this condition necessitates taking into account the concept and meaning of the word ‘traditional’. The decision of the High Court in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; (2002) 194 ALR 538; [2002] HCA 58 (Yorta Yorta) defines ‘traditional’ in the context of the phrase ‘traditional laws and customs’. That is:
A traditional law or custom is one which has been passed from generation to generation of a society, usually by word of mouth and common practice. But in the context of the Native Title Act, “traditional” carries with it two other elements in its meaning. First, it conveys an understanding of the age of the traditions: the origins of the content of the law or custom concerned are to be found in the normative rules of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies that existed before the assertion of sovereignty by the British Crown. It is only those normative rules that are “traditional” laws and customs.
Secondly, and no less importantly, the reference to rights or interests in land or waters being possessed under traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the peoples concerned, requires that the normative system under which the rights and interests are possessed (the traditional laws and customs) is a system that has had a continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty. If that normative system has not existed throughout that period, the rights and interests which owe their existence to that system will have ceased to exist—at [46] and[47].
In my consideration of the factual basis for the claim made in this application, I am therefore guided by principles outlined in Yorta Yorta:
•	traditional laws and customs are ones that a society passes on from one generation to another;
•	laws and customs arise out of, and go to define, a particular society, that is a body of persons united in, and by, its acknowledgement and observance of a body of laws and customs;
•	traditional laws or customs are derived from a body of norms or normative system that existed before sovereignty;
•	rights and interests are rooted in pre-sovereignty traditional laws and customs; and
•	it must be shown that the society, under whose laws and customs the native title rights and interests are said to be possessed, has continued to exist throughout the period since sovereignty was asserted as a body united by its acknowledgement and observance of the laws and customs.
That these principles from Yorta Yorta guide consideration of the condition in s. 190B(5) was discussed by Dowsett J in Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 (Gudjala 07)at [26]. I note that the review of that decision by the Full Court in Gudjala # 2 v Native Title Registrar [2008] FCAFC 157 (Gudjala FC) did not criticise this approach. I note that the most recent decision by Dowsett J in Gudjala #2 v Native Title Registrar [2009] FCA 1572 (Gudjala 09) again points to the Yorta Yorta principles as guiding the Registrar’s consideration of the condition in s. 190B(5). 
The test in s. 190A involves an administrative decision—it is not a trial or hearing of a determination of native title pursuant to s. 225, and therefore it is not appropriate to apply the standards of proof that would be required at such a trial or hearing. It is not the task of the delegate to make findings about whether or not the claimed native title rights and interests exist. It is not the role of the delegate to reach definitive conclusions about complex anthropological issues pertaining to the applicant’s relationship with their country as that is a judicial enquiry.
Below, I consider each of the three assertions set out in the three paragraphs of s. 190B(5) and I have referred only to those statements in the material before me which are pointedly relevant to each of the assertions.
Information considered
The application contains the following material specifically relevant to my consideration:
•	Attachment F—Factual Basis for the Native Title Rights and Interests Claimed
•	Attachment F1—Extracts from Findings of fact of Existing Determination in Kaurareg People v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 657 per Drummond J at [2] to [13]
•	Attachment F2—The Sea of Waubin, The Kaurareg and their Marine Environment, (Name deleted - Anthropologist 1) and the Kaurareg Tribal Elders, Oceania Monograph 48
•	Attachment F3—Affidavit of Milton Savage, sworn 29 July 2010
•	Schedules G, M and T
This application is made over islands adjacent to the areas of the determinations made by Drummond J in Kaurareg People v Queensland [2001] FCA 657 (23 May 2001). The reasons for judgement are relied upon by the applicant at Attachment F1 and Schedule T and although the determinations concern a different area, they are in my view, relevant to my consideration because they substantiate and express the weight the Court gives to Kaurareg People’s connection to country and the existence and content of the group’s traditional laws and customs.  In pronouncing the determination, the Court was satisfied that, based on the information before it, it is:
... appropriate for the Court to declare in terms of pars 1 - 15 of each draft determination that native title is held by the Kaurareg  People who are the descendants of the  Kaurareg, who were the traditional owners of each determination area prior to the assertion of British sovereignty, as common law holders. The Court will in each case make declarations as to the content of the native title rights which are now recognised by Australian law, as enjoyed by the Kaurareg in respect of each of the islands which are set out in each of exhibits 1 to 5—at [17].
