FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 6) (Northern Kaanju determination) [2022] FCA 770

ORDERS

BEING SATISFIED that an order in the terms set out below is within the power of the Court, and it appearing appropriate to the Court to do so, pursuant to s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.    The Applicant agrees that the areas listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 are areas where native title has been wholly extinguished.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    There be a determination of native title in the terms proposed in these orders, despite any actual or arguable defect in the authorisation of the applicant to seek and agree to a consent determination pursuant to s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    There be a determination of native title in the terms set out below (the Determination).

2.    Each party to the proceeding is to bear its own costs.

BY CONSENT THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:

DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

3.    In this Determination, unless the contrary intention appears:

4.    The determination area is the land and waters described in Schedule 4 and depicted in the maps attached to Schedule 6 to the extent those areas are within the External Boundary and not otherwise excluded by the terms of Schedule 5 (the Determination Area). To the extent of any inconsistency between the written description and the map, the written description prevails.

5.    Native title exists in the Determination Area.

6.    The native title is held by the Northern Kaanju People described in Schedule 1 (the Native Title Holders).

7.    Subject to orders 9, 10 and 11 below the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters described in Part 1 of Schedule 4 are:

8.    Subject to orders 9, 10 and 11 below the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters described in Part 2 of Schedule 4 are the non-exclusive rights to:

9.    The native title rights and interests are subject to and exercisable in accordance with:

10.    The native title rights and interests referred to in orders 7(b) and 8 do not confer possession, occupation, use or enjoyment to the exclusion of all others.

11.    There are no native title rights in or in relation to minerals as defined by the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) and petroleum as defined by the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld).

12.    The nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the Determination Area (or respective parts thereof) are set out in Schedule 2 (the Other Interests).

13.    The relationship between the native title rights and interests described in orders 7 and 8 and the Other Interests described in Schedule 2 is that:

THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:

14.    The native title is held in trust.

15.    The Northern Kaanju Aboriginal Corporation (ICN: 9756), incorporated under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth), is to:

LIST OF SCHEDULES

Schedule 1 – Native Title Holders

1.    The Native Title Holders are the Northern Kaanju People. The Northern Kaanju People are those Aboriginal persons who are descended by birth, or by adoption in accordance with the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the Northern Kaanju group, from one or more of the following apical ancestors:

Schedule 2 – Other Interests in the Determination Area

The nature and extent of the other interests in relation to the Determination Area are the following as they exist as at the date of the Determination:

1.    The rights and interests of the parties under the following agreements registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements:

2.    The rights and interests of the holders of the following leases granted pursuant to the Land Act 1994 (Qld):

3.    The rights and interests of Telstra Corporation Limited (ACN 051 775 556), Amplitel Pty Ltd as trustee of the Towers Business Operating Trust (ABN 75 357 171 746) and any of their successors in title:

4.    The rights and interests of Cook Shire Council:

5.    The rights and interests granted or available to RTA Weipa Pty Ltd (ACN 137 266 285) (and any successors in title) under the Comalco Agreement, including, but not limited to, rights and interests in relation to the “bauxite field” (as defined in clause 1 of the Comalco Agreement) and areas adjacent to or in the vicinity or outside of such bauxite field, where:

6.    The rights and interests granted or available to Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd (ACN 009 726 078) (and any successors in title) under the Alcan Agreement, including, but not limited to, rights and interests in relation to the “bauxite field” (as defined in clause 1 of the Alcan Agreement) and areas adjacent to or in the vicinity or outside of such bauxite field, where:

7.    The rights and interests of the State of Queensland, Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council and Cook Shire Council to access, use, operate, maintain and control the dedicated roads in the Determination Area and the rights and interests of the public to use and access the roads.

8.    The rights and interests of the State of Queensland in Reserves, the rights and interests of the trustees of those Reserves and the rights and interests of the persons entitled to access and use those Reserves for the respective purpose for which they are reserved.

9.    The rights and interests of the State of Queensland or any other person existing by reason of the force and operation of the laws of the State of Queensland, including those existing by reason of the following legislation or any regulation, statutory instrument, declaration, plan, authority, permit, lease or licence made, granted, issued or entered into under that legislation:

10.    The rights and interests of members of the public arising under the common law, including but not limited to the following:

11.    So far as confirmed pursuant to s 212(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and s 18 of the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) as at the date of this Determination, any existing rights of the public to access and enjoy the following places in the Determination Area:

12.    Any other rights and interests:

Schedule 3 – External Boundary

The area of land and waters:

Commencing at the intersection of the southern boundary of the Wuthathi, Kuuku Y'au & Northern Kaanju People determination (QUD6023/2002), Hann Creek and the northern boundary of Lot 1 on CP907817, a point at Longitude 142.990404° East, and extending generally south-easterly along the centreline of that creek to the intersection with the centreline of the Pascoe River at Longitude 143.086482° East; then generally south-south westerly along the centreline of that river to the intersection with an unnamed road (Kennedy Road/Frenchmans Road) at Latitude 12.699618° South; then generally south-easterly along the centreline of that road until the intersection with the centreline of Portland Roads Road at Longitude 143.089114° East; then easterly along the centreline of that road to the intersection with Brown Creek at Longitude 143.105466° East; then generally south-easterly along the centreline of that creek until a point at Latitude 12.819886° South; then easterly to a point at Longitude 143.200592° East, Latitude 12.819711° South; then south-easterly to the northern-most point of Table Range at Latitude 12.872772° South; then generally southerly along the centreline of Table Range to its southern-most point at Latitude 12.976257° South; then south-easterly to a point on the centreline of an unnamed creek (Wachi Creek) at Longitude 143.325933° East, Latitude 13.002818° South passing through the following coordinate points:

