ATNS - Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements project

Back to search results

Print this page
Hunter v State of Western Australia [2009] FCA 654 (11 June 2009)
Binomial Name:	Federal Court of Australia
Date:	11 June 2009
Sub Category:	Consent Determination (Native Title Act)
Place:	Nyiyamarri Pukurl
	Click this link to search this location with google maps
State/Country:	Western Australia, Australia
	Click this link to search this location with google maps
Legal Status:	Registered on the National Native Title Register
Legal Reference:	Federal Court No: WAD234/2007; National Native Title Tribunal No: WC07/2
Alternative Names:	Nyangumarta People (Part A)
Subject Matter:	Native Title
URL:	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/654.html
Summary Information:
Between: Darcy Hunter, Winnie Coppin, Wooda Davis, Alma Gray and Ada Stewart (APPLICANTS) and State of Western Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (Inc), Anna Plains Cattle Co Pty Ltd, Lallaw Pastoral Pty Ltd, Mandora Pty Ltd, Telstra Corporation Limited, Barry Taylor, Kevin Allan and others on behalf of the Njamal people, Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation (RESPONDENTS) AND Teddy Hunter, Nyaparu Rose and Janet Stewart (APPLICANTS) and State of Western Australia, Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation and Anna Plains Cattle Co Pty Ltd (RESPONDENTS) Judge: North J Where made: Nyiyamarri Pukurl Determination: Native title exists in parts of the determination area- those identified in schedules 3, 4 and 5 Native title does not exist in those parts of the determination area identified in schedule 6 Native title is held by the Nyangumarta people The native title rights and interests that exist include the right to possess, use and enjoy the land and to live, camp, fish, hunt, to protect sites of importance and engage in cultural ceremonies on the land. The non native title rights and interests that exist include a variety of leases, permits and interests, principally in the areas of farming, mining, fishing and pearling.
Detailed Information:
The application area is approximately 39,931 square kilometres in the northwest Pilbara and southwest Kimberley regions, near Eighty Mile Beach and 325km south of Broome. The exclusive native title rights and interests include (except in relation to flowing and underground water) possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the land and waters to the exclusion of all others, the right to use and enjoy the underground and flowing waters including the right to hunt and gather fish for non-commercial use and the right to take water for non-commercial use. The non-exclusive native title rights and interests include the right to access and move freely throughout the determination area, the right to live, remain, camp, erect shelters and other structures on the land. They include the right to hunt for non-commercial use, to take flora, fauna and other natural resources, exchange these resources and to engage in cultural activities such as ceremonies, burials and meetings. They include the right to visit and protect sites of importance and the right to be accompanied by people who are not native title holders, but are family of native title holders or are required by law or custom for cultural activities. Further, native title holders have the right to take Pinctada maxima pearl oysters for non-commercial uses. These rights are subject to the laws of the State and the Commonwealth. The non native title interests include pastoral leases, reserves, exploration permits and licences, fishing and pearling interests, rights or interests held by the operation of laws, for instance, the public right to fish and the right to access the land by an agent of the State or Commonwealth, petroleum interests, and the rights of Telstra Corporation Limited in relation to telecommunications in the area. North J found that the State of Western Australia had taken a real and significant interest in the proceedings, that the parties had the benefit of independent and competent legal representation in developing the agreement, that the terms of the agreement were clear and that the agreement had been produced as a result of negotiation. The Court, therefore, was able to make the consent determination. The full text of the determination, along with the annexures and schedules is available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/654.html.