WF (Deceased) and Others on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Geological Resources Pty Ltd; Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) on behalf of Birriliburu/ Western Australia/ Geological..
[2013] NNTTA 147
•17 October 2013
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
WF (Deceased) and Others on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Geological Resources Pty Ltd; Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) on behalf of Birriliburu/ Western Australia/ Geological Resources Pty Ltd [2013] NNTTA 147 (17 October 2013)
Application No: WO2011/1113 & WO2011/1116
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of Wiluna (WC1999/024) (Wiluna native title party)
- and –
Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) on behalf of Birriliburu (WCD2008/002) (Birriliburu native title party)
- and –
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Geological Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Member Helen Shurven
Place: Perth
Date: 17 October 2013
Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection applications – whether act likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act likely to interfere with sites of particular significance - expedited procedure attracted
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 146, 151, 237
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 66
Cases:
Butcher Cherel and Others/Western Australia/Faustus Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NNTTA 15, (‘Butcher Cherel’)
Cheinmora and Others v Heron Resources Ltd and Another (2005) 196 FLR 250 [2005] NNTTA 99 (‘Cheinmora’)
Harvey Murray and Others/ Western Australia/ Drew Griffin Money [2011] NNTTA 91, (‘Money’)
Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Bushwin Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 22, (‘Tarlpa’)
Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon [2006] NNTTA 65, (‘Maitland Parker’)
Maitland Parker and Others /Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 60 (‘Iron Duyfken’)
Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027 (‘Parker 1’)
Parker v Western Australia and Others (2008) 167 FCR 340 (‘Parker 2’)
Silver and Others v Northern Territory of Australia and Others (2002) 169 FLR 1; [2002] NNTTA 18, (‘Silver’)
Smith v Western Australia and Another (2001) 108 FCR 442, (‘Smith’)
Walley and Others v Western Australia and Another (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24, (‘Walley’)
Wilma Freddie and Others/Western Australia/Asia Investment Corporation Pty Ltd [2004] NNTTA 30, (‘Asia Investment Corporation’)
Representatives of the Mr Mike Allbrook, Central Desert Native Title Services
native title party:
Representatives of the Ms Caitlin Martin, State Solicitor’s Office
Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines & Petroleum
Representatives of the Mr Peter del Fante, Corporate Tenement Services
grantee party:
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
On 1 June 2011, the Government party, through the Department of Mines and Petroleum (‘DMP’), gave notice (‘the notice’) under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence E69/2778 (‘the proposed licence’) to Geological Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’). The Government party included in the notice a statement that it considered the grant attracted the expedited procedure (that is, the grant could be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
The Wiluna native title claim (WC1999/024 – registered since 24 September 1999) overlaps the proposed licence by 47.65 per cent. (Note that this claim has since been determined). The Birriliburu native title determination (WCD 2008/002) overlaps the proposed licence by 52.35 per cent, and is represented by the Mungarlu Ngurrarankaja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation). These will be referred to as the Wiluna native title party and the Birriliburu native title party respectively, or collectively as the native title parties, as needed.
According to the notice:
·the proposed licence is approximately 93.03 square kilometres in size,
·the proposed licence is located 161 kilometres north of Wiluna, in the Shire of Wiluna,
·native title parties had until 3 October 2011 to lodge an objection application against the expedited procedure statement for the proposed licence.
On 30 September 2011, objection applications were lodged with the Tribunal by Wilma Freddie on behalf of the (then undetermined) Wiluna Native Title Claimants, and Mungarlu Ngurrarankaja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) on behalf of its members, respectively. I note that the Wiluna Native Title Claimants are yet to register a prescribed body corporate as at the date of this determination.
The Tribunal issued directions to parties to provide contentions and evidence for an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure is attracted. These directions allow a period after the closing date for lodgement of objections for parties to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement which could lead to disposal of the objection by consent. Parties attempted to reach agreement between approximately November 2011 and December 2012, and the Tribunal varied directions at parties’ request on various occasions to allow for negotiations to progress.
On 16 January 2013, the Tribunal programmed these matters for inquiry due to the length of time that they had been in the expedited procedure.
