Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Robert Lawrence Hawke

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Robert Lawrence Hawke, [2006] NNTTA 82 (3 July 2006)

Application No: WO06/56

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

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

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Robert Lawrence Hawke (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            3 July 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 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
Representative of the

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

Representative of the
grantee party: Mr Robert Hawke

Representatives of the

Government party: Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 18 January 2006, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P27/1676 (‘the proposed licence’) to Robert Lawrence Hawke (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 3 February 2006, 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 in relation to the proposed licence with the Tribunal (designated WO06/56).

Relevant Facts

On 15 February 2006 the Tribunal made directions requiring 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 affidavits on or before 11 September 2006. 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.
The Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters on 14 March 2006. After allowing time for the native title party to comment on the proposed dates, on 30 March 2006 I amended the directions for the native title party to comply four weeks after the objection closing date (or four weeks after an inquiry has been requested in circumstances where the closing date has passed). This was in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice to bring compliance dates forward to eliminate the standard 16 week negotiating period in matters where it is clear that agreement cannot be reached (see Procedures under the Right to Negotiate Scheme – 27 January 2005 (paras 3.8.2, 3.9.3) website act/procedures and guidelines). The amended directions required native title party compliance on or before 15 June 2006 and this direction has not been complied with.
On 3 July 2006 on application by the Government and grantee parties I dismissed the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions by the native title party for reasons similar to those given 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]). Mr Frewen did not attend the hearing, provided no reasons for his client’s non-compliance and made no application to extend the time for compliance.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO06/56 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

3 July 2006

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence for land in Western Australia. The applicant argued that the grant of the licence would interfere with their native title rights and interests. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the applicant's objection was valid and should proceed. The legal issues in the case centred around whether the applicant had complied with the procedural requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the proposed grant of the prospecting licence would interfere with the native title rights and interests of the Widji People.

The court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the directions given by the court, which resulted in the dismissal of the objection application. The court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim of interference with their native title rights and interests. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed grant of the prospecting licence would have a significant impact on their native title rights and interests. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and allowed the proposed grant of the prospecting licence to proceed.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court found that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required to establish that their native title rights and interests would be interfered with by the proposed grant of the prospecting licence. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed grant of the prospecting licence would have a significant impact on their native title rights and interests. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the legal requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The court did not make any final orders as the objection application was dismissed. However, the court noted that the applicant had the right to appeal the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The court also noted that the applicant could seek to negotiate with the relevant authorities to address any concerns they may have about the proposed grant of the prospecting licence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established