Forrest on behalf of the Kakarra Part A Claim Group v State of Western Australia

(a) the determination of native title made in Lewis on behalf of the Nyalpa Pirniku Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2023] FCA 1294 (Abraham J);

(b) the determination of native title made in Graham on behalf of the Ngadju People v State of Western Australia [2014] FCA 1247 (Marshall J); and

(c) the determination of native title made in the Kakarra Part B determination.

1. Schedule 7 of the Minute describes the native title holders for the Determination Area. The description reflects traditional law and custom with respect to the acquisition of rights and interests in the Determination Area. Each of the Kakarra Part A claimants have a connection to the country of the Determination Area through these pathways, as did their predecessors at the acquisition of British sovereignty.
2. The native title holders are those persons who, in accordance with traditional law and custom:

(a) hold native title rights and interests in the Determination Area through the following:

(i) being descended from forebears who were either:

(A) living in the in the Determination Area at effective sovereignty; or

(B) born in the Determination Area in the historic era; and

(ii) being born in the Determination Area; and/or

(iii) growing up in the Determination Area; and/or

(iv) having long term association with and knowledge of the Determination Area; and

(b) have a connection with the Determination Area.

15 As at the date of this consent determination the forebears referred to in [14] above include:

(a) Noona Roundhead;

(b) the spouses Miimiidhaanuu (Peter Mimitjunu or King Peter) and Maggie;

(c) Padalji (Jack Anderson);

(d) Yambii (Alice Yampi);

(e) Wipaana (also known as Wiparna, Noorie Weebunner or Maggie Weebunner);

(f) the spouses Jimmy Teatree and Judaabi (Tutaabii/ Nellie Teatree);

(g) Morrel;

(h) Sinclair Beeberwin (father of Don Sinclair);

(i) the siblings Tuwarn (Linda Smith) and Juwi (Joey Walker);

(j) Thanang (Minnie Walker);

(k) Kileen Ngurrnmpurrna (Kyaleen Numbaarn), mother of Timothy Rundle;

(l) Toby Willis, Victor Willis and Betty Kennedy;

(m) Minnie Nimbud;

(n) Ungala (Mary Nugget);

(o) Bowie (mother of Lulu Bilsen);

(p) Jack Kennedy and Jean Kennedy Woggagi; and

(q) Thomas Henry Cooper.

16 There are some differences between the description of the native title holders in the Kakarra Part A Application and the description of native title holders in the Minute and in these reasons. The Creemers affidavit explains that the reasons for these differences are:

(a) the description of the "pathways" to connection and giving rise to rights and interests in country as set out in the Minute at Schedule 7 better reflect the application of traditional laws and customs of the Determination Area; and

(b) the inclusion of additional named forebears has ensured those recognised by the claim group as being common law holders are properly described.

17 In any event, the proposed amendments have been accepted and agreed to by the State.

1. The description of the native title holders in Schedule 7 of the Minute (except for the inclusion of Thomas Henry Cooper) was authorised at the Authorisation Meeting. As has been mentioned, the description of native title holders in Schedule 7 of the Minute is identical to the description of native title holders in the Kakarra Part B determination, except that the Kakarra Part B description of native title holders does not include Thomas Henry Cooper as a named forebear. The evidence before the court explains that this is because:

(a) the Coopers did not initially seek to be involved (either formally by joining as respondent parties, or otherwise) in the Kakarra Part B Application or the Upurli Upurli Nguratja Application; and

(b) the Kakarra Part A claim group has recognised the Coopers (and other descendants of Thomas Henry Cooper) as having rights and interests in the Determination Area on the basis that they have rights and interests in, and connection to, the Gindalbie area, which is only in the Determination Area.

