John Watson & Ors on behalf of Nyikina Mangala/Western Australia/Brockman Exploration Pty Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 35
•5 April 2013
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
John Watson and Ors on behalf of Nyikina Mangala/Western Australia/Brockman Exploration Pty Ltd [2013] NNTTA 35 (5 April 2013)
Application No: WO2011/0196, WO2011/0330
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications
John Watson and Others on behalf of Nyikina Mangala (WC1996/093) (native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Brockman Exploration Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Helen Shurven, Member
Place: Perth
Date: 5 April 2013
Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – whether acts are likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether acts are likely to interfere with sites of particular significance – whether acts are likely to cause major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure attracted
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 146, 151(2), 237
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 66
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (WA)
Water and Rivers Commission Act 1996 (WA)
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
Cases:Andy Campbell & Ors on behalf of the Birriliburu Native Title Holders/Western Australia/Murchison Metals Ltd [2012] NNTTA 48
Backreef Oil Pty Ltd and Oil Basins Ltd/JW (name withheld) and Ors on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala/Western Australia [2013] NNTTA 9
BW (deceased) and Others on behalf of Bunuba/Western Australia/Callum Baxter [2012] NNTTA 32
Champion v Western Australia (2005) 190 FLR 362
Cheinmora v Heron Resources Ltd (2005) 196 FLR 250
Daisy Lungunan and Others on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala/Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 24
Dann v Western Australia (1997) 144 ALR 1
Freddie v Western Australia (2007) 213 FLR 247
Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Bushwin Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 22
Little v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 576
Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon [2006] NNTTA 65
Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 60
Mark Lockyer & Ors (Kuruma Marthudunera)/Western Australia/Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2006] NNTTA 133
Monadee v Western Australia [2003] 174 FLR 381
Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027
Parker v Western Australia (2008) 167 FCR 340
Rosas v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 330
Silver v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR
Smith v Western Australia (2001) 108 FCR 442
Walley v Western Australia (2002) 169 FLR 437
Ward v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 303
Western Australia v Ward (1996) 70 FCR 265
WF (Deceased) & Ors on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Emergent Resources Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 17
Wilfred Goonack and Others on behalf of Uunguu/Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd and Timothy Vincent Tatterson [2009] NNTTA 72
Representatives of the Mr Reece O’Brien, Kimberley Land Council
native title party: Ms Danica Trewern, Kimberley Land Council
Representatives of the Mr Jeff O’Halloran, State Solicitor’s Office
Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representatives of the Mr Kevin Connell, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd
grantee party:
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
On 20 October and 17 November 2010, the State of Western Australia (‘the Government party’) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’, ‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licences E04/2036 and E04/2038 (‘the proposed licences’) to Brockman Exploration Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’). Included in each notice was a statement that the Government party considered the grant attracted the expedited procedure (that is, that the proposed licences are acts that can be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
The proposed licences are located in the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley and comprise areas of:
·E04/2036 – 35.73 square kilometres, 112 kilometres west of Fitzroy Crossing; and
·E04/2038 – 133.45 square kilometres, 79 kilometres south-east of Derby.
The registered native title claim of the Nyikina and Mangala (WC1999/025 – registered from 28 September 1999) overlaps the proposed licences in their entirety.
On 21 February and 17 March 2011 respectively, John Watson and others on behalf of the Nyikina and Mangala (‘the native title party’) lodged expedited procedure objection applications with the Tribunal for E04/2036 (WO2011/0198) and E04/2038 (WO2011/0330).
In accordance with what was then standard practice, the Tribunal gave directions for parties to provide contentions and evidence for an inquiry to determine whether or not the proposed licences attract the expedited procedure. These directions allowed a period after the objection lodgement closing date for parties to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement, which could lead to the disposal of the objection by consent.
Proposed licence E04/2036 was discussed at a preliminary conference held on 29 March 2011. The grantee party indicated its intention to negotiate with the native title party. On 10 May 2011, a preliminary conference was convened in relation to E04/2038 at which the grantee party agreed to consider the native title party’s proposed heritage protection agreement. The Tribunal convened further conferences in each matter as parties’ attempted to resolve the objections. The Department of Mines and Petroleum (‘DMP’) provided supporting documentation on behalf of the Government party on 27 February 2012, and on 13 March 2012 the Government party provided a statement of contentions, in respect of each matter. Over the course of the inquiry, the grantee party and the native title party made several requests for additional time to review and respond to various versions of the proposed agreement. Negotiations were hindered by delays on either side in obtaining instructions. Further extensions were granted on the basis that parties appeared to be moving toward an agreement. However, by 12 September 2012, it had become clear to the Tribunal that parties had reached an impasse. The Tribunal gave parties a further two weeks to resolve the matter, but no agreement was reached, and the Tribunal set directions for the inquiry. On 15 October 2012, the native title party requested an extension of time in which to file its statement of contentions. As there was no opposition, the Tribunal granted the extension.
On 11 December 2012, the native title party provided a statement of contentions addressing both objections, together with the affidavit of Mr Harry Watson affirmed on the same date. Following receipt of the native title party’s contentions, the Government party requested leave to respond, which was granted on 21 December 2012. The grantee party provided its contentions on 18 December 2012. The Government party provided a further set of contentions on 21 January 2013.
At a listing hearing held on 7 February 2013, parties agreed that the matter should be dealt with ‘on the papers’ in accordance with s 151(2) of the Act (that is, without a formal hearing). Having considered the material before me, I am satisfied that the objection can be adequately determined in this way.