Directions were issued by the Tribunal, and in compliance with those:
·DMP provided evidence to the Tribunal and other parties on behalf of the Government party on 21 January 2013;
·the native title parties provided a statement of contentions on 9 April 2013 together with an affidavit of Ms Lena Long sworn 27 February 2013 (attached at Annexure A of this decision) (the contentions and affidavit being submitted in support of both native title parties’ objections);
·the grantee party provided a statement of contentions on 16 April 2013; and
·the State Solicitor’s Office (SSO) provided the Government party’s statement of contentions in response to the contentions of the native title party on 6 May 2013.
The native title parties indicated that they would not be pursuing a determination in respect of s 237(c) of the Act. As such I will be considering information and evidence relating to s 237(a) and (b) only in this determination.
I consider this a matter which can be determined ‘on the papers’ as provided for in s 151 of the Act, and I note that no party has requested otherwise.
On 18 July 2013, the Tribunal provided parties with a copy of a Tribunal map to be used for the purposes of this determination, and no objections were received in response.
On 14 October 2013, I was appointed as the Member for the purpose of determination of these inquiries.
Legal principles
Section 237(a) of the Act provides:
237 Act attracting the expedited procedure
A future act is an act attracting the expedited procedure if:
(a) the act is not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(b) the act is not likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with their traditions, to the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of the native title in relation to the land or waters concerned.
In Walley, the Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President, considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]–[23]) and the nature of exploration and prospecting licences and conditions to be imposed, including the activities permitted by the licences and the limits placed on those activities (at [24]–[35]). I adopt Deputy President Sumner’s findings for the purposes of this inquiry (see s 146 of the Act), while noting that the Mining Act 1978 (WA) has since been amended and the Standard Conditions imposed on exploration licences have been strengthened.
In relation to s 237(a), I adopt the legal principles identified in Tarlpa at [10]-[16].
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the legal principles identified by the Tribunal in Maitland Parker at [31]–[38] and [40]-[41] (see also Parker 1; Parker 2). I also adopt those set out by Deputy President Sosso in Silver.
Evidence and information provided about the proposed act
Government party
The Government party has provided: a statement of contentions; tengraph plan with topographical detail, tenement boundaries, historical land tenure and Aboriginal communities within and in the vicinity of the proposed licence area; a report and plan from the Register of Aboriginal Sites maintained by the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) (now known as the Department of Aboriginal Affairs); a copy of the tenement application; a copy of the proposed endorsements and conditions of the grant; the instrument of licence; and quick appraisal documents.
I note the underlying land tenure of the proposed licence to comprise: the Canning Stock Route Reserve (UNN 1001) at 45 per cent; pastoral lease 3114/1062 (‘Glenayle’) at 43.1 per cent; and vacant Crown land at 12 per cent.
There are a number of dead tenements affected, including twenty exploration licences in operation between 1982 and 2010, which overlapped the proposed licence by between less than 0.1 per cent and 59.2 per cent. There were also two previously granted temporary reserves in operation between 1959 and 1964, and 1978 and 1979, respectively, which overlapped 100 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.
The quick appraisal documents show the services affected in relation to this proposed licence are several tracks and a well/ bore (‘No 7 Govt Well’).
The draft Endorsement and Conditions Extract for the proposed licence indicates that the grant of the proposed licence will be subject to the standard four conditions imposed on the grant of all exploration licences in Western Australia (see Tarlpa at [11]). The following additional conditions would also be imposed on the proposed licence:
5. The Licensee notifying the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease by telephone or in person, or by registered post if contact cannot be made, prior to undertaking airborne geophysical surveys or any ground disturbing activities utilising equipment such as scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes, drilling rigs; water carting equipment or other mechanised equipment.
6. The Licensee or transferee, as the case may be, shall within thirty (30) days of receiving written notification of; -
· the grant of the licence; or
· registration of a transfer introducing a new Licensee;
advise, by registered post, the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease details of the grant or transfer.
