Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland

Federal Court of Australia|2022-07-06|Before: Mortimer J

BEING SATISFIED that an order in the terms set out below is within the power of the Court, and it appearing appropriate to the Court to do so, pursuant to s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) THE COURT NOTES THAT: A. Having regard to the need to balance the limited availability of public resources with the competing need to resolve applications for a determination of native title in an efficient, cost effective and timely manner, the parties agree that the question of whether s 47C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) would apply to any park area within the External Boundary will be addressed after the matter has proceeded to determination. B. The Lama Lama People (being the proposed native title holders described in Schedule 1 of the Determination) have indicated a desire to enter into negotiations with the State of Queensland (the State) in relation to whether s 47C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) would have application to the land and waters within the following areas within the Determination Area: i. Lot 15 on SP208286; and ii. Lot 20 on SP208286, (together, the park areas). C. Subject to paragraph D below, the parties agree that, if agreement is reached in accordance with s 47C(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that s 47C is applicable to any of the park areas, the parties would not oppose an application being brought on behalf of the Lama Lama Aboriginal Corporation pursuant to ss 13(1)(b) and (5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to vary the determination in relation to each park area within the Determination Area for which agreement is reached regarding the application of s 47C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). D. The agreement of the parties in paragraph C above not to oppose an application being brought to vary the Determination in relation to each park area, is subject to the Applicant and the State having reached agreement on the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests that would be determined to exist in relation to the park areas, and any other relevant matters. E. The Applicant agrees that the areas listed in Schedule 5 are areas where native title has been wholly extinguished. THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 3. In this Determination, unless the contrary intention appears: "Animal" has the meaning given in the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); "External Boundary" means the area described in Schedule 3; "High Water Mark" means the ordinary high-water mark at spring tides; "land" has the same meaning as in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); "Laws of the State and the Commonwealth" means the common law and the laws of the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, and includes legislation, regulations, statutory instruments, local planning instruments and local laws; "Local Government Area" has the meaning given in the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld); "Native Title Determination Application" means the Cape York United #1 native title claim filed on 11 December 2014 in QUD 673 of 2014; "Natural Resources" means: (a) an Animal, a Plant, or any other non-human life form; and (b) inorganic material; but does not include: (c) Animals that are the private personal property of any person; (d) crops that are the private personal property of another; (e) minerals as defined in the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld); and (f) petroleum as defined in the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld); "Plant" has the meaning given in the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); "Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements" has the same meaning as in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); "Reserve" means a reserve dedicated, or taken to be a reserve, under the Land Act 1994 (Qld); "Spouse" has the meaning given in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld); "Water" means: (a) water which flows, whether permanently or intermittently, within a river, creek or stream; (b) any natural collection of water, whether permanent or intermittent; (c) water from an underground water source; and (d) tidal water; "waters" has the same meaning as in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Other words and expressions used in this Determination have the same meanings as they have in Part 15 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The determination area is the land and waters described in Schedule 4 and depicted in the maps attached to Schedule 6 to the extent those areas are within the External Boundary and not otherwise excluded by the terms of Schedule 5 (the Determination Area). To the extent of any inconsistency between the written description and the map, the written description prevails.
Native title exists in the Determination Area.
The native title is held by the Lama Lama People described in Schedule 1 (the Native Title Holders).
Subject to orders 9, 10 and 11 below the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters described in Part 1 of Schedule 4 are: (a) other than in relation to Water, the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the area to the exclusion of all others; and (b) in relation to Water, the non-exclusive right to take the Water of the area for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes.
Subject to orders 9, 10 and 11 below the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters described in Part 2 of Schedule 4 are the non-exclusive rights to: (a) access, be present on, move about on and travel over the area; (b) live and camp on the area and for those purposes to erect shelters and other structures thereon; (c) hunt, fish and gather on the land and waters of the area; (d) take the Natural Resources from the land and waters of the area; (e) take the Water of the area for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes; (f) be buried and to bury Native Title Holders within the area; (g) maintain places of importance and areas of significance to the Native Title Holders under their traditional laws and customs on the area and protect those places and areas from harm; (h) teach on the area the physical and spiritual attributes of the area and the traditional laws and customs of the Native Title Holders to other Native Title Holders or persons otherwise entitled to access the area; (i) hold meetings on the area; (j) conduct ceremonies on the area; (k) light fires on the area for cultural, spiritual or domestic purposes including cooking, but not for the purpose of hunting or clearing vegetation; and (l) be accompanied on to the area by those persons who, though not Native Title Holders, are: (i) Spouses of Native Title Holders; (ii) people who are members of the immediate family of a Spouse of a Native Title Holder; or (iii) people reasonably required by the Native Title Holders under traditional law and custom for the performance of ceremonies or cultural activities on the area.
The native title rights and interests are subject to and exercisable in accordance with: (a) the Laws of the State and the Commonwealth; and (b) the traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the Native Title Holders.
The native title rights and interests referred to in orders 7(b) and 8 do not confer possession, occupation, use or enjoyment to the exclusion of all others.
There are no native title rights in or in relation to minerals as defined by the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) and petroleum as defined by the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld).
The nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the Determination Area (or respective parts thereof) are set out in Schedule 2 (the Other Interests).
The relationship between the native title rights and interests described in orders 7 and 8 and the Other Interests described in Schedule 2 is that: (a) the Other Interests continue to have effect, and the rights conferred by or held under the Other Interests may be exercised notwithstanding the existence of the native title rights and interests; (b) to the extent the Other Interests are inconsistent with the continued existence, enjoyment or exercise of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters of the Determination Area, the native title rights and interests continue to exist in their entirety but the native title rights and interests have no effect in relation to the Other Interests to the extent of the inconsistency for so long as the Other Interests exist; and (c) the Other Interests and any activity that is required or permitted by or under, and done in accordance with, the Other Interests, or any activity that is associated with or incidental to such an activity, prevail over the native title rights and interests and any exercise of the native title rights and interests.