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(a)
I am satisfied that the factual basis provided is sufficient to support the assertion described by s. 190B(5)(a).
This subsection requires me to be satisfied that the factual material provided is sufficient to support the assertion that the native title claim group has, and its predecessors had, an association with the area of the application. Whilst 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 all of the time, it is necessary to show that the claim group as a whole has an association with the area—Gudjala 07 at [51] and [52].
The material before me indicates that the Kaurareg People have remained in the vicinity of their country and the area of this application since white settlement.
As noted in the affidavit of Milton Savage the Kaurareg People already have native title determinations over Ngurupai (Horn Island) and Murulag (Prince of Wales Island) which are adjacent to several of the islands the subject of this native title claim’—at 3. Mr Savage’s affidavit deposes to living on and travelling to the islands that form part of this application as well as to other Kaurareg People living, fishing and hunting on and in the land and waters of the claim area. He states that he was taught to fish in the waters and reefs of the claim area by his uncles and grandfather in accordance with traditional Kaurareg culture and continues to have a traditional physical connection with the islands in the claim area.
Based on the information I have before me, I understand the traditional country of the Kaurareg People to be the islands and waters of the Kaurareg Archipelago in the Torres Strait. The first European observation of people was in 1770 on the beaches of Prince of Wales Island. That the native title claim group has and its predessors had an association with the area is documented in detail:
•	the early years of colonoisation saw the Kaurareg People inhabit Wednesday Island, Hammond Island (Kiriri), Prince of Wales Island (Muralag), Moa Island, Horn Island (Narupai);
•	Kaurareg People have maintained their traditional laws and customs and links with their homelands through continued physical visitation and through the passing on of traditional songs and stories associated with the application area;
•	Kaurareg People have continued to reside on or close to their traditional country and use the land and sea of their traditional country;
•	the metamorphised body of the Kaurareg mythological (Name deleted – Cultural Being)  is Hammond Rock, at the north east end of Hammond Island;
•	(Name deleted – Cultural Being) is said to protect the Kaurareg islands to the south by sending a strong current through a deep channel running alond the north side of Hammond Island known as (Name deleted – Cultural Being) ((Name deleted – Cultural Being));
•	the extent of Kaurareg country is defined by the exploits of (Name deleted – Cultural Being) and other mythological figures and their traversing of the waters and islands to become boundary markers;
•	Kaurareg boundaries are conceived as a number of significant sites, rather than as line, but it was always clear to people which was their own sea territory and which was their neighbour’s;
•	Kaurareg People’s connection to their country is such that they observe certain constellations of stars at particular times of the year to indicate changes in the seasons, the marine environment, hunting and fishing grounds and the behaviour of marine and island life and thereby their food resources;
•	particular locations of certain islands and their waterways are known, formally and currently, to be places where only certain marine resources will be found at certain times of the year.
I am of the view that I am able to find sufficient references within the material to support the assertion that the Kaurareg People currently have an association with the whole of the area and that the predecessors of the claim group had an association with the whole of the claim area.
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(b)
I am satisfied that the factual basis provided is sufficient to support the assertion described by s. 190B(5)(b).
This subsection requires that I be satisfied that the material before me provides a sufficient factual basis for the assertion that there exist traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group and that these give rise to the claimed native title rights and interests.
Justice Dowsett recently considered the requirements of s. 190B(5) and addressed the adequacy of the factual basis underlying an applicant’s claim in Gudjala 09. He makes the following statements about the assessment of the adequacy of a general description of the factual basis of the claim at [29]:
•	assertions should not merely restate the claim, and
•	there must be at least an outline of the facts of the case.