Then due south to a point on the centreline of the Great Dividing Range at Latitude 13.210972° South; then south-westerly to the headwaters of Hull Creek at Longitude 143.297462° East, Latitude 13.220071° South; then generally south-westerly along the centreline of that creek to its intersection with the centreline of Geike Creek; then westerly along the centreline of that creek until its intersection with the centreline of Archer River; then westerly along the centreline of that river until its intersection with the eastern tributary of Pinnacle Creek at Longitude 142.848823° East; then generally northerly along the centreline of that creek until an unnamed tributary at Latitude 13.308707° South; then northerly along the centreline of that unnamed tributary until it reaches the headwaters at Longitude 142.817737° East, Latitude 13.248008° South; then northerly to the intersection of Telegraph Road (also known as the Old Telegraph Track) and an unnamed access road at Latitude 13.228853° South; then north-westerly along the centreline of Telegraph Road until it intersects with another unnamed access road at Latitude 13.188979° South; then north-westerly to the intersection of Nettle Creek and an unnamed tributary at Longitude 142.775311° East, Latitude 13.162993° South; then easterly to Longitude 142.801580° East, Latitude 13.162352° South; then northerly to Longitude 142.802139° East, Latitude 13.113875° South; then westerly to a point adjacent to Plain Creek at Longitude 142.753961° East, Latitude 13.113430° South; then southerly to Longitude 142.755182° East, Latitude 13.150363° South; then north-westerly to the headwaters of Heskett Creek at Longitude 142.658150° East, Latitude 13.048170° South, adjacent to Peninsula Development Road; then generally north-easterly along the centreline of that creek, as far as the junction of the intermittent stream at approximately Longitude 142.720304° East, Latitude 12.895012° South; then generally northerly and north-westerly along the centreline of that unnamed creek taking the northern channel to its intersection with the eastern boundary of Lot 5 on SP241405 at Latitude 12.840698° South, being the Batavia National Park CYPAL (also known as Embley Range Nature Reserve); then northerly along that eastern boundary to the north-eastern corner of the Batavia National Park CYPAL where it intersects the centreline of Sudley – Batavia Road, then north-easterly along that road to its intersection with the eastern-most tributary of Lydia Creek at Longitude 142.667264° East; then generally north-westerly along the centreline of that creek to its intersection with an unnamed tributary at Latitude 12.499582° South; then northerly along the centreline of that tributary to its intersection with another unnamed tributary at Latitude 12.495680° South; then north-easterly to its intersection with the south-eastern corner of the eastern-most severance of Lot 12 on SP241431, being the Moreton Telegraph Station block; then northerly, westerly and southerly along the boundaries of Lot 12 on SP241431, crossing Bromley and Telegraph Roads, to its intersection with the northern bank of the Wenlock River; then southerly to the centreline of that river; then westerly along the centreline of that river to its intersection with the centreline of Schramm Creek; then northerly along the centreline of that creek to its intersection with the northern boundary of Lot 22 on SP241405 at Latitude 12.265213° South, being the Batavia National Park CYPAL; then following that boundary north-easterly until it intersects with the Great Dividing Range at Longitude 142.687911° East. then south-easterly along the Great Dividing Range until it intersects the western boundary of Lot 153 on SP288864 at Latitude 12.407658° South (also being the western boundary Wuthathi, Kuuku Y'au & Northern Kaanju People determination (QUD6023/2002)); then southerly and easterly along that determination back to the commencement point, further described as:

(All Subject to Survey)

Data Reference and source

Cadastral data sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021).

Watercourse lines sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021).

Baseline roads and tracks sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021).

Mountain ranges, beaches and sea passages sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021).

Native title determination outcomes sourced from the National Native Title Tribunal (August 2021)

Road 250K Geodata (Series 3) sourced from Geoscience Australia (August 2021)

Reference datum

Geographical coordinates are referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94), in decimal degrees.

Use of Coordinates

Where coordinates are used within the description to represent cadastral or topographical boundaries or the intersection with such, they are intended as a guide only. As an outcome to the custodians of cadastral and topographic data continuously recalculating the geographic position of their data based on improved survey and data maintenance procedures, it is not possible to accurately define such a position other than by detailed ground survey.

Schedule 4 – Description of Determination Area

The determination area comprises all of the land and waters described by lots on plan, or relevant parts thereof, and any rivers, streams, creeks or lakes described in the first column of the tables in the Parts immediately below, and depicted in the maps in Schedule 6, to the extent those areas are within the External Boundary and not otherwise excluded by the terms of Schedule 5.

Schedule 5 – Areas Not Forming Part of the Determination Area

The following areas of land and waters are excluded from the Determination Area as described in Part 1 of Schedule 4 and Part 2 of Schedule 4.

Schedule 6 – Map of Determination Area

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MORTIMER J:

INTRODUCTION

1    The parties have sought a determination of native title under s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), with associated orders, recognising the native title of the Northern Kaanju People. This determination is being made on the same day as a determination recognising the native title of the Southern Kaantju People, and a day prior to determinations recognising the native title of the Lama Lama People and the Ayapathu People. I note that in the materials supplied to the Court there are a variety of spellings for the names of these groups. In these reasons I adopt the spellings used by the Cape York United #1 applicant in its submissions in support of the determinations.

2    Together, these determinations resolve four parts of the Cape York United #1 claim, within a geographic region that has come to be known as the ‘Kwok Report Area’ or the ‘Kwok Timetable Area’, after the anthropologist engaged by the Cape York United #1 applicant to prepare connection material about the area. It is important to note that, by orders made on 8 February 2022, parcels of land in respect of which the parties to the Cape York United #1 proceeding could not reach agreement were excluded from the consent determinations today and tomorrow. For this reason, the determinations do not reflect the entirety of the country claimed by each of the four native title holding groups.

3    Recognising that each of the groups is a distinct native title holding group, with rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the determination area which comprise separate and distinct native titles, the Court makes orders and gives reasons separately for each group.

4    For the Northern Kaanju People, the significance of today’s determination resonates in the material before the Court. I can do no better than refer to the words of Robert Nelson in his evidence at [36]:

When I am out there on country I am glad because I am home. You can hear the old people out on country, you know they are there. They know we are there. You can hear them talking to themselves, you can feel them.

