Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia

THE PARTIES 8 The parties to the Nanda Application are: (a) the Nanda Applicant; (b) the State of Western Australia (State); (c) Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC); (d) Warrego Energy EP512 Pty Limited; (e) Telstra Corporation Limited; and (f) the following pastoralists: (i) James Michael Drew; (ii) Loreto Mary Drew; and (iii) Gabor Holdings Pty Ltd. 9 The parties to the Nanda #3 Application are: (a) the Nanda #3 Applicant; (b) the State of Western Australia; (c) Warrego Energy EP512 Pty Limited; and (d) Telstra Corporation Limited.

MATERIAL RELIED UPON 10 The following materials are before the Court: (a) the section 87 Agreement signed by the parties with an annexed Determination in relation to the Determination Area filed 28 November 2024 (the Minute); (b) the joint submissions of the Nanda Applicant, the Nanda #3 Applicant (together, the Nanda Applicants) and the State seeking a consent determination of native title in relation to the Determination Area dated 28 November 2024; and (c) an affidavit of Colin McKellar, a lawyer employed by YMAC, affirmed on 26 June 2021 addressing the authorisation of the Minute and the nomination of the Nanda Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (ICN 8871) (NAC) as the prescribed body corporate (PBC) pursuant to section 56(2)(a)(i) of the NTA.

Nanda Application 11 The Nanda Application is the result of the combination of two separate native title determination applications, being: (a) Application WAD 6004 of 1998 (Nanda People WC 94/7) (Nanda People application); and (b) Application WAD 6136 of 1998 (Nanda WC 96/111) (Naagaja Nhanda Tharwuda application). 12 The Nanda People application was first lodged with the NNTT on 18 August 1994. The application related to land and waters within the boundary of the current Nanda Application. The Naagaja Nhanda Tharwuda application was lodged with the NNTT on 28 November 1996. 13 By order of this Court dated 29 September 2000 the Nanda People application was amended so that it was combined with the Naagaja Nhanda Tharwuda application, with the Naagaja Nhanda Tharwuda application being the lead application, and was thereafter referred to as the Nanda Application. It was amended twice more; once on 24 April 2001, and again on 18 July 2018. The latter amendment shrunk the claim area pursuant to an inter-indigenous agreement reached with the native title claimants in an adjoining native title determination application WAD 6236 of 1998 (Malgana Application). 14 On 28 November 2018, a portion of the Nanda Application was the subject of a determination of native title made under section 87A of the NTA (Nanda Part A Determination): see Violet Drury v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1849 (Drury v WA). Persons described in the application were determined to hold native title in respect of the Part A claim area. The Nanda Part A Determination excluded, however, those portions of the Nanda Application that were geographically overlapped by native title determination application WAD 21 of 2019 (MW Application) and native title determination application WAD 339 of 2018 (Malgana #2 Application). 15 A year later, on 4 November 2019, another portion of the Nanda Application was the subject of a determination of native title (Nanda Part B Determination): see Violet Drury v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2019] FCA 1812 (Drury v WA (No 3)). In respect of a Shared Area described in Nanda Part B Determination, native title was determined to be held by each of the Nanda People and Malgana People described in Schedule Six of the determination. This eliminated any remaining overlap between the Nanda Application and the Malgana #2 Application. 16 Pursuant to section 64(1B) of the NTA, following each of the Nanda Part A and Part B Determinations, the Nanda Application was deemed to be amended to remove the area covered by those determinations.

Nanda #3 Application 17 The Nanda #3 Application was filed in the Federal Court on 29 March 2019, on behalf of the same Nanda People on whose behalf the claim in the Nanda Application was made. It was made in respect of an area of unallocated Crown land over which native title had previously been partly extinguished, which area is entirely within the external boundary of the Nanda Application. 18 The Nanda #3 Application was made because, at the date the original Nanda Application was made, the area of the Nanda #3 Application was partially covered by a pastoral lease. Accordingly, section 47B(2) of the NTA, which disregards the extinguishment of native title rights by the creation of prior interests, but which depends upon the claim area not being covered by a freehold estate or a lease, could not apply to that area at the time of the Nanda Part A Determination. By the date of making the Nanda #3 Application that area had become unallocated Crown land, and that application was made to seek the benefit of the application of s 47B(2) of the NTA.