7. No exploration activities being carried out on Canning Stock Route Reserve UNN 1014 which restrict the use of the reserve.
8. No interference with Geodetic Survey Station FX53 and FX53T and mining within 15 metres thereof being confined to below a depth of 15 metres from the natural surface.
The following endorsements (which differ from conditions in that the breach of an endorsement does not make the licensee liable to forfeiture of the licence) will also be imposed on the grant of the proposed licence:
1. The Licensee’s attention is drawn the to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any related Regulations thereunder; and
2. The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.
3. The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the existence of a licence for request for UCL in Hann and Wells District, Shire of Wiluna granted pursuant to section 91 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and which is shown designated as 8770 in TENGRAPH.
Grantee party
The grantee party’s submission states that it has offered the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) to the native title parties via Central Desert Native Title Service (‘CDNTS’). It states that it does not consider the native title parties’ alternative heritage agreements provide the flexibility to explore expeditiously, and that the heritage costs were excessive considering the logistics of the project.
The grantee party states that it has requested for the fifteen blocks on the western side of the tenement area to be excised from grant so that 'no exploration would be undertaken in the MNR [Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation)] determined area'. A letter attached to the grantee party’s contentions from DMP to CDNTS dated 30 November 2012 confirms that an excision request was received and notes:
This is to confirm that the department received a request to excise fifteen graticular blocks from the grant of the licence which would remove a sizable, but not the entire area of the licence over the Birriliburu People (Area A) determination area ( ... )
As this application is still also subject to Objection WO11/1113 by the Wiluna People, no further action has been taken in regard to this excision request, given that it can only be effective as at the time and date of grant. In addition, even if Objection WO11/1113 was removed, the excision request as it presently stands would not enable the licence to be granted until Objection WO11/1116 was also removed. This is because a portion of the Birriliburu determination area still remains as land to be included in the grant.
The grantee party states that DIA heritage searches show no heritage sites recorded in the area under application, and that in this case the expedited procedure applies as the tenement is a first pass exploration tenement. It states that any ground disturbance carried out by humans in the area in the past has been generally minimal.
The Government party’s contentions (at 15) state that the grantee party provided a letter dated 18 February 2010, setting out its proposed method of exploration as comprising: detailed literature research; capture and evaluation of aerial photography; remote sensing imagery datasets; systematic sampling and survey of the entire area if warranted; selection of potential drill targets; and sampling recovery from drilling and assays.
Native title parties
The native title parties submitted contentions in relation to s 237(a) and (b) of the Act, and confirmed that they does not pursue the objection in relation to s 237(c) (at 1.4). In fact, their contentions contain very few contentions related to s 237(b) of the Act, and appear to focus largely on s 237(a) of the Act, as outlined below.
In regard to s 237(a), the native title parties contend the grant of the proposed licence is likely to interfere with the carrying on of the community and social activities of the native title party in relation to the land concerned because:
·the Native Title Act should be beneficially construed (at 2.2 – 2.3);
·evidence of regular travelling, camping and hunting for various traditional activities is sufficient to sustain an objection under section 237(a) (at 3.9) and they cite a number of decisions in support of this;
·off-site activities can be taken into account in consideration of interference with the carrying on of community or social activities if there is a clear nexus between those activities and the issue being considered (at 3.10); and
·there is a community in the area and point to the Wiluna registered claim (now determined) and the Birriliburu determined claim (3.11-3.12).Tribunal mapping does not identify any particular community specifically on or near the proposed license, and the native title parties contend the notion of community should be construed broadly.