While the Tribunal encourages parties to pursue negotiated outcomes where they are willing to do so, parties should be aware that this is not a mediation process. It is an arbitral process, and the Tribunal’s role is to determine whether or not the expedited procedure applies (s 31(4) of the Act). Once the Government party asserts the expedited procedure, parties are only required to negotiate if the Tribunal determines that the act is not an act attracting the expedited procedure, in which case the right to negotiate will apply as if the expedited procedure had not been asserted (s 31(5) of the Act). The lodgement of an objection does not trigger a separate negotiation process. Although the Tribunal extends a certain amount of latitude to parties who wish to deal with such matters by consent, the Tribunal will not allow negotiations to carry on indefinitely. In this regard, parties should bear in mind that the Federal Court has clearly stipulated that objections should be dealt with as speedily as possible (see Western Australia v Ward (1996) 70 FCR 265).
Legal principles
Section 237 of the Act provides:
237 Act attracting the expedited procedure
A future act is an act attracting the expedited procedure if:
(a) the act is not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(b) the act is not likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with their traditions, to the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of the native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(c) the act is not likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned.
In Walley v Western Australia (2002) 169 FLR 437, the Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President, considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]–[23]). I adopt those findings for the purposes of this inquiry (s 146 of the Act).
In relation to the nature of an exploration licence, including conditions to be imposed, I adopt the Tribunal’s findings in Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Bushwin Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 22 (‘Tarlpa’) at [10]-[16].
In relation to s 237(a), I adopt the Tribunal’s findings in Tarlpa on the following matters:
·History and interpretation of s 237(a) as amended (at [57]-[64]).
·The Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation of s 237(a) as amended (at [75]). Deputy President Sumner has made it clear (at [66]) that ‘the law as applied by the Tribunal since the 1998 amendments does now require there to be evidence of direct interference with the community or social activities of the native title party which are of a physical and not purely spiritual nature for the expedited procedure not to be attracted.’
·The definitions of ‘interfere directly’ and ‘carrying on’ as applied to s 237(a) (at [105]-[109]).
·Must the community or social activities take place on the proposed licence area? (at [85]-[86]).
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the findings of the Tribunal in Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon [2006] NNTTA 65 (‘Maitland Parker’) at [31]–[38], [40]-[41] (see also Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027; Parker v Western Australia (2008) 167 FCR 340). I also adopt the findings of Deputy President Sosso in Silver v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR (‘Silver’).
The task of the Tribunal in relation to s 237(c) is to undertake a predictive assessment as to the likelihood of major disturbance to land and waters on the basis that the definition of what constitutes ‘major disturbance’ should be determined by reference to what is likely to be done, rather than what could be done (see Little v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 576 (‘Little’), in particular [41]-[57]).
Evidence in relation to the proposed acts
Evidence provided by the Government party
The Government party has provided for both licences:
·a statement of contentions (‘GVP Contentions’);
·a statement of contentions in reply to the native title party’s contentions (‘GVP Reply’);
·Tengraph plans with topographical details, tenement boundaries, historical land tenure and Aboriginal communities within and in the vicinity of the each of the proposed licences;
·reports and plans from the Register of Aboriginal Sites maintained by the Department of Indigenous Affairs (‘DIA’);
·copies of the tenement applications and the proposed endorsements and conditions of grant;
·the instruments of licence and first schedule listing the land included and excluded from the grants; and
·Tengraph Quick Appraisals.
E04/2036
Government party documentation establishes the underlying land tenure of E04/2036 to be as follows:
·Pastoral lease 3114/571 (Nerrima) at 51.5 per cent;
·Pastoral lease I087500 (Liveringa) at 14.1 per cent;
·Pastoral lease 3114/1165 (Indigenous Held) (Myroodah) at 18.3 per cent;
·Historical lease 396/428 at 49.3 per cent;
·Historical lease 396/444 at 18.6 per cent;
·Crown reserve 23226 (Stock Route - Fitzroy Crossing to Nobbys Well) at 11.8 per cent;
·Vacant crown land at four per cent; and
·Road reserve (Camballin Nookanbah) at less than 0.1 per cent.
The Quick Appraisal documentation establishes that the whole of the land within E04/2036 is subject to an existing exploration licence granted to Blackfin Pty Ltd in 2005. The online tenement register maintained by the DMP shows that the exploration licence is currently subject to an application for forfeiture. The Quick Appraisal also shows that another application for an exploration licence is currently pending over the same area.
The area within E04/2036 has previously been subject to 13 mineral claims, each of which covered between 3.4 and less than 0.1 per cent of the proposed tenement area, and which were granted between 1978 and 1979 and either surrendered or cancelled between 1980 and 1982. The proposed tenement area has been subject to four temporary reserves granted between 1965 and 1973 covering between 26.8 and 72.6 per cent of the area, with an average lifespan of two years. The Quick Appraisal also shows that the proposed licence is entirely overlapped by petroleum exploration permit 458.
The Quick Appraisal indicates that the services affected include: a minor unsealed road; two fence lines; three non-perennial lakes; two major and nine minor non-perennial watercourses (including the Fitzroy River); and 19 springs/soaks/rockholes/waterholes, including Broken Wagon Pool. The Quick Appraisal also shows that the proposed licence is subject to a National Heritage Listing (NHL/106063, ‘The Kimberley’)
An extract from the Aboriginal Sites Database maintained by the DIA in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (‘AHA’) shows that there are two registered sites within E04/2036:
·Fitzroy River – Site ID 12687 – open access – no restriction – mythological; and
·Walanggari 2 – Site ID 14226 – open access – no restriction – mythological
The extract also indicates that there is one ‘other heritage place’ within E04/2036 (Fitzroy River – Site ID 13575 – insufficient information – open access – no restriction).
A draft Tenement Endorsement and Conditions Extract for E04/2036 included with the Government party documentation indicates that the grant will be subject to the standard four conditions imposed on the grant of all exploration licences in Western Australia (see Tarlpa at [11]). Additional conditions are to be imposed as follows:
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 requirement 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.
