Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 20:37
Hi Mike,
First of all, who has told you these
places are restricted and do you believe them?
If the restrictions are based on the “Native Title Act” and a certain determination by the Federal Court then the answer could lie in your definition of the “
Canning Stock Route”. All that I say in this post is about the "Native Title Act" only.
I can only think of two definitions and here they are. The “
Canning Stock Route” is a track that follows the wells surveyed by Alfred Canning or the “
Canning Stock Route” is a temporary easement from 1906, five
miles wide that passes by the wells surveyed by Alfred Canning.
An extract from FCA (Federal Court of Australia) ruling 1208 (James on behalf of the Martu People v Western Australia [2002] FCA 1208 (27 September 2002) states:
5. Other rights and interests
(e) Rights of any person to access and enjoy (subject to the laws of the State):
(ii) the
Canning Stock route. <<--- This bit is important and is written in black and white too!!!
If you think
the gorge and
the springs are part of the “
Canning Stock Route” then I wouldn’t worry about getting (Native Title) permission to visit. Remember, nobody really knows as no one has tested it in the Federal Court yet.
As far as the Calverts things are a bit different. The Calverts are not part of the “
Canning Stock Route” and have been specifically named by Ngaanyatjarra Council on behalf of the Martu people as restricted…quote, “Calvert Ranges, and the track to Calvert Ranges and beyond”.
It would seem that you will have to get permission for the Calverts, though I’m not sure about the “beyond” part of the sentence as the Martu determination only goes as far as Lat. 24 degrees and the Calverts are almost on the border. “Beyond” is Unallocated Crown Land and is accessible to all.
Some people (bodies, clubs) will err on the side of the Ngaanyatjarra Council, to avoid conflict etc, but the Law is the Law, it doesn’t matter how many people say otherwise.
I am not intending to visit any of these
places in the near future so have not fully researched it but that is my take on it at the moment.
Cheers and happy travels
Eq.
AnswerID:
310391
Follow Up By: Vivid Adventures - Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 21:29
Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 21:29
I think the Martu claim/determination, actually had a swathe through it that somehow relates to the easement of 1906. This is evident on the most recent Hema North West map...
There would also be common law rights on the track itself relating to what would, I suspect, be a common law road given the significant amount of traffic on it over the last 40 or so years - only issue is that roads can be closed (by state government ministers or shires, for instance).
Further it could be argued that there has been public access to the
Calvert Range prior to Dec 1993 and thus your argument in thread 43134 should hold for that, as also for Durba Springs, etc.
All that aside, WDLAC seem more than happy to give permission to those that ask. Given that it was allegedly because someone upset a traditional owner that resulted in the "restrictions", why not just comply with their wishes whether legally necessary or not? After all, this is Martu country. Martu in my experience are wonderful people. They have lots of good stories and care a lot about the protection of some pretty wonderful
places out there. Your trek up the CSR would only be enriched for every additional minute, hour or day you spent with them.
My 2c worth.
FollowupID:
576418
Follow Up By: equinox - Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 21:45
Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 21:45
Hi Andrew,
I wasn't going to bring section 212 up on this post, but it may relate to the Calverts, /Durba Springs.
I've never met a Martu, but I'm sure they are wonderful people, most desert people are.
Cheers
FollowupID:
576429