Dorothy Dimer & Ors on Behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (WC99/29); Leonne Velickovic (WC98/27)/Western Australia/Wmc Resources Ltd
[2000] NNTTA 110
•6 March 2000
| NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL |
Dorothy Dimer & Ors on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (WC99/29); Leonne Velickovic (WC98/27)/Western Australia/WMC Resources Ltd, [2000] NNTTA 110
(6 March 2000)
| Application Nos: WO99/721, WO99/760 and WO99/802 |
| IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) |
| - and - |
| IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application |
WO99/721
| Dorothy Dimer & Ors on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (WC99/29) (native title party) |
| - and - |
| The State of Western Australia (Government party) |
| - and - |
| WMC Resources Ltd (grantee party) |
WO99/760 and WO99/802
| Dorothy Dimer & Ors on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (WC99/29) (native title party) (WO99/760) |
| Leonne Velickovic (WC98/27) (native title party) (WO99/802) |
| - and - |
| The State of Western Australia (Government party) |
| - and - |
| WMC Resources Ltd (grantee party) |
CONSENT DETERMINATION THAT THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE IS NOT ATTRACTED
| DECISION ON WHETHER MRS DOROTHY DIMER (AN INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT FOR A NATIVE TITLE DETERMINATION) CAN BE SEPARATELY REPRESENTED IN THE OBJECTION INQUIRY |
Tribunal: The Hon C. J. Sumner
Place: Perth
Date: 6 March 2000
Catchwords: Native Title – future act – objection to inclusion in an expedited procedure application – proposed grant of an exploration licence – individual applicants on a native title claim not entitled to be separately represented in a right to negotiate inquiry – consent determination that the expedited procedure is not attracted.
Cases:Western Australia/Ron Harrington-Smith & Ors/Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd and Granny Smith Mines Limited, NNTT WF99/5, Hon CJ Sumner, 16 February 2000
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background – WO99/721
On 25 August 1999, the Government party gave notice of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/589 to WMC Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 13 December 1999 Dorothy Dimer and others on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
Background – WO99/760 and WO99/802
On 22 August 1999, the Government party gave notice of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/599 to WMC Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 13 December 1999 Dorothy Dimer and others on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal (WO99/760).
On 13 October 1999 Leonne Velickovic (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal (WO99/802)
The separate representation of Mrs Dorothy Dimer
On 4 October 1999, a native title determination application (Claim number WC99/29 – Central West Goldfields) was entered on the Register of Native Title Claims following an order of the Federal Court combining four claims which had previously been registered. The applicants on WC99/29 are Dennis Sambo, Elizabeth Sambo, Dorothy Dimer, Carlene Sceghi, Linda Champion, Nancy Wilson and Sue Wyatt and Victor Cooper.
The expedited procedure objection applications in WO99/721 and WO99/760 made on behalf of the applicants and registered native title claimants in WC99/29 were lodged by the Goldfields Land Council (‘the GLC’). At a preliminary conference convened to set directions for an inquiry Mrs Dorothy Dimer sought to be represented separately from the other claimants by Mr Leonne Velickovic of Indigenous Exploration and Drilling Pty Ltd (and the native title party in WO99/802). The GLC submitted that as Mrs Dorothy Dimer is one of the applicants on claim WC99/29 she was not entitled to be separately represented from the other applicants in these proceedings. This submission was supported by the Government and grantee parties. I agree with the submission.
The question of whether individual applicants for a native title determination can be separately represented in a right to negotiate inquiry was dealt with by the Tribunal recently in Western Australian/Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd/Ron Harrington-Smith & Ors, NNTT WF99/5, Hon CJ Sumner, 24 February 2000. For the reasons set out in that decision I decided that Mrs Dimer was not entitled to be represented separately from the other applicants on claim number WC99/29 in these proceedings and refused permission for Mr Velickovic to appear for her.
Mr Velickovic provided written submissions in support of his position that he was entitled to represent Mrs Dimer. The submissions were also directed to other expedited procedure objection applications in which the GLC had withdrawn objections on behalf of the Central West Goldfields claimants. His argument was that Mrs Dimer had never given any instructions for the GLC to withdraw the objections and that she wanted to continue with them. He was critical of the method adopted by the GLC to obtain instructions to withdraw the objection applications and submitted that the GLC should only withdraw objections on the express instructions of the applicants concerned. He submitted that the express instructions of Mrs Dimer had not been obtained. There was some argument between the GLC and Mr Velickovic about the procedures adopted by the GLC to obtain their clients’ instructions to withdraw objection applications. However on the view I take of this matter it is not necessary to consider that issue further. In my view the GLC (or their solicitors) are acting for the Central West Goldfields claim group and in appearing in these matters and withdrawing objections in other matters have acted on the collective instructions of the claim group. The Tribunal intends to continue to accept this as the situation unless and until the claim group collectively terminates the GLC’s instructions and appoints someone else to represent them. If Mrs Dimer is concerned about the approach taken by the claim group collectively she will need to take the matter up with them to see if she can convince them to adopt a different approach. Unless there is credible evidence that the GLC is not acting in accordance with instructions of the claim group as a whole the Tribunal intends to continue to recognise the GLC as the legitimate representative of the claim group.
The decision in these matters is also applicable to the matters in which the withdrawal of objection applications by the GLC has been challenged by Mrs Dimer. In each of those matters the Tribunal will continue to operate on the basis that the objection applications have been properly withdrawn and will notify the Government party in accordance with its usually procedures thus leaving the Government party free to do the future act.
Consent Determination
Following my ruling at a Preliminary Conference on 25 February 2000 that Mrs Dimer was not entitled to be separately represented I made, with consent of all parties, a determination that the expedited procedure was not attracted in each of these applications
By consent the determination of the Tribunal is that the grant of exploration licences E15/589 and E15/599 to WMC Resources Ltd are not acts attracting the expedited procedure.
Hon C. J. Sumner
Member
6 March 2000
0
0
0