Overlap with the Mullewa Wadjari application 19 The 2018 Nanda Part A Determination excluded areas of the Nanda Application geographically overlapped by the MW Application, and this area of the Nanda Application could not be determined until the overlap was resolved. 20 By orders made in December 2017, the resolution of the overlapping native title claims of the Nanda and MW claim groups (and resolution of the overlapping native title claims of the Wajarri Yamatji and MW claim groups) was referred to mediation before Judicial Registrar Daniel. The mediation process was intensive and long-running, with no less than 30 mediation events between 31 January 2018 and 24 February 2021. 21 The Nanda Applicants and MW Applicant reached an in-principle agreement to resolve the overlap on 14 May 2019, which agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the parties. However, on 14 June 2021 the MW Applicant informed the other parties that it would not implement the in-principle agreement: see Papertalk on behalf of the Mullewa Wadjari People v State of Western Australia [2022] FCA 221 at [3]-[6] (Mortimer J, as her Honour then was). 22 After further attempts at mediation the Court then set Separate Questions aimed at resolving the overlap, which were listed for hearing over three weeks with the lay evidence commencing on 8 April 2024. 23 On 26 May 2023 the Nanda Applicants (and the Wajarri Yamatji Applicants in a related proceedings) filed an interlocutory application for summary judgment against the MW Applicant. The Court heard the application for summary judgment on 7 December 2023 and made orders on 20 December 2023 granting summary judgement: Papertalk on behalf of the Mullewa Wadjari People v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2024] FCA 1132 (Murphy J). The period by which the MW Applicant was required to file an application for leave to appeal expired on 10 October 2024. No such application was made by the MW Applicant. 24 As a consequence of the above, the MW Application has been dismissed and the Nanda and Nanda #3 Applications are no longer overlapped by any other native title determination application.

THE CLAIMANTS AND THEIR COUNTRY 25 The Nanda Application covers an area of approximately 1,831 square kilometres immediately to the southeast of the Nanda Part A Determination, and the Nanda #3 Application covers an area of approximately 1,200 square kilometres within that. 26 A large part of the Determination Area is unallocated Crown land which was historically under pastoral lease, and the Determination Area also comprises land that is part of Yandi Station, as well as reserves, freeholds and roads. It consists of one main part, and two much smaller areas to the northeast of the main. The main part borders the areas held under existing determinations in favour of the Yamatji Nation to the south, and the Nanda People determinations to the west and north, together with a determination made the same day as this determination in favour of the Wajarri Yamatji to the east, with the northern border following a stretch of the Murchison River. The smaller areas are located further to the northeast along the Murchison River, and border the Wajarri Yamatji to the south and east, and the existing Nanda determinations to the north and west. 27 In 2018, in the first consent determination relating to Nanda country, Drury v WA at [24]-[47], Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) described the Nanda People, their traditional law and customs, their deep and continuing connection to their country, and their maintenance of their connection to country despite colonization, conflict, new diseases, displacement and dispossession. I cannot improve upon those words, and they apply just as strongly today as they did then.

THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE NTA 28 Section 87 of the NTA prescribes the following preconditions before the Court can make a consent determination of native title: (a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the NTA has ended (s 87(1)); (b) there is an agreement for a proposed determination of native title in relation to the proceeding (s 87(1)(a)); (c) the terms of the proposed determination, in writing signed by or on behalf of all of the parties, is filed with the Court (s 87(1)(b)); (d) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court (s 87(1)(c)); and (e) it appears appropriate to the Court to make the orders sought (ss 87(1A) and 87(2)). 29 The requirements of s 87 that may be satisfied solely by the parties have been met in the proposed Determination. I note that: (a) the notification period under s 66 of the NTA ended on 19 June 1995 with respect to the Nanda Application and 18 September 2019 with respect to the Nanda #3 Application; (b) the parties have reached agreement as to a proposed determination of native title; and (c) the terms of the proposed Determination are in writing, and are annexed to the s 87 Agreement which is signed by or on behalf of all necessary parties. This material has been filed with the Court. 30 The balance of the Court's consideration thus turns upon whether the Court has the power to make the orders sought (s 87(1)(c)) and whether it is appropriate to make the orders sought (s 87(1A) and 87(2)). I address those matters below.