THE COURT DETERMINES THAT: 14. The native title is held in trust. 15. The Lama Lama Aboriginal Corporation (ICN: 9758), incorporated under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth), is to: (a) be the prescribed body corporate for the purpose of ss 56(2)(b) and 56(3) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); and (b) perform the functions mentioned in s 57(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) after becoming a registered native title body corporate. LIST OF SCHEDULES Schedule 1 - Native Title Holders Schedule 2 - Other Interests in the Determination Area Schedule 3 - External Boundary Schedule 4 - Description of Determination Area Schedule 5 - Areas Not Forming Part of the Determination Area Schedule 6 - Map of Determination Area

Schedule 1 - Native Title Holders

The Native Title Holders are the Lama Lama People. The Lama Lama People are those Aboriginal persons who are descended by birth, or by adoption in accordance with the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the Lama Lama group, from one or more of the following apical ancestors: (a) Ayu'uwa; (b) George Balclutha; (c) Frank Balser; (d) Paddy Bassani; (e) Billy (Kuparranyanhu) (father of Harry Coutts); (f) Old Man Billy/Willy (Waarrathu/Nangayurrkumu); (g) Charcoal and his sister Aangkaykuupi; (h) Johnny Coast and Jinny (parents of Sandy Bassani); (i) Jerry Crowbar (aka Kingie Jerry); (j) Dyatu (spouse of Kuwarwar); (k) Echo Hart; (l) Jimmy Jealous; (m) Frank Kerr; (n) Kuwarwar (spouse of Dyatu); (o) Harry Liddy Snr (Ngaakamburu); (p) Maurice (Thowandya) (father of King Armstrong and Old Lady Possum aka Possum Maurice and Jack Whip); (q) Monkey Port Stewart (Aakurru Yintyingka); (r) Nellie Frank Salt; (s) Rosie Parker (spouse of Johnny Tableland); (t) Peter (Ko'ayi) and sister (mother of Ko'omithya); (u) Pompey Port Stewart (aka Bambi); (v) Willy (Purrwal); (w) Frank Salt Snr (Rawangawal); (x) Albert Tableland; (y) Jack Tableland; (z) Jenny Tableland; (aa) Old Tommy Tableland Snr and sisters Nydyi and Minnie Peter (Dhuymalana); (bb) Wariy (aka Paddy Wharf aka Paddy Port Stewart); (cc) Minnie Whitewood (wife of Charlie Whiteford/Whitefoot/Whitewood); or (dd) Frank Port (Nangkayunumu).

Schedule 2 - Other Interests in the Determination Area The nature and extent of the other interests in relation to the Determination Area are the following as they exist as at the date of the Determination:

The rights and interests of the parties under the following agreements registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements: (a) Rinyirru (Lakefield) National Park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal Land) ILUA (QI2010/037) registered on 31 March 2011; (b) Lilyvale ILUA (QI2008/017) registered on 27 January 2009; (c) Running Creek ILUA (QI2008/016) registered on 27 January 2009; (d) Kulla (McIlwraith Range & Mount Croll) ILUA (QI2008/018) registered on 13 May 2009; (e) Peninsula Developmental Road ILUA (QI2016/049) registered on 11 July 2017; (f) PNG Gas Pipeline ILUA - Cape York Region (QI2006/043) registered on 15 May 2008; and (g) Rindoparr Area B ILUA (QI2010/037) registered on 31 March 2011.
The rights and interests of Telstra Corporation Limited (ACN 051 775 556), Amplitel Pty Ltd as trustee of the Towers Business Operating Trust (ABN 75 357 171 746) and any of their successors in title: (a) as the owner(s) or operator(s) of telecommunications facilities within the Determination Area; (b) created pursuant to the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 (Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1975 (Cth), the Australian Telecommunications Corporation Act 1989 (Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1991 (Cth) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), including rights: (i) to inspect land; (ii) to install, occupy and operate telecommunication facilities; and (iii) to alter, remove, replace, maintain, repair and ensure the proper functioning of its telecommunications facilities; (c) for their employees, agents or contractors to access their telecommunication facilities in and in the vicinity of the Determination Area in the performance of their duties; and (d) under any lease, licence, access agreement, permit or easement relating to their telecommunications facilities in the Determination Area.
The rights and interests of Cook Shire Council: (a) under its local government jurisdiction and functions under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), under the Stock Route Management Act 2002 (Qld) and under any other legislation, for that part of the Determination Area within the area declared to be its Local Government Area: (b) as the: (i) lessor under any leases which were validly entered into before the date on which these orders are made and whether separately particularised in these orders or not; (ii) grantor of any licences or other rights and interests which were validly granted before the date on which these orders were made and whether separately particularised in these orders or not; (iii) party to an agreement with a third party which relates to land or waters in the Determination Area; (iv) holder of any estate or any other interest in land, including as trustee of any Reserves, under access agreements and easements that exist in the Determination Area; (c) as the owner and operator of infrastructure, structures, earthworks, access works and any other facilities and other improvements located in the Determination Area validly constructed or established on or before the date on which these orders are made, including but not limited to any: (i) undedicated but constructed roads except for those not operated by the council; (ii) water pipelines and water supply infrastructure; (iii) drainage facilities; (iv) watering point facilities; (v) recreational facilities; (vi) transport facilities; (vii) gravel pits operated by the council; (viii) cemetery and cemetery related facilities; and (ix) community facilities; (d) to enter the land for the purposes described in paragraphs 3(a), (b) and (c) above by its employees, agents or contractors to: (i) exercise any of the rights and interests referred on in this paragraph 3 and paragraph 5 below; (ii) use, operate, inspect, maintain, replace, restore and repair the infrastructure, facilities and other improvements referred to in paragraph 3(c) above; and (iii) undertake operational activities in its capacity as a local government such as feral animal control, erosion control, waste management and fire management.
The rights and interests granted or available to RTA Weipa Pty Ltd (and any successors in title) under the Comalco Agreement, including, but not limited to, rights and interests in relation to the "bauxite field" (as defined in clause 1 of the Comalco Agreement) and areas adjacent to or in the vicinity or outside of such bauxite field, where: (a) "Comalco Act" means the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited Agreement Act 1957 (Qld); and (b) "Comalco Agreement" means the agreement in Schedule 1 to the Comalco Act, including as amended in accordance with such Act.
The rights and interests of the State of Queensland and Cook Shire Council to access, use, operate, maintain and control the dedicated roads in the Determination Area and the rights and interests of the public to use and access the roads.
The rights and interests of the State of Queensland in Reserves, the rights and interests of the trustees of those Reserves and the rights and interests of the persons entitled to access and use those Reserves for the respective purpose for which they are reserved.
The rights and interests of the State of Queensland or any other person existing by reason of the force and operation of the laws of the State of Queensland, including those existing by reason of the following legislation or any regulation, statutory instrument, declaration, plan, authority, permit, lease or licence made, granted, issued or entered into under that legislation: (a) the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld); (a) the Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld); (b) the Land Act 1994 (Qld); (c) the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); (d) the Forestry Act 1959 (Qld); (e) the Water Act 2000 (Qld); (f) the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) or Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld); (g) the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld); (h) the Planning Act 2016 (Qld); (i) the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld); and (j) the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld) or Ambulance Service Act 1991 (Qld).
The rights and interests of members of the public arising under the common law, including but not limited to the following: (a) any subsisting public right to fish; and (b) the public right to navigate.
So far as confirmed pursuant to s 212(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and s 18 of the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) as at the date of this Determination, any existing rights of the public to access and enjoy the following places in the Determination Area: (a) waterways; (b) beds and banks or foreshores of waterways; (c) coastal waters; (d) stock routes; (e) beaches; and (f) areas that were public places at the end of 31 December 1993.
Any other rights and interests: (a) held by the State of Queensland or Commonwealth of Australia; or (b) existing by reason of the force and operation of the Laws of the State and the Commonwealth.

