WF (deceased) on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Kubwa Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 119
•19 August 2013
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
WF (deceased) on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Kubwa Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd, [2013] NNTTA 119 (19 August 2013)
Application No: WO2012/0200 & WO2012/0608
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
WF (deceased) on behalf of Wiluna (native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Kubwa Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Daniel O’Dea, Member
Place: Perth
Date: 19 August 2013
Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection application –whether acts 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
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (WA)
Cases:
Les Tullock and Others on behalf of Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Allarow Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 118 (‘Allarow’)
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’)
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’)
Walley and Others v Western Australia and Another (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24, (‘Walley’)
WF (deceased) and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Emergent Resources Ltd [2012] NNTTA 17 (‘Emergent’)
Representatives of the Mr Mike Allbrook, Central Desert Native Title Services
native title party:
Representatives of the Mr Cheyne Beetham, State Solicitor’s Office
Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines & Petroleum
Representatives of the Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahons Mining Title Services Pty Ltd
grantee party:
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
On 16 November 2011 and 7 March 2012, 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 licences E69/2973 and E69/2976 respectively (‘the proposed licences’) to Kubwa Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’). The Government party included in the notices a statement that it considered the grants attracted the expedited procedure (that is, the grant could be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
The native title claim of the Wiluna People, (‘the native title party’), wholly overlaps the proposed licences, which cover approximately 49.4 square kilometres.
According to the notice for E69/2973:
·the proposed licence is located 194 kilometres north east of Wiluna, in the Shire of Wiluna,
·the native title party had until 16 March 2012 to lodge an objection application against the expedited procedure statement for the proposed licence.
According to the notice for E69/2976:
·the proposed licence is located 184 kilometres north east of Wiluna, in the Shire of Wiluna,
·the native title party had until 9 July 2012 to lodge an objection application against the expedited procedure statement for the proposed licence.
On 15 March 2012 and 29 June 2012, objection applications were lodged with the Tribunal by the native title party in relation to E69/2973 (designated by the Tribunal as WO2012/0200) and in relation to E69/2976 (designated by the Tribunal as WO2012/0608), respectively.
On 19 December 2012, I was appointed by the then President, Mr Graeme Neate, as the Member for the purpose of conducting the inquiry, if required.
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 in relation to the proposed licences and the Tribunal varied directions at parties’ request on various occasions to allow for negotiations to progress. On 8 February 2013 the compliance dates were vacated on the basis that an agreement was close to finalisation, but by 19 April 2013 the parties had yet to reach agreement, and I reinstated compliance dates due to the age of these matters.
Directions were issued by the Tribunal, and in compliance with those:
·DMP lodged evidence on behalf of the Government party on 17 May 2013;
·the native title party lodged a Statement of Contentions on 27 May 2013 together with an affidavit of Mr Victor Ashwin sworn 20 June 2013 (attached at Annexure A of this decision) in relation to both objections;
·the grantee party lodged a Statement of Contentions on 4 June 2013 in relation to both objections; and
·the State Solicitor’s Office (SSO) lodged the Government party’s Statement of Contentions in response to the contentions of the native title party on 7 June 2013 in relation to both objections.
In its Statement of Contentions the native title party stated that it did not intend to pursue its objection to the application of the expedited procedure on the basis of s 237(a) and (c) of the NTA and would continue its evidence and contentions to s 237(b) (NTP Contentions 1.3 and 1.4).
A listing hearing was convened on 27 June 2013 and all parties agreed the matters could proceed ‘on the papers’. I agree to determine the matters in this way, as provided for in s 151 of the Act.
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.
Legal principles
Section 237(b) of the Act provides:
A future act is an act attracting the expedited procedure if:
(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, Deputy President Sumner considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]–[23]) and I adopt those principles for the purposes of this inquiry (s 146 of the Act).
In relation to the nature of an exploration licence including conditions to be imposed, I adopt the principles outlined in Tarlpa at [10]-[16].
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the findings of the Tribunal in Maitland Parker at [31]–[38], [40]-[41] (see also Parker 1 and 2).