5    The Court’s orders, and the long overdue recognition by Australian law, will help preserve the country of the Northern Kaanju People so that this deep connection is protected and so that future generations can, as Mr Nelson explained, have the rules and knowledge about country passed on to them in order to continue that connection.

6    For the reasons set out below, the Court is satisfied it is appropriate to make the orders sought, and that it is within the power of the Court to do so.

THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT

7    The application for consent determination was supported by a principal set of submissions filed on behalf of the applicant on 2 June 2022. The State filed submissions on 10 June 2022. The Court has been greatly assisted by the parties’ submissions.

8    The applicant relied on an affidavit of Kirstin Donlevy Malyon, filed on 2 June 2022 (the Malyon 2022 affidavit), and a further affidavit of Ms Malyon filed on 21 June 2022. Ms Malyon has been the Principal Legal Officer at the Cape York Land Council (CYLC) and has had the carriage of the Cape York United #1 claim. She deposed to how the Northern Kaanju s 87A agreement was approved, and to how the Northern Kaanju Aboriginal Corporation was nominated as the prescribed body corporate (PBC) for the Northern Kaanju Determination, annexing the notice of nomination for that PBC and its consent to act as the relevant PBC for the determination area.

9    In terms of connection material for the four determinations, the applicant relied on:

(a)    the expert report by Dr Natalie Kwok entitled “Northern Central and Princess Charlotte Bay Region” filed on 16 November 2017 (the Kwok 2017 report);

(b)    the amended expert report of Ms Kate Waters dated 5 March 2018 and filed on 6 March 2018 (the Waters 2018 report); and

(c)    the supplementary expert report by Dr Kwok dated April 2019, which has been annexed to an affidavit of Parkinson Wirrick, a legal officer with the CYLC, affirmed and filed on 2 June 2022 (the Wirrick 2022 affidavit).

10    In terms of connection material for the Northern Kaanju determination in particular, the applicant relied on:

(a)    the witness statement of Rodney Daniel Accoom dated 12 March 2019, which is also annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit;

(b)    the witness statement of Robert Nelson dated 28 March 2019, and annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit;

(c)    the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Billy Chungo dated 15 May 2020, which was annexed to an affidavit affirmed by Mr Wirrick and filed on 22 October 2021 (the Wirrick 2021 affidavit);

(d)    the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Billy Wenlock (Ukunchal) dated 16 April 2021, which is annexed to the Wirrick 2021 affidavit;

(e)    the apical report of Ms Waters regarding John A-chicin-ga (father of Dick York) dated 6 August 2021, and annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit;

(f)    the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Peter Boyd and Polly Kepple dated 9 August 2021, and annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit;

(g)    the additional apical report of Ms Waters regarding Peter Boyd and Polly (Kepple) dated 25 January 2022, and annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit;

(h)    the report of Ms Waters dated 1 June 2022 concerning the amended group description for Northern Kaanju (the Waters 2022 report), which is annexed to the Malyon 2022 affidavit; and

(i)    the report of Ms Waters dated 22 May 2022, entitled “Response on Dick York in relation to the Kwok Report Area”, and annexed to the Malyon 2022 affidavit.

11    The applicant also relied on paragraphs [5] to [30] in an affidavit of Ms Malyon filed on 27 October 2021 (the Malyon 2021 affidavit), which concerned the re-authorisation process undertaken by the applicant in the period from April to September 2021.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

12    The Cape York United #1 claim was filed in this Court in December 2014. It covers various types of tenure, including pastoral leases, protected areas, reserves and areas of unallocated State land. It is the largest native title claim currently before the Court, and covers a majority of the area of Cape York for which no determination under the Native Title Act has been made.

13    The complex procedural history and nature of the Cape York United #1 claim is summarised in the Court’s reasons for the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations made last year: Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 2) (Kuuku Ya’u determination) [2021] FCA 1464 at [3], [12]-[19], [30]-[37]; Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 3) (Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determination) [2021] FCA 1465 at [3], [13]-[20], [28]-[35].

14    Relevantly to the present determination, the Northern Kaanju People have been recognised as one of the groups holding native title recognised in Wuthathi, Kuuku Ya’u and Northern Kaanju People v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 381 (the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination). In that determination, the Court acknowledged the grouping of the Northern Kaanju, the Kuuku Ya’u and the Wuthathi Peoples under the collective term Pama Kungkaychi (‘northside people’). The native title held by the Northern Kaanju People under the terms of that determination relates to an area north-east of the present determination area.

THE AGREED GROUP DESCRIPTION

15    The description of the Northern Kaanju native title holding group on today’s orders differs from that of the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination. The description of the Northern Kaanju Native Title Group in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination is:

Northern Kaanju People

1.    The descendants of:

(a)    Billy Moreton and his son George Moreton Snr;

(b)    Big Johnny Nguulpam Horseboy as a result of union with his two wives Nellie and Mary Anne;

(c)    Tom ‘Flathead’ Platt;

(d)    Old Lady Rosie (wife of Ambrose Butt and Old Paddy);

(e)    Annie Small as a result of union with her husband Ambrose Butt;

(f)    Billy Boyd as a result of union with his wife Kathy Robertson;

(g)    ‘King’ Bob Robertson;

(h)    George Mamoose (also known as George Mamus);

(i)    Victoria John;

(j)    Charlie Boko;

(k)    Billy Chungo;

(l)    Annie Mullet, and of her parents Mickey and Nellie;

(m)    Jim Copo (Cooper) as a result of union with his wife Elsie;

(n)    Charlie James, brother of Tommy ‘Flathead’ Platt;

(o)    Nancy Boyd as a result of union with her husband Mickey (Monkey) Boyd (also known as Monkey Gordon);

(p)    Toby Horseboy;

(q)    Annie King, also known as Long Annie (wife of Paddy King), and of her brother Roy Stevens;

(r)    Old Lady Mapoon (wife of English Barkley) and of her daughter Alice Mark;

(s)    Dick York and of his brothers Larry York and Old Man Balrat;

(t)    Annie Densley, also known as Short Annie, and of her brother Joe Sullivan;

(u)    Paddy King;

(v)    Nellie Fox (also known as Nellie Greedy) and of her sister Mary Ann Johnson;

(w)    Annie Night Island (wife of Frederick Charles Mortenson), of Mary Ann and of Rosie Percy; and

(x)    Wally David.

