Combined Mandingalbay Yidinji-Gunggandji Claim v State of Queensland

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The Court is presently concerned with an amended notice of motion which was filed on 18 November 2004. The substantive relief that is sought in that notice of motion is as follows: '… 4. That the current applicants for the Native Title Claim Group, namely, the following group of persons acting jointly: · Vincent Mundraby, · Les Murgha, · Stewart Harris, · Frederick (Ricko) Noble, be replaced by the new applicant, pursuant to Section 66B(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) consisting of the following group of persons acting jointly: · Vincent Mundraby, · Les Murgha, · Stewart Harris, · Charles Thomas Garling; 5. That the application in this matter be amended in accordance with the amended Form 1 Application annexed to the Affidavit of Kym Raymond Elston filed herein. 6. Such further or other orders as the Court considers appropriate.' 2 This application, pursuant to s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ('the Act), has a long and unhappy history. The original claims which led ultimately to this combined claim, the joint Mandingalbay and Yidinji-Gunggandji claim, Q6016 of 2001, has a history of more than ten years. 3 So far as recent events are concerned, in December 2003 the State of Queensland made an informal offer to the applicant, consisting of those four named persons, to resolve the claim by a consent determination. All four members of the applicant then indicated that they had authority to accept the informal offer. In February 2004, it became apparent that Mr Noble was not intending to follow through on his previous undertaking. The matter came before the Federal Court on 10 and 11 May 2004 for directions, and I then indicated that the Court would strike the matter out if it became impossible for progress to a determination to occur, because of irreconcilable differences between the persons who were the applicant on the claim in Q6016 of 2001. 4 On 14 July 2004 there was a meeting of members of the applicant at the Yarrabah Aboriginal Council's boardroom, and Mr Noble, one of the four persons constituting the applicant, refused to execute the undertaking. 5 The matter came before the Federal Court on 20 July 2004. The transcript of what occurred on that day is highly relevant as giving meaning to the events that have occurred since. It appears from that transcript that Mr Noble admitted, at page 3, that: '… when we had the meeting, I agreed to sign.' However, he said: 'I had to take it back to the others so the others could have a look at the papers, because we never seen the papers when we had the meeting. It was sort of like an agreement in principle.' 6 In the proceedings on 20 July 2004, Mr Noble indicated that he was not prepared to sign the undertaking. He said: '… we weren't fully aware of the practical limitations of it because we never had proper representation.' I noted that Mr Noble claimed that the difficulties involved the "Rigsby" report, a request for peer review, 'manipulated by the Land Council ever since we started.' In the course of those complaints I said to him: '[The claim] has resulted in an offer by the State of Queensland, which has associated with it positive benefits to members of the Yarrabah community, which you are at the very least postponing, if not putting in complete jeopardy.' 7 The Court was informed by Mr Elston on behalf of the North Queensland Land Council that it had expended in excess of $750,000 over ten years in prosecuting the claim. He spoke of meetings in an attempt to resolve the impasse, which Mr Noble had refused to attend. The first of the meetings which he chose to attend was on 14 July 2004. 8 Since 10 May 2004, the Land Council had spent in excess of $32,000 in the form of accommodation, transport costs, meeting costs and other administrative costs. At the meeting of 14 July 2004, Mr Elston said that it was his understanding that the members constituting the applicant had agreed to provide an undertaking to this Court in regard to processing the claim. 9 I also heard on 20 July 2004 from Mr Charlie Garling, the elder of the Christian group, and he said that his people wanted to progress this claim. I note that Mr Elston then said: 'If the claim was to be struck out, the Land Council, on my instructions, would not be interested in returning to that claim in view of the amount of money that's already been spent on it.' 10 Mrs Fewings, for the State of Queensland, said that: '… like the Land Council, the State has put a huge amount of resources into this claim.' 11 In relation to the two other Yarrabah claims, Mrs Fewings told the Court that: 'We in fact are at the stage where we are circulating a draft determination. … the State, like the North Queensland Land Council, would find it very hard to go back, after having applied all the resources that have been applied, to then go back and start again with this claim if in fact there can be no resolution of the conflict within the claim group. 