Case: Northern Territory of Australia v Doepel [2003] FCA 1384 ; (2003) 133 FCR 112
Outcome: discussed
Section 190C(2) requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the application contains all the details and other information, and is accompanied by any affidavit or other document, required by ss 61 and 62. That requires the Registrar to consider whether the requirements of ss 61 and 62 are met in the amended Town of Batchelor No 2 application. For the reasons I expressed in Northern Territory of Australia v Doepel [2003] FCA 1384 ; (2003) 133 FCR 112 at [32] - [37] , I do not think the Registrar was required to go beyond the application in considering if that requirement was satisfied, and in particular was not required to undertake some form of merit assessment of the material. 42 The Registrar has worked through each of the requirements or elements of s 61 and s 62 of the Act, and assessed the application, that is the Town of Batchelor No 2 application, by reference to each of those requirements. That involved a careful consideration of the Town of Batchelor No 2 application and of the affidavits which accompanied it, as required by s 62(1)(a). He concluded that the application contained all the details and other information, and was accompanied by the documents, required by ss 61 and 62. I have gone through the documents to which he referred, in the light of submissions by counsel for the Town of Batchelor No 1 applicants. In my view, the Registrar's conclusion was reasonably available to him. I do not think he is shown to have misunderstood the law or to have asked himself the wrong question in addressing the requirements of s 190C(2). 43 The gravamen of the contention on behalf of the Town of Batchelor No 1 applicants was more focused upon the requirements of s 190C(4)(b). It provides that the Registrar must be satisfied that the Town of Batchelor No 2 applicants are members of the native title claim group and are authorised to make the application, and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, by all the persons in the native title claim group. The alternative provided by s 190C(4)(a) was not available because the NLC as the relevant representative body had not certified the Town of Batchelor No 2 application under Pt 11 of the NT Act. The requirements of s 190C(4)(b) are then further explained by s 190C(5) which is in the following terms: If the application has not been certified as mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), the Registrar cannot be satisfied that the condition in sub-section (4) has been satisfied unless the application: (a) includes a statement to the effect that the requirements set out in paragraph (4)(b) has been met; and (b) briefly sets out the grounds on which the Registrar should consider that it has been met. 44 The Registrar noted the definition of authorisation in s 251B of the NT Act. He correctly identified that he was required to be satisfied of the matters set out in s 190C(4)(b). He also identified the nature of that task as described in Doepel at [78]. As he said, the NT Act places fundamental importance upon ensuring that claimant applications are properly authorised: see e.g. Quall v Risk [2001] FCA 378. The Registrar said that the necessary statements for s 190C(5)(a) are made in the s 62 affidavits. There are affidavits pursuant to s 62 of the NT Act of May Stevens, Thomas Edward Petherick and Captain Wodidj adopting or using the words of s 62 of the NT Act, and therefore apparently providing a foundation for the Registrar's satisfaction that the requirement of s 190D(5)(a) of the NT Act had been met. He then said that he was satisfied that there was material at Schedule R and in Attachments R1, R2 and R3 to the Town of Batchelor No 2 application which met the requirements of s 190C(5)(b) as that material briefly set out the grounds on which he should consider that the requirements of s 190C(4)(b) had been met.