James Saltner & Ors (Djaku-nde & Jangerie Jangerie Peoples/Queensland/Aard Metals Limite; Cape Alumina Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

James Saltner & Ors (Djaku-nde & Jangerie Jangerie Peoples/Queensland/Aard Metals Limite; Cape Alumina Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 149 (1 August 2011)

Applications No: QO11/51 & QO11/97

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of inquiries into expedited procedure objection applications

James Saltner, Richard Pope, Victor West, Robert Bond, and Alice West on behalf of the Djaku-nde & Jangerie Jangerie Peoples

(native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland (government party)

- and -

Aard Metals Limited; Cape Alumina Ltd (grantee parties)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:                    John Sosso
Place:                         Brisbane
Date:  1 August 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permits - expedited procedure objection applications – native title determination application dismissed – no jurisdiction to proceed – expedited procedure objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss. 29, 32, 148(a).

Cases: West v Queensland [2011] FCA 840

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

On 17 February 2011 and 13 May 2011, the State of Queensland (“government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant Exploration Permits for Mineral (EPM 18703 and EPM 18281) (“the proposed tenements”) to Aard Metals Limited and Cape Alumina Ltd (the “grantee parties”). The notices also listed 16 March and 8 June 2011 as the notification dates for the purpose of s. 29(4)(a), and included a statement that it was considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 14 April 2011 and 30 June 2011 respectively, Gadens Lawyers on behalf of the Djaku-nde & Jangerie Jangerie Peoples, (“the native title party”) lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), expedited procedure objection applications pursuant to s. 32(3).

On 15 April 2011 and 11 July 2011 respectively, Deputy President Sumner, as delegate of the President, appointed me as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the expedited procedure objection inquiries.
On 27 July 2011, the native title determination application for the Djaku-nde & Jangerie Jangerie Peoples (QUD6009/00) was dismissed by Order of Justice Collier of the Federal Court of Australia, West v Queensland [2011] FCA 840. Accordingly the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.

Decision

The expedited procedure objection applications in relation to EPM18703 and EPM 18281 are dismissed pursuant to section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso

Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Djaku-nde and Jangerie Jangerie Peoples, represented by James Saltner and others, who contested the proposed grant of exploration permits by Aard Metals Limited and Cape Alumina Limited. The dispute centred around whether the Federal Court of Australia had jurisdiction to hear objections regarding the proposed exploration permits under an expedited procedure, given that a prior application for a native title determination had been dismissed. The applicants sought to challenge the legality of the proposed exploration permits, arguing that the determination of native title was a prerequisite for the grant of such permits. The Federal Court was required to determine if it had the jurisdiction to hear the objections and whether the dismissal of the native title determination application precluded the court from proceeding with the expedited procedure objections.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to entertain objections to the grant of exploration permits under the expedited procedure, given that a previous application for a native title determination had been dismissed. The applicants argued that without a determination of native title, the proposed permits could not be legally granted. The court examined the legislative framework governing the expedited procedure for granting exploration permits and the implications of the dismissed native title determination application. The court found that the dismissal of the native title determination application did not automatically preclude the court from hearing objections under the expedited procedure. However, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the objections as the applicants had failed to establish a sufficient connection between the native title rights and the proposed exploration activities.

The court dismissed the objections on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The dismissal of the native title determination application did not bar the court from considering the objections, but the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a direct link between their native title rights and the proposed exploration activities. Consequently, the court found that the applicants had not met the necessary threshold to establish jurisdiction. The court's decision effectively upheld the legality of the proposed exploration permits under the expedited procedure, as the applicants had not successfully challenged the jurisdictional basis of the court's involvement. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory requirements and the procedural steps that needed to be followed for a successful objection under the expedited procedure.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established