Ms Long states that she is a traditional owner for the Wiluna claim and that she is a martu person and so can speak for the area covered by the proposed licence as it is martu country. As such, I accept Ms Long has the authority to speak for this area on behalf of the native title parties. The native title parties contentions refer to Ms Long’s affidavit and specifically that:
·the proposed licence area contains the birthplace of Ms Long, and birth on country creates a strong connection and is the ngurra (home country) of the person who is born there. That connection imposes responsibility to look after that area of country for the rest of the members of the native title parties (at 3.13(a) – (d) and Ms Long’s affidavit at 6, 8-16, 18, 20-21);
·the native title parties carry on community and social activities in the area of the proposed licence, including frequent travel, hunting (for bush turkey, goanna and emu eggs), camping and inter-generational knowledge transfer (at 3.14(a)-(d) and Ms Long’s affidavit at 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17-19); and
·activities of the grantee party will interfere with the ability of the native title parties to conduct community and social activities within the proposed licence area, including hunting and camping, and to fulfil their obligations to look after the area (at 3.15(a)-(d) and Ms Long’s affidavit at 15, 17-19, 20-21).
In relation to s 237(b), the native title parties note concerns about the State’s regulatory regime, citing, for example, the WA Auditor General’s report entitled Ensuring Compliance with Conditions on Mining dated September 2011 (at 2.14-2.21). The particular sites referred to in Ms Long’s affidavit (at 7-10 and 14) are Well Number 7 on the Canning Stock Route, other wells and ‘other spots’ along the Canning Stock Route, and the tree under which Ms Long was born (which appears to be located at Well Number 7).
Considering the Evidence
Community or social activities (s237(a))
The Tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the proposed licence and activities undertaken in relation to the grant are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference), (see Smith at [23]). Direct interference involves an evaluative judgment that the future act is likely to be the proximate cause of the interference, and must be substantial and not trivial in its impact on community or social activities (see Smith at [23]). The assessment is also contextual, taking into account factors that may already have impacted on a native title party’s community or social activities (such as mining or pastoral activity) (see Smith at [27]).
The Tribunal has accepted that the intentions of the grantee party in a particular matter are relevant in assessing whether the activities are likely to directly interfere with the carrying on of a native title party’s community or social activities, or interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to a native title party. In Silver at [29]-[30], Member Sosso (whose approach I adopt) outlined that:
The adoption of a predictive assessment necessarily allows the Tribunal to receive evidence of a grantee’s intention where that evidence is adduced. In the absence of any evidence of intention, the Tribunal would be at liberty to assume that a grantee will fully exercise the rights conferred by the tenement ... evidence of intention cannot be unilaterally discarded in advance, as it is logically relevant to the question of likelihood.
The grantee party’s intended activities and intentions are outlined at [22]–[25] above.
The native title parties contentions and evidence in relation to s 237(a) are outlined at [27]-[28] above, and the affidavit material is outlined in Annexure A of this decision. I note in particular sections of Ms Long’s affidavit in which she states that, throughout her life, she and her family have spent holidays at Well Number 6 (outside the proposed licence area), Well Number 7 (within the proposed licence area), and ‘all along the Canning Stock Route’ (at 17). Ms Long deposes to ‘going out that way’ to go hunting for bush turkey and goanna, and collecting emu eggs (at 17). She states that when she is ‘teaching the young kids about their connection to the country in that Tenement I’m also teaching them about how to hunt and get a feed in the traditional way. It’s important that us martu people have these spots where we can go and camp and teach the next generation about how to look after country’ (at 19).
I accept the native title parties evidence, however, I agree with the Government party (at 61) that to the extent that the evidence demonstrates that members of the native title parties carry out any community or social activities in the area of the proposed licence, there is not likely to be direct interference with those activities for the following reasons:
• the grantee party has indicated its willingness to enter into an RSHA type agreement with the native title party;
• the proposed licence area has been subject to prior mineral exploration and possibly mining activity, which are likely to have affected, and continue to affect, the extent to which community and social activities can be carried out in the relevant area;
• the proposed licence area is almost entirely covered by a pastoral lease and the Canning Stock Route Reserve - only 12 per cent is currently unallocated Crown land;
• the low-scale exploration activities planned by the grantee party do not appear likely to have any real disruptive effect upon the hunting and gathering of bush tucker in the proposed licence area or on people wishing to travel through or camp on the area; and
• hunting and mineral exploration activity are by their nature inherently capable of coexistence.
