IS (Name withheld for cultural reasons) and Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji v Terrence Harold Little and Another

[2016] NNTTA 24

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

IS (Name withheld for cultural reasons) and Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji v Terrence Harold Little and Another [2016] NNTTA 24 (28 June 2016)

Application No:                WO2015/0824

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

IS (Name withheld for cultural reasons) and Others (Wajarri Yamatji) (WC2004/010) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Terrence Harold Little (grantee party)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Tribunal:  Ms H Shurven, Member
Place:  Perth
Date:  28 June 2016

Catchwords:   Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – whether act is likely to interfere substantially with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act is likely to interfere with sites of particular significance – whether act is likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure attracted

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 32, 44H, 237

Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 48
Mining Regulations 1981 (WA), reg 14

Cases:Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Alchemy Resources (Murchison) Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 151 (‘Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy’)

Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Peter Andrew Wiltshire [2009] NNTTA 119 (‘Wajarri Yamatji v Wiltshire’)

Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/ Tungsten West NL [2013] NNTTA 170 (‘Wajarri Yamatji v Tungsten West)

Kevin Peter Walley and Others on behalf of the Ngoonoru Wadjari People; Robin Boddington and Others on behalf of the Wajarri Elders /Western Australia/Giralia Resources NL [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437 (‘Walley v Giralia Resources’)

Robin Boddington & Ors (Wajarri)/Western Australia/Bacome Pty Ltd [2003] NNTTA 62 (‘Wajarri v Bacome’)

Robin Boddington and Others on behalf of the Wajarri Elders /Western Australia/Hampton Hill Mining NL [2002] NNTTA 43 (‘Wajarri v Hampton Hill’)

Robin Boddington and Others on behalf of the Wajarri Elders/Western Australia/Richmond Resources Pty Ltd [2002] NNTTA 236 (‘Richmond Resources’)

Weld Range Metals Limited/Western Australia/Ike Simpson and Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji [2011] NNTTA 172 (‘Weld Range Metals’)

Western Australia/Roberta Vera Thomas & Ors (Waljen)/Austwhim Resources Nl; Aurora Gold (WA) Ltd [1996] NNTTA 30 (‘Waljen v Aurora Gold’)

Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 (‘Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation v FMG Pilbara’)

Representative of the     Mr David Taft, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation
native title party:             Mr Michael Raj, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

Representatives of the     Mr Domhnall McCloskey, State Solicitor’s Office

Government party:          Mr Michael McMahon, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the     

grantee party:                  Mr Terrence Harold Little

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

1. I must determine whether or not the expedited procedure applies to the grant of prospecting licence P20/2247 (the licence) to Terrence Harold Little. The licence comprises approximately 1.88 square kilometres, located 65 kilometres north west of Cue in the Halls Creek Shire. The Government of Western Australia included an expedited procedure statement in their notice about the grant, and the Wajarri Yamatji native title claim group lodged an objection to the statement with the National Native Title Tribunal. I have been appointed by the President of the National Native Title Tribunal, Raelene Webb QC, to conduct an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure applies.

2. By including the expedited procedure statement in their notice, the State asserts the activities permitted under the licence are not likely to interfere with the native title holder’s community or social activities, their sites or areas of particular significance, or involve major disturbance to the land and waters of the licence (see s 237(a), (b) and (c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)). The native title holders in this inquiry are Wajarri Yamatji, whose registered native title claim wholly overlaps the licence. In objecting to the expedited procedure statement, Wajarri Yamatji argues that interference or disturbance is likely. The focus of this inquiry is s 237. All references to sections of legislation in this determination are to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.

3. A decision that the expedited procedure applies means the State can grant the licence and Mr Little can proceed to prospect without negotiating with Wajarri Yamatji (see s 32(4)). A decision that the expedited procedure does not apply means the normal negotiation procedure is required: the State and Mr Little must negotiate in good faith with Wajarri Yamatji, with a view to reaching an agreement about the grant of the licence. Those negotiations may be done with or without mediation assistance from the Tribunal (see s 31).

4. The State, Wajarri Yamatji and Mr Little provided submissions to the Tribunal. At the listing hearing, all parties stated they had no further submissions and requested the matter be determined without further hearing. I consider it is appropriate to do so.