Attachment F lists the features of Kaurareg traditional law and custom at sovereignty, including belief in a regional creation mythology; management and conservation of the natural environment through the use of sorcery and ‘talking to country’; a descent-based system of land and marine tenure; knowledge and defence of the the extent of Kaurareg territory; and a complex and extended trading network with neighbours. Rights and interests  held under traditional Kaurareg law and custom were passed down across the generations. In this way, it is said, the Kaurareg People maintained their traditional laws, customs and spiritual beliefs, their knowledge and protection of their marine and island environment and resources and the social organisation which has managed to survive to the present day. This is evidenced by:
•	belief in and recognition of the founding mythological hero of (Name deleted – Cultural Being) and associated cultural beings;
•	participation in ceremonial activities and spiritual practices;
•	systems of recipriocity and a spiritual approach to the subsistence reliance on the marine and island environment and its resources; and
•	‘talking to country’ and recognising descent-based systems of customary land and marine tenure.
A significant element of traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed relates to the customary marine tenure of the Kaurareg People:
•	the mythological figure of (Name deleted – Cultural Being)  who provides, under traditional law and custom, the Kaurareg charter for land and sea tenure and the basis for historical and contemporary rights and interests in the area of the application; 
•	the (Name deleted – Cultural Being) was held in common by all the related clans inhabiting the Kaurareg Islands;
•	a societal structure which included chiefs of each clan and an overarching Kaurareg chief who governed the use of the fishery with strong sanctions for those communities exploiting species over and above their immediate needs;
•	magic or sorcery to call up the resources of the sea (turtle, dugong, stingray, species of fish) has been and is still a customary practice of Kaurareg marine tenure;
•	individual marine tenure is characterised by sometimes secret fishing spots where an individual regularly fishes, who uses magic to ensure good fishing which has been passed down through the individual’s father;
•	transmission of mythological and traditional knowledge of the marine environment was once part of an initiation tradition, though the process today is now a less formal passing down of knowledge from elders to young men; and
•	variable and complex system of tides and currents of the marine environment are grounded in Kaurareg mythology, reflected in the construction of language and influence hunting and fishing practices;
•	exploitation of the marine envrionment is closely linked to Kaurareg social organisation, for example, the use of turtle and dugong meats at significant ceremonies and the activities of fishing and hunting which forms the basis of Kaurareg self-idenity.
Attachment F states that the Kaurareg People led a nomadic existence that relied on utilising the natural marine resources. Their traditional laws and customs worked to bind the group as a normative society with common membership and identity and as a whole to the land and waters of the Karuareg Archipelago—at 2.3 to 2.4.
The material provides a sufficient factual basis for this assertion that there exist traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the Kaurareg People and that these give rise to the native title rights and interests they claim.
Reasons for s. 190B(5)(c)
I am satisfied that the factual basis provided is sufficient to support the assertion described by s. 190B(5)(c).
This subsection requires that I be satisfied that there is sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that the native title claim group continue to hold native title in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
In 2001, the Federal Court recognised in five determiantions that the Kaurareg claimants, were the descendents of the men and women who lived on the islands of the Kaurareg Archipelago when Captain Cook sailed through its waters in 1770 and thereby the traditional owners of the islands. The Court acknowledged the strength of the early records regarding Kaurareg traditional laws and customs, their material culture, their occupancy of the area and their relations with their neighbours and that despite removal from their homelands, their links as a group remained strong and continued through to the present day.
Attachment F documents how Kaurareg People have continued to live on their traditional islands, utilising the adjacent waters. They have continued to carry out subsistence activities and spiritual practises handed down to them by their forebears, evidenced by continuing management and conservation practices of the land and marine environment and ongoing belief systems centred around (Name deleted – Cultural Being).