Schedule 3 - External Boundary The area of land and waters: Commencing at the High Water Mark at the mouth of the centreline of Breakfast Creek at Longitude 143.622555° East, Latitude 13.963464° South, and extending generally westerly along the centreline of Breakfast Creek and an unnamed watercourse until it intersects with the foothills of the McIlwraith Range at Longitude 143.355071° East, Latitude 13.971448° South, also being a point on a line of the 100m contour elevation; then southerly along the 100m contour until its intersection with the centreline of Port Stewart Road; then easterly along the centreline of that road until it intersects with the centreline of an unnamed road (also known as IWS (Irrigation Water Supply) Road) in an area known as Box Flat at Longitude 143.417308° East; then generally south-westerly and generally southerly along the centreline of IWS Road which passes through the following coordinates: Longitude ° East Latitude ° South 143.413209 14.105504 143.410583 14.105814 143.408501 14.107902 143.408595 14.108734 143.407444 14.110204 143.405851 14.110390 143.404627 14.111310 143.401560 14.111734 143.397738 14.113946 143.394598 14.113993 143.393305 14.114535 143.392131 14.117996 143.391834 14.120952 143.390953 14.123557 143.391721 14.127300 143.393042 14.130535 143.392941 14.134401 143.394049 14.135327 143.393931 14.137598 143.395753 14.141900 143.394825 14.144736 143.398107 14.153035 143.398462 14.156006 143.397182 14.157957 143.395330 14.159082 143.391819 14.159675 143.390022 14.161160 143.390351 14.163110 143.392399 14.164661 143.392798 14.166785

then south-easterly to the centreline of Stewart River at Longitude 143.394076° East; then easterly along the centreline of that river until it intersects with the centreline of an unnamed road (also known as Running Creek Lilyvale Road) at Longitude 143.575456° East; then generally south-easterly along the centreline of that road until the intersection with an unnamed road (also known as Lava Hill Road) at the second Rocky Crossing at 143.635965° East; then generally south-westerly along the centreline of Lava Hill Road which passes through the following coordinates: Longitude ° East Latitude ° South 143.635506 14.147600 143.634123 14.149262 143.633115 14.153591 143.633904 14.158187 143.632550 14.163011 143.633210 14.165262 143.629125 14.167696 143.626891 14.170060 143.623829 14.171075 143.621716 14.173022 143.617132 14.174336 143.609785 14.178803 143.608475 14.180773 143.605590 14.182273 143.601704 14.180173 143.596630 14.183727 143.595083 14.186263 143.590667 14.189278 143.587685 14.192798 143.583873 14.194850 143.579112 14.201936 143.574230 14.205863 143.572113 14.208261

then southerly to Longitude 143.572020° East, Latitude 14.209369° South, near where there is a large gum tree signing the boundary; then south-easterly until it intersects with the centreline of Balclutha Creek at Latitude 14.209567° South; then generally south-westerly along the centreline of that creek until it reaches a point at Longitude 143.517333° East; then south-easterly to the north-eastern corner of the northern severance of Lot 1 on SP161903, being the Balclutha Creek Nature Reserve; then southerly along the eastern boundary of that reserve, crossing an unnamed road, to its intersection with the eastern boundary of another unnamed road (also known as the Old Telegraph Line) at a point on the north-western corner of the western-most severance of Lot 6 on SP189946; then westerly to the centreline of that road; then generally southerly along the centreline of that road to its intersection with the eastern boundary of Lot 3384 on SP182311 at Latitude 14.667379° South; then easterly and southerly along the boundaries of that lot to its intersection with the centreline of Red Blanket Creek at Latitude 14.668541° South; then south-easterly to a point on the centreline of Lilyvale Road (also known as Musgrave Plains Road) at Longitude 143.564351° East, which is adjacent to a gravel pit; then north-easterly along the centreline of that road to its intersection with Marina Plains Road; then north-easterly along the centreline of that road to its intersection with Lakefield Road; then generally south-easterly along the centreline of that road past the Lakefield Ranger Base until it intersects with Mount Webb Wakooka Road (also known as Kalpowar Road); then generally north-easterly along that road to its intersection with the centreline of Normanby River; then generally northerly along the centreline of Normanby River to the High Water Mark at the mouth of that river; then generally north-westerly along the High Water Mark to the point of commencement. (All Subject to Survey) Data Reference and source Cadastral data sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021). Watercourse lines sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021). Baseline roads and tracks sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021). Contours - 10 metre interval sourced from Department of Resources, Qld (August 2021). Reference datum Geographical coordinates are referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94), in decimal degrees. Use of Coordinates Where coordinates are used within the description to represent cadastral or topographical boundaries or the intersection with such, they are intended as a guide only. As an outcome to the custodians of cadastral and topographic data continuously recalculating the geographic position of their data based on improved survey and data maintenance procedures, it is not possible to accurately define such a position other than by detailed ground survey.