5. Wajarri Yamatji’s submissions include the affidavits of Mr Colin Hamlett, Mr Carl Hamlett and Mr Derek Lee Councillor. Mr Colin Hamlett states he is an applicant of the Wajarri Yamatji claim. He also states he is the leader or elder of his family, and considers himself ‘an elder for sections of Wajarri country’ that he identifies with, ‘like the Weld Range, Mileura, parts of Boolardy and Murgoo, my mother’s and father’s country’. Mr Carl Hamlett states he is a member of the Wajarri Yamatji native title claim group, and is the son of Mr Colin Hamlett. He states his father and family are recognised under traditional Wajarri law ‘as people who speak for and protect the sites and traditional stories of the Weld Range’. Mr Councillor states he is employed by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation as a Project Officer, and accompanied Mr Carl Hamlett to the licence on 11 February 2016. I accept Mr Carl Hamlett, Mr Colin Hamlett and Mr Councillor have authority to speak on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji in this matter.

6. Mr Councillor’s affidavit is subject to non-disclosure orders that I made at the Wajarri Yamatji’s request earlier in these proceedings. Pursuant to these orders, this affidavit has not been provided to Mr Little or the State, and has been viewed only by me and staff assisting the Tribunal. As such I will not provide details of its contents in this decision apart from to say the affidavit consisted of a series of photographs of artefacts located on the licence which had been identified by Mr Carl Hamlett. In addition, I note it is unusual for all parties not to be provided with all the relevant materials, and so I emphasise this was done in this instance with the consent of Mr Little and the State, and that the contents of the affidavit are not central to my decision.

7. Wajarri Yamatji state they do not seek to argue s 237(a), that the grant is likely to interfere with the carrying on of their community or social activities. As they have not directed any contentions to the application of s 237(a) in this matter, and I do not have any evidence before me to indicate otherwise, I find that the grant of the licence is not likely to interfere with the carrying on of their community or social activities.

8. In regard to s 237(b), I address the issue of whether there is a real chance or risk that the grant of the licence will directly interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji. My inquiry considers the following elements:

   i.What areas or sites are identified by Wajarri Yamatji as being of particular significance?

   ii.Is there a real risk of interference to areas or sites of particular significance?

   iii.Would a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement provide protection in the context of any sites of particular significance?

9. I must also consider, pursuant to s 237(c), whether the grant of the licence is likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to the land and waters concerned. However, as with s 237(a), Wajarri Yamatji made no submissions in relation to s 237(c). I have examined all information provided by the parties, including mapping and geospatial information, and there is no evidence the area of the licence has any special characteristics in this regard. Further, the State proposes to include a series of endorsements and conditions on the grant of the licence which relate to waste disposal, land rehabilitation, and the protection of water and native vegetation (see Appendix A). There is no evidence that Mr Little will not abide by the State’s regulatory regime. Therefore, I find the grant of the licence, or the exercise of any rights created by the grant, is not likely to involve major disturbance to the land or waters concerned, and say nothing further on this point in this decision.

a)Is there a real chance or risk the grant of the licence will directly interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji?

1. What areas or sites are identified by Wajarri Yamatji as being of particular significance?

1. Wajarri Yamatji must provide sufficient evidence to: show that an area or site exists on the licence; explain its significance and distinguish it from other areas within the licence; and show it is of more than ordinary significance to them in accordance with their traditions. These requirements are preconditions for the inquiry as to whether the grant of the licence is likely to cause interference with areas or sites of particular significance (Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation v FMG Pilbara at [125]).

2. Results from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) Aboriginal Heritage register establish that there are no registered sites or ‘other heritage places’ within the licence.

3. Wajarri Yamatji’s contentions and evidence highlight that the licence is entirely within the ‘pink box area’ referred to in the Tribunal future act determination in Weld Range Metals,  which found the ‘act must not be done’. Wajarri Yamatji states the significance of the Weld Range area, which includes though is not limited to the ‘pink box area’, has resulted in five Tribunal decisions that the expedited procedure does not apply (Walley v Giralia Resources; Wajarri v Hampton Hill, Richmond Resources, Wajarri Yamatji v Wiltshire and Wajarri Yamatji v Tungsten West), although they also note two Tribunal decisions that the expedited procedure does apply (Wajarri v Bacome and Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy).

