Rares J
In this matter the Court considered an application under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) to replace the current applicant in a native title determination application with 12 new people (the replacement applicant) as the current applicant was no longer authorised to make the application or deal with the matters arising from the claim.
Background
The Court had dismissed 2 previous competing applications for replacement applicants. Although the Court found that there was dysfunction in the claim group none of 3 authorisation meetings had been validly called. See Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland [2013] FCA 255 in Related Content.
Consequently, a new authorisation meeting was convened on 25 May 2013. His Honour was satisfied by the evidence that the meeting, attended by 173 persons who identified as claim group members, was properly convened and constituted. It was clear from the voting records, kept by an independent facilitator, that nearly all claim group members voted. Legal representatives also attended the meeting and made presentations. It was accepted at the meeting that there was no particular process of decision-making under the traditional laws and customs of the Mandandanji people that had to be complied with and therefore a process was adopted by which a written resolution would be read out, moved and seconded, before it was voted on by a show of hands. The Chairperson was responsible for a count being made and recorded.
The meeting resolved that only people descended from named apical ancestors could speak and participate in the meeting. It was also decided that the composition of the claim group and claim boundary would remain as it was and 12 people (3 representatives each of 4 descent groups) authorised to replace the current applicant.
The Court noted that no person appeared to oppose the court orders to replace the current applicant and while the correct identity of the claim group's members remained to be resolved the meeting had clearly demonstrated that the claim group wanted the replacement applicant to prosecute their native title application.
His Honour concluded that while it would have been preferable to receive evidence of advertisements and notification of the authorisation meeting the Court was satisfied that the very large attendance at the authorisation meeting demonstrated that the meeting was properly constituted and held and all of the various interests in the claim group were represented.
Orders
The Court ordered that the replacement applicant jointly replace the current applicant and granted leave to file an amended application recording the Applicant's changed constitution.