Doug Nelson on behalf of the Ballardong Native Title Claim (WC97/56)/Western Australia/Graham Taylor, Pamela Taylor and Alan Venables

[2000] NNTTA 243

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Doug Nelson on behalf of the Ballardong Native Title Claim (WC97/56)/Western Australia/Graham Taylor, Pamela Taylor and Alan Venables, [2000] NNTTA 243 (30 June 2000)

Application No: WO99/638

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

- and -

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

Doug Nelson on behalf of the Ballardong Native Title Claim (WC97/56) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Graham Taylor, Pamela Taylor and Alan Venables (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:       Hon CJ Sumner, Member
Place:             Perth
Date:              30 June 2000

Catchwords:             Native Title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence –expedited procedure objection application – failure of native title party to comply with directions – objection application dismissed

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(b)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 11 August 1999, the Government party gave notice of its intention to grant exploration licence E77/906 to Graham Francis Taylor, Pamela Margaret Taylor, Alan Stanley Venables (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.  On 10 December 1999, Doug Nelson on behalf of the Ballardong Native Title Claim (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

2. The first preliminary conference to consider directions for an inquiry was convened on 27 January 2000.  The matter was adjourned until 17 February 2000 to enable a draft agreement to be sent by the native title party to the grantee party.  On 17 February 2000, no agreement having been reached by the parties, the Tribunal set directions for the conduct of an inquiry.  The Tribunal set 13 April 2000 as the date by which the Government party was to comply with a direction to provide its statement of contentions and documents relevant to the inquiry.  In accordance with its usual practice the date for compliance with the first direction by the Government party was set at 13 April 2000 (eight weeks from the preliminary conference) to enable the parties time to attempt to negotiate an agreement.  The native title party was to provide its contentions and documents by 20 April 2000 and the grantee party by 27 April 2000.  The Government and grantee parties complied with the directions by the specified times.  The native title party did not comply with the directions nor did it seek leave to extend the time for so doing before the appointed date for a listing hearing on 4 May 2000.

3. At the listing hearing on 4 May 2000, the Tribunal was informed that there had been some correspondence about the draft agreement but no finalisation of it. The Tribunal then set directions requiring the native title party to provide its contentions and documents relating to the inquiry by 16 June 2000 (that is, allowing a further three weeks for the native title party to either comply or negotiate an agreement). At the amended date for a listing hearing on 23 June 2000, there was no appearance by the native title party. The grantee party requested that the objection application be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) on the basis that the native title party had failed to comply with directions.

At my direction the Tribunal’s case manager informed the native title party on 23 June 2000 of the grantee party’s request to dismiss the objection and advised that the file would be provided to me to consider the request.  No response or submissions have been received from the native title party.

1. The native title party has failed on two occasions to comply with directions set by the Tribunal.  Even if it could be argued that there was an excuse for the first non-compliance on the basis that the parties were attempting to negotiate an agreement there has been no leave to extend the second date and no reasonable excuse provided for the failure to comply.  The objection application was made by the native title party over 6 months ago.  The Federal Court (WA v Ward & Ors (1996) 141 ALR 753 at 766) and the Tribunal have made it clear that these matters are to be dealt with as speedily as possible. The native title party has neither complied with the Tribunal’s directions nor proceeded with the objection application within a reasonable time. Dismissal of the application is justified.

Decision

1. The expedited procedure objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

The Hon. C.J. Sumner
Deputy President
30 June 2000