7.Written notification, where practicable, of the time frame, type and extent of proposed ground disturbing activities being forwarded to the Department of Water Kununurra seven days prior to commencement of those activities.
8.Any significant waterway (flowing or not), wetland or its fringing vegetation that may exist on site not being disturbed or removed without prior written approval from the Department of Water.
9.The rights of ingress to and egress from the licence being at all reasonable times preserved to officers of the Department of Water for inspection and investigation purposes.
10.The storage and disposal of hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous substances being in accordance with the Department of Water’s Guidelines and Water Quality Protection Notes.
11.Activities requiring the abstraction of water from any waterway, wetland or drain is prohibited unless the Department of Water has granted an abstraction licence.
12.Activities that may disrupt the natural flow of any watercourse are prohibited unless a licence has been obtained from the Department of Water.
13.Activities on any existing or designated future irrigation area, or on any strip of land within 50 metres of an irrigation channel, drain wetland or watercourse being confined to surface geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys and drilling unless the written approval of the the Department of Water is first obtained.
14.Excavation activities are prohibited on any existing or designated future irrigation districts, or on any area of land within 50 metres of the banks of an irrigation channel, drain, wetland or watercourse, unless undertaken with the written permission from the Director, Environment, DMP and the Department of Water.
Consent to explore on Stock Route Reserve 23226 granted subject to:
15.No exploration activities being carried out on Stock Route Reserve 23226 which restrict the use of the reserve.
The following endorsements (which differ from conditions in that the breach of an endorsement does not make the licensee liable to forfeiture of the licence) will also be imposed on the grant of the proposed licence:
1.The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the:
·Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any related Regulations thereunder;
·Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 and any Regulations thereunder; and
·Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 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.
3.The land the subject of this licence affects an area under quarantine for Noogoora Burr (under the provisions of the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976) delineated in red and shown as File Notation Area 320 in TENGRAPH. Access to the quarantine area is subject to the licensee obtaining an entry permit from the Kununurra Regional Office of the Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia.
E04/2038
Government party documentation establishes the underlying land tenure of E04/2038 to be as follows:
·Pastoral lease 3114/480 (Indigenous Held) (Mt Anderson) at 82.3 per cent;
·Pastoral lease I087500 (Liveringa) at 7.4 per cent;
·Historical lease 396/443 at 92.6 per cent;
·Crown Reserve 23226 (Stock Route – Fitzroy Crossing to Nobbys Well) at 9.5 per cent; and
·Two road reserves at less than 0.1 per cent;
The Quick Appraisal documentation establishes that the whole of the land within E04/2038 is currently subject to two existing exploration licences granted to Blackfin Pty Ltd in 2005, which are subject to applications for forfeiture. The Quick Appraisal also shows that another application for an exploration licence is currently pending over 92.7 per cent of the area.
The area within E04/2038 has previously been subject to an exploration licence granted in 2003 and surrendered in 2004, overlapping at 7.3 per cent, and one mineral claim granted in 1978 and surrendered in 1980, overlapping at 0.7 per cent. The proposed licence area has also been subject to seven temporary reserves granted between 1965 and 1981 and cancelled within one to four years, each of which covered between 1.6 and 97.7 per cent of the area. The proposed licence is wholly overlapped by petroleum exploration permit 458.
The Quick Appraisal indicates that the services affected include: three minor unsealed roads (including Mount Anderson Road); five tracks; three fence lines; three wells/bores with windmills (Spring B, No 7 B and Keavie B); three earth dams; one major non-perennial watercourse; one minor non-perennial watercourse; and over 30 spring/soak/rockholes. The Quick Appraisal also shows that the proposed licence is subject to a National Heritage Listing (NHL/106063, ‘The Kimberley’)
An extract from the Aboriginal Sites Database shows that there are three registered sites within E04/2038:
·Parrurtan – Site ID 13194 – closed access – no restriction – ceremonial – meeting place, camp, water source;
·Wiminna – Site ID 13196 – closed access – male access only – ceremonial; and
·Yikapu – Site ID 13198 – closed access – no restriction – ceremonial, mythological, quarry – plant resource, camp, water source.
The extract also indicates that there are three ‘other heritage’ places within E04/2036, namely:
·Kujilkapu – Site ID 13195 – insufficient information – open access – no restriction – camp, water source;
·Jirrirri – Site ID 13197 – insufficient information – open access – no restriction – plant resource, camp, hunting place, water source; and
·Parlkanjirl – Site ID 13199 – insufficient information – closed access – no restriction – ceremonial, mythological.
The draft Tenement Endorsement and Conditions Extract for E04/2038 indicates that the grant will be subject to the standard four conditions imposed on the grant of all exploration licences in Western Australia (see Tarlpa at [11]). Additional conditions will be imposed in the same terms as draft conditions 5, 6 and 15 for E04/2036 (see above at [21]). The following endorsements will also be imposed on the grant of E04/2038:
1.The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any related 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.
3.The land the subject of this licence affects an area under quarantine for Noogoora Burr (under the provisions of the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976) delineated in red and shown as File Notation Area 320 in TENGRAPH. Access to the quarantine area is subject to the licensee obtaining an entry permit from the Kununurra Regional Office of the Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia.
GVP Contentions state (at paragraph 5(d)) that a further condition will be placed on the grant of the proposed licences requiring the licensee, at the request of the native title party, to execute a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) in the native title party’s favour.
I refer below to the GVP Contentions and the GVP Reply in further detail in relation to each of the s 237 criteria.