I also add that the evidence and information provided in relation to s 237(a) of the Act is very broad, does not outline the frequency of activities, whether the activities can only be held on this proposed licence, and the specific locations of community activities within the proposed licence. As the Tribunal has found in previous determinations, evidence about community or social activities which is of a general and unspecified nature will be insufficient to lead to a finding that the proposed act will directly interfere with those activities in a substantial or more than trivial way (see Asia Investments Corporation at [14]).
In the circumstances, taking into account the evidence available, I conclude that there is unlikely to be interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(a) of the Act in this matter.
Sites of particular significance (s 237(b))
The issue the Tribunal is required to determine in relation to s 237(b) of the Act is whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with areas or sites of particular (that is, more than ordinary) significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions. As noted, it is established in DIA documentation that there are no sites within the proposed tenement. However, this does not mean that there may not be other sites or areas of particular significance to the native title party over the areas of the proposed licences or in the vicinity. The Register does not purport to be a record of all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia, and the Tribunal will consider whether there is evidence to support the existence of relevant sites in particular matters.
Ms Long’s affidavit notes that Well Number 7 on the Canning Stock Route is her ngurra (at 16), and that various relatives, including her grandson and nephews, are also connected to the proposed licence area through her connection (at 13). She notes that her ‘nanna went right through the country and lived there at Well 7’ (at 13). As mentioned above at [33], she also states that throughout her life she has gone on family holidays to Well Number 7, and also Well Number 6 (which is outside the proposed licence area) (at 17). Ms Long refers to other wells and ‘other spots’ along the Canning Stock Route ‘that only martu people know the stories for’ (at 7), and the tree under which she was born (at 10). In regard to her reference to ‘Granite Peak’ (at 8), the Tribunal’s geospatial services indicates that this is located about 50 kilometres south of the proposed licence.
The Tribunal has held on previous occasions that the native title party must provide evidence with sufficient detail and specificity to allow the Tribunal to make the predictive assessment required by s 237(b) (see for example Iron Duyfken at [39]; Cheinmora at [43]). I agree with the Government party (at 71) that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the sites mentioned are sites of ‘particular’ significance, apart from the area of Well Number 7 which has been particularised as to its significance compared to other areas within and around the proposed licence. In relation to whether that area of particular significance is likely to be interfered with for the purposes of s 237(b), I note that it is a clearly identified area, the grantee party are on notice of its significance, and exploration activities are unlikely to provide such interference. I also note the many past exploration licences which have been held over this proposed licence in the past.
In relation to the native title parties contentions about the adequacy of the State’s regulatory regime, the Government party summarises (at 24):
• The Auditor-General’s Report:
oconcerns mining operations, not exploration or prospecting, so it is not particularly relevant to an inquiry under s 32 of the Act;
odoes not contain any information which bears upon the predictive assessment required under s 237(b) of the Act, which the Tribunal and the Federal Court have repeatedly said is directed to whether it is likely or not that a particular grantee party will interfere with an area or site of particular significance;
owas based on an assessment of data concerning a period up to about June 2011, since which time the State’s regulatory regime has been improved, partly to directly address the concerns of the Auditor-General in relation to mining leases;
• The Government party has never contended, and the Tribunal has never found, that the regulatory regime of the AHA means no area or site could ever be interfered with.
I accept these contentions and note the Tribunal’s previous findings in this regard, that both the existence of the AHA and the availability of the RSHA give rise to a presumption that sites will be protected and the Auditor General’s Report does not necessarily affect this presumption unless evidence indicates that it should (see for example, Money).
The regulatory regime based on the AHA has been described on numerous occasions by the Tribunal (see Maitland Parker (at [31]-[38], [40]-[41]). While the Tribunal has usually found that the site protection regime based on the AHA is sufficient to ensure any interference with sites of particular significance is unlikely, each matter must be considered on its own facts (see for example the summary of cases as outlined in Butcher Cherel (at [81]-[91])). The Tribunal must consider, based on facts of particular cases and the nature and extent of sites of particular significance, whether this protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely there will be interference with those sites.