1. At the time the Kakarra Part A Application was filed, the Coopers were not named, by reference to a forebear, as being part of the claim group. The Coopers filed a Notice of Intention to Become a Party to the Kakarra Part A Application on 14 September 2021 and were joined as respondents to the Application on 29 September 2021. At a meeting in October 2023, members of the Kakarra Part A claim group invited the Coopers to join and be part of the claim group. Recognition of the Coopers as part of the Kakarra Part A claim group was then expressly made at the claim group meeting on 7 December 2023 and confirmed at the Authorisation Meeting.
2. By an amended interlocutory application dated 7 February 2025, the applicants sought, amongst other things, an order pursuant to s 84(8) of the Act that the Coopers cease to be respondent parties to the Kakarra Part Application. That application was granted and an order was made removing the Coopers as respondent parties to the Kakarra Part A Application: see Forrest on behalf of the Kakarra Part A Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 140 (McEvoy J).
3. Section 61(1) of the Act permits the making of a native title determination application by those persons who are authorised (as defined by s 251B of the Act) 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.
4. The Act vests in the persons jointly comprising the applicants the carriage of the Kakarra Part A Application meaning that the applicants may deal with all matters arising under the Act in relation to the application pursuant to s 62A of the Act. This includes consenting to a determination of native title pursuant to s 87 of the Act.
5. The Kakarra A claimants have considered and confirmed the authorisation of the applicants to act in that capacity and to enter into the Minute. On that basis, the applicants are authorised by the native title holders to consent to the proposed determination of native title rights and interests set out in the Minute.

THE CONNECTION OF THE KAKARRA PART A CLAIMANTS TO COUNTRY

1. An application for a native title determination under s 87 of the Act is founded on the free and informed consent to the agreement by all parties. It does not require the court to determine all the issues in the application: Ryan (Snr) on behalf of the Warrgamay People v State of Queensland [2021] FCA 977 at [34] (Murphy J) (Ryan). Nevertheless, this determination and these reasons are a permanent record for the Kakarra Part A claimants of the recognition by Australian law of their native title rights. Accordingly, it is appropriate to record certain matters about the Kakarra Part A claimants and their country.
2. The joint submissions note that the State considered the following material in its assessment of the connection of the Kakarra Part A claimants to the Determination Area, and the requirement of "occupation" for the application of ss 47A and 47B of the Act:

(a) Preliminary Anthropological Report on the Kakarra Applications in the Eastern Goldfields Region, authored by Ms Olivia Norris and Mr Robin Stevens dated 15 January 2021 (preliminary report);

(b) A short Anthropological Report in Response to the State of Western Australia's queries regarding the Kakarra Part A Claim, authored by Ms Olivia Norris and Mr Robin Stevens dated 4 August 2022;

(c) Supplementary Anthropological Report Regarding the Kakarra Part B Claim For Consideration By the Anthropologists Working on the Upurli Upurli Nguratja Claim, authored by Ms Olivia Norris and Mr Robin Stevens dated 29 July 2022;

(d) Joint Report in relation to Kakarra Part B (WAD298/2020) and Upurli Upurli Nguratja (WAD281/2020), authored by Dr Scott Cane, Mr Robin Stevens, Ms Olivia Norris, and Mr Thomas Rossiter, dated 30 September 2022;

(e) affidavits from the following Kakarra Part A claimants:

(i) Mr John Walter Graham affirmed 15 January 2021; and

(ii) Mr Travis Tucker sworn 14 January 2021; and

(f) witness statements of the following Kakarra Part A claimants:

(i) Mr Dennis Forrest dated 29 August 2022; and

(ii) Mr Michael Tucker dated 30 August 2022,

1. The State has agreed to the Minute on the basis that the Connection Material evidences the connection of the Kakarra Part A claim group to the Determination Area.
2. The State has accepted that the Connection Material provides sufficient evidence of occupation to support the application of s 47A of the Act to disregard any extinguishment by the creation of prior interests in relation to areas within the Determination Area subject to Lease 50522 granted for the purpose of "Use and Benefit of Aboriginal people, landscape and cultural heritage protection".
3. The State has also accepted the application of s 47B of the Act to disregard any extinguishment by the creation of prior interests in relation to the areas of land referred to in Part 2 Schedule 5 to the Minute.
4. The applicants and the State jointly submit that the Connection Material supports the following propositions concerning the connection to country of the Kakarra Part A claim group:

(a) The Determination Area is located in an area known as "the Western Desert" or the "Western Desert Cultural Bloc", as defined anthropologically and in the Nangaanya-ku Determination: Forrest on behalf of the Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group (Part A) v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 1489 at [27] (Griffiths J). The preliminary report refers to the work of early researchers in the 20th century including Daisy Bates, A.P Elkin, Ronald and Catherine Berndt, and Norman Tindale, who all reported socia-cultural features within the Kakarra Part A Application area consistent with what is now understood as the Western Desert Cultural Bloc. For example, anthropologists Ronald and Catherine Berndt documented the lands and waters east of Kalgoorlie including the Kakarra Part A Determination Area as part of the Western Desert: as outlined in the preliminary report at [106]-[108].

(b) The preliminary report states that the relevant "society" which gives rise to the traditional laws and customs of the Kakarra Part A claim group is that of the Western Desert Cultural Bloc, and in particular, the south-western "fringe" or "extent" of the Western Desert Cultural Bloc, or sometimes referred to as the Western Desert Cultural Bloc transition zone: as outlined in the preliminary report at [142], [325], [345].

(c) The concept of Tjukurrpa (that is "the Dreaming" or "the Law") is a central feature of the belief system of members of the Western Desert Cultural Bloc, including the Kakarra Part A claimants, which encompasses many aspects of their lives. For Kakarra Part A claimants, a belief in the Tjukurrpa provides an understanding of the source of many of their traditional laws and customs.

(d) The Kakarra Part A claimants are the descendants of Aboriginal people who occupied the Determination Area early last century, as well as the descendants of Aboriginal people from country to the north and the east of the Determination Area who began settling within it between the 1920s and the 1950s.

(e) Historical events such as the establishment of the Indian Pacific Railway, and the nearby Karonie Ration Depot brought people from the surrounding desert country into the Determination Area, joining people already resident there. Traditional laws and customs in relation to the acquisition of native title rights and interests were continuous, retained normative force, and were adhered to throughout this period. Consequently, people from other parts of the Western Desert came to hold native title rights and interests in the Determination Area in conjunction with the remaining descendants of the original inhabitants, in a manner consistent with traditional law and custom.

(f) Many of the Kakarra Part A claimants spent at least part of their lives living in the Determination Area, on Yindi Station, Pinjin Station, Gindalbie, and Lake Goongarrie, or lived in close proximity to the Determination Area in Kalgoorlie. They, and their forebears before them, used the country of the Determination Area for its resources, including for commercial purposes, and as a source of material and spiritual sustenance. Today, the Kakarra Part A claimants continue to access and use the country of the Determination Area, including for living and camping, hunting and gathering, and to care for and protect their country, including through learning, and teaching young people the Tjukunpa and country of the Determination Area.

(g) The country of the Determination Area is traversed by a number of Tjukurrpa tracks or songlines, and includes places at which ceremonies have been performed, burial places, and places where the Kakarra Part A claimants interact with the spirits of the country, to protect country, the spirits and themselves. The Kakarra Part A claimants have responsibilities under traditional law and custom to the wider Western Desert society to care for, and protect, the Tjukurrpa of the Determination Area and other places of significance.

1. On the basis of these realities, the applicants and the State submit that the Connection Material establishes the continuity of traditional laws and customs, and the recognition of native title rights and interests within the Determination Area, from British sovereignty until the present day.
2. The State's position is that the Connection Material is sufficient to demonstrate that:

(a) the Kakarra Part A Application has a credible basis;

(b) the Kakarra Part A claim group and their predecessors have maintained a presence in, and a connection to, the Determination Area in accordance with traditional laws and customs since the acquisition of British sovereignty; and

(c) the continuing physical and spiritual involvement of the Kakarra Part A claim group in the Determination Area is such that their connection to the area has not been severed.

1. The applicants and the State jointly submit that the Connection Material supports the application of the findings in relation to the Determination Area, and that the court adopt these findings in relation to the Kakarra Part A Application.

