The explanatory statement provides a general rationale for the overall approach to the proposed amendments to Points 1 and 5, in the form of a general rule (which allows the claim group to select the ilua parties itself) and a standard rule (applicable in the event that the claim group does not itself choose the parties). The explanatory statement states that the proposed amendments are intended to “give eligible securities groups greater discretion in deciding who belongs to the national securities group” and to ensure that the claim group “retains control of who must be a party to the agreement in order to be an ILUA.”  (a) paragraphs 1) (a) and (b) apply to an agreement; and the key question for the Court as a whole was whether the terms “all persons” in subsection 24CD (1) and “all NNTRs” in Section 24CD (2)a) signed that an ILUA (territorial convention) should be signed either: . Ibid., - (Reeves J). This conclusion reflected the interpretation of the underlying purpose of the provision to “create a legal mechanism or instrument for a large group of Aboriginal persons without their own legal personality to enter an ILUA, with fluctuating affiliations and indeterminate land rights and interests,” necessarily requiring “a corporation or person to act as a representative part of the large group without a group.” Therefore, according to Reeves J, Section 24CD was nothing more than an instrument of procedure, and the persons who signed the agreement played no active or substantive role in personal approval: Bygrave, -. One of the reasons Reeves J considered the legal purpose of Section 24CD to be purely procedural is that an interpretation to the contrary according to his honour would produce “an absurd and unfair result”, namely that Section 24CD “would give a single member of a registered Aboriginal title applicant the opportunity to thwart or set up a group of national titles entering an ILUA. to become a representative part of ILUA under Section 24CD.