The material before me shows that Kaurareg People continue the traditional fishing and hunting practices that link them societally and mythologically to their island and marine environment, albeit some practices are modified for modern living:
•	Despite the heavy toll of dislocation on Kaurareg People, they have maintained their links with their homelands and their traditional laws and customs through work, hunting and fishing and the passing on of traditional songs and stories;
•	From small scale handlining and spearing fish from rocks, beaches and jetties, Kaurareg People have shifted to more intensive fishing, crayfishing and hunting for turtles from dinghies with outboard motors;
•	Fishing as a subsistence supplement to other forms of income and welfare support, but the associated activities retain their traditional and ceremonial significance to individuals and Kaurareg society in general;
•	Involvement in some of the Torres Strait commercial fisheries; and
•	A prevailing recognition of Kaurareg People of their traditional ownership of Kaurareg reefs and islands and their marine resources.
There is sufficient information before me to support the assertion that the Kaurareg People continue to hold native title in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
Subsection 190B(6)
Prima facie case
The Registrar must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed in the application can be established.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(6). The claimed native title rights and interests that I consider can be prima facie established are identified in my reasons below.
Under s. 190B(6) I must be satisfied that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed by the native title group can be established. The Registrar takes the view that registration requires a minimum of only one right or interest to be established. In Doepel, Mansfield J noted at [16] the following:
Section 190B(5), (6) and (7) however clearly calls for consideration of material which may go beyond the terms of the application, and for that purpose the information sources specified in s. 190A(3) may be relevant. Even so, it is noteworthy that s. 190B(6) requires the Registrar to consider whether `prima facie' some at least of the native title rights and interests claimed in the application can be established. By clear inference, the claim may be accepted for registration even if only some of the native title rights and interests claimed get over the prima facie proof hurdle.
I refer to the further comments from Doepel about the nature of the test at s. 190B(6):
•	It is a prima facie test and ‘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’—Doepel at [135].  
•	It involves some ‘measure’ and ‘weighing’ of the factual basis and imposes ‘a more onerous test to be applied to the individual rights and interests claimed’—Doepel at [126], [127] and [132]. 
It follows that the task under this section is to consider whether there is any probative factual material available evidencing the existence of the particular native title rights and interests claimed. In performing this task, I have had regard to settled law about:
•	what is a ‘native title right and interest’ (as that term is defined in s. 223); 
•	whether or not the right has been extinguished; and
•	whether or not the right is precisely expressed such that it sets out the nature and extent of the right.
If a described right and interest in this application has been found by the courts to fall outside the scope of s. 223(1) then it will not be prima facie established for the purposes of s. 190B(6).
Consideration
As mentioned above in relation to the requirements of s. 190B(5), the registration test involves an administrative decision—it is not a trial or hearing of a determination of native title pursuant to s. 225, and therefore it is not appropriate to apply the standards of proof that would be required at such a trial or hearing. It is not my role to draw definitive conclusions from the material before me about whether or not the claimed native title rights and interests exist, only whether they are prima facie capable of being established.
I note that, in my view, as set out above at s. 190B(5), the application provides a sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that there exist traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests.
In my consideration below of the rights claimed in the application, I have grouped together rights which appear to be of a similar character and therefore rely on the same evidentiary material or which require consideration of the same case law as to whether they can be established.
Exclusive Rights
The applicant claims exclusive rights at Schedule E.
The Applicants claim the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment as against the whole world. The Applicants only claim a right of exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment in relation to those parts of the Claim Area which have not been the subject of a Previous Exclusive Act apart from those areas where ss.47, 47A or 47B apply.