12 I was told by Mr Mundraby, who is one of the four persons constituting the applicant, that all of the people of Yarrabah are in favour of the proposal proceeding. Mr Garling told the Court the following: 'I can't give a decision over Mr Noble because I am not an applicant … I will overrule his decision, as an elder.' I said: 'That merely highlights the difficulties that there are within the Aboriginal claimant group.' There seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding by Mr Noble as to what is the applicant claimant group. 13 Section 61(1) of the Act, in a table, sets out the persons who may make an application for a native title determination. The table provides that: 'A person or persons authorised by all 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.' 14 The native title claim group here is not the Gunggandji People; it is not the Yidinji People; it is not the Mandingalbay People. This is a joint claim, and the persons authorised are persons who are authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group. This misunderstanding seems to infect Mr Noble's appreciation of s 251B of the Act, which deals with authorising the making of applications. 15 Section 251B provides: '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.' 16 That section speaks of all the persons in the native title claim group. "All the persons in the native title claim group" are not simply all the Gunggandji People or all the Yidinji People or all the Mandingalbay People. Mr Noble misunderstands the provision of the Act when he claims, "I was put on as an applicant by the elders of the Gunggandji People. Only the elders of the Gunggandji People can take me off." 17 This view is wrong. The requirements of authorisation speak of an authorisation by all the members of the native title claim group. 18 Section 66B of the Act provides: '(1) One or more members of the native title claim group (the claim group)… in relation to a compensation application, may apply to the Federal Court for an order that the member, or the members jointly, replace the current applicant for the application on the grounds that: (a) either (i) the current applicant is no longer authorised by the claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, or (ii) the current application has exceeded the authority given to him or her by the claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it; and (b) the member or members are authorised by the claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it.' Subsection 66B(2) provides: 'The Court may make the order if it is satisfied that the grounds are established.' 19 The remarks that I expressed on 20 July 2004 had regard to the observations by French J in a case Anderson (on behalf of the Ballardong People) v Western Australia (2003) 204 ALR 522. In that case French J declined a motion to strike out the application. His Honour said at pars 39 and 40: 'Section 66B authorises members of a native title claim group to seek an order from the court that an applicant be replaced on the grounds of want or excess of authority by the claim group. … There must be evidence identifying the nature of the decision-making processes followed by the native title group resulting in one or more of their members being given authority to act in relation to the claim on behalf of the group.' 20 French J said at par 50: 'Unless there is a resolution of this matter between the majority applicants and the dissenters, or satisfaction of the conditions for an application under s 66B, then the Ballardong native title determination application is likely to be stalemated. If the applicants are unable to agree upon its future then no further steps can realistically be taken in relation to it unless and until they do. The dispute between Mr Robin Yarran and other applicants has been of long standing and has surfaced in this court on more than one occasion in directions hearings relating to this application. There is nothing to suggest that any resolution is likely in the near future.' His Honour continued, in par 51: '… Having regard to the serious doubts which now arise about the ability or willingness of the applicants to cooperate to progress the application it is appropriate, in my opinion, to make a springing order that the application will stand dismissed unless by 31 March 2004 a motion for its amendment or for further programming directions, agreed to by all named applicants, has been filed in the court.' 21 In Daniel v Western Australia (2002) 194 ALR 278 ('Daniel'), French J ordered that an applicant be replaced in a native title matter, pursuant to the provisions of s 66B. It is useful to have regard to some of the observations by his Honour in that case. There the stated ground for the replacement of Mr Walker, one of the persons who constituted the applicant, was that he was no longer authorised by the claim group to make the application or to deal with matters arising in relation to it. 22 Having referred to the provisions of s 66B, his Honour referred to relevant definitions in s 253 of the Act, in particular the definition of "claimant application" and the definition of "native title claim group", which means: '(a) in relation to a claim in an application for a determination of native title made to the Federal Court - the native title claim group mentioned in relation to the application in the table in subsection 61(1);' That is to say, "all the persons who according to their traditional laws and customs hold the common or group rights and interests comprising the particular native title claimed." 