Simpson Desert Land Claim - Department of Families, Housing ...

© Commonwealth of Australia 1999ISBN 1 876591 28 5This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from theCommonwealth available from Ausinfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproductionand rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, Ausinfo,GPO Box 1920, Canberra 2601.Produced by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.PRINTED BY: LG2 Design, CanberraCOVER MAP AND SURVEY MAPS BY: N.T. Department of Planning and Infrastructure.(ii)

(iii)

(v)

CONTENTSPageIntroduction.......................................................................................................................1The claim to the Simpson Desert.......................................................................................1The repeat claim – s.50(2B)..............................................................................................3Status of the claimed land..................................................................................................4The inquiry........................................................................................................................4The claimant groups..........................................................................................................5Land tenure system............................................................................................................6The issue for determination...............................................................................................6Uleperte Estate – Williams family country.......................................................................7The Ahantye Estate – Drover family country..................................................................10Ilarte – Juntu’s country....................................................................................................13Traditional Aboriginal ownership....................................................................................16Strength of traditional attachment...................................................................................17Secure occupancy principles – section 50(4)..................................................................18Recommendation.............................................................................................................18The function to comment.................................................................................................19Summary..........................................................................................................................20Addendum.......................................................................................................................22Appendix I.......................................................................................................................23Appendix II......................................................................................................................26Appendix III....................................................................................................................30Maps 1, 2, 3 and 4.................................................................................inside back pocket(vii)

(viii)

2relating to the Finke Land Claim (Report No 39), the North-West SimpsonDesert Land Claim (Report No 41) and the North Simpson Desert Land Claim(Report No 45). In 1996 a further area measuring 60 kilometres square in theextreme south-eastern corner of the Northern Territory adjacent to the Queenslandand South Australian borders (subsequently designated as Northern TerritoryPortion 4917) was excised from the original claim and made the subject of theWangkangurru Land Claim (Claim No 156) which has not yet been resolved.The balance of the original Simpson Desert claim area remaining after thewithdrawals referred to above is now designated as NTP 4207.4. In each of the Finke, North-West Simpson Desert and North Simpson Desertclaims only part of the land claimed in those applications was the subject of afinding of traditional Aboriginal ownership and included in a recommendation fora grant of title in accordance with sections 11 and 12 of the Land Rights Act. Theareas not included in the recommendations are now designated as follows:a) Finke Land Claim – NTP 4209;b) North-West Simpson Desert Land Claim – NTP 4208;c) North Simpson Desert Land Claim – NTP 4918.On 16 December 1992 the CLC lodged the repeat claim in relation to the threeareas referred to above, namely NTPs 4209, 4208 and 4918. As the whole ofthe land claimed had been the subject of a previous claim but not recommendedfor grant, the Commissioner was prohibited from exercising any function unders.50(1)(a) in relation to the claimed land unless and until relevant findingspursuant to s.50(2B) had been made.5. On 13 November 2006 I caused a written request pursuant to s.67A(8) of theLand Rights Act to be served on the CLC in relation to the repeat claim by whichI sought to have provided to me within six months certain specific informationthat would justify me making findings pursuant to s.50(2B) (usually referred toas a Repeat Claim Statement). By letter dated 10 May 2007 the CLC forwardedto me a Repeat Claim Statement which related to the land previously claimedin the North Simpson Desert claim (NTP 4918). No information was providedin relation to the land previously claimed in the Finke claim (NTP 4209) or theNorth-West Simpson Desert claim (NTP 4208). By written determination dated10 August 2007 I determined that the information requested in respect of NTP4209 and NTP 4208 had not been provided within six months of the request forinformation being made. In the circumstances the repeat claim to NTP 4209 andNTP 4208 is taken to be finally disposed of. As a result of my determination NTP4918 remains the only area of land subject to claim in the repeat claim.6. On 23 March 2007 I caused a written request pursuant to s.67A(7) of the LandRights Act to be served on the CLC in relation to the Simpson Desert claim bywhich I sought certain specific further information to be provided within sixmonths. By letter dated 17 September 2007 I agreed to a request by the CLCextending the time for complying with my request until 20 October 2007. On15 October 2007 I received from the CLC the information requested in relation

3to that part of the claimed land (NTP 4207) as lies north of a line extendingeastward from the north-eastern corner of NTP 1361 to the Northern Territory/Queensland border. As no information was provided in relation to the part ofthe claimed land south of that line, by written determination dated 6 June 2008 Idetermined that the requested information relating to that part of claimed land hadnot been provided within the extended time for complying with my request. Inthe circumstances the claim to the area of land south of the line referred to aboveis taken to be finally disposed of.7. Map 2 demonstrates the relationship of the two areas presently under claimand identifies the other areas in respect of which the claims are now taken to befinally disposed of. For the purposes of this report NTP 4918 (the land remainingsubject to claim in the repeat claim) is referred to as Area A; the balance of theSimpson Desert claim which has not been withdrawn or is not taken to be finallydisposed of (i.e. the part of NTP 4207 north of the line referred to in paragraph 6)is referred to as Area B.The repeat claim – s.50(2B)8. As the whole of Area A is “common land” as defined in s.50(2B) of the LandRights Act, the Commissioner’s functions under s.50(1)(a) could not beperformed in the absence of a finding that either:a) the claim is made on a substantially different basis from the original claim(s.50(2B)(d));b) relevant information is now available that was not previously available(s.50(2B)(e)); orc) it appears on some other ground that it is appropriate to perform a relevantfunction (s.50(2B)(f));and in any such case it appears likely that the Commissioner will find that theapplicants or other Aboriginals are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land.9. At a hearing in Alice Springs on 7 November 2007 I expressed the view thatthe issues raised by s.50(2B) with respect to Area A ought to be dealt with inconjunction with the inquiry in relation to Area B. It was apparent from thematerial provided that the two claims were being pursued by the same claimantgroups whose traditional country was said to extend south from within theAtnetye Aboriginal Land Trust (the area recommended for grant in the NorthSimpson Desert claim) across Area A into and beyond Area B. This assessmentof the basis of the claim is illustrated by map 3 which has been reproduced fromthe claimants’ Anthropologist’s Report (exhibit CLC 1).10. On 30 June 2008, at the commencement of the inquiry, the representatives ofthe CLC and the Northern Territory indicated that it would be convenient for thecombined hearing to proceed on the basis that it would be open to me to find thatit appeared on “some other ground” that it was appropriate to perform relevantfunctions under s.50(1)(a) in respect of Area A and I so found. Further, fromthe material provided, it appeared likely (subject to proof of the facts asserted)

4that the claimants or other specified Aboriginals would be found to be traditionalAboriginal owners of Area A.Status of the claimed land11. Each application presently under consideration asserts that the area of landclaimed is unalienated Crown land. This assertion has not been put in issue bythe Northern Territory or by any other person or body. No part of the claimedland is land in a town (as defined by s.3 of the Land Rights Act) nor is any part ofit set aside for, or dedicated to, a public purpose under an Act. Having regard tothe foregoing I find that each part of the combined claim area (hereafter referredto simply as the claim area) is unalienated Crown land which is available to bethe subject of a traditional land claim application pursuant to s.50(1)(a) of theLand Rights Act.The inquiry12. Notice of my intention to commence an inquiry was advertised in●●the Northern Territory News on 16 and 17 May 2008; and●●the Centralian Advocate on 16 May 2008.Notice was also given to individuals, organisations and officials thought likelyto have an interest in the outcome of the inquiry. Persons and organisations whodesired to be heard were invited to give written notice of their interest and a briefoutline of the issues they wished to raise. The only response received was fromthe Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Northern Territory.13. Prior to the commencement of the inquiry the CLC provided a number ofdocuments setting out the basis of the claim and identifying the claimantgroups. These documents which were later tendered in evidence include anAnthropologist’s Report, a site register and map, genealogies of each claimantgroup and personal profiles of the claimants. In advance of the commencementof the inquiry, upon being satisfied as to the methodology adopted for thepreparation of the genealogies, the Northern Territory advised that in lieu ofwitness testimony it accepted the affidavit of Jeffrey John Stead (the claimants’consultant anthropologist) (exhibit CLC 5) as evidence of the accuracy of thegenealogies (see exhibit NTG 3). In addition, the Northern Territory admitted theexistence and location of a large number of sites shown on the site map as wellas admitting the existence, but not the location, of several other sites (see exhibitsNTG 1 and 2).14. The inquiry commenced on 30 June 2008 at a temporary campsite on the AtnetyeAboriginal Land Trust close to the northern boundary of Area A. The claimantsand the Northern Territory were each represented by counsel. On 30 June 2008and on 1, 2 and 3 July 2008 evidence was given by the claimants’ witnesses bothat the campsite and at a number of locations on or close to the claim area. On5 July 2008 further evidence was given in Alice Springs and on 20 July 2008site visits were made by helicopter from Alice Springs. The inquiry was then

5adjourned for the presentation of expert anthropological evidence which washeard in Melbourne on 29 September 2008. Final written submissions werelater exchanged. Particulars of the parties taking part in the inquiry and theirrepresentatives, the dates when and places where the inquiry was conducted,the names of witnesses who gave evidence, the sites visited and the documentstendered as exhibits are set out in Appendix I.The claimant groups15. In support of the claim the CLC provided detailed genealogies of four separateclaimant groups which are identified as follows:Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4UleperteAhantyeAkalteIlarteEach group had previously been put forward as claimants in the North SimpsonDesert claim. In the North Simpson Desert report (at para 7.2.1) the country ofthe Akalte group is described as the eastern side of the lower Hay River extendingsouth to Lake Caroline in the Hay floodout. The area in question was included inthe recommendation for grant in the North Simpson Desert report and is now partof the Atnetye Aboriginal Land Trust. However, at para 7.2.7 of the report I saidthat the Ilarte group was then in the process of succeeding to ownership of Akaltecountry, a process which is now said to have been completed. As no evidencehas been put to the present inquiry to support a claim by the Akalte group totraditional ownership of any part of the claim area, groups 1, 2 and 4 are treatedas the only claimants to the respective parts of the claim area attributed to them inmap 3.16. In the North Simpson Desert report the Uleperte, Ahantye and Ilarte groups arereferred to at paras 7.6, 7.4 and 7.1 respectively. The Uleperte group were alsoclaimants in the North-West Simpson Desert claim and are referred to at para 6.7of that report. Each claimant group is frequently identified by reference to itsdominant family or senior traditional owner. For example, the Uleperte groupis commonly known as the Williams mob and its estate as Williams country.Similarly, Ahantye is for the Drover family (the senior member of which is AllanDrover, otherwise known as Yellowshirt) and Ilarte is referred to as Juntu’scountry (a reference to Juntu Rose Kemarre, a “boss” for that country).17. Appendix II contains details of the claimants who are put forward as thetraditional Aboriginal owners of the respective parts of the claim area asillustrated in map 3. Each claimant group is comprised of the patrilinealdescendants of relevant apical ancestors together with the children of femalemembers of the patriclan. This is the same descent group model accepted inthe North Simpson Desert report. Whilst there is unlikely to be any doubt as tothe identity of the persons named in Appendix II, it may be helpful to explainthat each list commences with the claimants named at page 1 of the relevant

6genealogy and proceeds page by page in the same order as the genealogy. Theorder in which the claimants are listed has been determined by the format ofthe genealogies and in no way reflects the status or seniority of any particularclaimant within the group.Land tenure system18. The land tenure system of the claimant groups is described in detail in Chapter3 of the Anthropologist’s Report (exhibit CLC 1) prepared by Mr Jeffrey Stead.Understandably, the description reflects the same detail as is described in asimilar report (prepared by Mr Stead in 1991) presented as evidence in the NorthSimpson Desert claim to which reference is made in the North Simpson Desertreport at para 6. Given that each claimant group has previously been found tosatisfy all of the elements of the definition of traditional Aboriginal owners ins.3 of the Land Rights Act in relation to areas of land immediately adjacent tothe relevant parts of the present claim area, it is unnecessary to rehearse herewhat has previously been said on the subject. It is sufficient to say that I acceptthe description of the claimants’ land tenure system as explained in Chapter 3of exhibit CLC 1 (which is reproduced in full in Appendix III) and adopt for thepurposes of this report what I have previously said in para 6 of the North SimpsonDesert report. It is pertinent to record that in the present inquiry no challenge hasbeen made to the findings and conclusions previously expressed.The issue for determination19. In the present inquiry no challenge has been made either as to the composition ofthe claimant groups as advanced in the genealogies or to the land tenure systemof the claimants as described in the Anthropologist’s Report. Each claimantgroup has previously been found to constitute a local descent group of the typedescribed in the statutory definition of traditional Aboriginal owners; and eachgroup has been found to have traditional attachments to a relevant portion of theland immediately to the north of Area A. In the circumstances the present claimcannot be considered in isolation from the evidence and findings made in theNorth Simpson Desert claim. In the North Simpson Desert report I indicated thatthe evidence adduced in the inquiry did not permit of a finding that there are anytraditional Aboriginal owners of the portion of the area then under claim whichlay south of the rather arbitrary boundary described in the report. Perhaps a moreappropriate comment would have been to say that the evidence did not satisfyme that the traditional country of the claimant groups extended any further south.The primary issue (or perhaps more accurately, the issues) for determinationin this inquiry is/are whether the evidence now available to me in this inquiryestablishes that the traditional country of any of the claimant groups extends intothe claim area and, if so, to what extent in this case. To resolve this issue it willbe appropriate to consider the circumstances in which the northern boundary ofArea A was established at its present location. Map 4 identifies the location ofthose sites shown on the claimants’ site map (exhibit CLC 3) that are referred toin the following discussion.