Schedule 4 - Description of Determination Area The determination area comprises all of the land and waters described Part 1 - Exclusive Areas All of the land and waters described in the following table and depicted Area description (at the time of the Determination) Lot 12 on SD9 3 Lot 5 on SD5 3 Lot 320 on SD13 2 Lot 319 on SD13 2 Lot 318 on SD13 2 Lot 317 on SD13 2 Lot 316 on SD13 2 Lot 315 on SD13 2 Lot 314 on SD13 2 Lot 313 on SD13 2 Lot 312 on SD13 2 Lot 311 on SD13 2 Lot 310 on SD13 2 Lot 309 on SD13 2 Lot 308 on SD13 2 Lot 307 on SD13 2 Lot 306 on SD13 2 Lot 305 on SD13 2 Lot 304 on SD13 2 Lot 303 on SD13 2 Lot 302 on SD13 2 Lot 301 on SD13 2 Lot 220 on SD13 2 Lot 219 on SD13 2 Lot 218 on SD13 2 Lot 217 on SD13 2 Lot 216 on SD13 2 Lot 215 on SD13 2 Lot 214 on SD13 2 Lot 213 on SD13 2 Lot 212 on SD13 2 Lot 211 on SD13 2 Lot 210 on SD13 2 Lot 209 on SD13 2 Lot 208 on SD13 2 Lot 207 on SD13 2 Lot 206 on SD13 2 Lot 205 on SD13 2 Lot 204 on SD13 2 Lot 203 on SD13 2 Lot 120 on SD13 2 Lot 119 on SD13 2 Lot 118 on SD13 2 Lot 117 on SD13 2 Lot 116 on SD13 2 Lot 115 on SD13 2 Lot 114 on SD13 2 Lot 113 on SD13 2 Lot 112 on SD13 2 Lot 111 on SD13 2 Lot 108 on SD13 2 Lot 107 on SD13 2 Lot 106 on SD13 2 Lot 105 on SD13 2 Lot 104 on SD13 2 Lot 103 on SD13 2 Lot 102 on SD13 2 Lot 101 on SD13 2 Lot 3 on HN6 8 Lot 3 on C153532 3 Lot 2 on C153532 3 Lot 4 on C153470 3 Lot 3 on SP161903 4 Lot 6 on SP189946 Lot 13 on SD21 Lot 17 on SP148785 8 Lot 2 on SP161903 Lot 7 on SP189946 Lot 17 on SP171831 8 Lot 109 on SD13 2 Lot 110 on SD13 2 That part of Lot 10 on SP208286 that falls within the External Boundary That part of Lot 15 on SP121904 that falls within the External Boundary That part of Lot 16 on SP121904 that falls within the External Boundary 1 by lots on plan, or relevant parts thereof, and any rivers, streams, creeks or lakes described in the first column of the tables in the Parts immediately below, and depicted in the maps in Schedule 6, to the extent those areas are within the External Boundary and not otherwise excluded by the terms of Schedule 5. in dark blue on the Determination map contained in Schedule 6: Determination Map Sheet Reference Note ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1, 5, and 6 * 1, 2, and 3 * * 1 and 4 * 5 and 6 * * * * 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 * 1, 2, 3, and 4 * *

denotes areas to which s 47A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applies. ^ denotes areas to which s 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applies. Part 2 - Non-Exclusive Areas All of the land and waters described in the following table and depicted in light blue on the Determination map contained in Schedule 6: Area description (at the time of the Determination) Determination Map Sheet Reference Lot 4 on SP161903 1 and 4 Lot 5 on SP161903 4 Lot 15 on SP208286 9 Lot 20 on SP208286 10 Lot 6 on SD5 3 Lot 1 on C153446 3 Lot 6 on C153446 3 Lot 201 on SD13 2 Lot 202 on SD13 2 Lot 21 on SD13 2 That part of Lot 5362 on SP314591 that falls within the External Boundary 5 That part of Lot 10 on SD19 that falls within the External Boundary 1, 3, and 4 Save for any waters forming part of a lot on plan, all rivers, creeks, streams and lakes within the External Boundary described in Schedule 3, including but not limited to: (a) Annie River; (b) Balcutha Creek; (c) Gorge Creek; (d) Letterbox Creek; (e) Normanby River; (f) North Kennedy River; (g) Stewart River; (h) Bizant River; and (i) Jam Tin Creek.

Schedule 5 - Areas Not Forming Part of the Determination Area The following areas of land and waters are excluded from the Determination Area as described in Part 1 of Schedule 4 and Part 2 of Schedule 4.

Those land and waters within the External Boundary in relation to which one or more Previous Exclusive Possession Acts, within the meaning of s 23B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was done and was attributable to either the Commonwealth or the State, and to which none of ss 47, 47A or 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applied, as they could not be claimed in accordance with s 61A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Specifically, and to avoid any doubt, the land and waters described in (1) above includes: (a) the Previous Exclusive Possession Acts described in ss 23B(2) and 23B(3) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to which s 20 of the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) applies, and to which none of ss 47, 47A or 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applied, including, but not limited to the whole of the land and waters described as: Area description (at the time of the Determination) Lot 8 on SD18 Lot 7 on SD9 Lot 10 on SD9 Lot 11 on SD9 Lot 9 on SD18 Lot 2 on HN6 Lot 39 on SP156407 Lot 8 on HN10

(b) the land and waters on which any public work, as defined in s 253 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), is or was constructed, established or situated, and to which ss 23B(7) and 23C(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and to which s 21 of the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld), applies, together with any adjacent land or waters in accordance with s 251D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). 3. Those land and waters within the External Boundary that were excluded from the Native Title Determination Application on the basis that, at the time of the Native Title Determination Application, they were an area where native title rights and interests had been wholly extinguished, and to which none of ss 47, 47A or 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applied, including, but not limited to: (a) any area where there had been an unqualified grant of estate in fee simple which wholly extinguished native title rights and interests; and (b) any area over which there was an existing dedicated public road which wholly extinguished native title rights and interests. 4. Those land and waters within the External Boundary on which, at the time the Native Title Determination Application was made, public works were validly constructed, established or situated after 23 December 1996, where s 24JA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applies, and which wholly extinguished native title.