2.    Those persons adopted by any Northern Kaanju People referred to in item 1 above in accordance with traditional laws and customs.

16    The amended description proposed in the Northern Kaanju s 87A agreement makes the following changes from the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination:

(a)    the apical ancestors Tom ‘Flathead’ Platt, Jim Copo (Cooper), Dick York and his brothers Larry York and Old Man Balrat, Toby Horseboy and Wally David are removed;

(b)    references to the spouses of Billy Boyd, Big Johnny Nguulpam Horseboy, Old Lady Mapoon (Mapun) and Annie Night Island have been removed, and Nancy Boyd is now described as ‘Nancy Boyd (spouse of Monkey Boyd)’;

(c)    the replacement of one generation of certain apical ancestors with another, older generation, namely: the replacement of Old Land Rosie with her parents, the replacement of Annie Thompson/Small with her parents, the replacement of Victoria John with her mother, the replacement of Billy Chungo with his father, the replacement of Annie Densley and Joe Sullivan with their father, and the replacement of Nellie Fox (aka Nelly Greedy) and Mary Ann Johnson (aka Mary Ann Malandadji) with their father;

(d)    the description for the apical ancestry line from Billy Moreton has been split into ‘Billy and Annie/Alice (parents of ‘George Lefthand Moreton’) and ‘George Moreton Snr’;

(e)    the apical ancestors Jimmy Saturday and Dolly (parents of Monkey Boyd), Father of Billy Wenlock (Ukunchal), Tommy Larsen and Polly Roberson have been added; and

(f)    the description of some apical ancestors has been reformulated, namely: ‘Annie Mullet and of her parents Mickey and Nelly’ has been reformulated as ‘Mickie and Nellie (parents of Annie Mullet)’, ‘Charlie James, brother of Tommy ‘Flathead’ Platt’ has been reformulated as ‘Charlie James (Flathead) Pascoe’, ‘Annie King, also known as Long Annie (wife of Paddy King), and of her brother Roy Stevens’ has been reformulated as ‘Annie King (aka Long Annie) and her brother Roy Stevens’, and ‘Paddy King’ has been reformulated as ‘Paddy King (spouse of Annie King)’.

17    The applicant and State submit that the majority of these differences will not change the composition of the native title holding group from that established in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination. However, there are two differences that will result in a change to the composition of the group. First, the addition of ‘Father of Billy Wenlock (Ukunchal)’ as an apical ancestor will result in the inclusion of people who are not included in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination holding group. Second, the removal of ‘Dick York and his brothers Larry York and Old Man Balrat’ will result in the exclusion of people who were included in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination holding group. In its 2018 response to the applicant’s statement of issues, facts and contentions, the State had indicated that it did not agree it was appropriate to exclude Dick York and his brothers as apical ancestors for the Northern Kaanju People. However, following the preparation of further evidence by Ms Waters, the State has accepted the applicant’s position that Dick York’s removal is appropriate because his country affiliations were outside the Northern Kaanju determination area, and his description as Kaanju in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination was based on the use of the term Kaanju to distinguish people geographically, “rather than as a specific group indicator”. The Court accepts the parties’ submissions on this matter.

AUTHORISATION

The Northern Kaanju s 87A agreement

18    As with the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu determinations, the process undertaken by the CYLC with the Northern Kaanju native title group was methodical. The two major decision-making processes which needed closely to involve landholding groups were the processes to settle boundary descriptions, and the processes to settle group composition.

19    The Boundary Identification Negotiation and Mediation or ‘BINM’ process was adopted in April 2020 to deal with the reality that different groups hold different native titles in the claim area: see Kuuku Ya’u determination at [18], [25]-[26] and Uutaalnganu determination at [19], [23]-[24]. The BINM process was employed for the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Lama Lama and Ayapathu claims. This is what Ms Malyon describes in the Malyon 2022 affidavit at [73]-[113].

20    Putative boundary descriptions for Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju were developed from desktop research by the CYLC and Dr Kwok in the middle of 2020. These descriptions were informed by consultations with the anthropologists engaged by the CYLC for neighbouring areas. The putative boundary descriptions were provided to the State on 24 July 2020 without prejudice to the applicant’s position. Thereafter the CYLC facilitated consultations with the Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju groups throughout Cape York and in Cairns. This involved engaging Dr Kwok and Mark Winters (another consultant anthropologist) to consult with relevant families, elders and important individuals for a combined total of 47 days, and engaging Dr Kevin Murphy, Dr Anthony Redmond, Dr Ray Wood, Dr Frank McKeown and Dr David Thompson to consult with relevant families, elders and important individuals in the neighbouring groups for a combined total of 35 days. The consultations helped identify who should attend meetings on behalf of the four groups and their neighbours, and helped ensure that those people would attend those meetings. The consultations also helped inform the proposed descriptions for the four groups (which were eventually agreed with the State in March 2021).

21    Following the consultations, in the second half of 2020, separate ‘preliminary meetings’ were held for each of the Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju native title groups, at which maps of the preliminary boundaries were provided and changes were proposed by group members. Afterwards, ‘boundary meetings’ were held between neighbouring groups, at which the applicant, through its legal representatives, took instructions as to the final descriptions of common boundaries, ultimately to be provided to the State.