7Uleperte Estate – Williams family country20. The North-West Simpson Desert claim related to land west of Illogwa Creek.The creek itself was the eastern boundary of the claim area. With the exceptionof a small triangular area in the extreme south-eastern corner (NTP 4208) theNorth-West Simpson Desert report contains a recommendation for the grant oftitle to the claimed land. The claim of the Williams family to Uleperte country isdiscussed at para 6.7 of the report. Subpara 6.7.4 deals with the Uleperte sites,one of which is referred to as Wake and is shown on the site map in that claimas being some distance to the east of the eastern boundary of the claim area.(The printed report contains an error in that at 6.7.4 Wake is said to be situatedgenerally south-west of the site Uleperte whereas in fact the site map and theevidence place it south-east of Uleperte).21. The North-West Simpson Desert report contains the following references to thesite Wake:6.7.4 Wake – This site was said to be in the middle of the desertgenerally south-west (sic, south-east) of Uleperte. From Uleperte thesnakes went to Wake. None of the claimants has been to Wake, theplace being altogether inaccessible by vehicle. Willie Williams spokeof his father having walked to Wake after a big rain. A further commentconcerning Wake appears in paragraph 7.6.7.5 The location of the southern limit of the Uleperte estate is to someextent dependent upon the location of the site Wake, said to be east ofIllogwa Creek in the Simpson Desert. No claimant has visited the site norknows its precise location, but there seems to be a strong tradition that itexists, that it is somewhere to the south-east of Uleperte (Junction Bore)and that it is on the track of the carpet snake dreaming which proceedswest from Wake to Arlpwerlilthe before heading north to Akwelpe andbeyond. Arlpwerlilthe was placed slightly west of the Hale River andslightly south of the southern boundary of Numery Station. I am satisfiedfrom the evidence that the triangular area between Uleperte, Wake andArlpwerlilthe is part of the Uleperte estate.7.6 Following the completion of written submissions by all interestedparties the CLC wrote to me by letter dated 6 August 1991 concerningthe location of the site Wake. The thrust of the letter is that in the courseof research in respect of another claim the site is said to have beenlocated somewhat to the north of the position shown in exhibit CLC 7.As no request has been made to take this new evidence into account indetermining the present claim I have received the letter and the mapaccompanying it and marked it as exhibit CLC 23. As I am of the viewthat the southern limit of Uleperte country adjoins the northern limit ofArletherre country, the precise location of Wake is of no great significance.(By way of explanation, the reason that I stated the “the precise location of Wakeis of no great significance” is that it was clearly located well east of Illogwa Creekand accordingly was not then within the area under claim. Nor was the precise

8location of the southern limit of Uleperte country significant to the ultimateoutcome of the claim).22. In the North Simpson Desert claim the site map located Wake more or less dueeast of Uleperte (Junction Bore), some distance north of where it was located onthe North-West Simpson Desert site map. This was of course consistent with theinformation received following the conclusion of the North-West Simpson Desertinquiry to which reference is made at para 7.6 of that report. On 8 October 1991,in the course of the North Simpson Desert inquiry, the site then identified as Wakewas visited by helicopter. On this occasion the late Willie Williams, then thesenior Uleperte traditional owner, gave evidence concerning the site, his previousvisit to it as a child and the Dreaming story associated with it. At subpara 7.6.1 ofthe North Simpson Desert report I said:Country 7 (i.e. Uleperte) is claimed by the Williams family, members ofwhich gave evidence in the North-West Simpson Land Claim. Findings oftraditional Aboriginal ownership were made in favour of the group in theReport on the North-West Simpson Desert Land Claim but there was nofinding as to the eastern limit of the group’s country which was beyond theboundary of the land then under claim. Evidence in this claim focussed onthe site Wake which had been discussed in the previous claim, but had notat that time been located. In the intervening year, Allan Drover assisted inlocating the site, and Willie Williams apparently realised that he had beenthere with his family when he was a young child. Allan Drover knew thelocation of the place and directed the helicopter pilot to it.23. During the visit to Wake on 8 October 1991 Willie Williams (who was the onlywitness to give evidence) recalled that he had been there as a child, havingtravelled (by foot) from Uleperte (Junction Bore) with his father and mother aswell as his sister and brothers. He said they came after rain (the “green time”as he called it) and were foraging for kangaroo, yam and wild banana. Hisevidence was that Wake was his country which he took from his father. UsingWake as a reference point he explained the extent of his country. Of particularimportance was his assertion that it extended to the south straight to Irnteye (westof the claim area) and included a salt claypan which he was not able to preciselylocate but which he said he had flown over in a helicopter. Unfortunately Williepassed away some years ago but is survived by his son Ernie Williams who gaveevidence in the present inquiry. (Exhibit ALC 1 is a copy of the transcript ofevidence taken on site on 8 October 1991).24. At para 7.8 of the North Simpson Desert report I dealt with the difficult task ofdetermining the southern limit of the area for which I was satisfied that traditionalAboriginal ownership had been established. At subpara 7.8.4 I wrote in relationto the Williams family estate:7.8.4 The site Wake is referred to in the Report on the North-WestSimpson Desert Land Claim and although it had not then been accuratelylocated, its approximate location was known. As it happens it appearsto be somewhat further to the north than was previously thought to bethe case. It is impossible to properly reflect the evidence as to the extent

9of the Williams family’s estate simply by drawing a line on a map butgiven the need to make a definitive recommendation I am of the viewthat a line running from the south-west corner of Apiwentye Station tothe point where meridian of longitude 136 degrees east intersects withIllogwa Creek would fairly represent the southern-most limit of the landin respect of which traditional Aboriginal ownership has been established.The intersection of longitude 136°E and Illogwa Creek coincides with thenorthern extremity of the eastern boundary of the land recommended forgrant in the Report on the North-West Simpson Desert Land Claim.The site Wake (as then defined) was included within the area recommended forgrant.25. The site map in the present inquiry identifies the site previously called Wake(which was visited on 8 October 1991) as Uleperte Amerke Amerke (site 7.1a)(Amerke Amerke is the Arrernte term for a sacred place). The same map placesWake (site 7.2) somewhat to the south of Uleperte Amerke Amerke withinArea A. The site register (exhibit CLC 2) describes the geographic feature ofWake as “claypan, series of large lakes/claypans”. The only explanation offeredfor the relocation of Wake was that given by Ernie Williams who said that at thetime of the site visit in 1991 Willie Williams was old and had a failing memory.No explanation has been offered for the complete absence of the name UleperteAmerke Amerke during the North Simpson Desert inquiry nor has it beenexplained how it is that, whereas in 1991 Willie Williams was the only personwho had any knowledge of the site he called Wake, some 17 years later his son isable to contradict his late father’s evidence.26. Whilst I have some reservation as to the cogency of Ernie Williams’ evidence,several facts are beyond dispute. First, the site visited in the course of the presentinquiry on 20 July 2008 which was then identified by the name Uleperte AmerkeAmerke is the same site that was visited on 8 October 1991 when it was calledWake. Second, that when asked to state how far south from the site (which hecalled Wake) his country extended Willie Williams said: “To the claypans – saltclaypans” (North Simpson Desert transcript p.768). When asked if he had beento the salt claypan Willie said he had flown over it in a helicopter. Third, the areashown on the current site map as Wake (which was also visited on 20 July 2008)is more or less south of the site Uleperte Amerke Amerke and is comprised of aseries of salt lakes or claypans. Irrespective of what names may be attributed tothe various sites, I have no doubt that had the southern claypans been located andidentified in the North Simpson Desert inquiry I would have had no difficulty inconcluding that the southern limit of Uleperte country extended at least as far asthe southern boundary of the area referred to in this inquiry as Area A.27. On 20 July 2008 following visits to Uleperte Amerke Amerke (site 7.1a) andWake (site 7.2) further evidence was taken at a location about 60 kilometresdue south of Wake which the helicopter pilot assured me was at a point on thesouthern boundary of Area B. Ernie Williams said in evidence that to the northwas “Williams country” (i.e. Uleperte estate) and that to the south was the landof “the Doolan family and the Arabana mob”. He agreed that Wake (site 7.2) andAlamperirreke (site 8.3) were the last places at which water could be found and

10that the lack of water would make kangaroos scarce. He confirmed that there wasno special site or place in the vicinity but it was nevertheless part of his country.In response to a question, he said it was possible to exploit the land in the areathrough the use of kangaroo skin water bags. Although not part of his formalevidence, on the way back to the helicopter Ernie pointed out some bush foodgrowing in the area.28. I have no difficulty in accepting that the Uleperte estate extends at least asfar south as Wake (site 7.2) and given the vastness of the country it is notunreasonable to expect that the estate would extend further south. The questionis just how far beyond Wake is it proper to consider Uleperte extends. No-oneknows the answer to that question with any certainty despite Ernie Williams’confident assertion as to the limit of his country. There is however some evidencegiven in relation to the southern extent of the Ahantye and Ilarte estates thatwould suggest that “the land of the Doolan family” commences south of thesouthern boundary of Area B. Brownie Doolan (a senior traditional owner of theland south of Area B) gave evidence at the site Alamperirreke (site 8.3) on 1 July2008 and at no stage was it suggested that his country formed part of the presentclaim area. Although Brownie’s evidence was given in relation to the Ahantyeestate, by inference it is reasonable to conclude that the Uleperte estate does infact extend south beyond the southern boundary of Area B.The Ahantye Estate – Drover family country29. In the North Simpson Desert report I wrote (at subpara 7.8.3):The southern limit of the estates of several of the landholding groupshas not been established with any precision. The best that can be saidis that in the section between Apiwentye and Tobermorey Stationsthere is some evidence that the boundary is somewhat south of the siteApwertetywernkwerre and of Lake Caroline. A line running from thesouth-west corner of Tobermorey Station to the south-east corner ofApiwentye Station would adequately delineate the approximate southernmostextent of the relevant estates.The line described in the final sentence (which now defines the southern limit ofthe Atnetye Aboriginal Land Trust and part of the northern boundary of Area A)runs just south of both Ahantye (site 8.1) and Lake Caroline which is shown onthe present site map as Ipenyarte (site 2.2). At subpara 7.4.5 I dealt with theextent of the Ahantye estate in these terms:According to Lindsay Bookie, the Drover’s country extends fromArrkeyerrenge (which is on Atula Creek more or less in the centre ofApiwentye Station) east as far as the Hay River. Allan Drover said thatAherraltneme (which is in the north-west of area 3) is a boundary point.West of there the country is for the Williams family.From Ahantye (at the southern extremity of Apiwentye Station) toAherraltneme is Drover family country as is the country from Ahantyeto the north as far as Ur-ingke (which is in the north-west of Apiwentye

12IF ON CLAIM AREA:COMMENTS:Yes, on Hay RiverMay be kangaroo dreaming. Europeanssaid to have perished here.In the present inquiry Alamperirreke is shown on the site map as being on thePlenty River floodout close to the southern boundary of Area B. The details inthe site register are:SITE NUMBER: 8.3ABORIGINAL NAME:GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE:GROUP RESPONSIBLE:IF VISITEDIF ON CLAIM AREA:COMMENTS:ALAMPERIRREKEClaypan/swamp, hillsTwoYesYes, on Plenty River floodoutTwo boys Dreaming site. Hills hererepresent two boy’s and their mother.They came here from Artw-Atherre (1.23).31. Alamperirreke (8.3) was visited on 1 July 2008 when Allan Drover and Jeffreyand Brownie Doolan gave evidence. The thrust of the evidence (so far aspresently relevant) was that the site is part of the Drover family’s countrywhich extends southward until “half way” (to use Yellowshirt’s term) to whereBrownie Doolan takes over. Jeffrey Doolan said that to the south of the site itwas Yellowshirt’s country until you reach two lakes (which are close together)then Brownie takes over the country. At the conclusion of the evidence atAlamperirreke the party flew a short distance south by helicopter to a point whichthe helicopter pilot identified as being on the southern boundary of Area B. Atthis location Yellowshirt confirmed that his country extends a short distancefurther south to a small lake where his country finishes and Brownie Doolan takesover.32. The two boy Dreaming track (which was not discussed in the North SimpsonDesert claim) is referred to later in this report in connection with the Ilarte estate.For present purposes it is sufficient to say that Alamperirreke is a site on thattrack. It is also of significance to observe that Mabel Smith’s comment in theNorth Simpson Desert claim that Ahantye and Alamperirreke are sites whichbelong to Allan Drover being “his floodout country” is entirely consistent with theclaim as presently advanced. The author of the North Simpson Desert site mapsimply picked the wrong floodout.33. Having regard to the evidence given in this inquiry, and to the other materialavailable in relation to the matters in question, I am satisfied that the traditionalcountry of the Drover family (otherwise identified both in this claim and in theNorth Simpson Desert report as Ahantye) extends south of the site Ahantye (8.1)to beyond the southern boundary of Area B; and further that Ahantye extends

