Ada Walden & Ors (Waanyi People)/Queensland/Jurassic Resources Pty Ltd

[2012] NNTTA 16

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ada Walden & Ors (Waanyi People)/Queensland/Jurassic Resources Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 16   (23 February 2012)

Application No:        QO11/60

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Ada Walden, Dawn Aplin, Malcolm George, Eunice O’Keefe and Fred O’Keefe on behalf of the Waanyi People   (native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland   (government party)

- and -

Jurassic Resources Pty Limited             (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:   John Sosso
Place:                           Brisbane
Date of dismissal:        23 February 2012

Representatives:         

Native title party:       Mr Andrew Preston of Counsel

Government party:    Ms Sara Newrick, Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation

Grantee party:            Gregory Baynton, Jurassic Resources Pty Limited

Catchwords:             Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permit (EPM) - expedited procedure objection application – inability to finalise negotiations – springing directions - failure to comply with Directions – expedited procedure objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss. 29, 31, 32, 148(b).

Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

[1] On 17 February 2011, the State of Queensland (“the government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant Exploration Permit (EPM 18580) to Jurassic Resources Pty Limited (“the grantee party”), and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure. For the purpose of s. 29(4)(a), the notification day was specified as 16 March 2011.

[2] On 18 April 2011 the legal representative of the Waanyi People (“the native title party”) lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), an expedited procedure objection application pursuant to s. 32(3).

1. On 19 April 2011, I was appointed as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the expedited procedure objection inquiry.

2. It is the practice in Queensland for the Tribunal to convene Status Conferences where each of the parties indicates whether they wish to negotiate a consensual outcome.  If the parties are actively engaging in negotiations, or at least taking the necessary steps to enable such negotiations to occur, the Tribunal will not make Directions for the holding of an inquiry.  Directions are only made when it is clear that one or more of the parties does not wish to negotiate or, for whatever reasons, negotiations have failed or stalled.  Accordingly in most instances, Directions are only made some time into the process.

3. Representatives for the parties appeared regularly at status conferences convened throughout 2011 with adjournments provided to allow the parties to finalise an agreement.

4. By the time the Status Conference was convened on 27 January 2012 no agreement had been finalised, and it was not clear whether or not the native title party intended to pursue the objection. 

5. Directions were made requiring the legal representative of the native title party, on or before 22 February 2012, to advise the Tribunal in writing if he held instructions to comply with the Directions and provide contentions to enable the making of a determination.

1. Direction (1A) provided that if the legal representative of the native title party did not advise that he held such instructions by close of business on 22 February 2012, the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Act would forthwith dismiss the Expedited Procedure Objection Application. By close of business 22 February 2012, no advice was forthcoming from the legal representative of the native title party.

2. The principles governing the making of “springing” or  “guillotine” Directions were explained in Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103. I adopt those principles for the purpose of this decision.

1. The Springing Direction, having required the legal representative of the native title party to provide advice of the instructions held by close of business on 22 February 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

1. The expedited procedure objection application in relation to EPM 18580 is dismissed pursuant to section 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso

Deputy President