Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Crosslands Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Crosslands Resources Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 15 (11 February 2013)

Applications No: WO2012/1247; WO2012/1248; WO2012/1249; WO2012/1250; WO2012/1251; WO2012/1252

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Crosslands Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:                  Member Daniel O’Dea
Place:  Perth
Date:  11 February 2013

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of miscellaneous licenses – expedited procedure objection applications – s 29 notice terminated – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), s 29, 148(a)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

On 25 July 2012, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant miscellaneous licences 09/34, 09/35, 09/36, 09/39, 51/90 and 52/147 (‘the proposed licences’) to Crosslands Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 26 November 2012, Ike Simpson and Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji – native title claim no WC04/10, registered from 5 December 2005 (‘the native title party’) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in relation to the statement in the s 29 notice about the proposed licences (WO2012/1247, WO2012/1248, WO2012/1249, WO2012/1250, WO2012/1251 and WO2012/1252).
On 11 February 2013, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (‘the Department’) on behalf of the Government party advised the Tribunal that the applications for the proposed licences are sought for the sole purpose of a ‘search for groundwater’, a purpose which the Department had until recently considered to be a future act to which Subdivision P of the Act applies. After considering the Tribunal’s determination in FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd/NC (deceased) and Others on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People/Western Australia, [2012] NNTTA 103 (3 October 2012) and legal advice, the Department now considers the grant of the proposed licences to be a future act for which s 24HA of the Act is the most appropriate provision.
Consequently, the Department also advised the Tribunal that the notice given under s 29 of the Act on 25 July 2012 was ‘terminated’, and the Department applied pursuant to s 148(a) of the Act to have objections WO2012/1247, WO2012/1248, WO2012/1249, WO2012/1250, WO2012/1251 and WO2012/1252 dismissed.
The Tribunal considers that, in light of the Government party’s advice that the s 29 notice was terminated, there is no longer a proposed future act against which an objection to the assertion of the expedited procedure statement can be validly made. Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not entitled to deal with the expedited procedure objection applications.

Decision

The expedited procedure objection applications WO2012/1247, WO2012/1248, WO2012/1249, WO2012/1250, WO2012/1251 and WO2012/1252 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Daniel O’Dea
Member

11 February 2013

The National Native Title Tribunal was presented with a case involving Ike Simpson and others on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji against the State of Western Australia and Crosslands Resources Pty Ltd. The native title party objected to the Government party's intention to grant miscellaneous licenses to the grantee party, as stated in the notice under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the objection applications made by the native title party.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the objection applications once the Government party had terminated the section 29 notice and indicated that it considered section 24HA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to be the most appropriate provision for the proposed licences. The Tribunal needed to assess if the termination of the notice meant there was no longer a proposed future act to which the objection applications could be validly made.

The Tribunal found that, following the Government party's advice that the section 29 notice was terminated, there was no longer a proposed future act against which an objection to the assertion of the expedited procedure statement could be validly made. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it was not entitled to deal with the objection applications. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the objection applications under section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The Tribunal dismissed the expedited procedure objection applications WO2012/1247, WO2012/1248, WO2012/1249, WO2012/1250, WO2012/1251 and WO2012/1252 pursuant to section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established