13westward as far as the country of the Williams family (Uleperte) and eastward tothe Hay River floodout which is the western limit of Ilarte country.Ilarte – Juntu’s country34. The Ilarte estate is commonly referred to as “Juntu’s country” in recognition ofJuntu (Alkarierka) Kemarre, one of the senior traditional owners. In the NorthSimpson Desert claim Juntu and her son Lindsay Bookie (who identifies himselfas kwertengwerle) were the major spokespersons for their group. Unfortunatelyat the time of the present inquiry Juntu was unwell and unable to attend thehearing. Lindsay Bookie did however give a substantial amount of evidence asdid (to a lesser extent) Juntu’s brother Ned Rose. Ilarte is a large country whichencompasses Tobermorey Station and extends westward towards the Hay River.It is discussed in detail at para 7.1 of the North Simpson Desert report where it isreferred to as belonging to group 1.At subpara 7.1.5 I described the extent of the country as follows:Evidence concerning the responsibilities of this group indicates that from‘the salt lake’ which is near the southern boundary of Tobermorey pastorallease, the estate extends:(a)(b)(c)(d)South of Apwertetywernkwerre by about 20 kilometres.West, part way to the Hay river; Lindsay Bookie suggestedseveral figures within the range 30–40 kilometres west of identifiedgroup 1 sites. The varying figures produce a notional boundaryabout 20 kilometres east of the Hay river.South-west about half way to Lake Caroline.North-west at least to Mount Barrington which was said to bea place where ‘King Peter’s mob’ (group 2) and group 1 cometogether. Lindsay Bookie was very clear that this site is the placewhere ‘Dubbo’s story’ stops and the other mob takes over.(In the North Simpson Desert claim Ilarte was designated as group 1. DubboRose, now deceased, was a brother of Juntu).35. Apwertetywernkwerre (site 1.25a) (otherwise the salt lake) is referred to in theNorth Simpson Desert site register where the following particulars are provided:SITE NUMBER: 1.25aABORIGINAL NAME:GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE:GROUP RESPONSIBLE:IF VISITED:APWERTETYWERNKWERRESalt lake, southeast of Mt GardinerOneYes

14IF ON CLAIM AREA:No, on Tobermorey P.L.COMMENTS: Snake came here from arntinarre (9.3)and ate the pituri here, turning it intoa ‘cheeky’ snake. It then flew intoQueensland. apwertetywernkwerre oftengiven as southeastern boundary of groupone’s country. Name may also refer toMt Gardiner.The witnesses who gave evidence about the site on the North Simpson Deserthearing were familiar with the site but it was not visited during that inquiry. Inthe North Simpson Desert report I referred to the site (at subpara 7.1.4) in theseterms:APWERTETYWERNKWERRE (Woodnunajilla Waterhole) – SnakeDreaming (urtneye); also Rain. [This name is unpronounceable by thosewho are not fluent in Arrente; the site was generally referred to as the saltlake.] This site is a source of pituri, which the group 1 people used toharvest here and take with them on their trips to Lake Caroline where theyengaged in trade with the many groups who travelled to that site.36. Apwertetywernkwerre is about 20 kilometres north of the southern boundary ofTobermorey Station which means that in defining the southern limit of the arearecommended for grant in the North Simpson Desert report as a line extendingwest from the south-west corner of Tobermorey I in effect included within myrecommendation the whole of the Ilarte estate then within the North SimpsonDesert claim area. In the matter presently under consideration Ilarte country issaid to include the portions of both Area A and Area B which are east of the HayRiver floodout.37. The site register in the present claim provides the following information inrelation to Apwertetywernkwerre and a further site Artartame (site 1.25b) whichis immediately adjacent to it:SITE NUMBER: 1.25aABORIGINAL NAME:GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE:GROUP RESPONSIBLE:IF VISITED:IF ON CLAIM AREA:COMMENTS:APWERTETYWERNKWERRE(PWERTETYWERNGERRE)Mountain and swampy areaFourYesNo, on Tobermorey PL.Associated with large hairy man. Namesometimes used to describe part of 1.25b.Snake may have come past here to go

15SITE NUMBER: 1.25bto 1.25b where it changed into a cheekysnake (Arripere).ABORIGINAL NAME:EUROPEAN:GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE:GROUP RESPONSIBLE:IF VISITED:IF ON CLAIM AREA:COMMENTS:ARTARTAME‘Salt Lake’Swamp, waterholes, sandhill with pituriplants.FourYesNo, on southern portion of TobermoreyPL., on Field RiverA carpet snake came to here fromArntinarre. It ate pituri here, turned into a‘cheeky snake’ and went into Queensland.This area also associated with a small man,Artartame, who is reputed to play tricks onthose who visit this site.The area was visited by helicopter on 3 July 2008 when evidence was given byLindsay Bookie, Ned Rose, Velma Dempsey (a daughter of Juntu’s sister ArjennyRose) and David Rankin (a son of Juntu’s sister Barbara). The evidence wasto the effect that Ilarte country extended as far south as Madlhu (site 1.31) andKalidjiwarre (site 1.34) (both of which are in Queensland) and west to the HayRiver.38. The site shown on the site map as Stone Quarry (site 1.29) is located on the HayRiver close to the southern boundary of Area B. It is quite clearly a place wherein earlier times stone knives and other tools used for hunting had been made.Evidence was taken at the site on 2 July 2008. The main witness was LindsayBookie; additional evidence was given by Ned Rose (Juntu’s brother), SallyBookie (Juntu’s daughter) and Maureen O’Keefe (daughter of Juntu’s sister TopsyO’Keefe). Lindsay said that the name of the site was Nglwartetye which is theword for stone knife. The main thrust of the evidence given at the site was that itwas on the country of Juntu and her brother Ned (who were the “bosses”) and thatLindsay was kwertengwerle. It was said that their country extended south-east toMadlhu (site 1.31) and Kalidjiwarre (site 1.34).39. At para 4 of the Repeat Claim Statement (exhibit CLC 11) Mr Stead describesa number of developments that have occurred since the North Simpson Desertclaim which affect the claim area. At 4.1.3 he states:Since the previous claim, an Aboriginal Land claim to the Simpson DesertNational Park occurred under Queensland’s Aboriginal Land Act 1991.The extreme eastern corner of the repeat claim is located approximately

1630 kms north-west of that claim’s north-eastern corner. Claimants fromgroup one (now four) (Juntu Rose and Lindsay Bookie) were claimantsin the Simpson Desert National Park Claim, visiting sites and givingevidence. Evidence from Lindsay Bookie indicates knowledge of atwo-boy Dreaming track which influences group one’s (now four) estate.These ancestral beings were not discussed in the original claim. Duringthe Simpson Desert National Park claim Juntu Rose and Lindsay Bookiewere able to obtain more knowledge of the extent of the country for whichthey have primary spiritual responsibility. They now indicate that groupone’s (now four) estate includes all the land east of the Hay River in therepeat claim area and south and south-east to the sites of Madlhu (MadlooWell) (1.31) and Kalidjiwarre (Kalidawarry Waterhole) (1.34).Exhibit CLC 10 in this inquiry is a transcript of the evidence given during theSimpson Desert National Park claim by Lindsay Bookie at Kalidjiwarre on9 December 1993 and by Lindsay and Juntu on 12 December 1993. In thatevidence the two boys Dreaming track is discussed.40. Nothing was said in evidence during this inquiry to explain the apparentdiscrepancy between the evidence given in the North Simpson Desert claimwhich placed the southern limit of Ilarte about 20 kilometres south of the salt lakeand that more recently given which identifies Madlhu (site 1.31) and Kalidjiwarre(site 1.34) as places where the Bookie family hands over to another group(Wangkangurru – Linda Crombie’s mob). Be that as it may, no attempt was madeto challenge Lindsay Bookie’s evidence which he gave at both Alamperirreke on2 July 2008 and at Apwertetywernkwerre on 3 July. Given the vast nature of thecountry and the very limited number of physical features it is more likely thannot that a feature such as the Hay River and its floodout would be regarded asdefining the extent of the traditional estate. In the circumstances I am satisfiedthat the evidence provides an adequate basis upon which to conclude that theIlarte estate encompasses that part of the combined claim area which lies to theeast of the Hay River and its floodout.Traditional Aboriginal ownership41. I have thus far dealt with the question of the extent of the traditional country ofeach of the claimant groups. In the North Simpson Desert report I made findingsto the effect that each group satisfied the definition of “traditional Aboriginalowners” in s.3 of the Land Rights Act in relation to the parts of their respectivecountries which were within the area recommended for grant. These findingsnecessarily were based upon the evidence then available to me which justified theconclusion in each case that in respect of the relevant land the group compriseda local descent group of Aboriginals who have common spiritual affiliationsto a site on the land, being affiliations that place the group under a primaryspiritual responsibility for that site and for the land and are entitled by Aboriginaltradition to forage as of right over that land. The further evidence now availablehas satisfied me that the traditional estate of each claimant group extends southbeyond the boundary defined in para 2.2 of the North Simpson Desert report atleast as far as the southern limit of Area B. In the course of the current inquiry

17witnesses from each group reaffirmed their spiritual responsibility to “look after”the sites visited and their country in general. They also reasserted their traditionalright to forage over their land.42. The evidence and other material available in this inquiry supports a findingof traditional Aboriginal ownership of the whole of both Area A and Area B.Although there are no well defined boundaries to the estates of the severalclaimant groups I am satisfied that the whole of the land claimed comes withinthe estate of one or other of the groups and it is therefore unnecessary to be morespecific.Strength of traditional attachment43. section 50(3) of the Land Rights Act provides that in making a report inconnection with a traditional land claim a Commissioner shall have regard to thestrength or otherwise of the traditional attachment by the claimants to the landclaimed. This issue was dealt with in relation to the land claimed in the NorthSimpson Desert claim at para 6.14 of that report. The comments there maderemain relevant in the present context.44. In my report on the McArthur River Region Land Claim(Report No 62 – 15 March 2002) at para 73, after referring to s.50(3) I said:The Act leaves it uncertain as to whether the strength of attachment is afactor to be taken into account when considering whether members of alocal descent group satisfy the requirements of the definition of traditionalAboriginal owners, or whether strength of attachment is a factor toconsider when exercising the function to make recommendations to theMinister for the granting of land. Various views are open and have fromtime to time been expressed but the latter seems to be that favoured byjudicial opinion. It is inevitably the case that the strength of spiritualattachment amongst a group comprising a large number of claimants willbe varied. Factors such as the age of the claimant, the place of residenceand the circumstances of his or her life experience will have a bearing onthe strength of the individual’s attachment to the land. The fact that anindividual no longer lives, or indeed has never lived, on or near his or hertraditional country is not a reason to deny that individual the capacity toretain a strong spiritual attachment to that land. What the Act does not sayis that every member of a local descent group must demonstrate a strongspiritual attachment to the land claimed to warrant the Commissionermaking a favourable recommendation.And at para 58 of the Maria Island and Limmen Bight River report(Report No 61 – 28 March 2002) after again referring to s.50(3) I said:The strength of traditional attachment is a matter to be considered in thecontext of the Commissioner’s function to make recommendations tothe Minister in the event that a finding of traditional ownership is made(The Queen v Toohey; ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd 158 CLR 327per Gibbs CJ at p. 333; per Wilson J at p. 347.) If traditional Aboriginal