4. Wajarri Yamatji contends I should consider Weld Range Metals as highly persuasive in the current inquiry, noting the decision was based on a large amount of evidence by all parties, including both an on-country hearing and a hearing in Perth. In particular, Wajarri Yamatji submits I should adopt the findings from [150]-[160] and [165]-[168] of that decision.  In this inquiry, I do not adopt those findings, and rather examine the evidence in this matter in the context of the Weld Range Metals decision.

5. Wajarri Yamatji acknowledges Weld Range Metals concerned an application brought pursuant to s 35, and that the Tribunal therefore had to consider s 39, rather than s 237, in that decision. However, they contend there is a ‘substantial overlap between the nature of the inquiry’ in these two applications and the relevant statutory criteria, including the following:

   ·The Tribunal has previously noted the similarity of the s 237 and s 39(1)(a)(v) criteria (see Waljen v Aurora Gold) and in practice generally considers the evidence of particular significance for determinations under these sections interchangeably (see Weld Range Metals at [147]-[171] and [293]); and

   ·The first step of the inquiry demanded under both arbitral processes requires the Tribunal to establish whether there are areas or sites of particular significance to the native title party. Only at the subsequent step does the nature of the inquiry diverge. An inquiry pursuant to s 39 requires the Tribunal consider the effect of the act on any areas or sites of particular significance (amongst a range of other factors). An inquiry under s 237(b) requires the Tribunal to consider the likelihood of interference with any areas or sites of particular significance.

6. The State contends that, contrary to the native title party’s claim, there is sufficient difference between the current inquiry and the inquiry in Weld Range Metals, given that the current inquiry concerns an application for a prospecting licence whereas Weld Range Metals concerned applications for the grant of mining leases.

7. Wajarri Yamatji also submits I should treat Wajarri v Bacome and Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy as no longer persuasive to the extent that they are inconsistent with Weld Range Metals. This is submitted on the basis that the Wajarri v Bacome and Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy decisions were made prior to Weld Range Metals, were dealt with ‘on the papers’, and did not involve the same volume of evidence from the native title party.  In fact, in Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy, the Tribunal accepted that the Weld Range area in general is an area of particular significance to the Wajarri Yamatji, and the decision to apply the expedited procedure was made on the basis that it was determined it was unlikely there would be interference such as to offend s 237(b) (see [41], for example). In that matter, the grantee was also seeking to prospect on the tenements, rather than explore or mine, and so the level of activity permitted under a prospecting licence was held not to constitute interference for the purposes of s 237(b). That decision is factually the most similar to the current inquiry of all the cases the Wajarri Yamatji refer.

8. Wajarri Yamatji argues that if the Tribunal is not persuaded to adopt its previous findings in Weld Range Metals, the affidavits of Mr Colin Hamlett, Mr Carl Hamlett, and Mr Councillor demonstrate there are areas or sites within the boundaries of the licence that are of particular significance to the Wajarri Yamatji, due to their location within the broader Weld Range area.  Further, Wajarri Yamatji directs the Tribunal’s attention to the evidence they presented in relation to the ‘pink box area’ in Walley v Giralia Resources, Wajarri v Hampton Hill, Richmond Resources and Wajarri Yamatji v Wiltshire. 

9. In relation to Wajarri Yamatji’s alternative argument, which relies on the affidavits of Mr Carl Hamlett, Mr Colin Hamlett and Mr Councillor, the State contends ‘there is no evidence that any separately or individually particularised area or site within the Weld Range Area can be identified as a site of particular significance based on its own characteristics, other than, perhaps, claims that certain artefacts have been found on part of the proposed tenement’. The State further argues the evidence in these affidavits is unconvincing in that it fails to directly address the licence area directly, as distinct from the Weld Range area as a whole, other than comments by Mr Carl Hamlett concerning what he and Mr Councillor found when walking on some of the licence area.

10. On the basis of evidence presented in Weld Range Metals and the present inquiry, I find the licence in the current inquiry is located in the ‘pink box area’, the entirety of which is a site of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions. In this regard, I agree with Wajarri Yamatji’s contentions in reply that there ‘is no reason in law or principle’ for the Tribunal to depart from previous findings with respect to the significance of the ‘pink box area’ ‘simply because a different kind of tenement has been applied for’. As Wajarri Yamatji state in their contentions in reply, the entire Weld Range area ‘is of particular significance, site rich, and central to the Native Title Party’s traditions’.