Established
The majority decision of the High Court in Western Australia v Ward (2002) 191 ALR 1 (Ward HC) is authority that, subject to the satisfaction of other requirements, a claim to exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of lands and waters can prima facie be established. The two rights which make up exclusive possession are (1) a right to control access and (2) a right to make binding decisions about the use of the country—Ward HC at [52]. The traditional law and custom of the Kaurareg People that gives rise to their right to exlusive possession of their country is evidenced throughout the material pertaining to the claim’s factual basis, in particular:
the historical and contemporary Kaurareg spiritual belief that (Name deleted – Cultural Being) is responsible for the strong current through the Prince of Wales channel said to discourage outsiders from venturing further south into the Kaurareg area—Attachment F2, p.221;
central to the myth of Waubin is the notion of exclusivity of Kaurareg territory. (Name deleted – Cultural Weapon), used to fight off intruders to his territory, continues to be made from traditional natural materials by present day Kaurareg men—Attachment F at 1.21; 
knowledge of the extent of Kaurareg territory and resistence to outside interference with that territory—Attachment F at 2.1(7); and,
continued reliance on, use, management and conservation of the natural and marine environment—Attachment F at 3.4.
Finally, it is relevant to consider that the land and waters of traditional Kaurareg country is wider than that covered by the area of this current application. The Court has previously recognised the right to exclusive possession in relation to Kaurareg country which is clearly proximate to the area covered by this application. As stated in Attachment F, the rights and interests recognised in the determination included rights, duties and obligations to make decisions and impose conditions about access rights to and the use and enjoyment of the determination area and its natural resources by the native title holders— Attachment F at 4.1.
I am able to find that a right of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment as against the whole world can be established prima facie.
The applicant also claims non-exclusive rights and interests at Schedule E.
Further and in the alternative, the Applicants claim the following non-exclusive rights in relation to the whole of the Application area:
(b) The right to access, traverse and be present on the Application Area;
(c) The right to fish, hunt, gather and use natural resources on and from the Application Area;
(d) The right to trade and exchange the natural resources of the Application Area;
(e) The right to live on the Application Area;
(f) The right to manage and conserve the land and the natural resources of the Application Area;
(h) The right to access and to protect sites of spiritual or cultural significance on the Application Area;
(i) The right to maintain and transmit knowledge in respect of the Application Area and its resources;
(j) The right to conduct, transmit and maintain cultural, spiritual and religious practices in respect of the Application Area;
(k) The right to inherit, succeed and transmit the Native Title Rights and Interests in the Application Area to other Native Title Holders;
(m) The right to build structures for the purposes of hunting, fishing and gathering in the Application area, including stone fish traps and dugong platforms;
(n) The right to be buried on and bury native title holders on the Application Area; and
All Established
In my view there is sufficient material in the application and its attachments to prima facie establish the observance of traditional law and custom giving rise to the above rights and interests. I have cited examples in the material for my reasons in relation to s. 190B(5).
(a) The right to possession, occupation and enjoyment of the Application Area
The applicant identifies that this is a ‘non-exclusive’ right which is claimed additionally and in the alternative to its global claim to exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment. The first issue for me is whether a right of ‘possession, occupation and enjoyment’ can properly be characterised as a non-exclusive right. 
In my view the decision in Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v Ward [2003] FCAFC 283 is authority that the terms ‘possession’ and ‘occupy’ tend to imply a notion of ‘control’ (at [16] to [17]) which is not consistent with the asserted non-exclusive character of the right as expressed in this application.
It follows in my view that this right cannot be prima facie established over areas where non-exclusive rights are claimed.

(g) The right to speak for and about and make decisions with respect to the Application Area
Not Established
The applicant identifies this right also as a ‘non-exclusive’ right claimed additionally and in the alternative to its global claim to exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment. In considering whether this right can be characterised as a non-exclusive right, I refer to Ward HC which states 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 posses, occupy, use and enjoy land to the exclusion of all others—at [88].
I also note that in Neowarra v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 1402 (Neowarra), Sundberg J was of the view that ‘the right to speak for country involves a claim to ownership’ and could only be recognised in relation to areas of exclusive native title rights and interests—at [494]. In Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777, the Court was also of the view that such a right is ‘subsumed in that global right of exclusive occupation’—at [1072].