INTRODUCTION 1 The parties have sought a determination of native title under s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), with associated orders, recognising the native title of the Lama Lama People. This determination is being made a day after determinations recognising the native title of the Northern Kaanju People and the Southern Kaantju People, and on the same day as a determination recognising the native title of the Ayapathu People. I note that in the materials supplied to the Court there are a variety of spellings for the names of these groups. In these reasons I adopt the spellings used by the Cape York United #1 applicant in its submissions in support of the determinations. 2 Together, these determinations resolve four parts of the Cape York United #1 claim, within a geographic region that has come to be known as the 'Kwok Report Area' or the 'Kwok Timetable Area', after the anthropologist engaged by the Cape York United #1 applicant to prepare connection material about the area. It is important to note that, by orders made on 8 February 2022, parcels of land in respect of which the parties to the Cape York United #1 proceeding could not reach agreement were excluded from the consent determinations today and yesterday. For this reason, the determinations do not reflect the entirety of the country claimed by each of the four native title holding groups. 3 Recognising that each of the groups is a distinct native title holding group, with rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the determination area which comprise separate and distinct native titles, the Court makes orders and gives reasons separately for each group. 4 This important day for the Lama Lama People is the right time to remember how elders described Lama Lama country being filled with law and with all that was needed for life. In the words of Mr P Bassani and Mr A Lakefield, now passed away: We are Lamalama elders. Our traditional land is inside Lakefield National Park, the country of our Old People, our ancestors Lamalama land and sea-country. Them Cliff Island too in Princess Charlotte Bay. This is the country of our Stories, our ceremonies, our traditions and our culture. We got forest, woodland, grass plain, floodplain, mangrove and saltpan country. Plenty river, creek, swamp and lagoon too. the land, and the sea, them river all got plenty of food for us. In Lamalama way you can't go hungry. The Stories put that tucker there. Yam, lady-apple, archerfish, blue-tail mullet, kangaroo, wallaby, snail-shell, oyster, mud crabs, lily - all that food there. Them Story put the Law there too. They taught the Old people how to hunt, how to cook their tucker, make ceremony and live on the land. 5 The Court's orders, and the long overdue recognition by Australian law, will help preserve the country of the Lama Lama People so that this deep connection is protected and so that future generations can have the rules and knowledge about country passed on to them in order to continue that connection. 6 For the reasons set out below, the Court is satisfied it is appropriate to make the orders sought, and that it is within the power of the Court to do so.

THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT 7 The application for consent determination was supported by a principal set of submissions filed on behalf of the applicant on 2 June 2022. The State filed submissions on 10 June 2022. The Court has been greatly assisted by the parties' submissions. 8 The applicant relied on an affidavit of Kirstin Donlevy Malyon, filed on 2 June 2022 (the Malyon 2022 affidavit), and a further affidavit of Ms Malyon filed on 21 June 2022. Ms Malyon has been the Principal Legal Officer at the Cape York Land Council (CYLC) and has had the carriage of the Cape York United #1 claim. She deposed to how the Lama Lama s 87A agreement was approved, and to how the Lama Lama Aboriginal Corporation was nominated as the prescribed body corporate (PBC) for the Lama Lama determination, annexing the notice of nomination for that PBC and its consent to act as the relevant PBC for the determination area. 9 In terms of connection material for the four determinations, the applicant relied on: (a) the expert report of Dr Natalie Kwok entitled "Northern Central and Princess Charlotte Bay Region" filed on 16 November 2017 (the Kwok 2017 report); (b) the amended expert report of Ms Kate Waters dated 5 March 2018 and filed on 6 March 2018 (the Waters 2018 report); and (c) the supplementary expert report of Dr Kwok dated April 2019, which has been annexed to an affidavit of Parkinson Wirrick, a legal officer with the CYLC, affirmed and filed on 2 June 2022 (the Wirrick 2022 affidavit). 10 In terms of connection material for the Lama Lama determination in particular, the applicant relied on: (a) the witness statement of Gavin Bassani dated 27 March 2019, which is annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit; (b) the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Tommy Kangaroo dated 30 June 2020, which is also annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit; (c) the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Maurice (Thowandya) (father of King Armstrong and Possum aka Possum Maurice) dated 1 June 2022, also annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit; and (d) the apical report of Ms Waters regarding Old Man Billy (Waarrathu/Gangayurrkumu) dated 21 April 2022, also annexed to the Wirrick 2022 affidavit. 11 The applicant also relied on paragraphs [5] to [30] of an affidavit of Ms Malyon filed on 27 October 2021 (the Malyon 2021 affidavit), which concerned the re-authorisation process undertaken by the applicant in the period from April to September 2021.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 12 The Cape York United #1 claim was filed in this Court in December 2014. It covers various types of tenure, including pastoral leases, protected areas, reserves and areas of unallocated State land. It is the largest native title claim currently before the Court, and covers a majority of the area of Cape York for which no determination under the Native Title Act has been made. 13 The complex procedural history and nature of the Cape York United #1 claim is summarised in the Court's reasons for the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations made last year: Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 2) (Kuuku Ya'u determination) [2021] FCA 1464 at [3], [12]-[19], [30]-[37]; Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 3) (Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determination) [2021] FCA 1465 at [3], [13]-[20], [28]-[35].