11. Having concluded the entirety of the licence is an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji, I turn to the question of whether or not interference with the area is likely.

1. Is there a real risk of interference to areas or sites of particular significance?

1. The State submits that, in the event there are any sites or areas of particular significance in the licence area, interference with those areas or sites is not likely for the following reasons:

   a.Mr Little is aware of the existence of any sites of particular significance because of his knowledge as a member of the Wajarri Yamatji, evidenced by statements made at hearings in relation to the non-disclosure directions concerning restricted material (that is, Mr Councillor’s affidavit), and the subject matter in this inquiry;

   b.Wajarri Yamatji has the opportunity to enforce the proposed Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) condition which the State intends to place on the proposed licence;

   c.Mr Little’s activities will be low-impact and non-intrusive;

   d.At worst, Mr Little’s activities will have a relatively minor effect only, particularly when considered in the context of the history of land use in the area to date. Further, the endorsements and conditions which the State proposes to place on the licence are intended to prevent any significant concerns arising;

   e.The licence area has been subject to prior mineral exploration and possibly mining activity, and is also largely covered by a pastoral lease, so the activities contemplated by Mr Little would be the same as, or no more significant than, the previous and continuing use of the area; and

   f.The AHA and its associated processes are likely to prevent interference with an area or site of particular significance to the native title holders because:

   i.any ‘Aboriginal site’ (as defined in s 5 of the AHA) within the licence area, but not on the Register, will be protected by s 17 of the AHA (and Mr Little cannot contravene s 17 without the consent of the Registrar (s 16) or the Minister (s 18)); and

   ii.if Mr Little applied for consent under s 18 of the AHA, the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee must be satisfied of the adequacy of consultation with any relevant Aboriginal persons (which in this case is likely to include Wajarri Yamatji).

2. In their contentions in reply, Wajarri Yamatji submits that Mr Little’s membership of the Wajarri Yamatji claim group does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is aware of the existence and nature of any and all areas and sites of particular significance within the licence area. They also argue that the fact that Mr Little is a member of Wajarri Yamatji does not diminish the interference that may be caused by his activities. Furthermore, Wajarri Yamatji note that Mr Little’s contentions indicated that he refuses to enter into a heritage agreement of any kind.

3. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s Quick Appraisal indicates that the licence is wholly overlapped by the Madoonga pastoral lease. The Appraisal also establishes the existence of eight tracks and two historic mine sites on the licence. I also note that in his statement, Mr Little asserts that the Mindoolah Mining Centre ‘has been disturbed a lot over the years’, with evidence of previous ‘open cut mines, shafts, scrapings, roads, tracks, gridlines and fences’.

4. The Quick Appraisal indicates that there is one live exploration licence held by Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Ltd, which was granted in 2006, and wholly overlaps the licence. Tribunal records indicate that an objection to the assertion of the expedited procedure was lodged with the Tribunal in relation to this licence application, but was later withdrawn on the basis that parties indicated they had reached an agreement (WO2007/0805).

1. There have also been four exploration licences in operation between 1984 and 2008. Two of these exploration licences, which both wholly overlapped the licence, were in operation from 1993 to 2008 and 2001 to 2008, respectively. The State’s contentions indicate that the holders of the abovementioned prior exploration licences undertook ‘significant expenditures’ in relation to those tenements when in operation.

2. In relation to this evidence, I further take into account that the Mining Act 1978 (WA) provides explorers with a broader range of rights than a prospector. In particular, a prospecting licence allows the holder to extract or disturb up to 500 tonnes of material from the ground, whereas an exploration licence allows the holder to extract or disturb up to 1000 tonnes (subject to approval from the Minister for extraction of larger tonnages in both instances).

3. In terms of the previous Tribunal matters that the native title party raised in their evidence outlined at [12]–[13] above, I note that the five decisions in which the Tribunal found that the expedited procedure does not apply (Walley v Giralia Resources; Wajarri v Hampton Hill, Richmond Resources, Wajarri Yamatji v Wiltshire and Wajarri Yamatji v Tungsten West) all concerned applications for exploration licences. In the two decisions in which the Tribunal found that the expedited procedure does apply (Wajarri v Bacome and Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy), these concerned an application for an exploration licence and prospecting licences respectively.  I have already commented on Wajarri Yamatji v Alchemy, and do not propose to comment further on that decision.  In relation to Wajarri v Bacome, I note the Tribunal determined that there were no sites of significance on the exploration tenement, and so the decision maker did not turn his mind to the question of interference. 