For the reasons outlined above and based on the authorities cited, I am not satisfied that the right to speak for and about and make decisions with respect to the application area can be prima facie established in relation to areas where a right to exclusively possess, occupy, use and enjoy is not claimed.
(l) The right to resolve disputes between the Native Title Holders in relation to the Application Area
Not Established
The ‘Right to Regulate Among, and Resolve Disputes Between the Native Title Holders’ has been considered by the Courts for the purposes of determinations of native title. In Neowarra, Sundberg J was of the view that the evidence did not establish the existence of this right but if it had it ‘is a right in relation to people and not in relation to land or waters’—at [488] and [489]. In Northern Territory v Alyawarr, Kaytetye, Warumungu, Wakay Native Title Claim Group [2005] FCAFC 135 a similarly framed right was held to be part of the laws and customs of the native title holders rather than a right or interest in relation to land or waters—at [165]. 
Therefore based on these authorities, it is my view that this right is not capable of being recognised under s. 223. In any event, the material provided in the application is not sufficient to prima facie establish the existence of such a right under the traditional laws and customs of the Kaurareg People.
(o)  Such other rights and interests that the Court considers appropriate on the evidence.
Not Established
As currently expressed, I cannot find that this claimed right can be prima facie established. In my view it is neither precise nor does it set out the nature and extent of the rights and interests claimed.
Conclusion
I am satisfied, having considered all the information before me, that the rights as claimed listed below can be prima facie established under s. 190B(6) and should be registered. These rights seem to sit within the definition of native title rights and interests in s. 223 and I note also, have not been found by the courts to fall outside the scope of that section.
The Applicants claim the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment as against the whole world.  The Applicants only claim a right of exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment in relation to those parts of the Claim Area which have not been the subject of a Previous Exclusive Act apart from those areas where ss.47, 47A or 47B apply.
Further and in the alternative, the Applicants claim the following non-exclusive rights in relation to the whole of the Application area:
(b)	The right to access, traverse and be present on the Application Area;
(c)	The right to fish, hunt, gather and use natural resources on and from the Application Area;
(d)	The right to trade and exchange the natural resources of the Application Area;
(e)	The right to live on the Application Area;
(f)	The right to manage and conserve the land and the natural resources of the Application Area;
(h)	The right to access and to protect sites of spiritual or cultural significance on the Application Area;
(i)	The right to maintain and transmit knowledge in respect of the Application Area and its resources;
(j)	The right to conduct, transmit and maintain cultural, spiritual and religious practices in respect of the Application Area;
(k)	The right to inherit, succeed and transmit the Native Title Rights and Interests in the Application Area to other Native Title Holders;
(m)	The right to build structures for the purposes of hunting, fishing and gathering in the Application area, including stone fish traps and dugong platforms;
(n)	The right to be buried on and bury native title holders on the Application Area.
In the circumstances where I have found that a particular claimed right cannot be prima facie established, I refer the applicant to the provisions of s. 190(3A) of the Act. I note that the provisions of s. 190(3A) are available to the applicant if there is further information which would support a decision under that section to include a right on the Register.
Subsection 190B(7)
Traditional physical connection
The Registrar must be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group:
(a)	currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application, or
(b)	previously had and would reasonably be expected to currently have a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters but for things done (other than the creation of an interest in relation to the land or waters) by:
(i)	the Crown in any capacity, or
(ii)	a statutory authority of the Crown in any capacity, or
(iii)	any holder of a lease over any of the land or waters, or any person acting on behalf of such a holder of a lease.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(7).
Under s. 190B(7), I 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. The condition ‘can be seen as requiring some measure of substantive (as distinct from procedural) quality control upon the application’—Gudjala FC [84].