22    At each boundary meeting were the relevant consultant anthropologists, a CYLC lawyer and a CYLC anthropologist. The intention was that the boundary meetings be attended by people with ancestral connections to, and specific knowledge of country, as well as those who had cultural authority to speak for and make decisions for country, as confirmed by the consultant anthropologists. The meetings commenced with an overview by the consultant anthropologists of the available anthropological materials. The consultant anthropologists then assisted the group representatives by providing advice, translation and feedback about anthropological and genealogical matters. Group representatives also had access to the CYLC’s genealogical records (subject to confidentiality), private break-out spaces, a series of maps and the State’s response to the putative boundary descriptions. At the end of the meetings, agreement as to boundaries by consensus was sought, and if there was agreement, it was recorded in written resolutions.

23    In the case of the Northern Kaanju, preliminary meetings were held on 26 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. They were notified by post and email sent to all members of the Northern Kaanju native title group, and also publicised on the CYLC’s website and Facebook page, and community noticeboards. At these meetings, an appropriate description of the Northern Kaanju native title group was discussed. Further Northern Kaanju meetings were held on 4 and 17 November 2020, to resolve the questions of whether Dick York and his siblings should be listed as apical ancestors, whether Peter Boyd and Polly (Kepple) should be included as apical ancestors, and whether the other changes summarised at [16] above should be made. Attendees were assisted by the research of Ms Waters, and decided to make those changes to the group description. Ms Waters subsequently produced an additional apical report regarding Polly (Kepple), a response to the State’s concerns about the status of Dick York and a report on the amended group description for the Northern Kaanju (see [10(g)-(i)] above).

24    Boundary meetings were held for the Northern Kaanju native title group with the Kuuku Ya’u (Kungkay) native title group on 19 February 2021, with the Kuuku Ya’u (Nyiimuchin/Kanthanampu) native title group on 20 February 2021, with the Southern Kaantju native title group on 29 March 2021, with the Uutaalnganu (Night Island) and Southern Kaantju native title groups on 30 March 2021, with the Weipa Peninsula People native title group on 28-29 May 2021, with the Atampaya native title group on 30 May 2021, and with the Central West Wik native title group on 9 June 2021.

25    The s 87A agreements were settled and authorised after the BINM process was complete. In the Malyon 2022 affidavit, Ms Malyon deposes to the notification of meetings to discuss, and subsequently authorise, the s 87A agreement for the Northern Kaanju determination. The Northern Kaanju authorisation meeting was conducted on 20 April 2022, and resolutions were passed unanimously to authorise the s 87A agreement.

26    At a wider level, the Cape York United #1 applicant’s authority to enter into the Northern Kaanju s 87A agreement stems from the re-authorisation process between April and September 2021. Ms Malyon describes this process in her 2021 affidavit, and the Court describes and approves it in Kuuku Ya’u determination at [30]-[37] and Uutaalnganu determination at [28]-[35].

27    In Kuuku Ya’u determination at [38]-[50] and Uutaalnganu determination at [36]-[48], I explained why I considered it appropriate to make orders under s 84D(4) of the Native Title Act to deal with any uncertainty arising from differences between the claim group description in the original Cape York United #1 application and those in the proposed determinations at a more local level, both as regards the Court’s power to make a determination and the way in which a claim can be authorised.

28    In those determinations, I agreed with the State’s submission that the weight of authority supports the view that the Native Title Act affords flexibility to shape the content of the ultimate determination of native title, provided there is compliance with s 94A and s 225 of the Act. However, orders were made under s 84D(4) out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any doubt about the validity of the consent determinations. At [50] in Kuuku Ya’u determination and [48] in Uutaalnganu determination, I said:

It is plainly in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, in circumstances where the overall Cape York United #1 claim is gargantuan, and has already consumed seven years’ worth of resources, mostly sourced from public funds. Substantial, dedicated and methodical efforts have been made to comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act in each step along the way to these first two determinations. Despite significant factual and legal challenges, the two key parties have navigated a consensual path to the recognition of native title for the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) groups. All other respondents have been consulted and given opportunities to participate in the process as it has progressed. They have been included in steps in the complex timetables. All consent to the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations. If ever there was a situation in the Court’s native title jurisdiction where a favourable exercise of discretion by the Court is appropriate to ensure resolution of a claim to which all parties agree, this is that situation.

29    In each of the present four determinations, the Cape York United #1 applicant proposed that similar orders be made. The State agreed with that proposal. For the reasons given in the extract above, I continue to consider such orders are appropriate.

THE CONNECTION OF THE NORTHERN KAANJU NATIVE TITLE GROUP TO THE DETERMINATION AREA, THROUGH THEIR TRADITIONAL LAW AND CUSTOM

30    In her 2017 report, Dr Natalie Kwok presents native title connection evidence in relation to the North Central Cape York and south-eastern Princess Charlotte Bay areas. This report covers all four determination areas for today and tomorrow. This evidence is informed by the historical, anthropological and archival record, as well as on-site field research and interviews with people who were believed to have a traditional connection to those areas, and a range of environmental and linguistic data set out in the report.

31    Dr Kwok describes how Aboriginal people were in occupation of the determination areas at the time of the British assertion of sovereignty, and that laws and customs observed at that time recognised rights and interests in relation to lands and waters. While she acknowledges that the local peoples were placed under significant pressure from pastoralists and government authorities to leave their homelands, Dr Kwok describes and explains the strong efforts to resist this pressure, and how many people remained on country or connected to country, including by accepting exploitative work in order to remain in the area. Dr Kwok reviews and summarises the contemporary laws and customs in relation to land tenure in the North Central Cape York and south-eastern Princess Charlotte Bay areas, and concludes that these rights and interests originate in the pre-sovereignty contemporary laws and customs, having been passed down primarily patrilineally and shared by elders in didactic stories.

32    The applicant relies on this evidence as establishing a credible basis for the proposition that each of the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Lama Lama and Ayapathu native title claim groups have maintained their connection to their respective determination area, under their respective traditional laws and customs, since prior to the British assertion of sovereignty. The State accepts such a credible basis exists. I accept the parties’ submissions.