23 Section 61(4) of the Act speaks of the requirement for a native title determination application to name the persons or otherwise describe them sufficiently clearly in the native title claim group so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is one of those persons. 24 I have already referred to the notion of "authorisation", which is referred to in s 61(1) and s 66 and which is defined in s 251B. Wilcox J in Moran v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [1999] FCA 1637 described the obtaining of proper authorisation of a claimant application as a 'fundamental requirement of the Native Title Act.' At par 48 his Honour said: 'It is important that those who come to the Court asserting a native title right, with all this involves in terms of effort and expense to other parties and the Court itself, should be properly authorised to make the claim. As I have explained, this does not necessarily mean the applicant must be individually authorised by each member of the claimant group. It will be enough that the applicant has been authorised to make the claim in accordance with a process of decision-making recognised under the traditional laws and customs of the claimant group. In meritorious cases, it is unlikely to be an onerous requirement. Traditional laws and customs are likely to exist in cases where the claimant group still maintains a vigorous communal life.' In Daniel, French J said at par 11: 'It is of central importance to the conduct of native title determination applications and the exercise of the rights that flow from their registration, that those who purport to bring such applications and to exercise such rights on behalf of a group of asserted native title holders have the authority of that group to do so.' (Emphasis added) And his Honour said at par 13: 'Section 66B recognises that a claim group which can confer authority on applicants to deal with matters arising in relation to a native title determination application, can also withdraw that authority. And at par 15 his Honour said: 'The power to remove an applicant under s 66B(1) depends upon a cessation of the authority conferred upon the person to be removed.' 25 French J at par 17 said: 'Notwithstanding the beneficial character of s 66B in supporting the continuing authority of the claim group, those who bring applications under that section must satisfy the conditions which it imposes. Those conditions can be enumerated as follows: (1) There is a claimant application. (2) Each applicant for an order under s 66B is a member of the native title group. (3) The person to be replaced is no longer authorised by the claim group to make the application and to deal with the matters arising in relation to it. (4) Alternatively, the person to be replaced has exceeded the authority given to him or her by the claim group. (5) The persons making the application under s 66B are authorised by the claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising under it.' 26 In the present case the North Queensland Land Council assisted with advertising in respect of a s 66B meeting in connection with application Q 6016 of 2001. There was a mail-out to all claim group members. There were advertisements in the Townsville Bulletin, the Northern Territory News and the Cairns Weekend Post and also advertisements on the local Indigenous radio station. Then, importantly, a meeting was held on 6 October 2004 at the Yarrabah Community Hall. 27 There is evidence before the Court, which I accept, which sets out what occurred in respect of that meeting. 28 Bernard Paul Beston has been a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for the past 33 years and he is employed as the Principal Legal Officer of the Gurang Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation), a native title representative body located in Bundaberg. He was asked by the Chief Executive Officer of the North Queensland Land Council Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation to attend a s 66B authorisation meeting and to act as an independent chairperson. 29 He met on 5 October with Mr Kym Elston, the Senior Legal Officer, Special Projects, of the North Queensland Land Council. He was provided with a document which is labelled "Information Kit" for the present claim, and a copy of that document is attached to his affidavit filed on 20 October 2004. That document makes it plain what the purpose of the meeting was, and the history leading up to the calling of that meeting. Mr Beston says that on 6 October 2004 he travelled to Yarrabah and was met by a Mr Vincent Mundraby, Mr Les Murgha and Mr Stewart Harris. 30 These persons were previously not known to Mr Beston. They made it plain to him that the reason for calling the meeting was to seek the authorisation of the members of the native title claim group to remove Mr Frederick Noble as a member of the applicant. They explained that they were facing a guillotine order that I had made that the claim would be automatically struck out if Mr Noble persisted in his intransigent opposition to the desires of the other persons constituting the applicant in claim Q6016 of 2001 and no motion to remove Mr Noble was filed on or before 20 October 2004. 