1. Would a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement provide protection in the context of any sites of particular significance?

1. The State intends to impose an RSHA condition on the grant of the licence, which would allow Wajarri Yamatji to execute an RSHA should they wish to do so, in the following terms:

   In respect of the area covered by the licence, if the Wajarri Yamatji (being the applicant in Federal Court Application No. WAD 6033/1998) send a request by pre-paid post to the licensee not more than 90 days after the grant of this licence, the licensee shall within 30 days of the request execute in favour of the Wajarri Yamatji the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) endorsed by peak industry groups and the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation.

2. Wajarri Yamatji submits that neither the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (the AHA) nor a RSHA suffice to make interference with areas or sites of particular significance unlikely. In regard to the AHA, Wajarri Yamatji note, for example, that the offence proscribed by s 17 of the AHA for the destruction or damage of Aboriginal sites is more limited than the concept of ‘interference’ under s 237(b).

3. In regard to the RSHA, Wajarri Yamatji submits that:

   ·The RSHA merely obliges the proponent to use its ‘best endeavours’ to provide the claimant group with an outline of the nature, location and timing of exploration activities proposed for the year, prior to conducting those activities;

   ·The RSHA permits ‘low impact exploration’ to be undertaken without heritage surveys or any notice being given to the claimant group, provided the proponent has used its ‘best endeavours’ to provide the claimant group with an outline of the nature, location and timing of exploration activities. The definition of ‘low impact activities’ is expansive and encompasses activities that could cause interference with areas or sites of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji;

   ·The RSHA requires that the proponent only provide notice to the claimant group if it makes ‘significant’ changes to the scope of its exploration activities;

   ·The RSHA does not require a heritage survey to be conducted where the claimant group considers there is a risk of interference with an area or sites of particular significance; and

   ·The RSHA only requires consultation with the claimant group if the proponent makes an application under s18 of the AHA, and the proponent is only required to make reasonable efforts to meet with the native title party in such circumstances.

4. Wajarri Yamatji’s contentions indicate they are willing to consent to exploration activity in the ‘pink box area’, but only in the event that Mr Little enters into a Weld Range Heritage Agreement.

5. Mr Little has provided contentions in this inquiry which indicate that he is a member of the Wajarri Yamatji claim group ‘and other Tribes in surrounding areas’, and respects ‘all of our people’s customs, beliefs or Law’. Mr Little states that most of the proposed licence is on the Glen Station, owned by the Seivwright Family, who run sheep and cattle on their pastoral lease over the Weld Range area and whom he has ‘known for many years’.

6. Mr Little further states he has heritage over the licence area, being a member of the Wajarri Yamatji claim group himself. He does not agree to the terms of the Weld Range Heritage Agreement sent to him by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji.

7. In further comments[1], Mr Little indicates his grandparents are Wajarri on his father’s side, his grandmother is Yugunga-Nya, and his grandfather is Badimia. He states he ‘is aware of the heritage places in this area’ and knows they are ‘not within the tenement’. Mr Little knew there were photos of artefacts in Mr Councillor’s affidavit, though did not wish to see the photos. In regard to those photos, Mr Little states that if the location of these items can be identified and they are on the licence, he would make sure not to disturb them. Furthermore, he states he knows the dreamtime stories contained in Mr Colin Hamlett’s affidavit and asserts ‘these stories are not part of my tenements’. Mr Little states he respects and appreciates the work Mr Colin Hamlett does ‘to keep the culture alive’.

   [1] Upon circulation of a map to parties in this inquiry, Mr Little responded that he did not take issue with the map and also provided further submissions. While these submissions were not specifically permitted to be filed pursuant to directions from the Tribunal, they were subsequently circulated to all parties and no party objected to the further submissions being considered in the inquiry, nor sought to provide a further reply. As such, I take them into consideration as part of Mr Little’s contentions in this matter.

8. Mr Little states he would like to carry on his ‘modern mining tradition and culture’ for both his own benefit and for other Yamatji people.