33    In relation to the Northern Kaanju People, Dr Kwok’s report states their country is generally recognised as lying north of the Archer River and Sefton Creek. At [710], Dr Kwok states:

The Kaanju people have been repeatedly recorded as occupying a central position in the range country of Cape York Peninsula, with interests extending from the headwaters of the Pascoe in the north to the upper reaches of the Archer River system in the vicinity of Coen. The Northern Kaanju [Koko I’o] and Southern Kaanju divide, reflecting differences in perspective on the part of their neighbours and minor dialectal distinctions, have been flagged since at least the late 1920s. The broad extent with which the name is associated and the fact that Thomson recorded the name’s meaning as spear thrower handle, leads me to suspect that the name Kaanju may have had a relatively general application to upland peoples in the region, although it also functions as a language name.

34    Dr Kwok’s evidence explains the distinction between the Northern Kaanju People and the Southern Kaantju People by reference to the early research of Dr Donald Thomson (in 1933), and evidence given by senior Kaanju men in the course of early claims made under the Aboriginal Lands Act 1991 (Qld). As Dr Kwok notes, distinctions between the two groups are found in the names traditionally given to them (Thomson had observed that the Northern Kaanju were more usually referred to as ‘Koko I’o’ (or ‘Kuuku I’yo’), whereas the Southern Kaantju were more often called ‘Kaanju’), linguistic differences between the two groups (Northern Kaanju dialects are spoken more slowly and less abbreviated than Southern Kaantju dialects) and various cultural, social and historical differences, as noted in the research of Prof Chase (Kwok 2017 report at [583]-[586]). Dr Kwok notes that there is some “local resistance” to a distinction between Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju. The witness statement of Rodney Accoom at [36] refers to this matter. Dr Kwok concludes in her report that the division “marked off allied families” and was “commensurate with the complexities of classical group formation and naming traditions previously canvassed” (Kwok 2017 report at [588]). The parties have accepted this opinion and this reflects a key aspect of the s 87A agreements, which the Court accepts.

35    The evidence supporting the Northern Kaanju group description, and the identification of apical ancestors, is found throughout the reports prepared by Dr Kwok and Ms Waters. It is this material which has underpinned the differences between the present claim group description and that provided in the 2015 Northern Kaanju Determination. Of particular note in this regard is the careful and thorough research regarding Billy Chungo, Billy Wenlock (Ukunchal), John A-chicin-ga, Peter Boyd and Polly Kepple, referred to at [10] above. I accept these matters were explored and presented to group members at a series of meetings described by Ms Malyon in the Malyon 2022 affidavit. They formed part of the s 87A authorisation process.

36    Finally, as had been done in the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu determinations, it is appropriate to set out here some of the evidence of the Northern Kaanju group members, whose lived experiences and connections to culture and country provide the foundation for this determination. As I noted in the 2021 determinations, it is the group members who “live and understand their law and custom, and how it connects them to their country”: Kuuku Ya’u determination at [68]; Uutaalnganu determination at [59].

37    Rodney Daniel Accoom has connections to Kanthanampu, Kaanju, Uutaalnganu (Night Island) and Kuuku Ya’u country, and can speak for an area of Kaanju country from Brown Creek to the north side of the Archer River, from Geikie Creek to the western side of the Tozer Range, and along the Wenlock River to the proximity of the Peninsula Developmental Road. Mr Accoom is connected to this country through his mother, who in turn is connected to the country through her mother.

38    Mr Accoom describes the trips he takes with his children onto Kaanju country, during which he explains the rules about the land and its use (at [59]-[60]):

Each year, when the roads are cleared and it's the dry season, I go out to many parts of my Kaanju country, such as Wenlock River, Orchid Creek and Archer River to camp and fish. I take my youngest kids with me whenever I go out there. I teach them about the country and what you can and can't do, just like I was taught by my parents and grandparents.

It’s important that the younger generation learn what I know so that they can pass it on to their kids and grandkids. That's how's it's happened for thousands of years and is what is expected of us.

39    As Mr Accoom recounts, these rules were passed down to him through stories told by his elders (at [81]-[82]):

My elders, grandmother and grandfather taught me what we could and couldn’t do on country. I was lucky, I spent a lot of time sitting with my elders around campfires and learnt a lot from them. I used to sit and listen to the stories that my mother and father and some of the other old people, like Maudie Sandy (my grandmother on mother’s side) and Hanna Pascoe (previously Accoom, my grandmother on my father’s side) would tell about living at the Old Mission and about our country. I feel privileged to have had that opportunity to spend so much time with the old people.

I teach my own kids and grandkids what I’ve learnt. We pass on our laws and customs by talking to our kids and grandkids. We show them how we do things when we go out on country. Much is learned sitting around a campfire and yarning. This is where the old people tell their stories. Much of the learning happens when we go out places; I tell them about the stories associated with the places we are visiting. It’s important that we teach the young ones because they are who will carry on our traditions.

40    Mr Accoom’s account of the rules regarding permission to enter, use and speak for country is made in the following terms (at [46]-[55]):

I am a Kaanju man but I focus on my area around Wenlock River and Orchid Creek, K8 on the Map [annexed to Mr Accoom’s witness statement as filed]. I would never speak for someone else’s country and they shouldn't speak for mine. That is what we were taught by my parents and grandparents.

If I see bad things happening on other people’s country, then I don’t step in to say to those people doing the bad things that they should stop, because that isn’t my right. But I would mention it to the people whose country it is, so they can decide what they want to do about it. For instance, I know that some Aboriginal people from Weipa had visited Wenlock Falls, which is the Malandussi / Praying Mantis Story, in the southern part of northern Kaanju country. They went there to fish, and had left all the carcasses of the fish they had caught, just laying around. I didn’t say anything to those people from Weipa, but I did mention it to Robert Nelson whose country it is.

Who has rights and who can speak depends on many things, including who else is attending meetings. For example, I won’t speak up if there is a more senior person with knowledge talking about country, but I will if they have given me permission or asked me to attend a meeting because I can speak up. Things can change over time, just like I used to speak for Kanthanampu but now I speak for Kaanju. It can depend on the issue and who else is going to meetings, and if I have been asked to come to a meeting by the traditional owners of that country.

