Colin Hamlett & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji #1 v Daney Murat and Another

[2020] NNTTA 12

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Colin Hamlett & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji #1 v Daney Murat and Another [2020] NNTTA 12 (12 February 2020)

Application No: WO2019/0870

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application

Colin Hamlett & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji #1 (WC2004/010)

(native title party)

- and -

Daney Murat

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:	Ms Nerida Cooley
Place:	Brisbane
Date:	12 February 2020

Catchwords:

Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed

Legislation:

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148

Cases:

Colin Hamlett & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji #1 v Peter Romeo Gianni and Another [2019] NNTTA 68 (Wajarri Yamatji v Gianni)

Teelow v Page [2001] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (Teelow v Page)

Representatives(s) of the native title party:

Mr Stephen Compton

Representative(s) of the grantee party: Daney Murat

Representatives(s) of the Government party: Mr Matthew Smith, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. In accordance with s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA), the State of Western Australia (State) gave notice of its intention to grant prospecting licence P51/3090-S (licence) to Daney Murat (Mr Murat), with a notification day of 11 September 2019.

2. The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the licence to be an act attracting the expedited procedure under the NTA (expedited procedure statement).

3. The area of the proposed licence is wholly located within the area of the native title determination application made by the Wajarri Yamatji #1 claim group (WC2004/010).  On 24 September 2019, the registered native title claimant for the Wajarri Yamatji #1 claim (native title party) lodged an objection with the Tribunal against the inclusion of the expedited procedure statement.  The objection was lodged by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) on behalf of the native title party however, in its covering email, YMAC advised that Mr Stephen Compton is the heritage service provider for this matter.

4. The President of the Tribunal directed me to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of the inquiry in this matter.

Relevant Facts

1. On 1 October 2019, I made directions requiring all parties to provide contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry. Under those directions, the native title party’s material was due to be provided on or before 3 February 2020. 

2. The native title party did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions and, on 4 February 2020, the State wrote to the Tribunal to formally request the dismissal of the objection under s 148(b) of the NTA. That same day, the Tribunal wrote to the other parties to advise that the objection was at risk of dismissal and invited parties to provide comments.

3. On 11 February 2020, Mr Murat wrote to the Tribunal and advised his support for the dismissal of the objection.  The Tribunal did not receive any comments from the native title party.

Consideration of dismissal

1. The Tribunal has a broad discretion, under s 148(b) of the NTA, to dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the native title party fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction by the Tribunal.

2. In considering the dismissal, I have had regard to the principles set out in Teelow v Page (at [13]) and also taken account of the native title party’s recent history of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions (see Wajarri Yamatji v Gianni).

3. In this case, the native title party has not given any reason for its non-compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, nor sought any extension of time, despite having an opportunity to do so.

4. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.  Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to determine whether the grant of the licence is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

Decision

1. The expedited procedure objection application in relation to prospecting licence P51/3090-S is dismissed under s 148(b) of the NTA.

Ms Nerida Cooley
Member
12 February 2020