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 applications; a copy of the proposed endorsements and conditions of the grants; the instruments of licence; and quick appraisal documents.
E69/2973
I note the underlying land tenure of E69/2973 to wholly comprise pastoral leases (3114/1069 ‘Niminga’ at 7.0 per cent and 3114/1070 ‘Carnegie’ at 93.0 per cent).
Dead tenements affected are two exploration licences, granted in 1993 and surrendered in 1995, which overlapped the proposed licence 99.9 per cent and 0.1 per cent respectively, and a temporary reserve granted in 1959 and cancelled in 1964, which wholly overlapped the proposed licence.
The quick appraisal documents shows the services affected in relation to this proposed licence are two minor roads, a track, several minor watercourses and Mount Moore.
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 interference with Geodetic Survey Station HP 19 and HP 19T 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 pursuant to the approval of the Minister responsible for the Mining Act 1978 under Section 111 of the Mining Act 1978 is authorised to explore for iron.
E69/2976
I note the underlying land tenure of E69/2976 to also wholly comprise pastoral leases (3114/1069 ‘Niminga’ at 5.8 per cent and 3114/1070 ‘Carnegie’ at 94.2 per cent).
Dead tenements affected are three exploration licences, in operation between 1986 and 1995, which overlapped the proposed licence variously between 36.1 per cent and 63.9 per cent respectively, and two temporary reserves in operation variously between 1959 and 1969, which overlapped the proposed licence 100 per cent and 35.9 per cent respectively.
The quick appraisal documents shows the services affected in relation to this proposed licence are a track and several minor watercourses.
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]). Additional conditions 5 and 6 (outlined above at [20] for E69/2973) will also be imposed.
Endorsements 1 and 2 (outlined above at [21] for E69/2973) will also be imposed on the grant of E69/2976.
The Government party states in its contentions (at 15) that it will place the following Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) condition on the grant of both the proposed licences:
In respect of the area covered by the licence the licensee, if so requested in writing by Wiluna, the applicants in Federal Court application No. WAD 6164 of 1998 (WC99/24), such request being sent by pre-paid post to reach the Licensee’s address, not more than ninety days after the grant of this licence, shall within thirty days of the request execute in favour of Wiluna the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) endorsed by peak industry groups and the Central Desert Native Title Services.
Native title party
The native title party submitted an affidavit of Mr Ashwin (Annexure A), in which he states that he is a traditional owner for the area and is an applicant for the native title party claim. As such, I accept Mr Ashwin has the authority to speak for this area on behalf of the native title party. The substance of Mr Ashwin’s affidavit is unchallenged and I accept it. Native title party contentions refer to Mr Ashwin’s affidavit and specifically that:
·Where the jukurrpa travel through a landscape, they transform it, leaving behind sacred sites and places, and imbuing areas and sites with particular significance (at 3.24(a) and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 11-13)
·The Wakujarri jukurrpa [tortoise dreaming] is present in the proposed licence areas and creates the creeks in those areas, which form part of the Wakurjarri jukurrpa (at 3.24(b) and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 11-16)
·The native title party has an obligation to maintain and protect sites of particular significance located within the proposed licence areas (at 3.25 and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 4, 5, 15-16 and 18)
·Any entry onto parts of the proposed licence areas which has not been agreed with the native title party would result in interference within the meaning of s 237(b) (at 3.26 and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 14); jukurrpa tracks are not sites which might be readily identifiable by persons ‘other than those instilled in the mysteries of the jukurrpa’, and interference with them in one part may cause interference in other locations along the jukurr (at 3.26(a) and (b) and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 14)
·The proposed condition requiring the grantee party to offer the RSHA does not mean that it is unlikely that the future act will interfere with sites or areas of particular significance due to the nature of the sites and because it does not address the native title party’s concerns about any level of unauthorised access (at 3.27 and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 17)
·Consultation and negotiation between the grantee party and native title party are necessary to ensure that the sites of particular significance are not likely to be interfered with due to the nature of the sites and members of the native title party’s cultural obligations (at 3.28 and Mr Ashwin’s affidavit at 4-5, 14, 16-19).