The power to make the orders sought - s 87(1)(c) 31 I am satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, the proposed Determination would be within the power of the Court. 32 First, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Nanda Applications: s 81 of the NTA. 33 Second, the native title rights and interests that are proposed to be declared properly reflect the characteristics of native title rights and interests set out in s 223 of the NTA and the terms confer native title rights and interests recognisable by the common law of Australia. Those requirements, as considered in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria [2002] HCA 58; 214 CLR 422, were summarised by North J in Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria (No 5) [2011] FCA 932 at [22] as follows: In summary those requirements are that there was, at sovereignty, a body of persons united in their acknowledgment and observance of a body of laws and customs, who held rights and interests in land and waters pursuant to those laws and customs, and by which they were connected to the land and waters. The group must have maintained its identity and its connection with the land and waters, and must continue to acknowledge the laws and observe the customs substantially uninterrupted, from sovereignty to the present. 34 The rights and interests recognised by the common law are those native title rights and interests that existed at sovereignty, which survived that fundamental change in the legal regime, and can now, by resort to the NTA, be enforced and protected: Yorta Yorta at [77]. 35 Third, the proposed Determination is for a determination of native title in relation to an area for which there is no approved determination of native title (section 13(1)(a) of the NTA) and there remains no approved determination in relation to the area the subject of the proposed Determination (section 68 of the NTA). 36 Fourth, there are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the proposed Determination which would otherwise require orders to be made under section 67(1) of the NTA. 37 Fifth, the requirements of s 87 in respect of the Nanda Applications are otherwise satisfied. 38 I also consider that the proposed Determination complies with s 94A of the NTA by setting out the details of each of the matters required to be described under s 225 of the Act: (a) I am satisfied having regard to the terms of the proposed Determination and the submissions filed by the parties that there is probative material against which the Court can assess whether the matters set out in s 225 can be stated in the proposed Determination: see Agius v South Australia (No 6) [2018] FCA 358 at [68] (Mortimer J, as her Honour then was); and (b) in relation to the matters required to be described under s 225: (i) the persons, or groups of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title (s 225(a)) are described in Paragraph 3 and Schedule Seven. That is sufficient to identify who will hold native title: Attorney-General (NT) v Ward [2003] FCAFC 283; 134 FCR 16 at [15]; (ii) the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the Determination Area (s 225(b)) is described in Paragraphs 4 and 5, subject to Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8; (iii) the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the Determination Area (s 225(c)) is described in Paragraph 10 and Schedule Five; (iv) the relationship between the native title rights and interests and the other interests (s 225(d)) is described in Paragraphs 11 and 12; (v) whether the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of that land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others (s 225(d)) is described in Paragraph 8; and (vi) in relation to the requirement in the preamble to s 225 to identify the "particular area" to which the determination relates, the Determination Area is described in Prder 13 and Schedule One and depicted in the maps attached to Schedule Two, to the extent those areas are within the External Boundary and not otherwise excluded by the terms of Schedule Four.