In Doepel, Mansfield J also considered the nature of the Registrar’s task at s. 190B(7):
Section 190B(7) imposes a different task upon the Registrar. It does require the Registrar to be satisfied of a particular fact or particular facts. It therefore requires evidentiary material to be presented to the Registrar. The focus is, however, a confined one. It is not the same focus as that of the Court when it comes to hear and determine the application for determination of native title rights and interests. The focus is upon the relationship of at least one member of the native title claim group with some part of the claim area. It can be seen, as with s 190B(6), as requiring some measure of substantive (as distinct from procedural) quality control upon the application if it is to be accepted for registration—at [18].
Sufficient material is provided at Attachments F, F1 and F2 in broad terms to show that Kaurareg People have traditional physical connection with the land and waters of the application area. The material has been quoted in my consideration for both s. 190B(5) and s. 190B(6).
Milton Savage attests in his affidavit (Attachment F3) to residing on and regularly travelling to the islands in the area of the application. He was taught by his uncles and grandfather to fish in the waters and reefs of the islands and he states that he continues to have a traditional connection with those islands.
I am satisfied that at least one member of that group currently has a traditional physical connection with parts of the application area.
Subsection 190B(8)
No failure to comply with s. 61A
The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar must not otherwise be aware, that because of s.61A (which forbids the making of applications where there have been previous native title determinations or exclusive or non-exclusive possession acts), the application should not have been made.

Section 61A provides:
(1)	A native title determination application must not be made in relation to an area for which there is an approved determination of native title.
(2)	If :
(a)	a previous exclusive possession act (see s. 23B) was done, and
(b)	either:
(i)	the act was an act attributable to the Commonwealth, or
(ii)	the act was attributable to a state or territory and a law of the state or territory has made provisions as mentioned in s. 23E in relation to the act;
a claimant application must not be made that covers any of the area.
(3)	If:
(a)	a previous non-exclusive possession act (see s. 23F) was done, and
(b)	either:
(i)	the act was an act attributable to the Commonwealth, or
(ii)	the act was attributable to a state or territory and a law of the state or territory has made provisions as mentioned in s. 23I in relation to the act;
a claimant application must not be made in which any of the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of any of the area to the exclusion of all others.
(4)	However, subsection(2) and (3) does not apply if:
(a)	the only previous non-exclusive possession act was one whose extinguishment of native title rights and interests would be required by section 47, 47A or 47B to be disregarded were the application to be made, and
(b)	the application states that ss. 47, 47A or 47, as the case may be, applies to it.

The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(8). I explain this in the reasons that follow by looking at each part of s. 61A against what is contained in the application and accompanying documents and in any other information before me as to whether the application should not have been made.
Reasons for s. 61A(1)
Section 61A(1) provides that a  native title determination application must not be made in relation to an area for which there is an approved determination of native title.
In my view the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(1).
The geospatial report dated 9 September 2010 and a search that I made of the Tribunal’s geospatial databases on 29 November 2010 reveals that there are no approved determinations of native title over the application area.
Reasons for s. 61A(2)
Section 61A(2) provides that a claimant application must not be made over areas covered by a previous exclusive possession act, unless the circumstances described in subparagraph (4) apply. 
In my view the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(2).
Schedule B at paragraph 2 makes the relevant statements that the area covered by the application does not include any area that is or was the subject of a previous exclusive possession act.
Paragraph 3 provides for such an exclusion to be subject to the provisions of s.238 and ss. 47, 47A and 47B (where the circumstances described in subparagraph 61A(4) may apply).

Reasons for s. 61A(3)
Section 61A(3) provides that an application must not claim native title rights and interests that confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others in an area where a previous non-exclusive possession act was done, unless the circumstances described in s. 61A(4) apply. 
In my view, the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(3).
The application does not contain a statement that exclusive possession is not claimed over areas where previous non-exclusive posession acts have been done. However, I am satisfied that there is nothing before me to indicate that the application shouldn’t have been made because:
1.	The applicant asserts that the application area is held for the benefit of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders (at paragraph 2 of schedule L) and that s. 47A would therefore require any such extinsughment of exclusive possession by a previous non exclusive possession act to be disregarded;
2.	The claim covers remote and sparsely populated islands in the far north of Australia, with a relatively uncomplicated tenure history such that it is likely there are no previous non exclusive possession acts; and
3.	In any event, I have no information before me that there are areas over which previous non exclusive possession acts have been done.