18ownership has been found, a favourable recommendation will normallybe made by the Commissioner unless little or no traditional attachmenthas been demonstrated. A claimant group which has established all of theelements of traditional ownership of an area of claimable land will rarelybe denied a favourable recommendation on the ground that the grouplacked a strong traditional attachment to the land (see Jungarrayi v Olney34 FCR 496 at pp. 501–2).I adhere to the views as previously expressed in the two passages quoted above.45. The traditional attachment of most of the senior members of each claimant groupis strong as is evidenced by their ongoing involvement in the land claim processover nearly 30 years. They have demonstrated an extensive knowledge of theirtraditional stories and of features of the land itself. They continue to pass ontheir knowledge to those members of the younger generations who seek thatinformation but whose opportunities to visit the land is for the most part curtailedby their employment and domestic responsibilities and the remoteness of the landfrom their current residential locations. Nevertheless, the younger claimants whogave evidence expressed a desire to be able to visit and look after their countryand to learn more about it.Secure occupancy principles – section 50(4)46. Section 50(4) of the Land Rights Act provides:50(4) In carrying out his functions a Commissioner shall have regard tothe following principles:(a)(b)Aboriginals who by choice are living at a place on thetraditional country of the tribe or linguistic group to whichthey belong but do not have a right or entitlement to liveat that place ought, where practicable, to be able to acquiresecure occupancy of that place;Aboriginals who are not living at a place on the traditionalcountry of the tribe or linguistic group to which they belongbut desire to live at such a place ought, where practicable, tobe able to acquire secure occupancy of such a place.In the present context this provision has no relevance. There are no Aboriginalswho currently are living on the claim area nor is there any evidence to suggestthat there are any Aboriginals who currently desire to live thereon.Recommendation47. Having found that(a)the whole of the land described below is unalienated Crown landwhich is available to be the subject of a traditional land claimapplication pursuant to s.50(1)(a) of the Land Rights Act;

19(b)the Aboriginals named in Appendix 2 together with their siblings,other members of the patriline and the children of female membersof the patriclan are traditional Aboriginal owners of the said land;and having regard to:(c)(d)the strength of the traditional attachment of the claimants to thatland; andthe principles expressed in s.50(4) of the Land Rights Act;I recommend to the Minister thatALL THAT piece of land in the Northern Territory of Australia being(i)(ii)the whole of Northern Territory Portion 4918; andthat part of Northern Territory Portion 4207 which lies northof a line extending east from the southernmost point ofNorthern Territory Portion 4918 to the Northern Territory/Queensland border;be granted to a Land Trust in accordance with Sections 11 and 12 of the LandRights Act for the benefit of Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the useor occupation of that land whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified asto place, time, circumstance, purpose or permission. It would seem appropriate inthe particular circumstances of the present claim that any grant of title should bein favour of the existing Atnetye Aboriginal Land Trust.The function to comment48. Subsection 50(3) of the Land Rights Act provides that in making a report inconnection with a traditional land claim the Commissioner shall comment oneach of the following matters:a) the number of Aboriginals with traditional attachments to the land claimedwho would be advantaged, and the nature and extent of the advantage thatwould accrue to those Aboriginals, if the claim were acceded to either inwhole or in part;b) the detriment to persons or communities including other Aboriginal groupsthat might result if the claim were acceded to either in whole or in part;c) the effect which acceding to the claim either in whole or in part wouldhave on the existing or proposed patterns of land usage in the region; andd) where the claim relates to alienated Crown land – the cost of acquiring theinterests of persons (other than the Crown) in the land concerned.The following paragraphs deal with the matters upon which comment is required.As the claim does not relate to any alienated Crown land s.50(4) is of no presentrelevance.

2049. It is not possible to accurately quantify the number of Aboriginals with traditionalattachments to the claim area who would be advantaged by a grant of title. Thereare however some 317 claimants identified in Appendix 2 and it is reasonable toexpect that any advantage flowing from a grant of title would, in addition to thosenamed, extend to:●●●●●●Non-claimants who are affiliated to a claimant group by more remotegenealogical links;Non-claimants who are connected to the claim area through conception,actual place of birth or Dreaming affiliation;Non-claimants who are married to or are the children of claimants.50. In practical terms the advantage that would accrue to the claimants if the claimwere acceded to would be slight but in cultural terms it would have significance.Although there is no suggestion that the claimants presently contemplate the useof the claim area for either residential or commercial purposes a grant of titlewould serve to reinforce recognition of their status as traditional owners of asubstantial area of land and would enable them to take advantage of any potentialfuture commercial activities such as grazing or tourism. It would also enablethem to better protect their traditional interests in the event that mining or othersimilar activities might be contemplated in the future.51. There is no evidence to suggest that any person or community (including otherAboriginal groups) would suffer any detriment if the claim were acceded to eitherin whole or in part.52. Acceding to the claim in whole or in part would not have any effect on existingpatterns of land usage in the region. There is no evidence that there are anyproposals for use of the land other than for current purposes.Summary53. The following is a summary of the findings, recommendations and commentscontained in this report.(a)(b)(c)The whole of the claim area is unalienated Crown land which is availableto be the subject of a traditional land claim application pursuant to s.50(1)(a) of the Land Rights Act;The Aboriginals identified either by name in Appendix II or by referencein paragraph 47(b) constitute local descent groups of Aboriginals who aretraditional Aboriginal owners of relevant parts of the claim area;I recommend that the whole of the claim area be granted to a Land Trust inaccordance with sections 11 and 12 of the Land Rights Act for the benefitof Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation ofthat land whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified as to place,time, circumstance, purpose or permission;

21(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)It would be appropriate that any grant of title to the claim area be made infavour of the existing Atnetye Aboriginal Land Trust;The number of Aboriginals with traditional attachments to the claim areawould exceed 317;The advantage derived from a grant of title would principally be in thenature of strengthening the recognition of the claimants as the traditionalAboriginal owners of a large area of land that forms part of theirtraditional country;No detriment would result to any persons or communities (including otherAboriginal groups) if a grant of title is made to a Land Trust;There are no current proposals for the use of the claim area other than itscontinued use for current purposes.

22AddendumAlthough as a result of the determination referred to in paragraph 5 of this reportNTP 4208 is no longer subject to claim, it does appear that, having regard to myfindings concerning the extent of the Uleperte estate, it would be appropriate toconsider whether steps should be taken to facilitate a grant of this area by way ofan amendment to Schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act. The land in question wasnot recommended for grant in the North-West Simpson Desert report but thatwas at a time before the site Wake was located. The position is now somewhatdifferent. The evidence in the present claim suggests that the country betweenWake (as finally located) and the sites Irnteye (site 7.10) and Ngkwarntatherre(site 7.11) (to which reference is made at subpara 6.8.4 of the North-WestSimpson Desert report) is part of the Uleperte estate belonging to the Williamsfamily.

23Appendix I1. Persons giving notice of intention to be heard:The Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Northern Territory of Australia.2. Legal representatives:Mr Mark Hird (of counsel) with Mr David Avery (Manager, Legal Services,Central Land Council) appeared for the claimants.Mr Paul Walsh with Mr Stephen Herne (instructed by the Solicitor for theNorthern Territory) appeared for the Attorney-General.3. Witnesses (with date and place of giving evidence)30 June 2008At Ahantye (site 8.1)At campsiteAllan Drover (Yellowshirt)Herbie BloomfieldLouie SchaberAgnes AbbottMabel SmithErica DoddTeresa DoddFelicia DoddRichard DoddGlenys DroverPatricia DroverRiley WilliamsMichael WilliamsJeremy Williams1 July 2008At Alamperirreke (site 8.3)On claim boundary south of Alamperirreke2 July 2008At campsiteAllan Drover (Yellowshirt)Herbie BloomfieldLouie SchaberBrownie DoolanJeffrey DoolanAllan Drover (Yellowshirt)Janice WilliamsMuriel WilliamsCynthia WilliamsAnnette Williams

24At waterhole near Stone Quarry (site 1.29)3 July 2008At campsiteAt Apwertetywernkwerre (site 1.25a)Lindsay BookieNed RoseSally BookieMaureen O’KeefeTopsy KemarreHazel RankinLindsay BookieNed RoseVelma DempseyDavid Rankin5 July 2008At Alice Springs20 July 2008Ernie WilliamsMabel SmithAllan Drover (Yellowshirt)On site visit to(i) Uleperte Amerke Amerke (Site 7.1a) ] Ernie Williams(ii) Wake (Site 7.2) ] Jeremy Williams(iii) Claim area boundary south of Wake ] Allan Drover (Yellowshirt)29 September 2008At MelbourneJeffrey Stead

254. Exhibits:CLC1 Anthropologist’s Report by Jeff Stead (March 2008)CLC1.1 Supplementary Anthropologist’s Report by Jeff Stead(September 2008)CLC2 Site register (March 2008). (Restricted)CLC3 Site map. (Restricted)CLC4 Genealogies:–Group 1 – UleperteGroup 2 – AhantyeGroup 3 – AkalteGroup 4 – IlarteCLC5 Affidavit of Jeffrey John Stead sworn 20 June 2008CLC6 Claimant profilesCLC7 Report on site visits 20/07/2008CLC8 15 photographs of ULEPERTE AMERKE AMERKE (site 7.1a)CLC9 15 photographs of WAKE (site 7.2)CLC10 Extract from transcript of Queensland Aboriginal Land Tribunal claimrelating to Simpson Desert National ParkCLC11 Repeat Land Claim Statement (March 2008)CLC12 Submissions on behalf of the applicantsCLC13 Applicants’ reply to NT submissionsNTG1 Letter Department of Justice to CLC (24.6.08) re sites 1.34(Kalidjiwarre) and 1.31 (Madlhu)NTG2 Letter Department of Justice to CLC (24.6.08) re admission of sitesNTG3 Letter Department of Justice to CLC (24.6.08) re proof of genealogiesNTG4 Memo re particulars of Exploration Licences (6.6.08)NTG5 Submissions of the Northern TerritoryALC 1 North Simpson Desert Land Claim transcript pp. 744–775(8 October 1991)

26Appendix IIThe claimant groups[In cases where no family name has been provided and where two or more claimantshave the same name, the claimant’s number as indicated in the genealogy is included]Group 1 (Uleperte)Ernest WilliamsJeremy WilliamsSharon WilliamsMichelle (376A)Dean (376B)Jamie (376C)Ingrid WilliamsMegan (377A)Tyron (377B)Faron Kevin (377C)Verona (377D)Muriel WilliamsClint (378A)Shaikaila (378B)Keith (378C)Nita(378D)Ernestine WilliamsKane (379A)Casey (379B)Shanara (379C)Marcus WilliamsLynette WilliamsFrancesca McMillanElizabeth McMillanJason McMillanLouanna WilliamsJustin NimbahlyDarren NimbahlyJustina NimbahlyGina Rose NimbahlyFrancesca WilliamsDeanna WilliamsPaul WilliamsBianca WilliamsDelwyn WilliamsSherwyn WilliamsLorenzo WilliamsLucy WilliamsGabrielle WilliamsJanice WilliamsRoslyn WilliamsNoella WilliamsRachel WilliamsRaylene McMillanCynthia McMillanJanice McMillanTony McMillanNanette McMillanAmerantha McMillanShirleen McMillanSascha (405D)Shakira MulkatanaLetisha MulkatanaGerard Davis (Jr)Juanita DavisSherelle DavisAlicia DavisKristina DavisJanette WilliamsCornelius MillsChristopher MillsDeryn WilliamsBenita OliverPatricia OliverCecily WilliamsKieran AndrewsTeresa WilliamsHaydyn MortonJanie WilliamsGeorgina WilliamsLea WilliamsJoseph WilliamsMichael WilliamsKatherine WilliamsSharon WilliamsLawrence WilliamsBernadette WilliamsKenny WilliamsMarita WilliamsMarion KernanStephen KernanRaymond KernanPatricia KernanBernadette KernanBernard KernanCindy Kernan

27Group 2 (Ahantye)Descendants of the late Tommy DoddMartha WattsPeter WattsDwayne WattsAmanda WattsMervyn DoddTracy DoddTara DoddRhonda DadlehAnita DadlehKenneth DadlehLavina DadlehJeanne DadlehMiriam DadlehKennethia DadlehGreva DadlehErica DadlehEloise DadlehMichael DoddErica DoddRonald Dodd (208)Teresa DoddFelicia DoddLionel DoddTeresa DoddStephen McLeanKayleigh KraftMathew KraftChristine HuntFiona HuntCorey HuntBelinda HuntTrevor HuntDarrellyn DoddDesmond DoddJosephine DoddDeslyn DoddBradley DoddTroy DoddCrystal DoddDonald DoddKahlia DoddKatrina DoddLillian DoddTerence DuckfordRodney DuckfordGail DuckfordKym DuckfordRebecca TannaKathryn TannaRichard DoddSharona DoddRameara DoddTyren DoddDaelene DoddMaxine DoddEdward DoddAdrian DoddThelma DoddClive DoddCaroline DoddNancy WarrenBruce WarrenTimmy WarrenArnold WarrenLyall WarrenNigel WarrenAllan WarrenMarcia WarrenJustin WarrenMarsha WarrenArnold DoddVicki DoddSusan DoddKym DoddArnold Dodd (Jr)Esther KitePhillip KhanMarilyn RobertsonAmy KhanNameth KhanAzeem KhanAbdul KhanRobert KhanChristopher DoddAnne Marie DoddMichael DoddRonald Dodd (271)Gath DoddRodney DoddRodney Dodd (Jr)Kristen DoddCharmaine DoddKenny DoddReggie DoddReginald DoddJackie DoddTerence DoddGarin Dodd