31 The meeting was scheduled to commence at 10.30 am. There was an obvious delay in commencing the meeting due to the fact that there was a considerable number of people who needed to complete the attendance sheet before the meeting could start. Mr Beston deposes: 'The meeting commenced at approximately 11.30 am. I introduced myself to the meeting and outlined what I believed were reasonable protocols for the conduct of the meeting. I then took the attendees through the information kit that I had been provided with and that every attendee had received. I then asked the meeting to advise whether there was a traditional law and custom for making decisions and that the meeting was advised by Mr Vincent Mundraby that the Mandingalbay Yidinji traditional law and custom was to accept and follow the elders' decision. Mr Charles Garling whom I had met before the meeting, advised the meeting that the traditional law and custom of the George Christian group (Gunggandji People) was that they follow the elder and that he was the eldest son of the George Christian group who make up part of the Gunggandji claim. A number of other people spoke at the meeting and I was not aware of their names but understood that they were asserting that no decision could be made without Mr Frederick Noble being present. I asked the meeting whether Mr Noble was present and was advised that he was not. As the meeting had commenced one hour after the appointed time for its commencement, I formed the view that there had been adequate time for Mr Noble to attend, had he intended to do so. I informed the Meeting his attendance was not a prerequisite requirement for the meeting to proceed and it was appropriate for the meeting to proceed and to make decisions.' 32 There is, in evidence, as an annexure to Mr Beston's affidavit, that purports to be the minutes of the meeting at Yarrabah Community Hall on 6 October 2004 marked "BB2". Mr Beston says that: ' "BB2" is what I believe to be a true copy of the minutes of the meeting at Yarrabah on 6 October 2004.' 33 After noting preliminary matters and some discussion about the information kit, the minutes record: 'Bernie asked about the groups decision making process and noted that Vincent said it was done traditionally and asked the floor if they concurred with that process. Evelyn Noble spoke and noted that everyone in the clans speaks for their own area and not any other clans area. Eddie Murgha asked that before the meeting went further, and on behalf of the elders, could the meeting be opened with a word of prayer to acknowledge God as their ancestors had been doing for many years. He proceeded to offer the prayer. Bernie again asked about the traditional decision making process and noted that white man's law required that when a decision was being made you either use a traditional process or white man's process. Vincent noted that in their group they have their group of elders and would prefer to use their custom and tradition and would listen to what the elders have to say. Bernie reiterated the purpose of the meeting and noted that notices went out to everyone about the meeting requesting the removal of Ricko Noble as 1 of the 4 Applicants. Bernie asked if Ricko was present at the meeting for him to address the group and voice his views. Ricko was not there at the time. Evelyn said that Ricko was on his way and was having car troubles and asked why they had received a letter saying that Ricko doesn't speak for the claim any more and seemed to be under the impression that Ricko was being kicked out of the group. Bernie explained that Ricko was still and always will be a member of the claim group but the meeting was just asking that the group remove Ricko as an Applicant to the claim. Evelyn asked why that couldn't be done in Court and Bernie further explained that it was not a decision for the Court to make. Bernie attempted to put forward the motion that Ricko Noble be removed as an Applicant and is no longer authorised by the group to be an Applicant. Jenny Martin disagreed that everyone had the right to vote as she was of the firm belief that Ricko could only be removed by family members of the ancestor George Christian and she asked Bobby Sam to confirm that to which he nodded his head in support. Bernie asked if she was against the process of removing Ricko. Jenny believed that only Gunggandji elders should have the right to remove Ricko.' It is that claim which Mr Noble has repeated before this Court today. 'She reiterated that descendants of George Christian's group should have a meeting by themselves to discuss the removal of Ricko as an Applicant. Bernie noted that the group had plenty of time, prior to today's meeting, to meet with each other for that purpose and asked the people in the George Christian group of their opinion on the matter. Charlie Garling addressed the group as the elder for the George Christian group and noted that 146 descendants of that group who reside in Darwin had a meeting and agreed to remove Ricko as an Applicant. He noted that if they wanted to abide by custom and tradition that he was the elder of the group and he would make the decision on behalf of the group and opposed their views. Charlie said to everyone that he didn't want any fighting with one another and that everyone was