The Lama Lama s 87A agreement 14 As with the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu determinations, the process undertaken by the CYLC with the Lama Lama native title group was methodical. The two major decision-making processes which needed closely to involve landholding groups were the processes to settle boundary descriptions, and the processes to settle group composition. 15 The Boundary Identification Negotiation and Mediation or 'BINM' process was adopted in April 2020 to deal with the reality that different groups hold different native titles in the claim area: see Kuuku Ya'u determination at [18], [25]-[26] and Uutaalnganu determination at [19], [23]-[24]. The BINM process was employed for the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Lama Lama and Ayapathu claims. This is what Ms Malyon describes in the Malyon 2022 affidavit at [73]-[113]. 16 Putative boundary descriptions for Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju were developed from desktop research by the CYLC and Dr Kwok in the middle of 2020. These descriptions were informed by consultations with the anthropologists engaged by the CYLC for neighbouring areas. The putative boundary descriptions were provided to the State on 24 July 2020 without prejudice to the applicant's position. Thereafter the CYLC facilitated consultations with the Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju groups throughout Cape York and in Cairns. This involved engaging Dr Kwok and Mark Winters (another consultant anthropologist) to consult with relevant families, elders and important individuals for a combined total of 47 days, and engaging Dr Kevin Murphy, Dr Anthony Redmond, Dr Ray Wood, Dr Frank McKeown and Dr David Thompson to consult with relevant families, elders and important individuals in the neighbouring groups for a combined total of 35 days. The consultations helped identify who should attend meetings on behalf of the four groups and their neighbours, and helped ensure that those people would attend those meetings. The consultations also helped inform the proposed descriptions for the four groups (which were eventually agreed with the State in March 2021). 17 Following the consultations, in the second half of 2020, separate 'preliminary meetings' were held for each of the Ayapathu, Lama Lama, Northern Kaanju and Southern Kaantju native title groups, at which maps of the preliminary boundaries were provided and changes were proposed by group members. Afterwards, 'boundary meetings' were held between neighbouring groups, at which the applicant, through its legal representatives, took instructions as to the final descriptions of common boundaries, ultimately to be provided to the State. 18 At each boundary meeting were the relevant consultant anthropologists, a CYLC lawyer and a CYLC anthropologist. The intention was that the boundary meetings be attended by people with ancestral connections to, and specific knowledge of country, as well as those who had cultural authority to speak for and make decisions for country, as confirmed by the consultant anthropologists. The meetings commenced with an overview by the consultant anthropologists of the available anthropological materials. The consultant anthropologists then assisted the group representatives by providing advice, translation and feedback about anthropological and genealogical matters. Group representatives also had access to the CYLC's genealogical records (subject to confidentiality), private break-out spaces, a series of maps and the State's response to the putative boundary descriptions. At the end of the meetings agreement as to boundaries by consensus was sought, and if there was agreement, it was recorded in written resolutions. 19 In the case of the Lama Lama, preliminary meetings were held on 27 August 2020 and 13 October 2020. Lama Lama group members were notified of the meetings by post and email, and meetings were also publicised on the CYLC's website and Facebook page, and community noticeboards. At these meetings, an appropriate description of the Lama Lama native title group was discussed. Further consultations about apical ancestors were held with particular families on 6 May, 10 June, and 22 and 27 September 2021, resulting in the inclusion of Jerry Crowbar as an apical ancestor. 20 Boundary meetings were held for the Lama Lama native title group with the Ayapathu native title group, with the Kuku Thaypan native title group and with the Olkola Traditional Owner group on 20-21 April 2021, with the Kuku Thaypan and Marrett River Traditional Owner groups on 6-7 May 2021, and with the Kuku Thaypan Traditional Owner group on 23 July 2021. Following these meetings, the State requested further information about the south-eastern boundary of Lama Lama, which neighbours the Kuku Warra. Further boundary meetings occurred on 22 and 23 February 2022 between the Lama Lama native title group and the Kuku Warra native title group, including members of the Bagaarmugu clan, who were on the CYLC's contact database. Further notification of these meetings occurred online, via Facebook, and via key spokespeople, as well as by delivery of additional meeting notices in Cooktown, Mossman and Wujal Wujal. The meetings, which included discussions of Jerry Crowbar's inclusion in the group descriptions for Lama Lama and Kuku Warra, resulted in an agreed boundary on 23 February 2022. 21 Another issue related to the boundary with the Umpila native title group, which was unable to be agreed after mediation conducted by the CYLC on 2 March 2020, 2-4 February and 7-8 April 2021, and further mediation conducted by the Court on 8 June, 6 September and 27 October 2021. Following a judicial case management hearing, the applicant and the State developed an approach whereby the area of the Lama Lama claim not subject to a dispute with Umpila would proceed to consent determination in July 2022, whilst the disputed area would be reserved for a contested hearing by the Court. This approach involved the CYLC and a consultant anthropologist consulting with the Lama Lama native title group, including about the inclusion of Frank Port (Nangkayunumu) as a Lama Lama apical ancestor in any consent determination, regardless of whether the disputed area would ultimately be recognised as Lama Lama or not. The Lama Lama native title group unanimously resolved that Frank Port should be included in the group description regardless of the outcome of the disputed area. 22 The s 87A agreements were settled and authorised after the BINM process was complete. In the Malyon 2022 affidavit, Ms Malyon deposes to the notification of meetings to discuss, and subsequently authorise, the s 87A agreement for the Lama Lama determination. The Lama Lama authorisation meeting was conducted on 12 April 2022, and resolutions were passed by majority to authorise the s 87A agreement. 23 At a wider level, the Cape York United #1 applicant's authority to enter into the Lama Lama s 87A agreement stems from the re-authorisation process between April and September 2021. Ms Malyon describes this process in her 2021 affidavit, and the Court describes and approves it in Kuuku Ya'u determination at [30]-[37] and Uutaalnganu determination at [28]-[35]. 24 In Kuuku Ya'u determination at [38]-[50] and Uutaalnganu determination at [36]-[48], I explained why I considered it appropriate to make orders under s 84D(4) of the Native Title Act to deal with any uncertainty arising from differences between the claim group description in the original Cape York United #1 application and those in the proposed determinations at a more local level, both as regards the Court's power to make a determination and the way in which a claim can be authorised. 25 In those determinations, I agreed with the State's submission that the weight of authority supports the view that the Native Title Act affords flexibility to shape the content of the ultimate determination of native title, provided there is compliance with s 94A and s 225 of the Act. However, orders were made under s 84D(4) out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any doubt about the validity of the consent determinations. At [50] in Kuuku Ya'u determination and [48] in Uutaalnganu determination, I said: It is plainly in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, in circumstances where the overall Cape York United #1 claim is gargantuan, and has already consumed seven years' worth of resources, mostly sourced from public funds. Substantial, dedicated and methodical efforts have been made to comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act in each step along the way to these first two determinations. Despite significant factual and legal challenges, the two key parties have navigated a consensual path to the recognition of native title for the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) groups. All other respondents have been consulted and given opportunities to participate in the process as it has progressed. They have been included in steps in the complex timetables. All consent to the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations. If ever there was a situation in the Court's native title jurisdiction where a favourable exercise of discretion by the Court is appropriate to ensure resolution of a claim to which all parties agree, this is that situation. 26 In each of the present four determinations, the Cape York United #1 applicant proposed that similar orders be made. The State agreed with that proposal. For the reasons given in the extract above, I continue to consider such orders are appropriate.