1. The proposed determination is to be made under s 87 of the Act. Section 87 of the Act is designed to encourage the parties to take responsibility for resolving proceedings without litigation: Tex on behalf of the Lappi Lappi and Ngulupi Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1591 at [26] (Barker J) (Tex); Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [22] (Bennett J) and the cases there cited.
2. Pursuant to s 87(1), the court may make a determination of native title by consent without a hearing where:

(a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Act has ended (s 87(1));

(b) there is a written agreement between the parties for a proposed determination of native title in relation to the proceeding, and that agreement is signed by, or on behalf of all the parties, and filed with the court (s 87(1)(a), (aa) and (b) of the Act);

(c) 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

(d) the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought pursuant to

ss 87, 87(1A) and 87(2) of the Act.

1. It is well accepted that the court can rely on the joint submissions of the parties in relation to these matters: see Farrer on behalf of the Ngarrawanji Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 929, where Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) explained at [16]:

The basis for the Court's orders under s 87 is the agreement of the parties, and the Court does not need to make its own inquiries as to the merits of the claim for native title: see Lander v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 427 at [11]- [12] (Mansfield J), quoting North J in Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [36]- [37]. Recognition of this approach as permissible confers significant flexibility on parties to agreements for a consent determination. They may elect to agree on matters - not only of fact, but also of law - which, in a contested hearing, would favour one party or another because of the state of the law or the evidence. However, in a negotiated outcome, the very nature of negotiation involves compromise, and parties may elect to compromise on facts and on their legal rights and interests, as long as the factual and legal preconditions exist for the Court to consider that a determination satisfies the requirements of the Native Title Act, so that the determination is within power and is appropriate to make.

1. Having regard to the relevant material before the court, I am satisfied that:

(a) the notice periods specified in ss 66(8) and 66(10)(c) of the Act ended on 15 September 2021; and

(b) there is an agreement between the parties for the proposed determination of native title in relation to the proceeding, the terms of that agreement are in writing and have been signed on behalf of all of the parties, the agreement has been filed with the court, and the Commonwealth Minister has not sought to intervene and therefore is not a necessary party to the agreement (s 87(1)(a), (aa) and (b) of the Act).

1. Whether an order under s 87 of the Act in the terms proposed is within the power of the court (s 87(1)(c)) will depend upon whether:

(a) it is consistent with s 94A of the Act;

(b) the rights and interests included in the proposed determination are recognisable by the common law of Australia; and

(c) there is no other native title determination in existence over the area the subject of the proposed determination.

See Nelson v Northern Territory [2010] FCA 1343; (2010) 190 FCR 344 at [4] (Reeves J).

1. Section 94A of the Act requires that an order in which the court makes a determination of native title must set out details of the matters mentioned in s 225 of the Act. Section 225 provides:

A determination of native title is a determination whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area (the determination area) of land or waters and, if it does exist, a determination of:

(a) who the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title are; and

(b) the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area; and

(c) the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the determination area; and

(d) the relationship between the rights and interests in paragraphs (b) and (c) (taking into account the effect of this Act); and

(e) to the extent that the land or waters in the determination area are not covered by a non‑exclusive agricultural lease or a non‑exclusive pastoral lease - 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.

1. For the purposes of s 87(1)(c) of the Act, I am satisfied that orders in the terms proposed are within the power of the court, because:

(a) the Kakarra Part A Application is validly made by the applicants, having been authorised by the Kakarra Part A claim group according to a decision-making process that, under the traditional laws and customs of the Kakarra Part A claim group, authorised the applicants to make the native title determination application, as required by s 251B of the Act (see also ss 61 and 62A of the Act);

(b) the Kakarra Part A claimants have considered the Minute and instructed the applicants to sign and file the Minute;

(c) the Kakarra Part A Application seeks a determination of native title for an area of land and waters in relation to which there is no approved determination of native title as defined by s 13(1)(a) of the Act, and there remains no approved determination in relation to the Determination Area (s 68 of the Act);

(d) the form of the proposed determination outlined in the Minute complies with ss 94A and 225 of the Act; and

(e) the requirements of s 87 of the Act are otherwise satisfied.