Evidence provided by the native title party
Evidence provided by the native title party consists of a statement of contentions (‘NTP Contentions’) and the affidavit of Mr Harry Watson.
Affidavit of Mr Watson
Mr Watson lives in the Jarlmadangah community and I accept that he is authorised to speak for the relevant country on behalf of the native title party. The Tribunal’s usual practice in matters such as this is to reproduce any affidavit in full, unless it has issued directions restricting the disclosure of all or part of the document. I was not requested to make directions of that kind in the present matter. However, I am aware, through my involvement in another inquiry, that parts of Mr Watson’s affidavit may contain information regarded by members of the native title party as culturally sensitive: see Backreef Oil Pty Ltd and Oil Basins Ltd/JW (name withheld) and Ors on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala/Western Australia [2013] NNTTA 9 (‘Backreef’). In that matter, on the application of the native title party, the Tribunal issued directions restricting disclosure of the native title party’s evidence. Though the native title party did not raise any concerns about Mr Watson’s evidence in the present inquiry, in light of the directions I made in Backreef, I consider it appropriate to limit the Tribunal’s disclosure of the information. Consequently, I discuss the contents of Mr Watson’s affidavit only to the extent necessary to identify the findings on which my decision is based.
Contentions
The native title party’s contentions are directed to each limb of s 237.
Section 237(a) – Community or Social Activities
At paragraph 13 of its contentions, the native title party (summarising its evidence in relation to community and social activities) states that its members:
·belong to the country within the proposed licence areas;
·live, camp and conduct their community within the proposed licence areas;
·conduct Law ceremonies in the proposed licence areas;
·hunt and fish within the proposed licence areas;
·visit country and collect traditional foods and products in the proposed licence areas;
·look after burial places and sites of importance and significance in and around the proposed licence areas;
·have ancestors and family who are buried within, and close to, the proposed licence areas;
·are responsible, under traditional law and custom, for the protection of rock paintings within the proposed licence areas; and
·are custodians of traditional stories and knowledge connected to the land within, and close to, the proposed licence areas.
At paragraph 16, the native title party also contends that members of the native title party:
·access and use the proposed licence areas for the purpose of educating young people in culture and tradition; and
·collect material from within the proposed licence areas for use in ceremony.
Furthermore, the native title party contends that the ‘mere existence’ of the grantee party on the proposed licences, in circumstances where there has been no negotiation or consultation between the native title party and the grantee party, is likely to ‘give rise to a direct interference with the carrying [on] of the community or social activities of the Native Title Party, notwithstanding the absence of any direct physical interference’ (NTP Contentions, paragraph 14).
Section 237(b) – Sites of particular significance
The native title party contends (at paragraph 19) that the proposed licences are located in a site rich area, referring to the sites listed above at [21] – [22] and [29] – [30] as well as to ‘other areas of particular significance and importance’ identified in Mr Watson’s affidavit. The native title party states the areas identified by Mr Watson have not been registered because their locations are confidential to the native title party (at paragraph 19).
The native title party contends (at paragraph 20) that the protections afforded under the AHA are limited to the sites and objects defined in s 5 of the AHA, though it makes no specific contentions regarding the application of the AHA to sites or areas within the proposed licence areas. The native title party further submits that the grantee party may interfere with a site of particular significance within the meaning of s 237(b) of the Act without being in breach of the AHA, and that mere presence in some areas may cause direct interference with an area or site (at paragraph 24). Again, the native title party makes no specific contentions in this regard concerning the sites or areas said to exist within the proposed licences. The native title party also submits (at paragraph 27) that ‘[t]he complex nature and number of sites and areas of particular significance’ within and around the proposed licence areas reduces the effectiveness of an endorsement on the grant of the proposed licences drawing the grantee party’s attention to the provisions of the AHA.
Section 237(c) – Major disturbance to land or waters
The native title party contends that the grant of the proposed licences will create rights whose exercise is likely to involve a major disturbance. Specifically, the native title party draws attention (at paragraph 34) to the rights conferred by the grant of the exploration licences outlined in s 66 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (‘Mining Act’), which permit the holder to undertake:
·reverse circulation drilling in areas of hypersaline groundwater;
·diamond core drilling, including the creation of drill holes;
·excavation of up to 1000 tonnes of material;
·the creation of exploration tracks;
·the creation of drill pads; and
·the excavation of minerals and earth in the course of exploration activities.
Furthermore, the native title party contends there are sites within the proposed licence areas which are so significant to the local Aboriginal community that, in accordance with traditional law and culture, unauthorised persons may not be present at them. The native title party submits the grant of the proposed licences will, therefore, place a burden on local Aboriginal people to look after strangers in their country, which in the circumstances will cause a major disturbance to the land or waters concerned.
Evidence provided by the grantee party
The grantee party’s contentions (‘GP Contentions’) state that negotiations about a heritage protection agreement took place over several months, but parties were unable to reach agreement on the terms (at paragraph 12). The contentions further state that the grantee party ‘undertakes to continue dialogue’ with the native title party and intends to negotiate a heritage protection agreement prior to commencing ground-disturbing activities (at paragraph 13). According to its contentions, the grantee party also undertakes to:
·comply with the ‘relevant statutes, protocols, codes of practices (including those relating to exploration upon mining titles), conditions on the grant of the Licences and other directions and requirements of Government party and other relevant authorities in the exploration of the licences’ (paragraph 5);
·closely liaise with the native title party during the course of the exploration program (paragraph 7); and
·consult with the native title party before commencing exploration to ensure that any disturbance is minimised and does not impact on sites of significance or local communities (paragraph 14).