In drawing my conclusions in this matter I have also had regard to the following contentions put forward by the Government party (at 74):
The grantee party has stated that most of the proposed exploration activities will be low-impact and non-intrusive;
The proposed licence areas have been subject to prior mineral exploration, and is largely covered by a pastoral lease and the Canning Stock Route Reserve; and
The AHA and its associated processes are likely to prevent interference with any area or site of particular significance to the native title holders.
In the circumstances, taking into account the evidence available, I conclude that there is unlikely to be interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(b) of the Act in this matter.
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the act, namely the grant of exploration licence E69/2778 to Geological Resources Pty Ltd, is an act attracting the expedited procedure.
Helen Shurven
Member
17 October 2013
ANNEXURE A
AFFIDAVIT OF LENA LONG
I am a traditional owner of the registered Wiluna native title claim (WAD6164/1998).
I am a martu person and this is martu country which is why I can speak for the area covered by tenement E69/2778 (the Tenement).
I have been shown an A0 sized map of the area covered by the Tenement and surrounding areas by a staff member at Central Desert Native Title Services Ltd. Attached to this affidavit and marked ‘LL1’ is the map that was shown to me of the Tenement.
I make this affidavit in support of the inquiry into the expedited procedure applying to the Tenement and objection numbers WO11/1113 and WO11/1116.
I was born a long time ago at Well Number 7 on the Canning Stock Route that is located there on the map within the Tenement.
The place where I was born and the area around it located within that Tenement there is a very special place for me and my family.
Some of the old people came in from the bush down that way and they would stay at them wells there. All along that Canning Stock Route there are wells and other spots that only martu people know the stories for.
My mum was out there in the old days camping from Granite Peak. When my mum’s water broke out there by that Well Number 6 she was with old Mr and Mrs Tullock. My mum was with old Daisy Tullock, June Tullock’s mum, she was a midwife and she helped my mum give birth to me. The next day after I was born they went back to Granite Peak from Well Number 7 there in the Tenement.
Aunt Tilly Stevens helped my mum too (sic) deliver me. She’s Brenda Stevens mum. She was another midwife helping out. I’m the oldest out of five children.
I was born under a tree there in that Tenement. I’ve been back to that tree a few times and my mum showed me where it was. I took my daughter, Miranda and my granddaughter out there to show them where I was born and teach them about their connection to country and how to care for country traditional way.
Being born on country makes me more connected to that bit of the country. My daughter Miranda is connected to that spot in the Tenement through me.
My grandchildren Kishaya, Crystal, Tyshondra and Titania are also connected to that spot in the Tenement through me.
My tjamu, my grandson, is also connected to that country in the Tenement because I was born there. So are my nephews and all my family, my nanna went right through the country and lived there at Well 7.
I need to take care of that country. It’s my responsibility. I want to buy a Toyota one day so I can go out there and look after it. I’ll go sit down there and teach all my family about that spot and tell them why it’s so important to look after it and care for all country in that way.
I have to make sure that tourists don’t destroy anything that belong to the land and belong to me. I need to clean the rockholes that are all around that Tenement there and near where I was born.
Well Number 7 on the Canning Stock Route is my ngurra, my home country.
All my life we would go out on holidays as a family to Well Number 6 outside the Tenement and to Well Number 7 there in the Tenement and all along the Canning Stock Route. We still going out there that way to go hunting for bush turkey and collecting emu eggs. We also go goanna hunting. It’s a good holiday place there in that Tenement and we need to keep it safe and make sure people don’t go along and interfere with all the bush tucker there in that Tenement.
I need to look after the Tenement because when we get sick of whitefella food in town we can go out to the Tenement and get a feed in the traditional way.
When I’m teaching the young kids about their connection to the country in the Tenement I’m also teaching them about how to hunt and get a feed in the traditional way. It’s important that us martu people have these spots where we can go and camp and teach the next generation about how to look after country.
That whitefella man from the company that wants to look there. He needs to come and talk to me about it first so that he doesn’t disturb the country. If anyone went out there to my ngurra and messed things up it would be very bad.
People own the country. It might look free, but I been born there. I got a reason to talk for a place like that.
0
12
0