28Descendants of the late Jim DroverVincent DroverVirginia DroverAllan Drover(326A)Tamara Drover PerrwerleAnthony Perrwerle (330)Joshua Perrwerle (331)Julie DroverSamantha DroverLouise WilliamsTracy WilliamsDrover Perrwerle (337)Drover Perrwerle (338)Olga Perrwerle (339)Donna DroverEmily DroverShane DroverLavina DroverPeter DroverLiggy DroverFreddy DroverAnthony DroverJames DroverPeppie DroverMaurice DroverPatricia Drover(343I)Michelle DroverAgnes AbbottInie YoungNoel Abbott/DroverStephen Drover (282)John DroverDouglas DroverLennie DroverLeon DroverAllan (Yellowshirt) Drover (288)Michael DroverAdrian DroverGlenys DroverAdrianna MainesVincent (292A)Patricia Drover (293)Lawrence(293A)Anna(293B)Theo(293C)Lorna(293D)Nikita(293E)Marilyn DroverAmber(296A)Clifford DroverAnnie RyderMichael RyderJames RyderRhonda RyderDebora RyderValentine RyderShakira DroverJaquline (300)Sylvia DroverTeresa DixonPatricia DixonEmily DixonMichael DixonSherylyn(307A)Yoghurt(307B)Michael DroverHenry DroverStephen Drover (309)Serina DroverCarol Marie TurnerLawrence TurnerJanice TurnerAmanda TurnerJudith DroverSonya DroverDewayne DroverTerry DroverAnthony DroverStephen Drover (320)Cathy DroverSamantha DroverPatrick DroverAndrew Drover

29Group 4 (Ilarte)Valerie BilyaAdrian (3)Juntu (Alkarurka)KemarreJohnny BookieLindsay BookieBetty BookieGrace BookieMurray BookieWillie BookieEva BookieBruce BookieSally BookieMike RankinAllan RankinKenny RankinHazel RankinMaisie RankinAnnie RankinSandra RankinDavid RankinJenny (Arigenni) KemarreTrevor Penangke (27)Beryl DempseyGeorge DempseyVelma DempseyWalter DempseyNed RoseJohn RoseTopsy Kemarre (34)Christine O’KeefeMichael O’KeefeMaureen O’KeefeJanelle Penangke (38)Fiona Penangke (39)Elaine Penangke (40)Sally PageBetty PageHenry PageCharlie PagePeggy PageDougie MajorKeith MajorBruce MajorNoreen BilyaMavis WildRonnie BilyaMichael BilyaValerie BilyaMichelle BilyaCynthia BilyaGarry Butler

30Appendix IIIChapter Three: The Land Tenure System and the Criteria of theAboriginal Land Rights (AN) Act 19763.0 IntroductionThis chapter examines the claimants’ systems of land tenure and social organisation andtheir relevance to the traditional ownership criteria of the ALRA. It also describes thespiritual underpinning of the land tenure system and the main ancestral beings associatedwith the claim area. It sets out the main elements of the claimants’ traditional attachmentto their land. These elements were discussed in detail in Stead (1991, Chapters 3, 4and 5).3.1 The Systems of Kinship, Sections, Subsections and PatrimoietiesThe relevant pages of Stead (1991) are 14–18.The claimants’ kinship system is characterised by four primary lines of descent beingdistinguished in the second ascending generation. The four lines of descent arefrom each of the grandparents and are distinguished terminologically. This allowsan individual to be perceived as being descended from each and all of four distinctpatrilineages, those of his or her father’s father, mother’s father, father’s mother’s(brother), mother’s mother’s (brother). Each line of descent has a particular set of rightsand responsibilities associated with the care and ownership of sites, land and the ritualsand ceremonies associated with them.From one’s mother’s father (Atyemeye) comes the ritual and social role glossed underthe general term Kwertengwerle. This role involves overseeing the land based ritualperformances and ensuring sites are protected (see discussion sections 3.4–3.5). Fromthe father’s father (Arrenge) comes the responsibilities of protecting and caring for sitesand land and of being the performers in land-maintenance rituals. The responsibilitiesobtained from the father’s mother’s brother (Perle) are one of assisting the seniorKwertengwerle. Those who trace descent from the mother’s mother (brother) (Ipmenhe)can perform in ritual and have responsibilities to care and maintain sites and land. Suchpeople are usually assistants to those who take country from their Arrenge. Theserelationships to land can be expressed by the suffix - Alake added to the kinship term(see Figure four).The section system allocates every claimant by birth to one of four categories.The subsection system classifies society into eight categories, compared to the sectionsystem’s four. Mainly the western and southern Arrernte use the subsection system.The claimants, whilst they mostly use the section system are familiar with the subsectionsystem.The sections (and subsections) are grouped into larger categories, patri-moieties.Two rules are: marriage should be with someone of the opposite moiety, and one belongsto the moiety opposite one’s mother. In culturally stable circumstances, patri-moietiesplay an important role in the organisation of land related ritual, with the members of

31one moiety carrying out the duties of acting and singing, whilst the other moiety acts as‘managers’ or ‘workers’. The patri-moieties are unnamed.Figure one and two illustrate the section and subsection systems and the equivalencebetween the two systems. Figure three gives the subsections terms with their betterknown Warlpiri equivalents.Section (and subsection) categories can sometimes be used as a shorthand way ofdescribing rights in land. Countries (estates) have section category classifications.Landholders who have rights in a country through father’s father will have the samesection category.Whilst section (and subsection) categories can be used to express notions of landownership, sections (and subsections) are not landholding groups. They are onlysummary expressions of land ownership. It is actual genealogical links that are theapproved frames of reference for determining rights in land. This is particularly the casewhere ‘wrong’ marriage results in the section category of a country and an individualwho traces descent from a country through his father and father’s father being different.Unlike the Warlpiri, country ownership is not always expressed in section or subsectionterms.Figure 1Four-Section Systempenangke = perrwerlekemarre = peltharreFigure 2Eight Sub-Section Systempenangke = perrwerle(penangke)(perrwerle)kngwarraye = ngalempetyane = pengarte(kemarre)(peltharre)kemarre = peltharreLegend= marriage descent mother to childNote: The equal signs represent the preferred marriage pattern. The arrows representdescent from mother to child. The terms in brackets are the sections that include thesubsections represented above and below them.

32Figure 3Aranda Subsection Terms With Warlpiri EquivalentsWarlpiriN/JapananagkaN/JapangardiN/JungarrayiN/JapaljarriN/JampijinpaN/JangalaN/JakamarraN/JupurrulaArandaPenangkePengarteKngwarrayePeltharreMpetyaneNgaleKemarrePerrwerleFigure 4Grandparental TermsFather’s father:Father’s mother:Mother’s father:Mother’s mother:ArrengePerleAtyemeyeIpmenhe3.2 The Spiritual Underpinning of Countries/EstatesThese concepts are discussed in detail in Stead, 1991:19–24.Underpinning the claimants’ systems of social organisation and land tenure is a beliefthat these systems arose from the actions of ancestral beings called Alteyerre orDreamings in Aboriginal English. The term Alteyerre is also used to describe this pastformative period.The travels of the ancestral beings (Alteyerre) are called a ‘story line’ or ‘track’ inAboriginal English. Some ‘tracks’ stretch over hundreds, even thousands of kilometres.The activities of others are restricted to a limited geographic area or one site. As theytravelled these ancestral beings deposited their essence or even parts of their bodies atcertain localities. The term Alteyerr-iperre, meaning ‘thing that came into being as aresult of the Dreaming’, is used to describe this occurrence (Wafer and Green, 1989:29).The ancestral beings also performed ceremonies at known places. These ceremonieshave been passed down in time and are believed to be the same as those performedtoday. The songs associated with the Alteyerre activities are recounted site by site.Dreaming tracks and sites are the main units of the countries or estates into which theclaimants divide the claim area. In the better watered areas of the claim area the generalmodel of land ownership follows that described by Strehlow (1947:127–30, 1964:743–5,1965, 1970:97–9). It features:

33●●●●●●Discrete areas of land generally associated with patrilineal descent groups;Demarcation of the areas by sites which lie on well known mythological trackswith boundary/hand-over sites where one group stops and another starts; andSuch boundaries reflected in the song cycle associated with the track, with thelanguage of the song changing slightly upon reaching the hand-over site, thusemphasising the distinction between groups.There are, however, some deviations from the Strehlow model in the claim region. Sitesand mythological or Dreaming tracks in better watered areas do tend to focus withinspecific geographic areas and there are points on tracks where responsibility for thetrack is handed to another group. However, clear-cut boundaries are not usually foundwhen these sites are visited, suggesting ownership in such areas is not exclusivelydefined. Such areas and the sites themselves are often perceived as jointly owned, eg.the interface between the upper Plenty River estates of Arrkeyerrenge ( Simpson DesertStage II Claim, group five) and Imarrkwe (Simpson Desert Stage II Claim, group six)(see Stead, 1991:22, 47–49). Thus, there are no rigid boundaries between estates, evenin better watered areas. Estates tend to flow or merge into each other, with the sites onthe extreme of estates marking transition zones or regions of joint responsibility.This tendency for merging and transitional zones is even more apparent in the deepdesert areas of the claim area. There are fewer sites within the dune fields. Whilst thesedesert-focused estates still tend to focus on a geographic area, (usually one of the majorrivers or their flood-outs), there is a greater distance between sites, and the transition ormerging area between the estates of local descent groups is larger.A feature of the estates found in and adjacent to the claim area is their focus on riversand their flood-outs. Thus, much of group four’s estate is centred on the Field River,while Group two’s estate is focused on the Plenty River flood-out. Group three’s estateis centred on the upper reaches of the Hay River, while group one’s is focused onIllogwa Creek. The importance of these rivers is reflected in the fact each river is namedalong its entire course.Each estate consists of sites, tracks, and land that have a common moiety or patri-coupleclassification and are usually referred to by the name of the estate’s most important site(Pmere Akngerre = major site).Traditionally, the estate was not its group’s sole economic or residential focus. Groupmembers did not reside solely on their estates. Rather they, with members of adjacentlandholding groups, foraged over a large area, dependent on seasonal factors (seediscussion chapter two, section 2.4). Claimants stress this aspect, indicating that theclaim areas were utilised by all the adjacent local descent groups.3.3 The Tracks of the Ancestral BeingsThe paths of the Alteyerre (Dreamings) associated with the four local descent groups aredescribed in this section. Greater detail is given on paths that cross or are located close tothe claim area. The paths are discussed under the appropriate local descent group.

343.3.1 Group One DreamingsThe dominant Dreaming for group one’s estate is Urtneye (carpet snakes/spinifexsnakes). Other ancestral beings associated with this land are Urremperle (native cats),Kwatye (rain) and Antenhe (possum).Antenhe (possum)A blind possum ancestral being was located at Dingo Dam on Indiana PL where heregained his sight. He travelled from Dingo Dam to Uleperte (Junction Bore) (7.1).Kwatye (rain)This rain ancestor (not associated with the rain ancestors associated with group four)travelled through a number of sites on Numery PL (see Simpson Desert Stage II ClaimSite Register: 45–46).Urremperle (native cats)One of the most important Arrernte Dreamings, the Urremperle is associated withMalbunka, a native cat ancestral being, and his followers. The Urremperle travelledfrom Port Augusta past Alice Springs to the Barkly Tablelands. The portion of thetrack which is the responsibility of group one is focused on Numery PL to the west andnorth-west of claim area A and include sites such as Artneyartne (7.9), Irnteye (7.10),Ngkwarntatherre (7.11), Irrwerlpalhwenge (7.12) and Aremperrke (7.13).Urtneye (carpet snakes)A number of Urtneye ancestral beings are associated with the estate of group one.One set of ancestral beings (two snakes) started their journeys in the Barrow Creekregion and travelled south through Kerry Downs PL, Arapunya PL to Ooratippra wherethey failed to climb the cliffs here. They then went underground to Picton Springs,coming out at the point of the hill on the boundary of Lucy Creek PL and Arapunya PL.The Urtneye then moved to Angke (Unca Bore; 9.1), Arjeangkul (9.2), a small hilllocated north of the Marshall River, and then to Arntinarre (9.3), a soakage located in theMarshall River. From Arntinarre (9.3), they travelled to Lake Caroline (Ipenyarte; 2.2)where there was a resident Urtneye snake. The two snakes came to Lake Caroline bymistake believing they were on the way to Uleperte (7.1). Realising their mistake, thetwo Urtneye attempted to persuade the snake at Lake Caroline to accompany themto Uleperte (7.1). He refused and the two ancestral beings journeyed to Wake (7.2)and then to sites Uleperte (7.1) and Uleperte Amerke Amerke (7.1a). For a detaileddiscussion of the locations of Wake (7.2) and Uleperte Amerke Amerke (7.1a) seediscussion in the current claim’s site register. From Uleperte the snakes travelled toAkewelpe (7.3) and on to other sites where the Johnson family have interests.Another two Urtneye travelled from the west, east to Uleperte (7.1). There was at leastone Urtneye ancestor that was always resident at Uleperte (7.1).

