The dealings with the State regarding tenure resolution and management arrangements over the area of Batavia were cause for considerable concern in the period from about 2001 to 2004. From our perspective the State was (and still is) taking its time on the issue and playing bureaucratic games over our traditional homelands. But while our own and the efforts of our Native Title Representative Body were engaged with this issue, dispute about who has the right to speak for country and questions about the nature of the claimant group itself were festering in the background. From the start of the claim the native title process has allowed claimants whose connections to the claim area are questionable to come forward, leading to proceedings being dominated by this group to the detriment of the rights and interests of the proper Traditional Owners for the area. Unfortunately, despite our considerable effort and dialogue with the Land Council concerning this issue, the claim is continuing along its current path. While greater weight is placed on the wider Northern Kaanju identity and the claim being ‘boxed up’, core Northern Kaanju families for the claim area will continue to be marginalised in decision making processes to do with the claim and development proposals concerning the claim area. Put simply, our Native Title Representative Body is not listening to us, the primary Traditional Owners for the claim area, and the very people whose extensive knowledge of Indigenous law and custom and continuing connection to and engagement on homelands is supporting the claim.

Further, while the claim continues along its current path we see only problems for the formation of the PBC and for negotiations over major developments concerning the land such as the gas pipeline. We are firm in our determination that this impasse be broken and are currently seeking advice from the National Native Title Tribunal and lawyers on the best way to proceed in order to achieve the best outcome for the land and justice for the proper native title holders.^[26] Through the Chuulangun Aboriginal Corporation we have also engaged directly with the corporation overseeing the negotiations over the gas pipeline to inform them of the issues and to ensure that the views are sought from the appropriate Traditional Owners for the land through which it is proposed the pipeline will pass. Similarly for sovereignty and compensation issues, the NTA needs to recognise that native title claims are considered on a case-by-case basis and as such claimant groups need to also be considered as such. While for a number of native title claims regionally based native title holding groups may be appropriate, this may not necessarily be the case for all native title claims. The NTA and process needs to recognise that for some claims locally based land holding bodies are the most appropriate scale for proper decision-making and better reflect traditional governance structures, law, custom, and continuing connection and engagement with country.

I would like to conclude with a few comments made by legitimate senior claimants during the claims process. In one instance, continuing debate over the issue of whether to extend the claim group to include another language group with connections to the northern area of the claim was met with the following response from a senior Kaanju Traditional Owner: ‘But all the answers are gotten now and we need to finish this talk and get on with it’.^[27] This issue had been discussed in depth and resolved at a meeting held four months earlier. Another comment from the same Traditional Owner at the same meeting on the same issue was: ‘Just make decision today—tired of talking all the time’.^[28]

Finally, at a Steering Committee meeting held on country in 2001 a Kaanju Traditional Owner expressed his frustration over the NTA: ‘All these Acts belong to the government but what about Aboriginal people. Can we produce a new Act that will combine everything?’^[29] In response, an officer from the CYLC replied: ‘We won’t change the law but we can make progress through mediation and expedited native title process’.^[30] Almost five years on we are still waiting to get our land back.