Whether it is appropriate to make the orders sought 39 Section 87(1A) provides: The Court may, if it appears to the Court to be appropriate to do so, act in accordance with: (a) whichever of subsection (2) or (3) is relevant in the particular case; and (b) if subsection (5) applies in the particular case - that subsection. 40 In the present case, subsection (2) is the relevant subsection and subsection (5) does not apply. Subsection 87(2) provides: If the agreement is on the terms of an order of the Court in relation to the proceedings, the Court may make an order in, or consistent with, those terms without holding a hearing or, if a hearing has started, without completing the hearing. 41 The key words in s 87(1A) are "… if it appears to the Court to be appropriate…". To decide whether it is appropriate to make the orders sought it is necessary to understand the requisite standard of satisfaction. 42 The Court has expressed the requisite standard in numerous decisions, which I summarised in Austin on behalf of the Eastern Maar People v State of Victoria [2023] FCA 237 at [33]-[37], as follows. Those remarks were made in the context of an agreement under s 87A of the NTA but they are equally applicable to an agreement under s 87: [33] The requirement under s 87A(4)(b) that the Court be satisfied that the proposed consent determination is "appropriate" takes into account the emphasis in s 87A, and in the NTA more generally, of resolving issues through negotiation and alternative dispute resolution, with the objective of resolving native title claims without judicial determination (Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [36] per North J (Lovett (No 1)); Agius (No 6) at [63]). It is also consistent with the overarching obligation under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to promote the just, efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes: see Agius (No 6) at [66]; Phyball v Attorney-General (NSW) [2014] FCA 851 at [9] per Jagot J. It recognises, consistent with the limitation expressed in s 68, that a determination of native title is a determination of rights and interest in land that confers proprietary rights against the whole world: Agius (No 6) at [64]; Malone on behalf of the Western Kangoulu People v State of Queensland [2021] FCAFC 176; 287 FCR 240 at [92] per Rangiah J. [34] It is necessary to understand that in undertaking that assessment the State was not required to be satisfied that there is evidence as to those matters that would meet the standard of the balance of probabilities, nor necessarily to be satisfied that there is evidence in an admissible form at all. Rather, the State was required to be satisfied that there is material which provides a foundation for the application which is believable and rational: Yaegl People #1 v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] FCA 647 at [9] per Jagot J. [35] The State is obliged to discharge its responsibilities in the interests of the community in Victoria as a whole: Smith v Western Australia [2002] FCA 1249; 104 FCR 494 at [38] per Madgwick J. This necessarily includes and recognises the interests and claims of the claimant group and of other Indigenous peoples of Victoria: Agius (No 6) at [72]. This imposes upon the State a duty to be satisfied that there is a "credible", "rational", "sufficient" or "cogent" basis for the determination (Western Bundjalung People v Attorney-General (NSW) [2017] FCA 992 at [21] per Jagot J; Agius (No 6) at [64], [74]; Holborrow on behalf of the Yaburara & Mardudhunera People v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2018] FCA 1108 at [45] per Barker J), without the level of proof required in a contested application (Western Bundjalung at [21]; Malone at [87]), and it requires the Court to consider the material presented for the limited purpose of determining whether the State has made a rational decision in that regard: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] per Emmett J; Lovett (No 1) at [37]; Brown v Northern Territory [2015] FCA 1268 at [23] per Mansfield J. [36] The requisite standard of satisfaction is intended to enable rather than prohibit the making of a consent determination. It is not to be understood in rigid terms as a threshold or barrier to making a determination, and it should be approached rationally and flexibly to ensure that the purposes of s 87A of the NTA will be achieved; Lovett (No 1) at [36]; Agius (No 6) at [75]; Holborrow at [44]. [37] As I said in Eagles on behalf of the Combined Thiin-Mah, Warriyangka, Tharrkari and Jiwarli People v Western Australia [2019] FCA 508 at [19]-[22] in relation to a consent determination under s 87, in remarks which are equally apposite to a consent determination under s 87A: In deciding whether it is appropriate to make the proposed orders it must be kept in mind that the Court's function under s 87 focuses on the making of an agreement by the parties, and the power must be understood in the context of the Act's emphasis on negotiation and alternative dispute resolution, rather than judicial determination in a contested proceeding. The power in s 87 is only exercisable when an agreement has been reached and the power should be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the provisions are designed. The Court is not necessarily required to make findings or embark on its own inquiry as to the merits of the claim made in an application for a consent determination under s 87: see Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 (Ward) at [8] (North J); Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 (Cox) at [3] (French J); Lander v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 427 at [11]-[12] (Mansfield J); Freddie v Northern Territory [2017] FCA 867 (Freddie) at [16]-[17] (Mortimer J). Rather, the Court must be satisfied, inter alia, that it is appropriate to make the orders sought. The indicia that will be sufficient to satisfy the Court of the appropriateness of a consent determination will be determined on a case by case basis. In some cases it may be appropriate to make orders under s 87 where the Court has received no evidence of the primary facts substantiating native title if the Court is satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement: see Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [9] and Ward at [8]. Even so, as French J observed in Cox the concept of appropriateness also recognises that the determination made by the Court is one made as against the whole world, and not just between the parties to the proceeding. The Court must be conscious that the rights conferred are enduring legal rights, proprietary in nature. This informs considerations including the requirement for the free and informed consent of all parties and the State's agreement that there is a credible and rational basis for the determination proposed: Freddie at [18]. The requirements of s 87 may, and will likely, be met where the Court is satisfied that a relevant government respondent (such as the State in the present case), through competent legal representation, is satisfied as to the cogency of the evidence upon which the Applicant relies. The Court is entitled to rely on the processes established by a State or Territory for assessing native title claims and to proceed on the basis that the State or Territory has made a reasonable and rational assessment of the material to which it has had access in deciding to enter into an agreement: Freddie at [23]-[24] and the authorities there cited. 43 In McKellar on behalf of the Wongkumara People v State of Queensland [2024] FCA 699 at [66] I expanded upon the requirement for a credible or cogent basis for a State party's agreement under s 87A (and equally applicable to an agreement under s 87) as follows: The State parties have a duty to be satisfied that there is a "credible" or "cogent" basis for each of the proposed consent determinations: Western Bundjalung People v Attorney-General (NSW) [2017] FCA 992 at [21] (Jagot J). The credible evidence standard is one that requires significantly less than the evidence thought necessary to justify judicial determination under the civil standard: Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [38] (North J), citing Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; 115 FCR 109 (Emmett J); see also Watson v Western Australia (No 6) [2014] FCA 545 at [29] (Gilmour J). The Court must consider the material before it for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the State parties are acting rationally and in good faith in agreeing to the proposed consent determinations: Munn at [29]-[30].