Subsection 190B(9)
No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title
The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar/delegate must not otherwise be aware, that:
(a)	a claim is being made to the ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas wholly owned by the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth, a state or territory, or
(b)	the native title rights and interests claimed purport to exclude all other rights and interests in relation to offshore waters in the whole or part of any offshore place covered by the application, or
(c)	in any case, the native title rights and interests claimed have otherwise been extinguished, except to the extent that the extinguishment is required to be disregarded under ss. 47, 47A or 47B.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(9), because it meets all of the three subconditions, as set out in the reasons below.
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(a):
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(a).
The application at Schedule Q states that the applicant does not make any claim for minerals, petroleum or gas wholly owned by the Crown
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(b)
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(b).
The application at Schedule P provides the statement that the application does not make claim for exclusive posession to all or part of any offshore place. I note that the application clearly states that it only covers areas landward of the high water mark and it therefore clearly does not extend to any offshore places.

Result for s. 190B(9)(c)
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(c).
Schedule B at paragraph 2 contains the relevant statements that the application excludes land or waters where the native title rights and interests have been otherwise extinguished.

[End of reasons]

Attachment A
Summary of registration test result
Application name	Kaurareg People #3	
NNTT file no.	QC10/3	
Federal Court of Australia file no.	QUD362/10	
Date of registration test decision	3 December 2010	

Section 190C conditions
Test condition	Subcondition/requirement	Result	
s. 190C(2) 		Aggregate result:
Met	
	re s. 61(1)	Met	
	re s. 61(3)	Met	
	re s. 61(4)	Met	
	re s. 62(1)(a)	Met	
	re s. 62(1)(b)	Aggregate result:
Met	
		s. 62(2)(a)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(b)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(c)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(d)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(e)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(f)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(g)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(ga)	Met	
		s. 62(2)(h)	Met	
s. 190C(3)		Met	
s. 190C(4)		Overall result:
Met	
	s. 190C(4)(a)	N/A	
	s. 190C(4)(b)	Met	

Section 190B conditions
Test condition	Subcondition/requirement	Result	
s. 190B(2)		Met	
s. 190B(3)		Overall result:
Met	
	s. 190B(3)(a)	N/A	
	s. 190B(3)(b)	Met	
s. 190B(4)		Met	
s. 190B(5)		Aggregate result:
Met	
	re s. 190B(5)(a)	Met	
	re s. 190B(5)(b)	Met	
	re s. 190B(5)(c)	Met	
s. 190B(6)		Met	
s. 190B(7)(a) or (b)		Met	
s. 190B(8)		Aggregate result:
Met	
	re s. 61A(1)	Met	
	re ss. 61A(2) and (4)	Met	
	re ss. 61A(3) and (4)	Met	
s. 190B(9)		Aggregate result:
Met	
	re s. 190B(9)(a)	Met	
	re s. 190B(9)(b)	Met	
	re s. 190B(9)(c)	Met	

Attachment B
Documents and information considered
The following lists all documents and other information that I have considered in coming to my decision about whether or not to accept the application for registration.
1.	The application as filed in the Federal Court on 30 August 2010, including attachments and affidavits.
2.	The Tribunal’s Geospatial Services ‘Geospatial Assessment and Overlap Analysis’—GeoTrack 2010/1700, dated 9 September 2010 (the geospatial report), being an expert analysis of the external and internal boundary descriptions and mapping of the application area and an overlap analysis against the Register, Schedule of Applications, determinations, agreements and s. 29 notices and equivalent.
3.	Register Extract generated by the Tribunal’s Case Management System for the following application:
QC96/77—People of Naghir 1—QUD6084/98
4.	Decision in Kaurareg  People v Queensland [2001] FCA 657 (23 May 2001)