The GP Contentions state that the grantee party ‘has a sound environmental record relating to its mining and exploration activities and has never been prosecuted for breach of any legislation’ (at paragraph 9), and its employees and contractors are instructed to comply strictly with all environmental conditions and practices (at paragraph 6). The GP Contentions also state the grantee party has ‘extensive experience in working with indigenous peoples and has entered into mining and exploration agreements with the representative bodies of native title parties,’ and in relation to these, the grantee party holds regular liaison committee meetings to keep native title holders informed of its activities (at paragraph 10).
The GP Contentions state (at paragraph 11) that the grantee party understands the proposed licence area is culturally important to the native title party and that, in addition to the sites registered under the AHA, there may be other sites or areas of importance to the native title party within the proposed licences.
Considering the evidence
Community or social activities - s 237(a)
The Tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the proposed licences and activities undertaken in relation to the licences are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference) (see Smith v Western Australia (2001) 108 FCR 442 (‘Smith’) at [23]). Direct interference involves an evaluative judgment that the future act is likely to be the proximate cause of the interference and must be substantial and not trivial in its impact on community or social activities (see Smith at [23]). The assessment is also contextual, taking account of other factors that may have already had an impact on a native title party’s community or social activities (such as mining or pastoral activity) (see Smith at [27]).
Mr Watson states that:
·people from Jarlmadangah, Noonkanbah and Ngala-bida (Kurabai community) visit the proposed licence areas on a regular basis to fish, hunt, camp, collect bush tucker and medicine, and practice tradition and culture (paragraph 7);
·there are two camp sites within E04/2036 that are used by members of the native title party, one of which is located on a named river and the other at a named site which is variously described as a river and a billabong (paragraph 10);
·members of the native title party camp ‘all around’ E04/2038, including Lower Liveringa Outcamp, No 6 Bore, Keavies Dam, No 1 Bore and Goanna Hole Bore (paragraph 11);
·he fishes along the river within the proposed licence areas, specifically in areas below Lower Liveringa Pool in E04/2038 and around Nerrima Outcamp in E04/2036 (paragraph 12);
·he hunts within the proposed licence areas, specifically at Nerrima, Yari Yari and the desert south of Nerrima, as well as at Nerrima Outcamp and Mount Noreen in E04/2036 and Keavies Dam and Bore No 7 in E04/2038 (paragraph 13);
·members of the native title party also hunt in the country to the north, east and west of the proposed licences (paragraph 14);
·members of the native title party take young people to the proposed licence areas to teach them to hunt, fish, camp, collect bush tucker and medicine and practice tradition and culture (paragraphs 9 and 14);
·members of the native title party sometimes use Mount Anderson Road to access the areas in and around the proposed licences (paragraph 14);
·he collects bush tucker from billabongs near, around and within the proposed licence areas (paragraph 16); and
·he collects bush medicine alongside the river in the proposed licence areas (paragraph 17).
According to Tribunal mapping:
·Jarlmadangah is located approximately five kilometres south of E04/2038;
·Noonkanbah (Yungngora) and Kurabai/Koorabye (Ngala-bida/Ngalapita) are located between 24 and 25 kilometres southeast of E04/2036;
·the community of Looma is approximately 12 kilometres southeast of E04/2038;
·Yari Yari (Yarri Yarri) is located 50 kilometres south of E04/2036;
·Lower Liveringa Outcamp and Pool are situated approximately two kilometres northeast of E04/2038;
·Goanna Hole Bore is located approximately two and a half kilometres north of E04/2038;
·No 1 Bore is located approximately five kilometres north of E04/2038;
·No 6 Bore is located approximately two kilometres north of E04/2038;
·No 7 Bore is located on or near the southern boundary of E04/2038;
·Keavies Dam is located in the northern portion of E08/2038 (within the boundaries of Site ID 13198);
·Nerrima Outcamp is situated approximately 30 kilometres west of E08/2036;
·Mount Noreen is located approximately 36 kilometres east of E08/2036;
·The named river/billabong appears to be located north of Noonkanbah/Yungngora, though it is unclear whether or not it extends into E04/2036; and
·Mount Anderson Road passes through the eastern portion of E08/2038.
The Tribunal’s Geospatial Services Unit was unable to locate the named river, stated to be near the campsites within E04/2036.
The Government party accepts the majority of the community or social activities referred to in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the native title party’s contentions are carried on by the native title party in or around the proposed licences (GVP Reply, paragraph 49). However, the Government party does not accept the native title party’s contention that ‘belonging to country’ or having ancestors and family who are buried within or close to the proposed licences are ‘activities’ within the meaning of s 237(b) (GVP Reply, paragraph 50). In any event, these matters are not addressed in Mr Watson’s evidence.
Given the proximity of the proposed licences to communities where members of the native title party reside (for example, Lower Liveringa Outcamp, Jarlmadangah and Koorabye), I accept that members of the native title party carry on the activities referred to in Mr Watson’s affidavit within the proposed licences and the surrounding areas. However, aside from Mr Watson’s statement that he and others went hunting in the areas in and around the proposed licences ‘a couple of weeks ago’ and took boys out to the area the following week, there are no specific references in his affidavit to the frequency with which members of the native title party access the relevant areas to carry on the activities described, apart from suggesting the activites occur ‘regularly’ or on a ‘regular’ basis. However, given that Mr Watson identifies a number of places either within or near the proposed licence areas, it is possible to infer that members of the native title party carry out those activities on a fairly regular basis. While the majority of places specifically identified by Mr Watson are situated within or around E04/2038, which may reflect the proximity of Jarlmadangah and other communities, the fact that several of the activities are associated with the Fitzroy River supports a similar finding in relation to E04/2036.