The material supporting the making of the consent determination 44 The material filed with the Court is sufficient to conclude that it is appropriate to make the proposed Determination. 45 First, the joint submissions show that the State has played an active role in the negotiation of the proposed Determination and ensuring that the Minute otherwise complies with the requirements of the NTA. In doing so the State, acting on behalf of the community generally and having regard to the requirements of the NTA, has satisfied itself that the determination is justified in all the circumstances. 46 Second, as set out in Drury v WA at [19], the Nanda Applicants provided the State with various materials, on a without prejudice basis, in support of the claimants' connection with the land and waters of their applications (connection material). The joint submissions state that the connection material provided by the Nanda Applicants is sufficient to demonstrate that, in respect of the proposed Determination Area, the Nanda and Nanda #3 Applications have a "credible or cogent basis". In particular, the State accepted that the material demonstrates that the Nanda People are bound together by a normative system of laws and customs which, on the basis of known fact and reasonable inference, have continued to be acknowledged and observed by them in a substantially uninterrupted manner since prior to the declaration of sovereignty over Western Australia. 47 Third, the State accepted that the Nanda People have maintained a physical presence in the Determination Area since the acquisition of British sovereignty and evidence of their continuing physical or spiritual involvement in the Determination Area was sufficient to enable the State to conclude that this connection had not been severed. Accordingly, the State was satisfied that the connection material presented was sufficient to establish that the Nanda People hold rights and interests in the Determination Area. 48 Fourth, the State has conducted searches of land tenure, mining and petroleum registries to determine the nature and extent of "other interests" within the Determination Area, and those interests are included in the proposed Determination: see Schedule Five. Accordingly, the Nanda Applicants and the State submit that the Minute sets out a description of the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests and the "other interests" in relation to the Determination Area which complies with section 225 of the NTA. 49 Fifth, the s 87 Agreement (and its predecessor agreement which the MW Applicant then declined to implement) was negotiated with the assistance of a Registrar who is experienced in dispute resolution in native title cases. I am satisfied that the mediated outcome was the result of a fair process in which all relevant parties were given a voice and an opportunity to consider their interests. 50 Finally, the Nanda Applicants and the State have informed the Court that they are satisfied that the proposed Determination is appropriate, and all other respondents have been consulted and given the opportunity to participate in the process as it has progressed. All respondents consent to the proposed Determination.