The native title party also 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). It also notes that the native title party does not accept the RSHA; it has never endorsed it and has never agreed to enter into an RSHA in any matter (at 3.17).
Grantee party
The grantee party indicates that its proposed exploration activities are the usual activities associated with exploration licenses including conducting field reconnaissance and geological mapping, surface geophysics, low impact broad spaced hand auger drilling, collection of samples for core assays, soil sampling, and surveys. It states that the work that is ground disturbing will be broad based and would only be considered minor disturbance (at 34).
The grantee party argues that the native title party’s contentions contain general statements about its concerns regarding exploration activity, rather than evidence that the specific grantee party in undertaking a particular act will not comply with the State’s regulatory regime (at 51).
The grantee party states that it signed and forwarded an RSHA for the proposed licences to the native title party on 29 August 2011 and 20 January 2012 respectively, but that the offers were not accepted (at 4-5). The grantee party indicates its awareness of the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (‘AHA’) and notes that it has never been accused of breaching its provisions (at 6-10).
The grantee party further asserts that the grants of the proposed licences are not likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance for reasons including the following:
• There are no Aboriginal communities situated on the proposed licence areas (at 18), nor any DIA registered sites (at 19);
• It has offered to enter into an RSHA with the native title party in recognition that not all sites of particular significance are recorded (at 20-23, 35-36);
• Conditions and endorsements will be imposed under the Mining Act (at 24-32), the operation of the State’s regulatory regime generally (at 38-39) and the presumption of regularity (Silver);
• The proposed licence areas have already been subject to, or coexistent with, the lawful activities of pastoral leaseholders and prior activity (at 40-42); and
• The past performance of duties by Government agencies is irrelevant in relation to the intentions and conduct of the grantee party in the present circumstances (at 45).
Considering the Evidence
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. DIA documentation indicates that there are no registered sites within the proposed tenements. 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.
The native title party has provided general contentions in relation to s 237(b), outlined at [28]-[29] above, as well as affidavit material.
In his affidavit, Mr Ashwin does not make a distinction between the two tenements, the subject of this determination, being E69/2673 and E69/2976. The tenements are adjacent to one another and probably share an eastern and western boundary respectively. They do however cover different areas of land and importantly, different creeks. Mr Ashwin says in his affidavit, that there is jukkurr throughout those tenements and that he knows about them (at 9). He goes on to say that there are ‘lots of special places in those tenements and in the country around it. There are songs there, from the jukkurpa’ (at 10). Mr Ashwin says that the Wakujarri jukurrpa or tortoise dreaming ‘goes through these tenements’. He says that the tortoise is coming from north of the tenements out of the desert and ‘he creates Mingool Creek there, on his way down to Lake Carnegie, which is south of these Tenements’ (at 11). He says that when the tortoise comes from Mingool Creek, ‘he creates the creek and all those streams and creeks in the map as he goes through. It’s a very strong dreaming story there and we follow those creeks today so we can sing the song’ (at 12). Mr Ashwin then describes how all the creeks coming south from the area around the tenements end up in Lake Carnegie and that is how the tortoise can find its way there and how the Martu mob (of which he is a member) can find their way too (at 13). Mr Ashwin describes how if anyone interfered with the ground by digging holes in the area they would impact on the jukurrpa which may have the consequence of stopping ‘us singing that song’ (at 15). Then, in the balance of his affidavit, he emphasises how important it is for the his people ‘the Martu people’ and the ‘Wiluna mob’ to look after the area and protect the jukurrpa from damage and that failure to do so will lead to consequences for them and people who damage the country (at 16-18).
As has been mentioned, Mr Ashwin swore identical affidavits in both these matters, albeit that the attachments to each was a black and white photographic map of the particular tenement in question. Those maps were not marked with any sites and essentially show a terrain criss-crossed by numerous small water courses.