1. I am also satisfied that the native title rights and interests included in the proposed determination are capable of being recognised by the common law of Australia.
2. As to whether the proposed orders are appropriate to make, ss 87(1A) and (2) of the Act provide:

Power of Court

(1A) 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.

(2) 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.

1. The applicants and the State jointly submit that the proposed orders are appropriate for the court to make. Section 87 of the Act confers a broad discretion on the court which is to be exercised judicially and flexibly in accordance with legal principle and the objects and purposes of the Act: Ryan at [23]; Eagles on behalf of the Combined Thiin-Mah, Warriyangka, Tharrkari and Jiwarli People v State of Western Australia [2019] FCA 508 at [19] (Murphy J) (Eagles). These objects include the resolution of native title disputes by agreement. The power in s 87 must therefore be understood in this context: Ryan at [23] citing Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; [2001] 115 FCR 109 at [26] and [28] (Emmett J) (Munn); Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [36]- [37] (North J) (Lovett).
2. In Eagles, Murphy J summarised the question for the court at [20]-[22]:

• [20] ...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].
• [21] 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].
• [22] 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.

1. Whether there is free and informed consent of all the parties and the State to the agreement is the primary consideration in determining whether the orders are appropriate to make. The applicants and the State jointly submit that the consent determination mechanism under s 87 does not require the court to receive evidence and make findings, embark on its own inquiry on the application's merits, or form a concluded view as to whether the legal requirements for proving native title have been met. Rather, it is said, the court may make orders pursuant to s 87 when satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement: Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [6]- [9] (North J) (Ward); and Tex at [25].
2. In Munn, Emmett J observed at [29]-[30]:

[29] Next, the Court must have regard to the question of whether or not the parties to the proceeding, namely, those who are likely to be affected by an order, have had independent and competent legal representation. That concern would include a consideration of the extent to which the State is a party, on the basis that the State, or at least a Minister of the State, appears in the capacity of parens patriae to look after the interests of the community generally. The mere fact that the State was a party may not be sufficient. The Court may need to be satisfied that the State has in fact taken a real interest in the proceeding in the interests of the community generally. That may involve the Court being satisfied that the State has given appropriate consideration to the evidence that has been adduced, or intended to be adduced, in order to reach the compromise that is proposed. The Court, in my view, needs to be satisfied at least that the State, through competent legal representation, is satisfied as to the cogency of the evidence upon which the applicants rely.

[30] However, that is not to say that the Court would itself want to predict the State's assessment of that evidence or to make findings in relation to those matters. On the other hand, in an appropriate case, the Court may well ask to be shown the evidence upon which the parties have based their decision to reach a compromise. Either way, I would not contemplate that, where the Court is being asked to make an order under s 87, any findings would be made on those matters. The Court would look at the evidence only for the purpose of satisfying itself that those parties who have agreed to compromise the matter, particularly the State on behalf of the community generally, are acting in good faith and rationally.

1. The requirements of ss 87(1A) and (2) of the Act will be met where the court is satisfied that the State, with the benefit of competent legal representation, is satisfied as to the cogency of the evidence on which the application relies. The court is not examining the appropriateness of an agreement and it is not required to examine whether the agreement is grounded on a factual basis which would satisfy the court at a hearing of the application. The primary consideration is whether it was freely entered into on an informed basis: Lovett at [37]. The consent determination mechanism is not intended to operate by way of substitution of a trial and the State is not required to obtain proof from the applicants to the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that the native title rights claimed exist. What is necessary is that the State has sufficient information so that it is in a position to inform the court that, from the State's perspective, it is appropriate for the court to make the determination in orders to give effect to the terms of an agreement as provided for in s 87 of the Act: Munn at [29]-[30]; Lovett at [37]; Mulligan on behalf of the Warlangurru Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2022] FCA 845 at [34] (Banks-Smith J) (Mulligan).
2. In the circumstances, I am satisfied for the purpose of s 87 of the Act that the agreement the parties have reached reflects a free and informed agreement between them. The applicants and the State have each played an active role and been legally represented throughout the negotiations leading to the resolution of the matter. The State, on behalf of the Western Australian community more generally, has had regard to the requirements of the Act and through what is submitted to have been a rigorous and detailed assessment process is satisfied that the proposed determination is justified in all the circumstances. The State has conducted searches of land tenure, mining, and petroleum registries to determine the nature and extent of any "other interests" within the Determination Area. The Minute describes the nature and extent of non-native title rights and interests within the Determination Area, which complies with s 225 of the Act: see Mulligan at [36]-[38].
3. I am also satisfied that the non-State respondent parties to the Kakarra Part A Application have participated in negotiations and provided their consent to the proposed determination, and that there exists a free and informed agreement between the parties such than order under s 87 of the Act in the terms of the Minute is appropriate: Purdie on behalf of the Yurriyangem Taam Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2019] FCA 696 at [53] (Banks-Smith J).

