Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Carrick Gold Ltd

[2005] NNTTA 32

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Carrick Gold Ltd, [2005] NNTTA 32 (6 May 2005)

Application No:        WO04/261

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

-and-

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

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People - WC98/27 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Carrick Gold Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  6 May 2005

Catchwords:  Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection application – failure within a reasonable time to proceed with objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)

Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner

Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia/Vosperton Resources Pty Ltd, NNTT WO04/41, [2005] NNTTA 1 (1 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner

Representative of the

native title party:               Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representative of the

grantee party:  Mr Clive Miller, Tenement Administration Services

Representative of the        

Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

1. On 25 August 2004, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P27/1615, P27/1616, P27/1617 and P27/1618 (‘the proposed licences’) to Carrick Gold Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure (that is, a future act which can be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).

2. On 19 September 2004 Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27 registered on 15 June 1998 - (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to the proposed licences. 

Relevant facts

1. The proposed licences vary in area from 196.03 hectares to 200 hectares, and are located between 45 and 49 kilometres north easterly of Kalgoorlie in the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.  Each licence is overlapped 100% by the registered claim of the native title party.

2. The Tribunal made directions on 5 October 2004 for all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavit on or before 25 April 2005. The directions contain a statement that an objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.

3. At a preliminary conference convened on 19 October 2004 and at which all parties were represented, the grantee party representative, Mr Clive Miller advised that the grantee party had executed a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’), and was not prepared to negotiate on the basis of the Widji Alternative Heritage Agreement (‘Widji AHA’) which is proposed by the native title party.  Mr Miller requested that the matter proceed directly to Inquiry as expeditiously as possible but allowed that because the closing date for objections (25 December 2004) had not passed the timetable for compliance could be discussed at a later date.  An adjourned preliminary conference was not convened until 1 February 2005 to enable the participation of the native title party representative and at this time parties agreed that directions for the conduct of the inquiry could remain as set on 5 October 2005.

4. The Government and grantee parties have complied with directions.  No native title party contentions or evidence has been forthcoming to date.

5. On 6 May 2005 I convened a Listing Hearing, at which the Government party supported by the grantee party made application to dismiss the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with directions by the native title party. The native title party representative, Mr Jerome Frewen, requested an extension of time in which to comply on the basis the timeframes allowed in the Tribunal’s directions were not appropriate as his clients had a great number of other matters to deal with.

6. I do not accept Mr Frewen’s reason for seeking an extension.  This objection has been in inquiry since the objection document was lodged on 19 September 2004 and it has been clear to the native title party since 19 October 2004 that there was no prospect of a mutually agreed outcome.  Despite this, the time for compliance was not shortened but remained as initially set which provides ample time for compliance.  I find that the native title party has failed within a reasonable time to proceed with its objection and to comply with the Tribunal’s initial directions having submitted no statements of contention or supporting evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply.  The reasons provided in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner (at [12]-[13]) are applicable in this matter.

7. I note for the record that the grantee party has executed a RSHA with the Central East Goldfields People, whose registered native title claim also entirely overlaps the proposed licences.  This binding agreement should assist to ensure that sites of particular significance to the Widji claimant group are also protected.

Decision

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

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
6 May 2005