353.3.2 Group Two DreamingsAherre (kangaroos)These ancestral beings were living at Ahantye (8.1), a soakage located on the PlentyRiver flood-out. Some of these ancestral beings had travelled to and from a site inthe Tarlton Ranges. A pigeon ancestral being frightened and scattered the Ahantyekangaroos who travelled to the west to Aherraltneme (8.2) where the leader lookedbehind. They continued to the west. The track of these ancestral beings fromAhantye (8.1) west is the responsibility of local descent group two.Two BoysThe two boys (some indicate they were ‘bird’ ancestral beings) started their journey ata site near Witjara (1.33) (Dalhousie Springs), travelling across the Simpson Desert toBirdsville. Their mother followed them. One boy was right handed, the other left handed.After a number of adventures (which may have included a journey back to Dalhousie),the boys travelled north to the area of Kalidawarry waterhole (Kalidjiwarre; 1.34)where group four members indicate that Wangkamarla people, specifically themselves,take on primary spiritual responsibility for this track and its sites. From KalidawarryWaterhole the boys travelled north, north-west (probably following Gnallan-a-geaCreek/Field River for a portion of their journeys) past two big hills located north ofMt Gardiner, called Nurliwampare (1.35), (located on Tobermorey PL) to ArootaBore (Arrewerte; 1.13). From there, the boys travelled to Artw-Atherre (1.23) twohills located near Tobermorey homestead. The ancestral beings then travelled to thesouth-west, past Lake Caroline (Ipenyarte; 2.2) to Alamperirreke (8.3), located in theflood-out of the Plenty River in claim area B. At Alamperirreke (8.3) are three hills thatrepresent the two boys and their mother. From Alamperirreke (8.3) the boys travelled toPwertenatherre and on to sites near Dalhousie Springs in South Australia.At Alamperirreke (8.3) the two boys’ track is the responsibility of group two. The sitesfrom Kalidawarry Waterhole (1.34) to Artw-Atherre (1.23) are the responsibility ofgroup four. A southern Arrernte group headed by Brownie Doolan is responsible for thetrack south of Alamperirreke (8.3).3.3.3 Group Three DreamingsArengke (dog)The dog ancestral being (Arengke) is associated with the estates of both groups threeand four and was a major linking mechanism between them. Arengke travelled fromAkalte (2.4) to Dingo Springs, Irrathe (1.15), and onto Alcoora Spring (Arlkwerre; 1.12).From Arlkwerre (1.12), the dog ancestors travelled into Queensland to a gorge locatednear Meetha.Iwepe (grub)The Iwepe ancestor travelled from Tyekelyantyerre (2.1), to Lake Caroline(Ipenyarte; 2.2) before moving to a secret men’s site located at Arrkeyerrenge (5.2).

36Urtneye (carpet snake)This snake ancestor was living at Lake Caroline (Ipenyarte; 2.2). Two Urtneye who hadtravelled from Arntinarre (9.3) approached him. They requested him to accompany them.He refused stating that he belonged to that country (Lake Caroline) and would remainthere.3.3.4 Group Four DreamingsArengke (dog)As discussed in section 3.3.3, the dog ancestors travelled across the estates of bothgroups three and four. Arengke travelled from Akalte (2.4) to Dingo Springs,Irrathe (1.15), and on to Alcoora Spring, Arlkwerre (1.12). From there it travelled intoQueensland to a gorge located near Meetha.Kwatye (rain)There are a variety of rain tracks, all associated with local descent group four.Clouds and thunder storms dispersed from major sites, especially Alcoora Spring(Arlkwerre; 1.12) forming features all over Tobermorey PL and adjacent areas. Rain(Kwatye) is closely linked with other ancestral beings such as emu, crane, thunder,lightning and bat. All are described as rainmakers.A number of paths can be distinguished. One travelled north-west from Arlkwerre (1.12)to Walaya and Mangarlya, places located in Queensland. Another travelled fromArlkwerre (1.12) to Ilarte (1.9), whilst another travelled from Arlkwerre (1.12) toRainmaker Hill (Yartite; 1.7) and on to Lengatyeye Creek (possibly 1.17a). Anothertravelled directly from Arlkwerre (1.12) to Lengatyeye (1.17a). One path, whichoriginated at Charlie Springs (Arrinpere; 1.14), went to No 6 Bore (probably onManner’s Creek PL) and from there to Lucy Creek and Arreberre.There is also a rain ancestor who travelled from Mangarlya to Walaya and then toEmburka (all located in Queensland). From there it travelled to No 6 Bore on MannersCreek PL and onto Lucy Creek PL.Tyape (grubs)A group of cannibal grubs ate their victims at Irlartipelhelme (1.18), and then threw partsof the bodies to various sites such as Tyewerre (1.20) and Mpwerrkentye (1.1).Anthepe (dancing women)The dancing woman came from the west in the Alice Springs area to sites on MarquaPL, eg. Anganye (1.5), Makwe (1.6), and Amele (1.21). From Marqua PL the dancingwomen travelled to Ilarte (1.9) on Tobermorey PL and on to Queensland.Pwertetywerngerre (large, hairy mountain man)This ancestral being is described as a big hairy man with large whiskers and associatedwith mountains and ranges. In the current claim, the Dreaming is associated with theMt Gardiner area and a swamp located nearby. The term Pwertetywerngerre (1.25a)

37is used to describe the general Mt Gardiner area (spelt in the Simpson Desert Stage IIClaim as Apwertetywernkwerre (1.25a)).Artartame (short, red ochre man)Artartame is described as a small ‘red ochre man’. Artartame is known for his capacityto deceive people and play tricks on them. He has the ability to create ‘mirages’ anddistort perceptions of the landscape, thus causing people to get ‘bushed.’ The termArtartame (1.25b) is used to describe an area of land in the south of Tobermorey PLcommonly known as the ‘salt lake.’Artartame (small, red ochre man) and Pwertetywerngerre (hairy mountain man)are sometimes described as closely associated. Occasionally, the area fromMt Gardiner south to the ‘salt lake’ is described as one ‘big’ area with the termPwertetywerngerre (1.25a) used to describe the northern section whilst the termArtartame (1.25b) describes the ‘salt lake,’ associated waterholes and a sandhill area thatproduces pituri plants.Arripere (snake)This snake came from the north-west (probably Arntinarre; 9.3) and went to the piturilocated at Artartame (1.25b) (‘salt lake’). Eating the pituri here, it turned into a cheekysnake. It was formerly a carpet snake.Arripere (two snake sisters)Associated with sites in the vicinity of Tobermorey Homestead, the snakes came fromQueensland along the Pituri and Linda Creeks.Aherre (kangaroo)This ancestral being is associated with sites in the number three bore area located on theManners Creek/Tobermorey pastoral leases. Informants suggest this kangaroo travelledfrom important kangaroo sites on Tarlton Downs PL. The kangaroos travelled fromnumber three bore to number six bore.Merle (woman’s breasts)A localised Dreaming associated with the ‘black stump’ dam area. A cave here containsa painting that represents a woman’s breasts.Arlpe (cooking pit mound)Another localised Dreaming found on Tobermorey PL. The term ‘Arlpe’ translates asthe mound of dirt found on the side of a cooking hole of a large animal.Two BoysSee description in Section 3.3.2. The two boy sites that are the responsibility ofgroup four are Kalidawarry Waterhole (Kalidjiwarre; 1.34), Nurliwampere (1.35),Arrewerte (1.13) and Artw-Atherre (1.23).

383.4 The Traditional OwnersThis subject is discussed in detail in Stead 1991:24–29. Each estate is associatedwith people who are generally related to each other through patrilineal descent. Thus,they hold an estate and its Dreamings through their father (Akngeye) and father’sfather (Arrenge) and the land is often described as their Arrengarrengekenhe country(father’s father’s country). This is Strehlow’s Njinanga section and often describedby anthropologists as the patri-clan. Such people can also be described as the PmereAkngameryte or Pmere Ikwerarenye. However, like many Arrernte terms, these termsare polysemous and are sometimes used to describe people who have a conception siteat at a particular reference point, or other means of land recruitment depending on thecontext. In Aboriginal English patri-clan members are described as the ‘boss’ or ‘owner’of an estate.The patri-clan’s estate often takes its name from a major site located on it. Associationbetween a patri-clan member and his or her country is expressed by the addition of thesuffix Arenye (meaning ‘native of’, ‘originating from’) added to such a place name.Used in this way it can have the meaning of a person who is owner of the site and itsDreaming from ‘father’s father’ (Arrenge). It is this meaning which is the primarymeaning in the absence of a specific context. However, the suffix can be used todescribe a variety of relationships with a country/site, eg. someone connected through aline of descent other than through the Arrenge (father’s father); an individual having asite as his or her place of spiritual conception; or a habitual resident of a particular area.In Aboriginal English, the term ‘mob’ is often used with the name of the major site, eg.group three is often described as the Akalte mob. Sometimes a senior group member isused to describe the group. For instance, group two is often described as ‘Yellowshirt’smob’ after the nickname of a prominent member, Allan Drover. Group three can bedescribed as ‘King Peter’s mob’ after the deceased most remembered ancestor.Individuals who relate to an estate through their mother’s father (Atyemeye) (orTyemeye) or father’s mother’s (brother) (Perle) are classified under the general glossKwertengwerle. The term Kwertengwerle is used in a number of contexts. The termin its broadest sense is used to refer to any knowledgeable individual for a country whoare not patrilineal members. However, in descent terms, the method of recruitmentis from the mother (and mother’s father), and thus from the opposite patrimoiety, aswith the Warlpiri (Spencer and Gillen, 1927:116). Those Kwertengwerle from theirAtyemeye are children of the women of the patri-clan. They are responsible for ensuringthat ceremonies are run in the appropriate manner, preparing ceremonial groundsand decorating the actors. Some informants suggest that important sites cannot bevisited without the presence of senior Kwertengwerle. Patri-clan members and theKwertengwerle should work together to ensure that ceremony and site protection arecarried out in the appropriate manner. Kwertengwerle are also perceived as mediators,acting to minimise conflict between group members.Other Kwertengwerle trace descent to a country through their father’s mother andfather’s mother’s brother (Perle). They are often described as Kwertengwerle becausetheir fathers fulfilled this role and are described as “following their dads”. Not all thosewho trace descent to a country through their Perle are active Kwertengwerle, with thisrole usually classified as a secondary one. It can be converted to a primary role, usually

39in circumstances where the main Kwertengwerle are either deceased, lack knowledgeor reside in a far off location. Factors such as personal ambition and place of residenceare important. Whilst an individual will automatically take on the responsibilitiesassociated with his father’s father’s and mother’s father’s countries, gaining primaryrights to one’s Perle’s country depends on personal circumstances. In the current claimthere are examples of individuals who trace descent from their Perle taking on majorresponsibilities for an estate, its sites, and ancestral beings. This is in estate group two.The oldest living generation of this group trace their relationship to the country throughtheir father’s mother’s (brother) (Perle). As the other lines of descent to this estatehave died out, these people and their offspring are the only people who can establisha descent link. Occasionally, they describe themselves as Kwertengwerle for estatetwo. However, they usually refer to themselves as “ bosses” because they are the onlyones left.Another category of Kwertengwerle can involve two groups of the opposite patri-moietymaintaining a tradition of being Kwertengwerle for each other. Such estates are oftenclose geographically and often have a tradition of inter-marriage. There are examples ofthis relationship in the claim region but not for the current claim (see Stead,1991:27–28).As indicated in Section 3.1, descent from the mother’s mother or mother’s mother’sbrother, Ipmenhe, results in rights and responsibilities in that country, including rightsof residence and resource usage. The roles of such people in ceremony, because of theirmembership of the same moiety as the patri-clan members, are generally as performersin land related ritual.The claimants recognise a number of additional principles whereby specific individualsor groups can obtain rights in other estates (see Stead, 1991:28–31). These mechanismsensure the continued relationship between people and land during periods when coremembership of the local descent group is in a weakened state.Extended residence with a local group, and thus obtaining knowledge of that group’sland based knowledge, is one mechanism.Another mechanism of succession involves local descent groups whose estates aretraversed by the track of the same ancestral being. Such groups are of the same section/subsection and are often described as ‘brother’ groups and estates. Occasionally, theyare described as being ‘in company’. Such groups traditionally cooperated in landrelated ritual. Thus if, in demographic terms, the patrilineal core of one group declinedthe other would ensure ceremonial knowledge was not lost, often succeeding to the estateof the extinct or declining group. Groups four and three were in such a relationship, withgroup four now having succeeded to group three’s estate (see discussion sections 4.3and 4.4).Conception site rights are another mechanism by which induction into the local descentgroup can occur or by which descent rights can be established. Spiritual conceptionclosely links the place of conception, the individual involved and the Alteyerre (ancestralbeing) linked to the site. Strehlow (1946/7:86–96) suggests that individuals have rightsin the area of their conception, indicating that men were entitled to view and be taught