9. The State assert that if Wajarri Yamatji had legitimate concerns that a person who is not Wajarri Yamatji enters onto the licence, none of the affidavit evidence clearly addresses the fact that Mr Little is in fact a member of the Wajarri Yamatji people. As such, Mr Little is apparently entitled to enter onto the licence area and is aware of the need to take care while doing so. The State also does not accept Wajarri Yamatji’s assertion that mere presence in an area may cause direct interference with an area. They argue this must be established on the evidence, and I agree that this has not occurred.

Conclusion

1. I have found that the licence is in an area of particular significance to the native title party. I am not persuaded that interference for the purposes of s 237(b) of the Act is likely. Factors central to my decision are: the limited rights afforded to the holder of a prospecting licence; the underlying pastoral lease and the previous and continuing exploration activity in the area; the evidence of previous disturbance of the licence; and the State’s proposed RSHA condition. I also take into account Mr Little’s status as a member of the Wajarri Yamatji people. Although not determinative of the question of likely interference, this position nevertheless appears to afford him a rare insight, for a grantee party, into relevant heritage protection issues for the area.

Determination

1. The determination is that the act, namely the grant of exploration licence P20/2247 to Terrence Harold Little, is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

Helen Shurven
Member
28 June 2016

Appendix A: Draft Tenement Endorsement and Conditions

The grant of P20/2247 will be subject to the following conditions:

1. All surface holes drilled for the purpose of exploration are to be capped, filled or otherwise made safe immediately after completion.

2. All disturbances to the surface of the land made as a result of exploration, including costeans, drill pads, grid lines and access tracks, being backfilled and rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer, Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). Backfilling and rehabilitation being required no later than 6 months after excavation unless otherwise approved in writing by the Environmental Officer, DMP.

3. All waste materials, rubbish, plastic sample bags, abandoned equipment and temporary buildings being removed from the mining tenement prior to or at the termination of exploration program.

4. Unless the written approval of the Environmental Officer, DMP is first obtained, the use of drilling rigs, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes or other mechanised equipment for surface disturbance or the excavation of costeans is prohibited. Following approval, all topsoil being removed ahead of mining operations and separately stockpiled for replacement after backfilling and/or completion of operations.

5. The Licensee notifying the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease by telephone or in person, or by registered post if contact cannot be made, prior to undertaking airborne geophysical surveys or any ground disturbing activities utilising equipment such as scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes, drilling rigs; water carting equipment or other mechanised equipment.

6. The Licensee or transferee, as the case may be, shall within thirty (30) days of receiving written notification of:-

   ·the grant of the licence; or

   ·registration of a transfer introducing a new Licensee;

   advise, by registered post, the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease details of the grant or transfer.

The following draft endorsements (which differ from conditions in that the licensee will not be liable to forfeit the licence if breached) are also noted:

1. The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any Regulations thereunder.

2. The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.

In respect to Water Resource Management Areas (WRMA) the following endorsements apply:

1. The Licensee [sic] attention is drawn to the provisions of the:

   ·Waterways Conservation Act, 1976

   ·Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, 1914

   ·Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act, 1909

   ·Country Areas Water Supply Act, 1947

   ·Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984

   ·Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007

2. The rights of ingress to and egress from the mining tenement being at all reasonable times preserved to officers of Department of Water (DoW) for inspection and investigation purposes.

3. The storage and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous substances being in accordance with the current published version of the DoWs relevant Water Quality Protection Notes and Guidelines for mining and mineral processing.

In respect to Artesian (confined) Aquifers and Wells the following endorsement applies:

1. The abstraction of groundwater from an artesian well and the construction, enlargement, deepening or altering of any artesian well is prohibited unless a current licence for these activities has been issued by the DoW.

In respect to Waterways the following endorsement applies:

1. Advice shall be sought from the DoW if proposing any exploration within a defined waterway and within a lateral distance of:

   ·50 metres from the outer-most water dependant vegetation of any perennial waterway, and

   ·30 metres from the outer-most water dependant vegetation of any seasonal waterway.

In respect to Proclaimed Ground Water Areas the following endorsement applies:

1. The abstraction of groundwater is prohibited unless a current licence to construct/alter a well and a licence to take ground water has been issued by the DoW.