The Government party contends that, even if it is accepted that the native title party carries on community or social activities within the proposed licences, there is not likely to be direct interference with those activities as a result of the proposed licences. In particular, the Government party submits that any intersection between the activities of the grantee party and the community or social activities of the native title party would be the same as, or no more significant than, the previous and continuing use of the areas (GVP Reply, paragraphs 51(b) and (c)). Furthermore, the Government party submits that the grantee party has expressed its intention to consult with the native title party in relation to its exploration programme, and to avoid activities likely to interfere with the native title party’s community and social activities (GVP Reply, paragraph 51(a)). In any event, the Government party argues that the exercise of the grantee party’s rights under the proposed licence is unlikely to substantially interfere with the native title party’s community or social activities (GVP Reply, paragraphs 51(e) and (f)).
Though there is no evidence of the degree to which previous and continuing exploration, pastoral activity and possible mining have interfered with the native title party’s community or social activities, the Tribunal is entitled, as part of the overall context, to have regard to the fact that the exercise of past and present non-native title rights and interests will already have done so to some extent (see Tarlpa at [122]). However, I have also taken into account the fact that large areas of the proposed licences, particularly in E04/2038, are subject to Indigenous owned pastoral leases. As Deputy President Sosso observed in Monadee v Western Australia [2003] 174 FLR 381 (‘Monadee’) at [28], considerations that otherwise arise in relation to the impact of ongoing pastoral activity do not automatically occur in the case of Indigenous owned pastoral leases. That said, in Monadee, the Tribunal was able to rely on evidence that the native title holders could freely enter the area, whereas the native title party in this matter has not provided such evidence. In any case, both areas are currently subject to existing exploration licences. Though no evidence has been put before me regarding the activities carried on by the holder of those licences, I am satisfied that the grantee party’s activities are unlikely to interfere with the native title party’s community or social activities to a greater extent than the activities likely to have been carried on under the existing exploration licences.
Though I am entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence about the grantee party’s exploration programme, that it will fully exercise the rights conferred by the grant of the proposed licences (see Silver at [30] – [32]), the evidence does not suggest that the exercise of those rights will interfere significantly with the native title party’s community or social activities. Moreover, the grantee party has expressed its intention to exercise those rights in a way that will not interfere with local communities. While it is possible that the grantee party’s exploration activities might restrict the native title party’s access to parts of the proposed licence areas at specific times, any interference with the native title party’s community or social activities would likely be incidental and unsubstantial.
In this regard, I note Mr Watson’s evidence that, in addition to the proposed licence areas, members of the native title party also hunt in the country to the north, east and west of the proposed licences. Of the places identified by Mr Watson as areas where the native title party engages in specific activities, only two are actually located within the proposed licence areas, and both are within E04/2038. Although several of the activities described by Mr Watson occur along the Fitzroy River, none of those activities appear to be specifically associated with those parts of the river that flow through the proposed licences. I have also had regard to the fact that the total area of the native title claim is approximately 27,250 square kilometres, which makes it less likely that the grant of the proposed licences (at a total of approximately 170 square kilometres) will have a significant effect on the native title party’s community or social activities.
Insofar as the NTP Contentions are directed to belonging to country, burial sites and unauthorised access, I do not consider that these matters fall within the scope of s 237(a). Section 237(a) requires direct physical interference with the community or social activities of the native title party. It is not enough that the proposed act is said to cause emotional or spiritual distress or otherwise affects the community life of the native title party. There must be a real risk or chance that the proposed act may directly interfere with physical activities, whether or not those activities have a spiritual dimension: see Silver at [56]; Walley at [7]-[21]; Tarlpa at [65]-[75]. While the existence of burial sites may demonstrate a spiritual or ancestral connection to the land, it is not an ‘activity’ for the purposes of s 237(a). Similarly, the native title party has not identified in what way the ‘mere existence’ of the grantee party in the proposed licence areas will result in direct physical interference with any community or social activities carried on by the native title party. In relation to the native title party’s contention that its members are responsible for the protection of burial places and rock paintings, there is no evidence that there are any sites of that kind within the proposed licence areas.
Without more specific evidence of the potential impact of the possible exercise of rights under the proposed licences, I can’t accept Mr Watson’s suggestion that exploration will harm the fish in the river and drive animals away, or that it will have some effect on plant life in the area. In addition, the documents provided by the Government party indicate that the grant of E04/2036 will be subject to a number of conditions that regulate the grantee party’s activities with respect to water (see conditions 7 to 14, above at [23]). The endorsements on the grant of E04/2036 also draw the licensee’s attention to the provisions of the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1996 (WA) and the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA). I am satisfied that the grantee party intends to comply with the conditions of the grant, as well as the provisions of the relevant legislation.
In the circumstances, taking into account the available evidence, I am unable to conclude that there is a real chance or risk there will be direct interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(a) of the Act.
Sites of particular significance - s 237(b)
The issue the Tribunal is required to determine in relation to s 237(b) of the Act is whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with areas or sites of particular (that is, more than ordinary) significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions. As noted above at [21] - [22] and [29] - [30], extracts from the Aboriginal Sites Database establish the existence of two registered sites and one ‘other heritage place’ within E04/2036, and three registered sites and three ‘other heritage places’ within E04/2038. This does not mean that there may not be other sites or areas of significance to the native title party in the area of the proposed licence or in the vicinity. The Register does not purport to be a record of all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia, and the Tribunal will consider whether there is evidence to support the existence of relevant sites in particular matters.