40something of their conception Tjurunga (sacred object) during initiation. He statesthat such knowledge was gained only after initiation into the country of the father(1946/7:112–119). Strehlow postulates that individual circumstances play an importantrole in whether conception site rights are pursued and established, ie. if the conceptionsite did not fall on the father’s country then individuals had difficulties in realising a fullclaim to the Tjurunga of the conception place.Jones’ (ND: 47–48) analysis of Simpson Desert ethnographic material indicates that aset of ceremonial obligations lay with the birthplace or conception sites of an individual,that individual’s mother or mother’s mother, and with the Dreaming connectionsassociated with those sites, whilst primary rights to country was gained patrilineally.This meant:“…that an individual acquired multiple dreaming connections and associatedobligations” (Jones ND:47).Examples of individuals taking on responsibility for sites and estates associated withtheir father’s mother’s place of conception have occurred in the claim region (see Stead,1991, discussion on groups 8 and 9, pages 54–57). In the current claim, group twomembership is based on descent from an ancestor, Lottie, whose conception site was atthe estate’s major site Ahantye, (see discussion Section 4.2).3.5 The Criteria of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976The ALRA requires the claimants to demonstrate that they are a local descent group ofAboriginals that:●●●●have common spiritual affiliations to a site on the land being affiliations that placethe group under a primary spiritual responsibility for that site and for the land;andentitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as of right over that land(ALRA; section 3[1]).3.6 The Local Descent GroupIn this claim, as in the Simpson Desert Stage II Claim, the traditional owners are thosewho claim an estate through their father and father’s father (patri-clan members) andthose who claim through their mother and mother’s father (the Kwertengwerle throughtheir Atyemeye (Tyemeye). In one case (group two), because recruitment from theselines of descent is no longer possible, people claiming through the father’s mother’s(brother) (Perle) have been included. However, generally the local descent groupconsists of one or more patri-lineages and the children of the women of the patrilineages.The descent group is local in that all its members are jointly affiliated to the same estateand the Dreaming tracks and sites that constitute it.The connection to the land, sites and Dreamings is based on religious and spiritual links.The local descent group is connected to sites and land because members of the group

41believe they are the spiritual and genealogical descendants of the ‘Dreamings’ connectedwith the area. Thus, it is the local group which is recognised as having the responsibilityand duty to perform the rituals required to maintain the land and sites.3.7 Common Spiritual AffiliationsThe patri-clan members and their Kwertengwerle, as the members of the descent group,are affiliated to the same body of sites, places, and ceremonies.The duties and responsibilities of the local descent group are divided amongst themand are complementary. The spiritual responsibilities of the local descent group cannotbe fulfilled without both the patri-clan members and Kwertengwerle carrying out theirresponsibilities.3.8 Primary Spiritual ResponsibilitiesThe patri-clan members and their Kwertengwerle have complementary rights andresponsibilities in relation to sites on the land and the religious practices connected withthem.In culturally stable conditions, the patri-clan members demonstrate and discharge theirspiritual responsibilities to the land and sites by learning the appropriate rituals, paintingup and performing as the main actors in rituals.The Kwertengwerle demonstrate and discharge their spiritual responsibilities to the landand sites by protecting and supervising sacred sites, decorating the patri-clan membersand preparing ceremonial grounds, and ensuring conflict between landholding groupmembers is minimised.Thus both categories have different and complementary spiritual responsibilities. Rituallife requires both roles. The claimants do not see that either category has superiority indischarging spiritual responsibility to land and site.3.9 Sites on the LandThe number of sites on the claim areas varies from group to group. The density of siteson the claim area is much lower than on non desert areas because of its severe aridity.Not all groups have a site located on the claim areas. However, all groups do have siteslocated close to the claim area, and the influence of their estates and sites extends ontothe claim area.The claimants have a primary spiritual responsibility for sites other than those thatconstitute the paths of ancestral beings. Such sites include stone quarries, places ofstone tool manufacture, ochre sources, the location of significant resources such aspituri bushes, ceremonial grounds, long term camping areas and burial sites. Some ofthe above are named, or part of a named area, and have known associations with theactivities of ancestral beings, eg. the pituri bushes at Apwertietywernkwerre (1.25a)/Artartame (1.25b) in southern Tobermorey PL. Others are unnamed (except for a

42generic name) and do not have any direct connection with an ancestral being, eg. thestone quarry on the lower Hay (1.29;1.30). Yet such places have spiritual connotations.Such spiritual aspects have their foundations in the belief that all land and its physicalfeatures are sacred and thus of spiritual importance. This feature of Aboriginal spiritualbelief has long been recognised by anthropologists. Berndt and Berndt (1981:137)postulate that whilst particular sites and physiographic features are important focal pointsof spiritual association the country surrounding them is important. They state:“…In the sense of Aboriginal belief, the whole land was sacred. The shaping ofthe land by mythical beings comes very close to creation…” (1981:137).The claimants’ spiritual beliefs also encompass a conviction that the ‘spirits’ of thedeceased ancestors remain in the land, particularly at sites on ancestral beings’ travelpaths or places where ‘old people’ were known to congregate, eg old camping areas. Atsuch places, senior claimants often call out to the ‘old people’ present, indicating who isvisiting and how they are related. Hercus, Jones, Holcombe and Sutton (1996:40) reportthat there is a common commitment amongst the neighbouring Wankangurru:“…to the belief that their ancestors’ spirits persist, and that they persist in theclaimed land itself” (1996:40).With their visible evidence of occupation and use, long term camping areas and quarrysites are perceived as important focal points of past and present ‘ancestral’ activity. Themain spiritual responsibility towards such places is to ensure they are not disturbed.Potential damage to the quarry sites on the Hay River (1.29; 1.30) is of particularconcern to group four members who have noticed four-wheel drive tracks there.Local descent groups one, two, and four have primary spiritual responsibility for siteslocated on the claim land. Group four has responsibility for group three sites (seediscussion section 4.3.4). Wake (7.2) is located in the north-western portion of theclaim area and is the primary spiritual responsibility of group one. Other sites locatedwithin group one’s estate are discussed in the Site Register. Alamperirreke (8.3), thespiritual responsibility of group two, is located close to the centre of the combinedclaim area. Site 8.4, consisting of a stone quarry and artefact scatter, is also the spiritualresponsibility of group two and is located on the Plenty flood-out, on the claim area.Ahantye (8.1), another group two site, is located just off the claim area. A result ofsuccession, group four has primary spiritual responsibility for sites on group three’s land.Sites 1.29 and 1.30, a stone quarry location and artefact preparation site, group four sites,are located in the Hay River flood-out, on the claim area. Lake Caroline (Ipenyarte;2.2), also group four’s spiritual responsibility is located just off the claim area’s northeastportion. Other group four sites within reasonable proximity of the claim area areArtartame (1.25b), Apwertetywernkwerre (1.25a) and Ntyipere (1.17). The numerousother sites that are group four’s responsibility are listed in the Site Register.3.10 Traditional AttachmentThe claimants’ attachment to their land and sites can be demonstrated by:●●their continuous occupation and use of the claim area and region;

43●●●●●●●●●●attempts to obtain access to their land through purchase, pastoral lease excisionsor land claim;the establishment of out-stations and communities on land obtained;continuance of ritual and ceremonial life;desire to transmit knowledge to younger generations and attempts by thoseclaimants isolated in Queensland to learn about their cultural inheritance; andmaintenance of cultural practices such as language, knowledge of hunting andgathering methods and social structural features such as sections and subsections.3.10.1 Continuous Occupation and Use of the Claim Area and RegionThe historical sources indicate Aboriginal people have continuously occupied the claimarea and region.Hodgkinson (1877:15–21) in his explorations in the Mulligan River area east of theclaim area recorded the presence of many Aboriginal people and their economicactivities. He recorded the feelings of Aboriginal people to non-Aboriginals:“Unfortunately, however, we are now approaching the region of ‘dispersions’ andthey (blacks) rightly dread any white intruder” (1877:21).Barclay on his 1878 expedition with Winnecke (Barclay, 1878:7–8) records the presenceof Aboriginal people in the Plenty and Hay Rivers area and the use of a possum-skin[kangaroo skin] water bags. He also found native wells and soaks on the Plenty and HayRivers and in the Toko Ranges. Carr Boyd (1880) noted the presence of a large numberof Aboriginal people in the Pituri and Linda Creek region north-east of the claim area inlate 1880s.Winnecke (1886) travelled very close to the claim area in his 1883 explorations fromSouth Australia into Queensland via Poeppels Corner. From there, he proceeded northwest up the Field River across to the Hay, naming both. He made diversions each sideof the Hay River, discovering a native well, five feet deep, called Yarracurracoo locatedon the lower Hay, east of Lake Caroline. He located a number of Aboriginal waterholeson the Winnecke and around Mt Winnecke. An Aboriginal guide, who spoke Arrernte,accompanied Winnecke. Winnecke (1886:4) indicated:“…the natives seemingly take the utmost care to preserve these insignificantwells from evaporation by carefully covering them with rubbish, when requiringa drink…they expose but a small surface, just sufficient to enable them to effecttheir purposes.”In 1883/4 Ridley Williams drove cattle from Queensland via the Toko, Jervois andTarlton Ranges to Alice Springs. He set up a cattle camp in the Toko Ranges at AlnageerWaterhole (Purvis, 1971:51–55). He also noted the extensive use of kangaroo skinwaterbags (Purvis, 1971:54,74). Kangaroo skin waterbags were still being manufacturedin the late 1970’s (O’Connell, 1980:26–29).

44In 1884 the cattlemen Mercer and Butler (Purvis, 1971) followed Ridley Williams’trail. Using a local Toko Range Aboriginal man as a guide, they noted the presence ofAboriginal camps and tracks at the eastern end of the Jervois Range, and others at asoakage east of the Plenty River.Kimber (1980:15) presents an account of ethnographic evidence relating to Aboriginaluse of kangaroo skin water bags, and notes that the available evidence:“…clearly indicates quite extensive use of kangaroo skin water-bags on thenorthern, north-eastern and north-western edges of the Simpson Desert and in theadjoining country…it seems probable that major usage occurred at the beginningof summer, before the Aborigines dispersed to the major permanent waters”(1980:15).From 1904 to 1905 the Barclay-Macpherson expedition travelled through the Hay,Plenty, Marshall Rivers and Illogwa Creek areas as well as the Toko Ranges on theNorthern Territory/Queensland border. Barclay (1914/15) noted some deep Aboriginalwells on the Plenty River and signs of Aboriginal people burning country. On an offshoot of the Plenty he noticed:“…there is quite a village of wurlies on the bank” (1914/15:126).He received information on water resources on the Hay from Aboriginal people of thePlenty, suggesting their knowledge of a wider geographic region. He also receivedinformation about the location of water resources in the Toko Range from Aboriginalpeople (1914:126, 166). In the Illogwa Creek area he noted Aborigines using fire as ahunting aid (1914–15:124).He also noted the importance of parakeelya as a source of water for Simpson DesertAborigines:“During the trip the Parakylia was very abundant and in full bloom…The nativesuse the plant for drinking by crushing the sap out but they informed me that it wasnecessary to let it stand for a night before drinking” (Barclary, 1914–15:112).Harney (1946:66–67), talking about the first two decades of the 1900’s, noted thedesert native carried water in a skin bag, giving short details of their manufacture. Healso comments on traditional travel across the Simpson Desert, referring to a group ofAboriginal people travelling from Arltunga (north-east of Alice Springs) to the GeorginaRiver using ‘skin-bags’ and ‘native wells’, only to be eventually halted by dry wells.Kimber (1980:14) suggests this trip occurred in the early 1900’s and the destination was‘Eitherbooka Springs’ some 170 kilometres south west of Boulia.Madigan (1936) discussed the type and availability of Aboriginal water resources in thegeneral claim region. For instance he describes Aboriginal people digging soaks in thePlenty River (pp236–37). He noted the native well shown to Winnecke on the Hay andwaterholes with Aboriginal names in the Tarlton Ranges (p516) at which Aborigineswere camped in 1936. He also mentions native wells at Unkah Creek (Angke; 9.1) andArthur Creek. He states:

