8.14 Marilyn Pickalla Campbell, NSW Marilyn Pickalla Campbell is a South Coast woman from NSW, who has traditional connections through her Pickalla family in the Aragunuu to the Mystery Bay area. Marilyn’s father is a Djiringanj Yuin man from Wallaga Lake, and her mother’s family is from the Lake Tyres area in Victoria. Marilyn had previously been involved in a long-running native title claim and at the time of publication was still involved in a native title claim. In her interview, Marilyn described when she was young, sitting around ‘in the background, listening to my Elders’ as they fought for their land and told stories. … watching our Elders stand up and fight for something that they believed in, I think that’s what made me the person that I am today. And watching their struggle, and how they carried themselves, and who was the head speaker. At the time of her interview, Marilyn was involved in opposing an application by the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) for a declaration that there was no native title over an area known as Isabel Street. The land council had acquired the Isabel Street land under the Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (LRA NSW) and wanted to be able to sell or develop Isabel Street. Under the LRA NSW, for a LALC to divest or develop land they require a declaration that there are no native title interests in the area. Marilyn lives on Isabel Street and has a traditional connection to that area as a source of traditional food and medicine, and as an area where her family used to camp. Marilyn feels there is a native title interest in the area and opposed its development. In March 2020, during the COVID-associated restrictions, Marilyn gave evidence to the Federal Court via Zoom regarding the application for a determination that no native title exists over Isabel Street. The transcript was made available to my team as an illustration of how gruelling the process of giving evidence can be for First Nations individuals – made even more difficult using Zoom. The transcript suggests that the applicant’s lawyer attempted to undermine the credibility of Marilyn’s evidence that there are native title interests over Isabel Street, using her previous evidence in a native title case from 17 years prior. During Marilyn’s cross-examination, it was implied that the lack of mention of Isabel Street in Marilyn’s affidavit from that time shows that Marilyn did not actually consider the area to be of significant cultural value, compared to other places that she spoke of in that affidavit. The applicant’s lawyer also used the fact that Marilyn was not asked to give oral evidence in the earlier native title claim – the Djiringanj claim – as an indication that she is not considered by her community to hold particular knowledge. Marilyn specifically said in the cross-examination that she did not want to answer some questions because she ‘does not speak for other families’ as to who is and is not a knowledgeholder in their families. In response to this, the applicant’s lawyer suggested that Marilyn was not answering because she did not want to admit that traditional knowledge-holders from other families were supporting the plan to develop Isabel Street. 94 Women in Native Title: Native Title Report 2024