AUTHORISATION OF THE APPLICANTS AND NOMINATION OF A PRESCRIBED BODY CORPORATE 51 In his affidavit Mr McKellar deposed as to a meeting of the Nanda native title claim group on 8 June 2021 in Geraldton, at which he was present. That meeting addressed the authorisation of the applicants and the nomination of a prescribed body corporate. 52 He deposed that: (a) at that meeting the claim group confirmed the authorisation of the Nanda and Nanda #3 applicants to consent to the Court making a determination in, or consistent with, the terms of the Minute. The exercise of power by the applicants to sign the Minute is therefore consistent with NTA ss 61(1) and 62A which permit the making of a native title determination application by those persons who are 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 ...", and provide that "…the applicant may deal with all matters arising under this Act in relation to the application"; and (b) at the meeting a resolution was passed nominating the NAC as the Nanda PBC pursuant to s 56(2)(a)(i) of the Act. A document titled "Consent to nomination of Nanda Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC as prescribed body corporate for Nanda common law holders" dated 24 June 2021 and signed by a director of the NAC is annexed to Mr McKellar's affidavit, which records that NAC consents to its nomination to be the PBC pursuant to s 56(2)(a)(ii) and to hold Nanda native title in trust for the Nanda common law holders in compliance with s 56(1). I note that the NAC is already the PBC for the Nanda Part A and Nanda Part B Determinations 53 It is therefore appropriate to make Order 3 of the Minute to record the Court's determination that: 3. The Nanda Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (ICN 8871) shall hold the determined native title in trust for the native title holders pursuant to section 56(2)(b) of the Native Title Act 54 I have made orders in accordance with the draft Minute. I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy.

Associate: Dated: 13 February 2025 ANNEXURE 1 - MAP

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES WAD 30 of 2019

Applicants Fourth Applicant: JR (DECEASED) Fifth Applicant: STEVEN KELLY (FATHER OF MARRICK KELLY) Sixth Applicant: STEVEN KELLY (GRANDSON OF CORNELIUS KELLY) Seventh Applicant: WILLIAM MALLARD (JNR) Eighth Applicant: WM (SNR) (DECEASED) Ninth Applicant: NORA MALLARD Tenth Applicant: GWEN MITCHELL Eleventh Applicant: HN (DECEASED) Twelfth Applicant: ANNETTE PEPPER Thirteenth Applicant: MARY TULLOCK Fourteenth Applicant: GERALD JOHN WHITBY Fifteenth Applicant: LORRAINE WHITBY Sixteenth Applicant: JANET WILTON Respondents Fourth Respondent: YAMATJI MARLPA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION Fifth Respondent: JAMES MICHAEL DREW Sixth Respondent: LORETO MARY DREW Seventh Respondent: GABOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Applicants Fourth Applicant: DR (DECEASED) Fifth Applicant: DELVEEN WHITBY

1. To the extent not described in Schedule Four item 5 and Schedule Five item 3 and item 4.
2. To the extent native title has not been extinguished by the interests in Schedule Four item 5.
3. To the extent not described in Schedule Four item 5.
4. To the extent not described in Schedule Four item 5 and Schedule Five item 3 and item 4.