If someone wants to come to my country, for example, to go hunting or fishing, they must ask permission, and they do.

Whenever I go on to someone else's country, like the Kuuku Ya’u, I ask permission.

My wife’s mum is Kuuku Ya’u, so whenever we go to her country at Chilli Beach we let her know out of respect. She has given us permission to go there anytime, but I still let her know, because that is the right thing to do in our law and custom. My parents and grandparents always said that it was important to abide by the law and show respect, otherwise you might get sick. It also stops there being trouble between the different groups.

The same applies to when people come on to my country, people ask me if it’s okay to go to the Old Mission because I have rights in that area. It is Uutaalnganu or Night Island Area and I have rights there. Most people have been given permission to go there whenever they want, but people still mention that they are going to go, just in case they shouldn’t for some reason.

You must ask permission to go into a place and the old people will wipe underarm sweat to welcome you. You do this when you bring someone on to country for the first time too.

If I take someone to a spirit place then I have to rub my underarm sweat on to the person so that the spirits will recognise them as being with me. When I went with old Toby to Chuulungun, K8 on the Map, where David Claudie is, for the first time he did this to me. That way the spirits will protect us and not make us sick.

This is the same with the Kuuku Ya’u, they follow this rule, as do all the mobs around here. I know this because I travel and speak to people around the Cape.

It is also against the Rainbow Serpent. The Rainbow Serpent Story is not my story to tell but it covers my country.

41    Robert Nelson traces his connection to Northern Kaanju country primarily through his father, whose country is said to stretch from Spear Creek, north of Schramm Creek, southwards down to the Archer River. He also explains that his mother’s country starts from Love River – at the Aurukun side – and finishes at a place called Red Bank at Box Creek Junction, on the Archer River.

42    At [19] and [21]-[22], Mr Nelson describes how he learned about his country over the course of his youth:

I learned about the country from my Dad, my grandfather Jimmy Lawrence and my Uncle Victor. I learned how to burn the grass, work the cattle, how to track and not get lost. My Dad taught me how to put the fire break in from Coen to Archer River. Ever since we were small, he would tell me and my sister about the Moreton area. Every night he talked to us. He said that your home is at Moreton, Batavia and MalanDadji, on the Rocky Creek Junction [J8] [a reference to a map provided in Mr Nelson’s statement] where Rocky Creek flows into the Wenlock River. MalanDadji is the Lightning and Thunder Story. I can’t talk about that Story. There are 4 Story Places in Dad's country that are very sacred which we can’t talk about.

…

When I was 19 years old, I left Coen and went to Chillagoe to work, but I came back to my country in about 1973. I worked from my 20s with my Dad and Uncle Ted Lawrence, one of my mum’s brothers. They took me out on country, and told me about my country while we were mustering.

In my 30s, I was up and down my father’s country, from the top to the bottom. I went out there with Toby Horseboy, Tommy Silver and George Wilson. They taught me about my country - they said what not to touch, what not to break. They took me hunting and fishing too. We camped out at Rocky Crossing and down the bottom of Moreton Station, where the bend in the Wenlock River is. They told me about country but they were strict; they only told me once. If I wasn’t listening, they wouldn’t tell me again. They told me about sites and places; where you can’t go and how the Stories came up in the country.

43    Mr Nelson explains the rules governing passing on rights to country at [23]-[27]:

My grandfather George Moreton Senior had Tommy Nelson, and then Tommy Nelson had me - that is how you get your rightful country. You have to talk to your grandparents, or go back to your aunty or Uncle, and ask them which way you should go. Back in the old days, you had to stay one side. You couldn’t jump up and then later cross the line and talk for the other side.

I could go back to Oyola Thumotang, where I was born, but when I go back there I don’t tell the traditional owners of that place what to do - they tell me what to do. ‘Oyola’ means ‘sing’, ‘tuma’ means ‘fire’ or ‘light’, and ‘tang’ means ‘land’.

You can get some rights if you are married - proper cultural marriage. The woman can be taken onto her husband’s country.

You can also get rights if you are adopted in culture. My Uncle Banjo Rokeby was from York Downs, but he was grown up by my grandfather Jimmy Lawrence and stayed at Oyola Thumotang. He got full rights in that country from Jimmy Lawrence.

People say they have rights at Moreton Station [H6] because their old people used to go there but it was a telegraph station. People used to come there to get rations and tobacco. They don’t have any rights there - they were just passing through. That is my Dad’s country from his grandfather.

44    Mr Nelson emphasises the importance of cultural protocols about access to and protection of land, in both past and contemporary practices (at [39]-[40], [43]-[44], [48] and [71]):

In the old days, when you went to someone else’s country, we had to take something over there to the next tribe; we had to take a ‘mark stick’. If you went without it, you would be speared on the spot. We would take a spear, woomera, some other things or a mark stick to the next tribe. The mark stick was a little thing made of an ironwood tree or matchwood tree with marks on it. The marks on a mark stick are like the marks on the body which say what tribe you are, what rank you are, initiation. This is only for the men or really important women.

When you got to the boundary there would always be someone there; there were guards all around the boundary of country. They were older people from the tribe, and they would have some young ones there. They knew where the water was, and where the walking trail was, and they would block the boundary and you would not be able to go in there without the mark stick. If you had something like a mark stick, they would take you to the camp but then you had to follow them back to the boundary.

…

You can’t go into another clan's country or you will get sick. Going to their country the wrong way shows disrespect. People from another clan or white people are supposed to get smell if they go on country. If they don’t, they might get sick and they might not be able to walk.

If anyone wants to come on my country, they should speak to me first. If people are going to go on my country or take anything from my country they need to ask me. If they do the right thing, they can come again but if they make a mess they will not be able to come on again. I will tell one of our young ones to go with them. That person will have to stay with the young ones while they are on my country. This is the same if it is someone from another tribe - they can't come on to my country without asking me.

