Background
In July 2018, the Waturta Native Title Claim Group — represented by six named applicants including Kalman Michael Murphy and Kado Muir — filed an application in the Federal Court seeking recognition of native title over land and waters in the Northern Goldfields region of Western Australia, on the edge of the Great Victoria Desert. The Waturta Claim Area encompassed much of Lake Wells, comprising two parcels of unallocated Crown land, the whole of Lake Wells Pastoral Lease N050056, a portion of Prenti Downs Pastoral Lease PL N050653, and two reserves. Mining tenements issued to companies including Regis Resources Limited, APC Minerals Limited, Gold Road (North Yamarna) Pty Limited, and NTS Goldfields Ltd covered parts of the area.
The claim was complicated by an overlapping native title application from the Tjalkadjara People (WAD597/2018), which covered the entire Waturta Claim Area. Intensive mediation over the overlapping portions ran from 2021 to 2024 without resolution, prompting the Court to order an on-country hearing for October 2025. Witness statements and video evidence were filed by both groups in preparation. In September 2025, however, the Tjalkadjara applicants obtained leave to amend their application so that it no longer overlapped the Waturta Claim, and the matter was reprogrammed toward a consent determination. Further mediation produced full agreement on terms among all remaining parties.
In support of the consent application, the parties relied on three anthropological reports (prepared by Dr Pamela McGrath in 2018, Dr Heather Lynes in 2020, and Dr Kingsley Palmer and Dr Catherine Wohlan in 2022), as well as witness statements from senior claim group members. The State of Western Australia, satisfied that those materials provided a rational basis for the determination, joined the applicant in seeking orders under s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Neighbouring determinations in favour of the Wiluna People, the Payarri People, and the Yilka People provided further contextual support for the existence of native title rights in the broader region.
The Court’s Holding
Colvin J exercised the power conferred by s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to make a determination of native title by consent, without requiring a statement of agreed facts. The Court was satisfied that all statutory preconditions were met: notice had been given and the notice period had expired under s 66; the agreement related to land within the application area; the terms were in writing, signed by all parties, and filed with the Court; no prior inconsistent determination existed; and the proposed orders were within the Court’s power and conformed with the requirements of ss 94A and 225. The Court further found that the parties had been legally represented by experienced practitioners, had access to substantial anthropological and witness evidence, and had engaged in a lengthy mediation — all indicia of good faith and rational decision-making sufficient to justify proceeding without a formal agreed statement of facts.
The determination declares that native title exists across the whole of the Determination Area. Exclusive possession rights — the right to possession, occupation, use, and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others — were recognised over specific areas to which ss 47A and 47B of the Native Title Act apply (namely Reserve 32421, designated for Aboriginal art and artifacts, and two parcels of unallocated Crown land). Over the remainder of the Determination Area, non-exclusive native title rights were recognised, comprising the rights to access and remain on the land; take and use its resources for any purpose; engage in spiritual and cultural activities; and maintain and protect places and objects of significance. No native title rights were recognised in relation to minerals, petroleum, or geothermal energy resources. Native title rights in relation to water in watercourses, wetlands, or underground sources were confirmed as non-exclusive.
The Court ordered that Lalalka Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 11809) hold the determined native title on trust for the native title holders pursuant to s 56(2)(b) of the Native Title Act. The native title holders are defined by descent from, or long association with the claim area tracing to, a schedule of named apical ancestors (including Biman (Roy Beaman), Tom Wunal, Lily Wongawol, and others), provided they maintain a connection with the Determination Area in accordance with traditional laws and customs. There was no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), the Federal Court may make a consent determination of native title without conducting a merits hearing or requiring a statement of agreed facts, provided all statutory preconditions are satisfied and the Court is satisfied the parties acted in good faith on a rational evidentiary basis.
- Where an overlapping claim is resolved — here, by the Tjalkadjara applicants amending their claim to remove the overlap — and all remaining parties agree on terms, the Court will ordinarily proceed to a consent determination; extensive anthropological reports and witness statements can suffice as the underlying evidentiary foundation even without a formal agreed facts document.
- Exclusive native title (right of possession to the exclusion of all others) was confined to areas covered by ss 47A and 47B (reserved and unallocated Crown land); over pastoral-lease and other tenement areas, only non-exclusive rights were recognised, and native title rights in minerals, petroleum, and geothermal energy were expressly excluded.
- An Aboriginal corporation (Lalalka) was nominated and ordered to hold the determined native title on trust, providing a corporate governance structure for the exercise and management of native title rights on behalf of the claim group.
Why It Matters
This determination adds to a cluster of recently recognised native title holdings in Western Australia’s Northern Goldfields, following determinations for the Wiluna, Wiluna #4, Wiluna #5, Payarri, and Yilka Peoples in 2013–2025. It illustrates the critical role of mediation and the willingness of overlapping claimant groups to negotiate boundary adjustments as a precursor to consent determination — a pathway the Federal Court has consistently encouraged as the preferred mode of resolving native title disputes under the Native Title Act‘s conciliation framework.
For practitioners, the judgment reaffirms that the Court will not impose a requirement for a formal statement of agreed facts as a condition of exercising the s 87 consent power where parties are legally represented, have engaged in sustained mediation, and have access to substantial anthropological and lay evidence. The decision also underscores the interaction between ss 47A and 47B and the scope of exclusive possession: only land legally set aside for Aboriginal benefit or remaining as vacant Crown land qualifies for that higher category of rights, while pastoral and mining tenement areas attract only non-exclusive native title.