---
title: "Claim group authorisation meeting: notice, agenda and record of decisions (Native Title Act 1993 ss 251B, 251BA, 62C and 66B)"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/precedents/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/authorisation-meeting-notice-agenda-and-record"
type: "precedent"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "a36-authorisation-meeting-notice-agenda-and-record"
area_id: "A36"
kind: "form"
ai_level: "yellow"
version: 1
task_ids: ["A36-A20260923-2", "A36-T1-R8"]
law_stated_as_at: "2026-10-18"
---

# Claim group authorisation meeting: notice, agenda and record of decisions (Native Title Act 1993 ss 251B, 251BA, 62C and 66B)

> Templates for a native title claim group meeting that authorises, replaces or sets conditions on the applicant: the public and direct notice, the agenda, and a record of the decision-making process used and each…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/precedents/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/authorisation-meeting-notice-agenda-and-record  
Law stated as at: 2026-10-18

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

Templates for a native title claim group meeting that authorises, replaces or sets conditions on the applicant: the public and direct notice, the agenda, and a record of the decision-making process used and each resolution, built around the s 251B and s 251BA tests.

## Key facts

- Kind: Form. A form to complete, or a guide to completing an official one.
- Practice area: [Native Title & First Nations Legal Work](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work.md)
- Jurisdictions: Australia, Commonwealth
- AI level: Yellow. AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use.
- Law stated as at: 2026-10-18
- Status: Maintained. Checked on 2026-10-18 against the 5 authorities it cites, for Australia and Commonwealth.

## When to use it

Use when a representative body or lawyer is organising a meeting of a native title claim group to authorise a claimant or compensation application, replace the applicant under s 66B, or impose, vary or revoke conditions on the applicant’s authority. Settle the process with the group’s Elders and authorised people first.

## Used for these tasks

- [Draft an authorisation-meeting agenda, notice and minute](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work.md#A36-A20260923-2)
- [Draft an applicant-replacement or authorisation-challenge pack](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/draft-an-applicant-replacement-or-authorisation-challenge-pack.md)

## How AI may be used

AI may format the notice and agenda from details the lawyer provides and transcribe the resolutions as recorded at the meeting; the group decides its own process, and the lawyer checks the record against what actually happened before it is relied on.

**AI may:**

- Format the notice and agenda from the date, venue, claim details and resolutions the lawyer provides
- Produce a clean copy of the record of decisions from the meeting notes and attendance register, without adding anything
- Build the distribution list and publication log for the notice from the representative body’s records

**AI must not:**

- Must not describe, characterise or infer the group’s traditional decision-making process, or who holds authority in it
- Must not draft or outline affidavits about authorisation; sworn evidence is written by the lawyer with each deponent
- Must not process attendance lists, genealogies or recordings of the meeting outside an approved environment with the group’s consent

**The lawyer checks:**

- Whether a traditional decision-making process must be followed is established from the group itself (and expert advice where appropriate), and the record says which limb of s 251B was used
- Notice reached the whole claim group as described in the application, with enough time and information for members to attend and take part
- Each resolution is recorded in the words actually put and passed, with how it was passed
- Any conditions on authority are recorded precisely, and leave to amend the application is sought where s 251BA(3) requires it

## Authorities

- [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 251B (authorising the making of applications: traditional decision-making process, or a process agreed to and adopted by the group)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04665/latest/text)
- [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 251BA (conditions on authority, imposed by the same kind of process; leave to amend the application to reflect conditions)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04665/latest/text)
- [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 62C (applicant may act by majority unless conditions provide otherwise)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04665/latest/text)
- [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 66B (replacing the applicant, including where a person is no longer authorised or has exceeded authority, or has died or become incapacitated)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04665/latest/text)
- [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 84D (Federal Court orders where authorisation may be defective)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04665/latest/text)

## Full text and drafting notes

The full text and the drafting notes are not part of this public page. Signed-in firm accounts can read them at https://ailawframework.com/precedents/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/authorisation-meeting-notice-agenda-and-record and through the signed-in MCP connector https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*