One of the difficulties with Mr Ashwin’s evidence is that on the detailed map provided by the Tribunal, there is no sign of a creek marked Mingool. In the case of E69/2973, which contains the area known as Mt Moore, and crosses the Carnegie-Glenayle Road, there appear to be creeks known as Katra Creek and Yalal Creek passing through it, along with a number of other unnamed creeks which do appear to enter to a body of water, or a dry lake bed, to the south of the tenement known as Lake Augusta. In the case of E69/2976, the tenement area appears to be touched on its far north-eastern corner by a creek known as Oolgahroo Creek as well as a number of other unnamed creeks. Oolgahroo Creek does appear to make its way down to Lake Carnegie. Within the area between the two tenements and Lake Carnegie, there are numerous creeks which appear to be coming from the north into Lake Carnegie, albeit not the two creeks associated with E69/2973. There is no reference in Mr Ashwin’s affidavit to any particular site or area within either of the two tenements which he says is of particular significance to the native title party. Mr Ashwin’s affidavit in relation to the creeks is also somewhat equivocal. In paragraph 11, it is not clear whether the tortoise or Wukujarri created Mingool Creek in the desert in order to emerge from it, or created it somewhere in the parameters of the proposed tenement area, and then proceeded to follow it down to Lake Carnegie. The best gloss that I think can be put on the evidence is that all the creeks in the area in one way or another are part of the dreaming trail, perhaps alternative, which the tortoise follows on its way to Lake Carnegie.
In relation to the native title party evidence, the Government party submits that although the Tribunal can accept that Mr Ashwin’s affidavit is an accurate statement of his genuine beliefs and concerns, the statements are ‘speculative’ (at 23-24). The Government party states (at 44) that, ‘[a]t its highest, the material in the NTP Contentions and the affidavit of Mr Ashwin indicates the presence of the Wakujarri jukurrpa in the area of the proposed tenements’ and that ‘it is suggested that as the jukurrpa travels through the country it creates sites of significance’. The Government party contends (at 44) that neither the native title party’s contentions, nor Mr Ashwin’s affidavit, identifies sites of ‘particular’ significance, in the sense that it stands out in some way from the general background of other sites and the country as a whole.
In Allarrow, I made the following observation about dreaming tracks, or jukurrpa: ‘[b]y their very nature, those tracks are not sites which might be readily identifiable by persons other than those instilled in the mysteries of the jukurrpa. Therefore, notwithstanding the best of intentions, inadvertent interference is distinctly possible if the grantee party enters the area without guidance from the native title party’ (Allarrow at [40]). In that matter, the native title party had given extensive evidence about the numerous dreaming tracks criss-crossing Lake Way and a constellation of sites surrounding the Lake and its shores. On that basis, I found that it was likely in the absence of further negotiation that there may be interference with those sites of particular significance. That decision was made in the context of the very comprehensive evidence provided by the native title party. In Emergent at paragraph [39], I found great merit in the distinction drawn by the anthropologist in that matter, Dr. Bill Kruse. In his view the Martu people distinguish between the significance of all country believed to be formed in the creative epoch by mythic beings, and specific cultural areas, often associated with particular events, that require protection from activities which may cause damage. In his opinion, areas and locations associated with specific activities of mythic beings are typically deemed to be the most culturally significant to the Martu and their protection is considered paramount. The evidence of Mr Ashwin in this matter does not provide me with enough information which would permit me to reach a conclusion that a site of particular significance to the native title party exists within the area of the proposed tenements. I come to this conclusion despite the fact that the evidence of Mr. Ashwin does, in my view, establish that the Wakujarri jukurrpa passes through the area of both proposed tenements.
For the purposes of completeness, I note that the area of the proposed tenements are wholly covered by pastoral leases and have been for many years. That fact is relevant to the concerns raised by the native title party to the effect that any interference with the country is likely to cause harm and danger (see Ashwin affidavit at 14 to 17). Additionally, I am satisfied that the grantee party is cognisant of its obligations under the AHA and will take appropriate steps to avoid interference with sites. I note the grantee’s willingness to execute and RSHA in favour of the native title party (which is a condition of the proposed licence). My conclusion that the native title party has failed to identify a site of particular significance within the area of the proposed licences means the objection raised in relation to s237(b) must fail.