THE CONNECTION OF THE LAMA LAMA NATIVE TITLE GROUP TO THE DETERMINATION AREA, THROUGH THEIR TRADITIONAL LAW AND CUSTOM 27 In her 2017 report, Dr Natalie Kwok presents native title connection evidence in relation to the North Central Cape York and south-eastern Princess Charlotte Bay areas. This report covers all four determination areas for today and yesterday. This evidence is informed by the historical, anthropological and archival record, as well as on-site field research and interviews with people who were believed to have a traditional connection to those areas, and a range of environmental and linguistic data set out in the report. 28 Dr Kwok describes how Aboriginal people were in occupation of the determination areas at the time of the British assertion of sovereignty, and that laws and customs observed at that time recognised rights and interests in relation to lands and waters. While she acknowledges that the local peoples were placed under significant pressure from pastoralists and government authorities to leave their homelands, Dr Kwok describes and explains the strong efforts to resist this pressure, and how many people remained on country or connected to country, including by accepting exploitative work in order to remain in the area. Dr Kwok reviews and summarises the contemporary laws and customs in relation to land tenure in the North Central Cape York and south-eastern Princess Charlotte Bay areas, and concludes that these rights and interests originate in the pre-sovereignty contemporary laws and customs, having been passed down primarily patrilineally and shared by elders in didactic stories. 29 The applicant relies on this evidence as establishing a credible basis for the proposition that each of the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Lama Lama and Ayapathu native title claim groups have maintained their connection to their respective determination area, under their respective traditional laws and customs, since prior to the British assertion of sovereignty. The State accepts such a credible basis exists. I accept the parties' submissions. 30 In relation to the Lama Lama People, Dr Kwok states (at [712] of her 2017 report): People referred to as the Koko Lamalama are registered in connection with the coastal area of southern Princess Charlotte Bay in Roth's writings in the early 1900s. The Lamalama name appears to have had relatively flexible application, even in the pre-sovereignty period, being applied in the first instance by outsiders to reference people of the saltpan country. The name also had narrower application, labelling a language variety associated with the Jane Table Hill area. The contemporary Lamalama identity encompasses the interests of five to six distinct pre-sovereignty language groupings extending south from Massy Creek along the shores and adjacent hinterland of Princess Charlotte Bay to the Normanby and perhaps as far as the Marrett River. The consolidation and expansion of the identity in the post-settlement period has been productive of both conflicts - particularly on the northern peripheries - and ambiguities. 31 The State submits: Whilst identifying as a single language-named group, there is a retention of knowledge of clan estates with families continuing to identify themselves with particular locales and languages. 32 The Court accepts there is a credible basis in the material for this conclusion. 33 The evidence supporting the Lama Lama group description, and the identification of apical ancestors, is found throughout the reports prepared by Dr Kwok and Ms Waters. I accept these matters were explored and presented to group members at a series of meetings described by Ms Malyon in the Malyon 2022 affidavit. 34 Finally, as had been done in the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu determinations, it is appropriate to set out here some of the evidence of the Lama Lama group members, whose lived experiences and connections to culture and country provide the foundation for this determination. As I noted in the 2021 determinations, it is the group members who "live and understand their law and custom, and how it connects them to their country": Kuuku Ya'u determination at [68]; Uutaalnganu determination at [59]. 35 Gavin Bassani principally traces his connection to Lama Lama country through his great-grandfather, who was from Breakfast Creek, and whose maternal grandmother was a sister to Kowayi Yalmarrka, which means 'Breakfast Creek'. Mr Bassani also has connections to Port Stewart through his grandmother's husband, to Cape Melville/Barrow Point through his grandmother's mother, and to Hopevale through his mother. In his witness statement, Mr Bassani recounts how his grandparents, uncles and father taught him about hunting, fishing, camping and spear-making on Lama Lama country. 36 Mr Bassani describes the constituency of the Lama Lama People, and its significance, as follows (at [29]): There are eight clan groups which cross over and are interconnected; we are all Lama Lama. A Lama Lama child has full access to all Lama Lama country. But if you are from somewhere else, you don't get full rights. 37 According to Mr Bassani, rights to country comprise the following privileges and responsibilities (at [41]-[43]): We can make decisions about our country. If a decision is going to be made, then we talk to our elders, and they give us advice. There are protocols around other people's country. You can only make decisions on your own country. If you make a decision about someone else's country, or take something from someone else's country, you will get into trouble. It shows disrespect, for example going in there and catching turtle; you can't just go in and please yourself. You have to show courtesy and respect - you wouldn't want them to hunt and fish and make decisions on your country. Since 2013, we have had a TUMRA [Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement] which goes from the Massey River [N10] [a reference to a map attached to Mr Bassani's statement] to the south bank of the Normanby River [P12]. Everyone who is connected to our country knows exactly what the protocols are and what is required. There are no photos on social media of turtles and we have a quota for our use. This is our business and we do not put that out there to the public. We have our rules and we have now put the rules into a document, the TUMRA.

THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 87A 38 Section 87A applies to an agreement reached "at any stage" of an existing proceeding for a proposed determination of native title in relation to an area (the determination area) that is "part of, but not all of", the area covered by the native title determination application under s 61 of the Native Title Act. 39 Sub-section 87A(1) requires: (a) the existence of a proceeding in relation to an application for a determination of native title; (b) after the period specified in a notice given under s 66 of the Act, an agreement in writing for a proposed determination of native title in relation to part, but not all, of the application area; (c) that the requisite persons are parties to the agreement; and (d) that the terms of the agreement are in writing and signed by, or on behalf of, the requisite persons. 40 Sub-section 87A(2) allows for the parties to file a proposed determination of native title and that has occurred on this application. 41 Sub-sections 87A(4) to (6) provide: (4) The Court may make an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination of native title without holding a hearing, or if a hearing has started, without completing the hearing, if the Court considers that: (a) an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination would be within its power; and (b) it would be appropriate to do so. Note: As the Court's order involves making a determination of native title, the order needs to comply with section 94A (which deals with the requirements of native title determination orders). (5) Without limiting subsection (4), if the Court makes an order under that subsection, the Court may also make an order under this subsection that gives effect to terms of the agreement that involve matters other than native title if the Court considers that: (a) the order would be within its power; and (b) it would be appropriate to do so. (6) The jurisdiction conferred on the Court by this Act extends to making an order under subsection (5).

Sub-section 87A(1): pre-requisites 42 As the applicant sets out at [46]-[51] of its submissions, which the State adopts, each of the pre-requisites in s 87A(1) is satisfied. Each s 87A agreement has been signed by the requisite persons after appropriate notification.

Sub-section 87A(4)(a): orders within power 43 For the reasons set out at [52]-[57] of the applicant's submissions, with which the State agrees, I am satisfied the orders sought are within the power of the Court. 44 The Cape York United #1 application is valid and there is no extant determination of native title in relation to the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu or Lama Lama determination areas. As the State notes, areas over which previous exclusive possession acts have occurred are expressly excluded. There are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the determinations that would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Act. I am satisfied that the form of the determinations complies with s 94A and s 225 of the Act and, for the reasons that follow, the requirements of s 87A of the Act are otherwise satisfied.