Mr Watson deposes that:
·there is an important songline which travels through the proposed licence areas (paragraph 20);
·there is a named billabong (or river) within or very close to E04/2036 which is very important for the songline (paragraph 21);
·there are a number of places along the river up to and including the billabong (or river) which were named by the mythical being associated with the songline, though it is unclear from Mr Watson’s affidavit whether these places are within either of the proposed licences or the surrounding areas (paragraph 22);
·there are places associated with the songline to which access is restricted to men (paragraph 23);
·there is an important named site within or very close to E04/2036 (paragraph 24);
·exploration will destroy the billabong (or river), the important named site close to E04/2036 and other named places, as well as the songline itself (paragraphs 25, 32-33); and
·exploration will destroy the bush mangrove which was used by the mythical being to stun fish in the river and is still used by members of the native title party for that purpose (paragraph 26).
The Government party contends that, despite the fact that Mr Watson refers to a number of places within or close to the proposed licence as areas which are ‘important’ to the native title party, that is not determinative of whether or not they are sites of particular significance, nor is the fact that some sites are registered under the AHA while others are not (GVP Reply, paragraph 60). The Government party argues that, although a site associated with a song or story may be a site of particular significance, there must be evidence that demonstrates the site ‘stands out’ from the general background of other sites and the country as a whole (GVP Reply, paragraph 61). In the Government party’s submission, there is no evidence that the sites referred to in the NTP Contentions or Mr Watson’s affidavit stand out in this way.
To the extent that Mr Watson’s evidence suggests the songline follows the same course as the Fitzroy River, I accept that it travels through E04/2036. Though the Tribunal’s mapping places the Fitzroy River between one and six kilometres west of E04/2038, I acknowledge the songline may not follow the exact path of the river and may at some point cross into the proposed licence area. As noted above at [49], the Tribunal’s mapping suggests that the named river/billabong is located to the north of Noonkanbah, and it is unclear whether or not it extends into E04/2036. Though Mr Watson states that the important named site is within or very close to E04/2036, the Tribunal was unable to identify its location (as outlined at [50]).
In Backreef (at [81]), the evidence before the Tribunal established that the songline in question forms a central tenet of Nyikina customary belief and practice. While I adopt that finding for the purpose of this inquiry, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the songline, or at least those parts of the songline which pass through the proposed licences, are sites or areas of particular significance. That is a matter to be assessed on the basis of the evidence presented in each particular case (see Freddie v Western Australia (2007) 213 FLR 247 at [44]-[47]).
In the present matter, there is nothing to suggest that any parts of the songline that pass through the proposed licences are particularly significant to the native title party. Although Mr Watson refers to areas where only men can go, he does not specify whether any of these areas are located within the proposed licence areas. Nor is there evidence to support the native title party’s contention that the mere presence of the grantee party in specific areas may cause direct interference with sites or areas of particular significance. The fact that Mr Watson distinguishes between specific places associated with the songline, and the songline itself, suggests that certain areas are regarded as more significant than others (see WF (Deceased) & Ors on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Emergent Resources Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 17). However, there is no evidence that the places referred to by Mr Watson have significance apart from their connection with the songline. In this respect, there does not appear to be any meaningful distinction between the named places and the other places said to be associated with the songline. As Mr Watson’s evidence does not provide any guidance as to where these places are in relation to the proposed licences, I am not able to conclude the proposed licences are likely to interfere with them (see Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 60 at [39]; Cheinmora v Heron Resources Ltd (2005) 196 FLR 250 at [43]). While I acknowledge the native title party’s argument that the location of these places is confidential, where such sensitivities are known, the relevant party can seek non-disclosure directions under s 155 of the Act.
In relation to Mr Watson’s evidence about the bush mangrove, it is unclear whether he is referring to a specific area, or areas where the bush mangrove can be found, or to the plant itself. To the extent that the reference is to the plant itself, it would not fit the description of a ‘site’ or ‘area’ as required under s 237(b). It is possible to infer from Mr Watson’s evidence that the plant grows in particular areas within the proposed licences. However, his evidence does not suggest that there is anything particularly significant about these areas, as opposed to other places within the claim area where the plant might be found. In addition, Mr Watson does not state that the areas of the proposed licences are the only place the bush mangrove is found within the claim area.
In relation to the native title party’s assertion the areas is ‘site rich’, the Tribunal has noted in previous determinations that whether an area is ‘site rich’ does not form part of the criteria to be considered in determining whether the expedited procedure applies. Rather, the Tribunal’s use of the term reflects an evidentiary conclusion about the existence of sites or areas of particular significance and the likelihood of interference (see for example Daisy Lungunan and Others on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala/Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 24 at [43]; Andy Campbell & Ors on behalf of the Birriliburu Native Title Holders/Western Australia/Murchison Metals Ltd [2012] NNTTA 48 at [55]). Section 237(b) requires the Tribunal to assess whether the future act is likely to interfere with sites or areas of particular significance to the persons who are the holders of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned. The first step of that inquiry is to determine whether the evidence establishes the existence of sites or areas of that kind. It is not enough to merely assert an area is site rich based on the existence of registered sites. Though the presence of a number of registered sites in a particular area may put the Tribunal on notice about the potential significance of the area, it is no more determinative of the particular significance of the area than registration is determinative of the particular significance of an individual site (see Ward v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 303 at 326-327; Mark Lockyer & Ors (Kuruma Marthudunera)/Western Australia/Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2006] NNTTA 133 at [18]). In the present case, the evidence does not establish that either the registered sites or the other places mentioned by Mr Watson are sites or areas of particular significance. As such, there is no basis on which to conclude that the proposed licences are ‘site rich’.
Though I accept there may be significant sites or areas to the native title party within or in the vicinity of the proposed licences, I also accept that the grantee party is aware of its obligations under the AHA and has undertaken to consult with the native title party before carrying out ground-disturbing activities. The grantee party is on notice about the possible existence of sites or areas of particular significance within the proposed licences and the surrounding areas, and I am satisfied that it will take steps to avoid interference with any sites or areas of that kind. There is nothing before me to suggest that the regulatory regime would be inadequate in the present circumstances. Consequently, I find there is no real risk that the grant of the proposed licence will result in interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(b).