45“There are permanent springs on the north and west sides of the Toko Range,and waterholes in Linda Creek. The spring at the north end of the ranges iscalled Alcoora…on the headwaters of the Field River, Winnecke located severalwaterholes, the principle being Alanajeer…The Field River, like the Hay, cannotbe relied on for water except after rains…” (p516).During his 1939 expedition across the Simpson Desert Madigan, between camps 10 and11, noted:“…signs of the formed presence of Aboriginals…These were chips ofchalcedoney, typical of Aboriginal work-shop sites…and also parts of grindingstones, one a piece of schist that must have come from the MacDonnells. Thusdisproving my theory and Winnecke’s that Aboriginals never entered any part ofthe desert. It was obvious that in wet seasons they had followed streams downfrom the ranges to the north, probably only on short visits. We were then not farsouth of a group of claypans…several claypans had been noted in the northernpart of the desert, suggesting that they represented the ends of unnamed streamsthat came down from the McDonnells and flood out in the desert. In wet seasonsthe blacks could obviously follow these streams from the north…” (1946:64–65).Duncan Kemp (1961:178–181; 1986:33–37) presents considerable information onAboriginal lifestyle and economy in the west and south-west of Queensland (the fringesof the claim region) through personal experience, including food resources, hunting,and trading. Of particular use is the author’s description of the variety of water sourcesused by the ‘sandhill’ Aborigines of the eastern edges of the Simpson Desert. Sourcesand techniques included: trapping the water in sandstone country; deep stone wells withtoe-holds in the stone sides to enable the water to be utilised; seasonal waterholes and‘mickeries’; plants which hold a pint or more of drinkable water; tapping hollow treesfor the water contained within; use of rock cavity waters; springs; covering of water withflat rocks and bushes to conserve it; and man-made earth-tanks excavated by Aboriginalpeople in water-holding clay on clay-pans and filled by seasonal rain (1961:179–87).Duncan Kemp (1986:33–37) also mentions travel from Kalidawarry Station across theSimpson Desert to the Jervois with the assistance of ‘skin’ water bags.There are a number of sources that discuss trade across and near the claim area. Roth(1897) presents considerable documentation on the nature of trading routes connectingAborigines from the Toko Range region of the Northern Territory to Aboriginal groupson the Georgina and Mulligan Rivers in Queensland (pp. 133, 159–160). In particular,he records the trade in grindstones, noting that:“The particular material of which these grindstones are made is found onlyin the country around Walaya and along the Toko Ranges, where the nativescut, … and grind it into the required shapes and bring them for barter either toRoxborough…”Roth also records boomerangs being traded from the north via Lake Nash and outwestward from the Georgina along the Toko Ranges and so into Central Australia (p145).Roth refers to interviews with members of the Aboriginal tribe living along the TokoRanges.

46McCarthy (1939) presents a series of maps of Aboriginal trade routes. Map 13 shows‘Pitjuri trade’ passing from the Mulligan River (east of the claim area) along a traderoute that connects across portions of land directly north of the claim area with AliceSprings (p89). He also refers (p102) to a trade route travelling from Alice Springs viathe Toko Ranges to the middle Georgina and upper Mulligan River area (map 8, p429).His maps 3, 6, 7 and 8 (pp413, 421, 424, 429) depict trade routes from north, south andeast feeding trade articles and social contact via the Toko Ranges through to the EasternArrernte.Mulvaney (1976) collates ethnographic reports on Aboriginal trade routes. He presentsa series of maps that indicate the position of the Eastern Arrernte of the claim regionwithin a larger trade network.The evidence of patrol officers indicates occupation of the stations on the fringes of theclaim areas by Aboriginal people in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.In 1949 a Native Affairs Branch patrol was carried out in the Harts Ranges and HatchesCreek Police area. Patrol Officer E.C. Evans (Ted Evans) estimated that of a “Fullblood”population of three hundred and fifty-one in the area, one hundred and twentythreewere ‘Aranda.’ At Mt Riddock Station there were five ‘Aranda.’ At QuartyHill Station, a resumption from the original Huckitta, Evans (1949) reported thirteen‘Aranda’ who tendered the various bores, camping out there. At Mt Huckitta itself livedeighteen ‘Aranda’ including stock workers and their dependants (1949). In 1953 PatrolOfficer Greenfield visited Huckitta at which time he recorded sixteen ‘Aranda’.A 1954 patrol of Loves Creek Station by Native Affairs Branch Officer W. McCoy foundnine Eastern Arrernte employees and six family members living there. McCoy recordedthat “The Atnarpa homestead (at Loves Creek Station) is situated eight miles from theformer site of the Little Flower Mission - the Artlunga Ranges, (and that) labour isobtained from Santa Teresa Mission on a temporary basis”(McCoy, 1954).Between 1952 and 1954 Native Affairs Branch inspection patrols were carried outat a number of stations located east and north-east of Alice Springs. Patrol OfficerGreenfield visited, amongst others, Manners Creek, Marqua, Tobermorey and PlentyRiver Downs (now Atula) all of which surround the northern Simpson Desert.Prior to 1953 the Native Affairs Branch had not visited Manners Creek (located to thenorth of Tobermorey PL). Owned and managed by A. Anderson, who previously had“used it in conjunction with Tobermorey,” there were thirteen Aboriginal employeesand their dependants living there, including two “half-caste” children who came toGreenfield’s attention (Greenfield, 1954). One, a 16 year old called George Cungy,whose father was George Dunn (associated with local descent group three in theSimpson Desert Stage II Claim and whose deceased mother was Maude) was describedas living “as a native and too old now to change by removal” (Greenfield, 1953/1954).The other was an 18-month old boy called Geoffrey, whose mother Queenie Jean(aged 20), living in the camp, was born at Linda Station in Queensland. Greenfield’scomment (1953/1954) on the wages situation at Manners Creek indicated the ongoingcontact between Eastern Arrernte on Northern Territory stations close to the border andQueensland Aborigines. Wages at the station were between two and five pounds perweek and were “credited to each employee’s account and he draws on his account as

47he wishes…Cheques or cash are given when the natives leave, or visit Urandangie, halfyearly or yearly.” As a result of this, Greenfield (1953/1954) was of the opinion that“The natives of this Station are rather more sophisticated that there fellowmen to thewest. They are in constant contact with Queensland natives…”At Marqua station, also not previously visited by Native Affairs until Greenfield’s 1953visit, there was an Aboriginal population of 12. It was owned and managed by J.R.Brown, who “has only just recently started working his block in earnest as in the past itwas only grazing lease” (Greenfield, 1953/1954). Greenfield was forced to note in hisrecommendation to the Branch that, “It is evident from this report that conditions thereare not at all satisfactory” (Greenfield, 1953/1954). Listed as employed at Marqua in1954 was a “Part-Aboriginal”, Johnno (21 years), paid three pounds per week. Alsorecorded was an Aboriginal named “Bismark” (40 years) married to Maria (24 years),who was paid one pound per week. Others recorded living on the station were Bookie,‘married to Jundo (28 years), with children Johnny (10 years), Lindsay (8 years),Bertha (6 years), Grace (5 years), Biddy (3 years), unnamed (M, 2 years), and unnamed(F, 2 months) (Greenfield, 1953/1954). Bookie and his family were also recorded bya Native Affairs Patrol, previously, doing stock work on Tobermorey Station. Jundo(Juntu) and her children are claimants for local descent group four in the current claim.Tobermorey Station was owned and managed by the Anderson brothers, and had been inthat family’s ownership since 1909 (see NT Report by the Pastoral Leases InvestigationCommittee 1935–36). Situated “60 miles south west of Urandangie”, Tobermorey had,at the time of Greenfield’s 1953 visit, seventeen Aborigines there, including workers andtheir dependants. Included in the list of workers was Dubbo Rose (now deceased), astockman earning three pounds ten shillings per week and aged 34 years old (Greenfield,1953/54). Dubbo Rose had been recorded four years previously, living at Tobermorey.He was then described as “three quarter black aged about 30 years, stockman.” Alsoworking there was Percy Rankine, “three quarter white, married to Barbara three quarterblack” with three children “Leslie (5 years), Mike (6 years), Lennie (1 year)” (Penhall,1949.) (All the above have traditional connections to the country of group 4). At thattime the Native Affairs Patrol officer had noted, with regard to the living conditions ofAboriginal employees, that “Mr Anderson has lived with the natives all his life and hashis own theories as to how they should be treated. (Whilst) the treatment as far as foodand clothing are concerned is quite good; it was the amenities such as huts, laundries,etc which indicated that Mr Anderson couldn’t care less” (Penhall, 1949). In 1954Greenfield again pointed to the Tobermorey Station population’s close interaction withthe Queensland side, reporting the “The natives here are very sophisticated. This is dueto their constant contact with the Queensland natives” (Greenfield, 1953/54).The final station inspected by Greenfield was “Plenty River Downs Station” (thiswas centred on Atula (formerly Apiwentye P.L.), owned by “Walter Smith and FrankSpriggs” and situated on the Plenty River “100 miles east of Police Station, HartsRange” (Greenfield, 1953/54). An isolated station, Greenfield noted (1953/54) that“very few people been there,” and it took him “4 hours to travel 17 of the 50 milesfrom the Hugh camp” to the station. The population of eleven living at the PlentyStation was described as being from the “East Aranda Tribe”. They included: SonnyPanunga (25 years), stockman earning two pounds per week and married to Jean Purula(23 years), with children Tony (4 years) and Kathleen (2 months). Also recorded were

48Waghi Purula (55 years), shepherd paid one pound per week married to Lucy Panunga(55 years), with children Russel (5 years) and Bessie (10 years). Others included Mabel(25 years), and Larry (80 years) married to Nellie (55 years). Mabel Smith was a group 6claimant in the Simpson Desert Stage II Claim.Greenfield’s comments on Plenty River Station indicate that living conditions wereharsh. There were:“no facilities available. The owners themselves live in humpies of the class thenatives use. The water supply is indifferent, being obtained from the soaks inthe riverbed…The search for water is never-ending, and consequently there is nopermanency about their camps. [Firewood is] available only near the riverbed,and consists mostly of driftwood. The surrounding country [having been] burntout some time ago and most of the timber was lost…” (Greenfield, 1953/54).In his opinion, the venture was “very precarious.” Nevertheless, Greenfield (1953/54)acknowledged that:“To cancel the licences to employ would have no purpose. The natives wouldstill work for Smith as they consider him part of their family…They know thatthe whole group benefits from the success of the work.”3.10.2 Continuation of CeremonyMost of the claimants have an ongoing land-based ceremonial life. Male initiationstill occurs amongst those claimants who reside in the Northern Territory. Ceremoniesand rituals associated with funerals, birth and marriage are still performed by someclaimants.3.10.3 Maintenance of Aspects of Traditional Life and CustomMany features of traditional life continue, including usage of the systems of sectionsand subsections, language maintenance, hunting and gathering practices, avoidance ofcertain relations, fulfilling of kinship duties and obligations, performance of ceremonyand passing on the knowledge of traditional matters. These aspects of traditional life arefeatures of the lives of Northern Territory residents. The traditional attachment of thoseclaimants residing in Queensland can be gauged by attempts to learn about their culturalinheritance.3.10.4 Attempts to Obtain Secure OccupationOver the last fifteen years the claimants have made considerable efforts to gain access totheir land and where possible reside on it. These movements back to traditional countrydemonstrate a resolve to maintain personal and spiritual links with it. Members ofgroup four, after a number of years of effort, obtained an excision at Urlampe (1.8) onTobermorey PL. Since then, houses and other facilities have been established. Whilstthe population varies due to seasonal factors, there has been residents at Urlampe (1.8)since 1986. Currently, there is a resident population of approximately twenty people,mostly group four claimants or their close relations.

49Group four claimant Lindsay Bookie has established an outstation on land granted in theSimpson Desert Stage II Claim. Here, Lindsay runs cultural tours for tourists. Lindsayand other group four members unsuccessfully attempted to purchase Tobermorey PL inthe late 1990’s with the assistance of the Indigenous Land Corporation.Atula PL was purchased in 1989 and successfully claimed under the ALRA in 1992.Communities have been established at No 1 Bore and near the station homestead. Groupone, under the leadership of Ernie Williams, has established a small community atUleperte (7.1).