related and should all stand united and not divided. Bobby Sam addressed the group and noted that native title was about traditional ownership of land that before the group goes down the process of recognition, it's always been known that Gunggandji People are the traditional owners for Yarrabah. He talked about a traditional process and noted that the Christian family needed to make a decision about who is to talk about the group. He went on to say that the people who chose Ricko are the same people who should take Ricko off and that everyone with historical connection or otherwise, need to live together in the community. He referred to something that was said by an elder who had passed on that anyone who was born in Yarrabah or had lived there for a certain amount of time is Gunggandji. Other groups should be asked to leave the meeting and make a decision or they will have to decide by white man's law. Vincent noted that he did not agree 100 % with what Bobby had said. He referred to the Information Kit and made particular reference to where it said "claimant group". He noted that the claimant group makes up every other group and that everyone needs to make a decision. He asked Bernie to put forward the motion again.' The minutes record: 'Motion 1: That Ricko Noble be removed as an Applicant and is no longer authorised by the group to be an Applicant. Moved: Vincent Mundraby Seconded: Stewart Harris. Bernie asked the George Christian group if they accept what Charlie Garling had said earlier by following traditional processes. He reiterated what Charlie had said that he has to go against the clan to get this determination through as its been going on for too long. Bernie asked if people were in favour of the motion and then asked if anyone was against. The motion was carried unanimously. Bernie proceeded to put forward another motion. Motion 2: To appoint Charlie Garling as the replacement Applicant who will be authorised to make the claim application for native title arising in relation to the claim. Moved: Stewart Harris Seconded: Fred Mundraby. Carried unanimously with no opposition. Bernie noted there were only 10 days left prior to the next Directions Hearing with the Federal Court to get the paperwork done for removing Ricko Noble and replacing him with Charlie Garling. Bernie put forward another motion to be passed.' The minutes record: 'Motion 3: To fill out all the paper work to replace Ricko Noble with Charlie Garling as his replacement and to get that through to the Court within the next 10 days. Moved: Kathy Velapotkosky Seconded: Edgar Harris Carried unanimously. Bernie asked the group if everyone was happy with the three motions that were passed today and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Prior to wrapping up the meeting [insert Ricko's sisters name] made comment that the Applicant who was being removed should be present at the meeting. Bernie noted that Ricko was given an invitation but did not have to be present at the meeting for decisions to be made. She mentioned that he had car problems. She noted that the family went outside to talk and make a decision however, Bernie noted that the meeting had already made a decision. Vincent noted that his mob was departing the meeting and thanked everyone and noted that the consent determination in December will be on behalf of all of the Yarrabah mob.' And the minutes record: 'Meeting closed'. 34 Mr Beston says in his affidavit: 'As I was leaving the community hall at Yarrabah I was confronted by an Aboriginal person who I now know as Mr Frederick Noble and he aggressively abused me and the reasons for my attendance at the meeting. I explained that I was an independent person from the Gurang Land Council and I had nothing to do with his native title claim and that the meeting had been conducted according to the law. He informed me that he already had sovereign rights to the land and did not need the Native Title Act to take those away from him. I informed him that if he did not like the outcomes of the meeting he always has the opportunity to put his case before the Federal Court. I felt threatened by his aggressive manner and I left the meeting immediately after this altercation.' 35 The material that Mr Frederick Noble has sought to rely on includes, amongst other things, affidavits signed by Charles Thomas Garling and also a letter or a document headed To Whom It May Concern. Mr Garling, having had his attention directed to these documents, insisted that he supported the relief claimed in the notice of motion and wished to be substituted as one of the persons named as applicant for Mr Noble. 36 The evidence establishes that each of the four persons, who were the subject of the motion to be the applicant after the authorisation of Mr Noble was withdrawn, are all members of the claimant group. It is submitted on behalf of the movers of the motion under s 66B that the motions that were passed at that meeting on 6 October at Yarrabah were made in accordance with the traditional law and custom of the native title claim group for the claimant application. 37 In particular, reference is made to par 2 of the affidavit of 19 October 2004 of Les Murgha filed 20 October 2004, to par 3 of the affidavit of Charles Thomas Garling of 18 October 2004, and par 2 of the affidavit of Vincent Mundraby in his affidavit filed 20 October 2004. They also rely on the evidence deposed to by Mr Beston in par 9 of his affidavit. 