Major disturbance to land and waters - s 237(c)
The Tribunal is required to make an evaluative judgment of whether major disturbance to land and waters is likely to occur (in the sense that there is a real risk of it) from the point of view of the entire Australian community, including the Aboriginal community, as well as taking into account the concerns of the native title party (see Little at [41]-[57]).
The native title party submits the grant of the proposed licences will create rights (including rights to drill, clear exploration tracks, construct drill pads, and extract up to 1000 tonnes of material) whose exercise is likely to involve a major disturbance. In reply, the Government party contends (at paragraph 75) the proposed licences are unlikely to involve major disturbance (or create rights the exercise of which is likely to involve major disturbance) for the following reasons:
·The exercise of the rights conferred by the proposed licences will be regulated by the State’s regimes with respect to mining, Aboriginal heritage, and the environment.
·Any authorised disturbance may be mitigated as a result of conditions proposed by the Government party requiring rehabilitation of the land following the completion of exploration.
·The area of the proposed licences has been subject to prior mineral exploration and possibly mining activity and is largely covered by pastoral leases and mineral tenements. In this regard, the Government party submits the activities proposed by the grantee party will be the same as, or no more significant than, the previous and continuing use of the area.
·It does not appear the land or waters have any particular characteristics which would support the conclusion that the activities proposed by the grantee party are likely to result in major disturbance.
In determining whether a proposed act is likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve a major disturbance to land or waters, the Tribunal will have regard to the overall circumstances of each case, including the locality in which the future act is to take place and the regulatory regimes that apply. However, the Tribunal has generally concluded that the grant of an exploration licence under the Mining Act will not involve a major disturbance unless there are special topographical, geological or environmental factors which would lead members of the community to think that exploration activities would result in a major disturbance to the land or waters (see Champion v Western Australia (2005) 190 FLR 362 at [75]-[77] and the cases cited). In the present case, the native title party has not provided evidence of any special characteristics that would lead me to conclude the rights created by the proposed licences are likely to involve a major disturbance. Mr Watson asserts that exploration will destroy sites and ‘leave a big hole’ in the land. Mr Watson also suggests that exploration will affect flora and fauna in the area, including by killing the fish in the river. However, there is no evidence that the grantee party’s activities are likely to have those effects, particularly in light of the grantee party’s intention to consult with the native title party about its exploration programme.
In determining whether or not the proposed licences are likely to involve a major disturbance to land or waters, I have taken into account the following factors:
·Most of the proposed licence areas are covered by current and historical pastoral leases, as well as a stock route, where disturbance has already and, in the case of the stock route and the current leases, will continue to occur.
·There is a history of mining and exploration in the area, and both of the proposed licences are currently subject to existing exploration licences and a petroleum exploration permit.
·The conditions to be imposed on the proposed licences require the approval of the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s Environmental Officer before mechanised equipment may be used and impose various rehabilitation measures (for example, standard conditions 3 and 4, and condition 6).
·The endorsements on the proposed licence direct the grantee party’s attention to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (WA).
·There is no evidence that the grantee party will not comply with the regulatory regime.
The native title party contends there are sites within the proposed licences which are so significant to the local Aboriginal community that, in accordance with traditional law and culture, unauthorised persons may not be present at them. The native title party submits that a burden will, therefore, be placed on local Aboriginal people to look after strangers in their country, and the grant of the proposed licences in these circumstances will cause a major disturbance from the point of view of the local community. In this regard, Mr Watson states he ‘feel[s] very hurt about people coming in the area without asking’ (at paragraph 30). According to Mr Watson, if someone wants to access the area, they must ‘go through the right channels’ and, if people are not consulted, the country will be destroyed, which will have a negative effect on the community (at paragraph 31-32).
The Tribunal must take into account the concerns of the Aboriginal community, including matters such as community life, customs, traditions and the cultural concerns of the native title holders (see Dann v Western Australia (1997) 144 ALR 1). However, the starting point and pre-condition of any inquiry into matters relating to s 237(c) is evidence of proposed physical disturbance to land and waters (Rosas v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 330 (‘Rosas’) at [84]). Though the Tribunal may consider evidence relating to the impact of the proposed acts on the community life, customs and traditions of the native title party, the evidence must be directed towards the issue of major disturbance and may not simply repeat contentions raised under ss 237(a) or (b) (Rosas at [84]). Cultural concerns about unauthorised access cannot, on their own, form the basis of a finding that major disturbance is likely to occur (see Wilfred Goonack and Others on behalf of Uunguu/Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd and Timothy Vincent Tatterson [2009] NNTTA 72 (‘Geotech’) at [44]). Accordingly, I do not accept the native title party’s contention that unauthorised access will result in major disturbance to the land and waters concerned.
Though no party sought to raise the issue, I note that the proposed licences are located within a National Heritage Listed area. As I observed in BW (deceased) and Others on behalf of Bunuba/Western Australia/Callum Baxter [2012] NNTTA 32, the Tribunal has previously found that a National Heritage Listing is not determinative of whether major disturbance is likely (see Geotech at [44]). In the present matter, I have not seen any evidence to support the conclusion that the National Heritage Listing makes it any more likely that the proposed licences will result in major disturbance to the land and waters.
Taking into account all of these considerations, I do not find that the proposed licences is likely to involve, or create rights that are likely to involve, disturbance of the kind contemplated by s 237(c).
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of exploration licences E04/2036 and E04/2038 to Brockman Exploration Pty Ltd, are acts attracting the expedited procedure.
Helen Shurven
Member
5 April 2013
0
24
0