1. Where a determination of native title is proposed to be made by the court, the court must determine whether the native title is to be held on trust and if so by whom: ss 55 and 56 of the Act. If the common law holders (being the persons the court proposes to include in the determination of native title as native title holders) give a nomination, the court must determine that the prescribed body corporate that is nominated is to hold the rights and interests from time to time comprising the native title in trust for the common law holders: s 56(2) of the Act.
2. The parties have requested that the court make a determination regarding a prescribed body corporate in accordance with ss 55 and 56 of the Act. The corporation proposed in the Minute as the prescribed body corporate pursuant to s 56(2)(a) of the Act to hold the determined native title in trust for the native title holders is the Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation.
3. The Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation was nominated at the Authorisation Meeting. This nomination was accepted by the Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation at a meeting of its directors on 20 September 2024 and a special general meeting of its members on 10 October 2024. In accordance with s 59A of the Act, the Kakarra Part B common law holders also consented to the nomination of the Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation at the Authorisation Meeting.
4. Having regard to these matters, it is appropriate for there to be orders that the Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation shall hold the determined native title in trust for the native title holders pursuant to s 56(2)(b) of the Act.

1. The court congratulates the Kakarra Part A native title holders, the State, and the other respondent parties on reaching agreement to enable this historic consent determination. The court also recognises that the Kakarra Part A claim group have been waiting for many years to have their native title rights and interests recognised. The orders to be made vindicate the Kakarra Part A native title holders' claim for judicial recognition as the people who have always held native title rights and interests in the Determination Area.
2. The legal representatives of the Kakarra Part A native title holders, and their prescribed body corporate, the Kakarra Aboriginal Corporation, should also be acknowledged for the support and assistance they have provided.
3. There will be orders as set out at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McEvoy.

[1] References to UCL Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in this column are to the areas as identified by the Kakarra Applicant in provision of its evidence of occupation pursuant to s 47B of the NTA.

[2] Reserves 04362, 04366, 09546 and 10108 in Schedule Three and Schedule Five are treated as unallocated Crown land for the purposes of the Native Title Act (Cth) as they were not validly created. The Reserve designation is retained for the purposes of this determination in order to easily identify the relevant areas for mapping purposes.

[3] Subject to the rights and interests of persons who have the control, care and management of, and persons entitled to the access and use of Reserve 04364 to continue to access this area - see Schedule Six paragraph 2(a).

[4] Subject to the rights and interests of the public to continue to use and access any water in WATER 01- see Schedule Six paragraph 2(b).

[5] References to UCL Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in this column are to the areas as identified by the Kakarra Applicant in provision of its evidence of occupation pursuant to s 47B of the NTA.

[6] Subject to the rights and interests of persons who have the control, care and management of, and persons entitled to the access and use of Reserve 04364 to continue to access this area - see Schedule Six paragraph 2(a).

[7] Subject to the rights and interests of the public to continue to use and access any water in WATER 01- see Schedule Six paragraph 2(b).

[8] Reserves 4287, 4288, 4289, 4290, 8870, 11766, 16457 and 16459 are not included in this Schedule Six as they were not validly created and as such are not "other interests". However they are areas over which non-exclusive native title rights exist as a result of the grant of historic tenements, and are shown on the determination maps in Schedule Two with their reserve designation for ease of mapping.

[9] Being the part of Reserve 19825 not the subject of Lease 332/1389.