…

In my father’s country, I can go anywhere. I go on country and I use bush medicine and I go hunting and fishing on my country and I can go on and do this without asking anybody. I check the country all the time when I am out there. At every turnoff, I check to see if there are tourists out there, and to see if anybody is doing the wrong thing or taking things from my country. That is what we are there for – to look after our country, not to just go there and stay.

…

We were taught by our old people that we needed to protect the land, to look after the land and not to go on other people’s land. We know where other people’s land is. If you talk about someone else's country or go on their country you would get punished. We were told this by our old people from when we were young children. You can’t eat this and you can’t eat that. My grandfather, my Dad’s and my mum and Uncle taught me these things.

THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 87A

45    Section 87A applies to an agreement reached “at any stage” of an existing proceeding for a proposed determination of native title in relation to an area (the determination area) that is “part of, but not all of”, the area covered by the native title determination application under s 61 of the Native Title Act.

46    Sub-section 87A(1) requires:

(a)    the existence of a proceeding in relation to an application for a determination of native title;

(b)    after the period specified in a notice given under s 66 of the Act, an agreement in writing for a proposed determination of native title in relation to part, but not all, of the application area;

(c)    that the requisite persons are parties to the agreement; and

(d)    that the terms of the agreement are in writing and signed by, or on behalf of, the requisite persons.

47    Sub-section 87A(2) allows for the parties to file a proposed determination of native title and that has occurred on this application.

48    Sub-sections 87A(4) to (6) provide:

(4)    The Court may make an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination of native title without holding a hearing, or if a hearing has started, without completing the hearing, if the Court considers that:

(a)    an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination would be within its power; and

(b)    it would be appropriate to do so.

Note:    As the Court’s order involves making a determination of native title, the order needs to comply with section 94A (which deals with the requirements of native title determination orders).

(5)    Without limiting subsection (4), if the Court makes an order under that subsection, the Court may also make an order under this subsection that gives effect to terms of the agreement that involve matters other than native title if the Court considers that:

(a)    the order would be within its power; and

(b)    it would be appropriate to do so.

(6)    The jurisdiction conferred on the Court by this Act extends to making an order under subsection (5).

Sub-section 87A(1): pre-requisites

49    As the applicant sets out at [46]-[51] of its submissions, which the State adopts, each of the pre-requisites in s 87A(1) is satisfied. Each s 87A agreement has been signed by the requisite persons after appropriate notification.

Sub-section 87A(4)(a): orders within power

50    For the reasons set out at [52]-[57] of the applicant’s submissions, with which the State agrees, I am satisfied the orders sought are within the power of the Court.

51    The Cape York United #1 application is valid and there is no extant determination of native title in relation to the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu or Lama Lama determination areas. As the State notes, areas over which previous exclusive possession acts have occurred are expressly excluded. There are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the determinations that would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Act. I am satisfied that the form of the determinations complies with s 94A and s 225 of the Act and, for the reasons that follow, the requirements of s 87A of the Act are otherwise satisfied.

Sub-section 87A(4)(b): appropriate to make the orders sought

52    I set out my approach to the question of “appropriateness” and the Court’s function in the recent consent determination reasons relating to the Nanda People: see Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1849 at [52]-[56], by reference to earlier authorities. In Taylor on behalf of the Yamatji Nation Claim v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 42 at [63]-[65], I explained the particular importance of the role of the State in the consent determination process. As I did in the Kuuku Ya’u and Uutaalnganu determinations, I adopt and apply the observations I made in Drury and Taylor here.

53    I am satisfied there has been a methodical and careful approach to group description, boundary description, connection and tenure adopted by all parties in relation to the four determinations, including Northern Kaanju. Other active respondents have been consulted and given the opportunity to comment on matters affecting their interests. The Court affords considerable weight to the position taken by the State, on behalf of all members of its community, that it is appropriate for the Court to make the proposed Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu and Lama Lama determinations. The role of the State of Queensland in the detailed step by step process in the Cape York United #1 claim has involved considerable human and financial resources, and the Court can be confident the State has reached a carefully considered view before agreeing to these determinations.

NOMINATION OF A PRESCRIBED BODY CORPORATE

54    A separate PBC has been nominated under s 56 of the Native Title Act for each of the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu and Lama Lama determination areas. In the Malyon 2022 affidavit at [19]-[20], [35]-[36], [53]-[54] and [70]-[71], Ms Malyon describes how each PBC was nominated by the native title group concerned, and that each PBC has provided its consent to nomination. In these circumstances, the nomination of the PBCs is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

55    The Court acknowledges the dedication of Northern Kaanju group members, the members of the Cape York United #1 applicant and their legal representatives, anthropologists and other expert advisers, all of whom have worked together to achieve this determination.

56    In these four determinations, it is especially important to acknowledge the contribution of Ms Kirstin Malyon, who has recently left the Cape York Land Council, but whose tireless and high quality work assisting claim group members in securing recognition of their native title has been immensely valuable, and appreciated by the Court.

57    The Court also recognises the role played by the State and the other active respondents in this proceeding, and commends the work of National Judicial Registrar Stride and external mediators Glen Kelly and Joshua Creamer in the processes that have facilitated the Court’s decisions today and tomorrow. The Court also thanks all its staff whose work behind the scenes in relation to mediations, hearings, travel, communications and preparation of orders and reasons is just as vital to the outcome as any of the more visible work a Judge might do.

58    These four determinations have been achieved despite the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives and work of all concerned over the last two years or more, and to have persisted in seeing these determinations through to a conclusion under such difficult circumstances is a particularly impressive achievement.

59    It bears repeating that every determination that native title exists is important. While there may be numerous determinations around Australia each year, there is only one for this country, the country of the Northern Kaanju People. This is their day. The recognition given by a determination of native title, for those who have long been denied any recognition by Australian law of their deep and abiding connection to their country, is a step in the struggle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to regain what was taken away from them, and to make their own choices about how their country and its resources are protected, used and maintained.

Associate:

Dated:    5 July 2022

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

QUD 673 of 2014

Federal Court of Australia

District Registry: Queensland

Division: General