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of exploration licences E69/2973 and E69/2976 to Kubwa Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd, are acts attracting the expedited procedure.
Daniel O’Dea
Member
19 August 2013
ANNEXURE A
AFFIDAVIT OF VICTOR ASHWIN
I am member of the native title claim application WAD 6164 of 1998 (the Wiluna Claim). I am an initiated man (wati) and I have cultural authority for the area of the tenement application E69/2973 and E69/2976 (the Tenements).
I make this affidavit in support of the Statement of Contentions of the Objector in an inquiry to the expedited procedure matter.
The information in this affidavit are all things that I know to be true.
I am a wati because I have been through the law. We have the same Martu law all through the desert. It’s our strong martu law that all martu people know and hold. It’s the same law they have up at Kunawarritji [Well 33 on the Canning Stock Route] and even down in Fregon in South Australia. We all hold the law and know the jukurrpa [dreaming].
Other martu people come from all over to go through the law with our mob and we go through the law with them at those places. All the law is connected, we’re all responsible for it, to keep it strong for the future.
I spend most of my time travelling between Wiluna, Emu Farm and Windidda Station. I stop at all those places around there and live out there on the land and that is covered by the Wiluna Claim. Those places are my ngurra, my country, my home.
My family has cultural responsibility for the lands around the Tenements, me and others like Ivan Wongawol and old Norman Thompson. They mustered out that way around those Tenements when I was younger. They did that there so they could stay close to their country and keep the law strong.
I have been shown two A3 size maps of the Tenements for this matter by a staff member of the Central Desert Native Title Services that is attached to this affidavit and marked ‘VA1’ and ‘VA2’.
There is jukkur in those Tenements. I know where all those jukkur are. People gotta talk to me and the old people about the jukkur because I know it.
There are lots of special places in those Tenements and in the country around it. There are songs there, from the jukkurpa.
Wukujarri (tortoise) dreaming
The Wukujarri jukurrpa [tortoise dreaming] goes through these Tenements. He’s coming from the north of the Tenements out of the desert and he creates Mingool Creek there, on his way down to Lake Carnegie, which is south of these Tenements.
The Wukujarri jukurrpa he comes through from Mingool Creek, he creates that creek and all those streams and creeks in the map as he goes through. It’s a very strong dreaming story there and we follow those creeks today so we can sing the song.
The Wukujarri jukurrpa dreaming is going south creating all the creeks there in those Tenements, so that he can get to Lake Carnegie. All those creeks there in the Tenements, they drain into Lake Carnegie and that’s how the Wukujarri jukurrpa can find his way there, that’s how us martu mob can find our way there too.
If something happened to those creeks, like if someone messed with the creek system, then the Wukujarri jukurrpa would be lost and we wouldn’t be able to get him back. It would mean that the jukurrpa would be stopped from getting to Lake Carnegie, which is a very important site for all desert people.
If someone came along and started digging holes in the ground then they might hurt the Wukujarri jukurrpa there. Just one hole in the wrong place would hurt the jukurrpa and stop us singing that song.
Once the jukurrpa is gone, it can’t some back. If we are responsible for hurting the Wukujarri jukurrpa there in those Tenements because a whitefella went out where they are not supposed to then we will be punished by other Martu people. We’ll be in trouble at law time.
People need to come and talk to us Wiluna mob so that we can show them where the jukurrpa is and make sure it’s protected. Even someone just walking around where they don’t know where the jukurrpa is might damage the dreaming.
It is really important that I’m looking after the country the proper way. It’s my job to care for the country, care for the jukkurpa. If other people hurt or damage the country, I can be punished under our traditional laws.
I learnt the jukurrpa from the old people, they handed it down to us. I need to keep it strong for all martu people and for our future generations.
0
8
0