Gilmour J
In this matter, the Court granted the applicant leave to file an amended native title determination application to change the description of the Yi-Martuwarra Ngurrara claim group’s apical ancestors to include some new apical ancestors and remove some others.
The Court applied a two-step process, set out in Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 746, per Reeves J at [56] and [57], as the legal requirements for a claim group seeking to alter its composition:
authorisation of the amendment: if a native title claim group wishes to alter its composition, the existing claim group must meet and determine how the claim group is to be reconstituted; and
authorisation of new applicant by the new claim group: the new or reconstituted claim group must meet and decide to authorise a new applicant to make the claim on behalf of the new claim group.
This two-step process is reflected in s 61 and s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Authorisation of the amendment to the current claim group description took place at a meeting held on 9 April 2014 at Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Immediately following this meeting, another meeting was held where the newly reconstituted claim group authorised new applicants to make the claim.
Gilmour J found that both Steps 1 and 2 were met on the basis that:
adequate notification of the meetings and their content was appropriately communicated;
the first meeting was open to be attended by the claim group as described and by the claim group as intended; and
the second meeting was open to be attended by the reconstituted claim group as well as any person who claims to hold native title rights and interests within the Yi-Martuwarra Ngurrara native title claim area.