Sub-section 87A(4)(b): appropriate to make the orders sought 45 I set out my approach to the question of "appropriateness" and the Court's function in the recent consent determination reasons relating to the Nanda People: see Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1849 at [52]-[56], by reference to earlier authorities. In Taylor on behalf of the Yamatji Nation Claim v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 42 at [63]-[65], I explained the particular importance of the role of the State in the consent determination process. As I did in the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu determinations, I adopt and apply the observations I made in Drury and Taylor here. 46 I am satisfied there has been a methodical and careful approach to group description, boundary description, connection and tenure adopted by all parties in relation to the four determinations, including Lama Lama. Other active respondents have been consulted and given the opportunity to comment on matters affecting their interests. The Court affords considerable weight to the position taken by the State, on behalf of all members of its community, that it is appropriate for the Court to make the proposed Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu and Lama Lama determinations. The role of the State of Queensland in the detailed step by step process in the Cape York United #1 claim has involved considerable human and financial resources, and the Court can be confident the State has reached a carefully considered view before agreeing to these determinations.

NOMINATION OF A PRESCRIBED BODY CORPORATE 47 A separate PBC has been nominated under s 56 of the Native Title Act for each of the Northern Kaanju, Southern Kaantju, Ayapathu and Lama Lama determination areas. In the Malyon 2022 affidavit at [19]-[20], [35]-[36], [53]-[54] and [70]-[71], Ms Malyon describes how each PBC was nominated by the native title group concerned, and that each PBC has provided its consent to nomination. In these circumstances, the nomination of the PBCs is appropriate.

CONCLUSION 48 The Court acknowledges the dedication of Lama Lama group members, the members of the Cape York United #1 applicant and their legal representatives, anthropologists and other expert advisers, all of whom have worked together to achieve this determination. 49 In these four determinations, it is especially important to acknowledge the contribution of Ms Kirstin Malyon, who has recently left the Cape York Land Council, but whose tireless and high quality work assisting claim group members in securing recognition of their native title has been immensely valuable, and appreciated by the Court. 50 The Court also recognises the role played by the State and the other active respondents in this proceeding, and commends the work of National Judicial Registrar Stride and external mediators Glen Kelly and Joshua Creamer in the processes that have facilitated the Court's decisions today and yesterday. The Court also thanks all its staff whose work behind the scenes in relation to mediations, hearings, travel, communications and preparation of orders and reasons is just as vital to the outcome as any of the more visible work a Judge might do. 51 These four determinations have been achieved despite the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives and work of all concerned over the last two years or more, and to have persisted in seeing these determinations through to a conclusion under such difficult circumstances is a particularly impressive achievement. 52 It bears repeating that every determination that native title exists is important. While there may be numerous determinations around Australia each year, there is only one for this country, the country of the Lama Lama People. This is their day. The recognition given by a determination of native title, for those who have long been denied any recognition by Australian law of their deep and abiding connection to their country, is a step in the struggle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to regain what was taken away from them, and to make their own choices about how their country and its resources are protected, used and maintained. I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Mortimer.

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES QUD 673 of 2014 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Queensland Division: General Third Respondent AURUKUN SHIRE COUNCIL Fourth Respondent CARPENTARIA SHIRE COUNCIL Fifth Respondent COOK SHIRE COUNCIL Sixth Respondent DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL Seventh Respondent KOWANYAMA ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Eighth Respondent NAPRANUM ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Ninth Respondent PORMPURAAW ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Tenth Respondent WUJAL WUJAL ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Eleventh Respondent ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 087 646 062 Twelfth Respondent FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND PORTS CORPORATION LIMITED (TRADING AS PORTS NORTH) Thirteenth Respondent TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Fourteenth Respondent ALCAN SOUTH PACIFIC Fifteenth Respondent BRANDT METALS PTY LTD Sixteenth Respondent LESLIE CARL COLEING Seventeenth Respondent MATTHEW BYRON COLEING Eighteenth Respondent STEPHEN LESLIE COLEING Nineteenth Respondent LANCE JEFFRESS Twentieth Respondent RTA WEIPA PTY LTD Twenty First Respondent AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY Twenty Second Respondent MICHAEL MARIE LOUIS DENIS BREDILLET Twenty Third Respondent CRAIG ANTHONY CALLAGHAN Twenty Fourth Respondent BERTIE LYNDON CALLAGHAN Twenty Fifth Respondent GRAHAM EDWARD ELMES Twenty Sixth Respondent JAMES MAURICE GORDON Twenty Seventh Respondent PATRICIA LOIS GORDON Twenty Eighth Respondent MARGARET ANNE INNES Twenty Ninth Respondent COLIN INNES Thirtieth Respondent KIM KERWIN Thirty First Respondent WENDY EVA KOZICKA Thirty Second Respondent CAMERON STUART MACLEAN Thirty Third Respondent MICHELLE MARGARET MACLEAN Thirty Fourth Respondent BRETT JOHN MADDEN Thirty Fifth Respondent RODNEY GLENN RAYMOND Thirty Sixth Respondent EVAN FRANK RYAN Thirty Seventh Respondent PAUL BRADLEY RYAN Thirty Eighth Respondent SUSAN SHEPHARD Thirty Ninth Respondent SCOTT EVAN RYAN Fortieth Respondent BARBARA JOAN SHEPHARD Forty First Respondent NEVILLE JAMES SHEPHARD Forty Second Respondent THOMAS DONALD SHEPHARD Forty Third Respondent SILVERBACK PROPERTIES PTY LTD ACN 067 400 088 Forty Fourth Respondent THE TONY AND LISETTE LEWIS SETTLEMENT PTY LIMITED ACN 003 632 344 Forty Fifth Respondent MATTHEW TREZISE Forty Sixth Respondent BOWYER ARCHER RIVER QUARRIES PTY LTD ACN 603 263 369 Forty Seventh Respondent RAYLEE FRANCES BYRNES Forty Eighth Respondent VICTOR PATRICK BYRNES Forty Ninth Respondent GAVIN DEAR Fiftieth Respondent SCOTT ALEXANDER HARRIS Fifty First Respondent DEBORAH LOUISE SYMONDS Fifty Second Respondent MICHAEL JOHN MILLER Fifty Third Respondent MICHAEL DOUGLAS O'SULLIVAN Fifty Fourth Respondent PATRICK JOHN O'SULLIVAN Fifty Fifth Respondent ESTHER RUTH FOOTE Fifty Sixth Respondent AMPLITEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE TOWERS BUSINESS OPERATING TRUST (ABN 75 357 171 746)

(Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1975(Cth)

(Cth), the Australian Telecommunications Corporation Act 1989(Cth)

(Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1991(Cth)

Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited Agreement Act 1957(Qld)

Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990(Qld)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (25 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (25)

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (11)