38 Each of those four persons on 15 December 2004 signed a submission to the Court on behalf of the applicant in the following terms: 'We submit that we have met the conditions required for the removal of Mr Frederick (Ricko) Noble as a person who jointly makes up the Applicant in our claimant application to be replaced by Mr Charles Thomas Garling and we respectfully request your Honour to exercise his discretion and grant the motions sought in the Amended Notice of Motion filed herein on 18 November 2004.' 39 Each of the factors identified by French J in Daniel are established by the evidence: the relevant claimant application is the native title determination application made by the Mandingalbay Yidinji-Gunggandji People, Q6016/01; each of the new applicant is a member of the native title claim group, and each applicant for the order under s 66B of the Act is a member of the native title claim group. 40 Frederick Noble is no longer authorised by the claim group. I refer to the motion which, Mr Beston deposes, was passed unanimously that Mr Frederick Noble be "removed as an applicant" and is no longer authorised by the group to be "an applicant". Finally, the Court is satisfied that the new applicant is authorised by the claim group to bring the motion. 41 Mr Beston has deposed in par 11 of his affidavit that the meeting resolved to appoint Mr Charles Garling as the replacement member of the applicant who is authorised, together with the other members, to deal with the claim. He records that the motion was carried unanimously by those in attendance at the meeting. Mr Noble was not in attendance at the meeting. However, the absence or even dissent of various members of a native title claim group will not necessarily be fatal to a s 66B application. See, for example, Ward v Northern Territory (2002) 196 ALR 32, and Wiradjuri Wellington v New South Wales Minister for Land and Water Conservation [2004] FCA 1127, where the absence from the relevant meeting of an applicant whom the meeting resolved to remove was not fatal to the application to have her removed under s 66B of the Act. Whether the resolutions were authorised by the claim group requires consideration as to what was the appropriate decision-making process and whether it was followed. 42 The Act contemplates that if there is a traditional decision-making process, then it is that process which should be followed for the purposes of authorising claimant applications. It is only when there is no such process that such decisions are to be made in accordance with the process agreed to and adopted by the members of the claim group. 43 The question of authorisation, whether by a traditional decision-making process or by a process agreed to and adopted by the members of the claim group, has to be in respect of the members of the claim group and not a sub-group of the members of the claim group. In this case the conditions for the making of the order in my judgment have been met. It follows that the Court has a discretion as to whether or not to make the order. 44 In this particular case, a very high priority has been given to this claim and extensive resources have been directed at negotiations over the past three years in particular both by the North Queensland Land Council and by the State of Queensland. Here, it is apparent from the history of the matter, in particular what was said on 20 July 2004, and in the material which Mr Noble has presented to the Court today, that Mr Noble has not been prepared to co-operate with the other members of the applicant in reaching a consent determination in the combined Mandingalbay Yidinji-Gunggandji application. 45 The conditions for the exercise of the discretion having been met, the case for the Court to exercise its discretion is overwhelming. This will have the effect, in my opinion, of significantly raising the prospect of a successful consent determination to the benefit of all the members of the Yarrabah community. There are substantial funds, up to a $1 million, in respect of building projects which are in abeyance as a result of the lack of progress or obstructionism in relation to the evolution of a consent determination. 46 I make the following orders: (1) The current applicant for the native title claim group, namely, the following group of persons acting jointly: Vincent Mundraby, Les Murgha, Stewart Harris and Frederick (Ricko) Noble, be replaced by a new applicant pursuant to s 66B(1) of the Act consisting of the following group of persons acting jointly: Vincent Mundraby, Les Murgha, Stewart Harris, Charles Thomas Garling. 47 I note that subs 66B (3) of the Act provides: 'If the Court makes the order, the Registrar of the Federal Court must, as soon as practicable, notify the Native Title Registrar of the name and address for service of the person who is, or persons who are, the new applicant.' And subs 66B(4) provides: 'If the claim contained in the application is on the Register of Native Title Claims, the Registrar must amend the Register to reflect the order.' 48 Of course, Mr Noble was, and is, and will continue to be, a member of the claimant group.