The meeting of 25 May 2013
7 173 persons attended the meeting who identified themselves as members of the native title claim group. I am satisfied by the evidence before me that the meeting was properly convened and constituted. An independent facilitator, Mark Annandale, chaired the meeting. He swore an affidavit that explained the way in which the business of the meeting was conducted. It is clear from the voting records that Mr Annandale kept, which were written up on long sheets of paper attached to a board after each vote during the course of the meeting for all present to see, that virtually all the members of the native title claim group present participated in each of the votes that were taken. Representatives of Queensland South and Mr Hardie, together with counsel briefed by him, Nathan Jarro, attended the meeting and were able to make presentations.
8 The meeting accepted that an honesty system for voting be adopted. It resolved there was no particular process of decision-making under the traditional laws and customs of the Mandandanji people that had to be complied with by them when making decisions relating to their native title determination application, and that the process of decision-making for the purposes of the meeting would be as follows: a resolution would be put in the form of a clearly-worded written resolution; it would be read out to the meeting, moved and seconded before it was voted on, and voted on by a show of hands; the chairperson would cause a count to be made of those in favour and those against, and those who wished to be recorded as abstaining; the chairperson would also ensure that a record was made of the count, and if a majority who cast a vote voted in favour of a resolution, then the chairperson had to declare the motion carried. That resolution was carried unanimously by 157 votes.
9 Next, the meeting resolved that only persons descended from Nellie Edwards, Combarngo Bill, Weribone Jack Senior, and Mary Weribone would be entitled to speak and participate in the meeting. Again, that was carried unanimously by 153 votes. The next resolution accepted that, for the purpose of the meeting, persons who had signed the attendance book as descendants of one of the apical ancestors listed in the immediately preceding resolution would be taken to be the descendants of that ancestor. That was carried unanimously by 159 votes.
10 Importantly, the next two resolutions dealt with the issues relating to the status of descendants of Dolly Clark. The first was that the meeting did not accept that Dolly Clark and her descendants were recognised and accepted as Mandandanji people, and it did not accept that the descendants of Dolly Clark's mother, Biddie, or her grandfather, Old Frog, were Mandandanji people, rather than belonging to the Gunggari People. It also proposed that the meeting determine that the claim group description remain as it currently was, so that it would continue to be composed of descendants of the four apical ancestors I have identified. That resolution was carried by a majority of 93 for, over 72 votes against, with a total of 165 people voting.
11 The second resolution concerning Dolly Clark's descendants resolved against amending the boundary of the claim area by excluding all areas south of the junction of the Upper Balonne and Maranoa Rivers at Lake Kajarabie as shown in the shaded area identified on a map at the meeting, and also in the map reproduced in the advertisement for the meeting. That motion was decided by 91 votes to 58.
12 The meeting then resolved that the claim group determined that it was a precondition to the appointment of a person as a member of the replacement applicant that those persons would conduct the affairs of the applicant in accordance with the following four stipulations:
(1) the applicant must represent the whole of the claim group and not just the person's own family or descent group;
(2) in the event that one or more of the individuals was incapable and unable or unwilling to continue to serve as a member of the applicant, whether as a result of death, ill health, or any other reason, the remaining individuals could continue to act without the need to appoint a replacement, and that any individual who was not present and did not participate in three consecutive meetings of the applicant without reasonable excuse, or who refused to sign, when requested, any document purporting to bind the applicant or the claim group that bore a majority of signatures of persons who constituted the applicant, must be regarded as unwilling or unable to continue to serve;
(3) in the event of disagreement among the applicant group, decisions of the applicant be made by a majority vote, either at a face-to-face meeting, or by written or verbal instructions provided to the applicant's legal advisers; and
(4) the signatures of the majority of persons who constituted the applicant would be sufficient on any document to bind the applicant.
That resolution was carried unanimously by 163 votes.
13 The meeting then resolved to constitute the replacement applicant with three persons from each of the four family groups identified by their apical ancestors. Voting occurred, and after each of the three representatives of the four descent groups were selected, a further resolution was carried unanimously by 166 votes, with one abstention, that the 12 persons who now constitute the proposed replacement applicant be authorised to replace the current applicant, and that when the Court made an order for that to occur the current applicant would no longer be authorised to prosecute the native title determination application, or deal with matters arising in relation to it.
14 The replacement applicant consists of three persons who were formerly members of the current applicant, Leslie Weribone, Alexandra Combarngo, and Leigh Himstedt. Thus, seven members of the current applicant will no longer constitute the replacement applicant, and nine new persons would be added to the replacement applicant.