Les Tullock & Ors on behalf of Tarlpa/ Western Australia/ Kimba Resources Pty Ltd; WF (Deceased) & Ors on behalf of Wiluna/ Western Australia/Kimba Resources Pty Ltd; Keith Narrier & Ors on behalf of Tjiwarl/...
[2014] NNTTA 2
•2 January 2014
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Les Tullock & Ors on behalf of Tarlpa/ Western Australia/ Kimba Resources Pty Ltd; WF (Deceased) & Ors on behalf of Wiluna/ Western Australia/Kimba Resources Pty Ltd; Keith Narrier & Ors on behalf of Tjiwarl/ Western Australia/ Kimba Resources Pty Ltd [2014] NNTTA 2 ( 2 January 2014)
Application No: WO2012/0593; WO2012/0599; WO2012/1240; WO2012/1241 & WO2013/0075
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Les Tullock & Others on behalf of Tarlpa (WC2007/003; WAD 248/2007) (Tarlpa native title party)
- and –
WF (Deceased) and Others on behalf of Wiluna (WC1999/024; WAD 6164/1998) (Wiluna native title party)
- and –
Keith Narrier and Others on behalf of Tjiwarl (WC2011/007) (Tjiwarl native title party)
- and –
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Kimba Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Member Helen Shurven
Place: Perth
Date: 2 January 2014
Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – whether acts likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether acts likely to interfere with sites of particular significance - expedited procedure attracted
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 146, 151, 237
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 66
Cases: Butcher Cherel and Others/Western Australia/Faustus Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NNTTA 15, (‘Butcher Cherel’)
Cheinmora and Others v Heron Resources Ltd and Another (2005) 196 FLR 250 [2005] NNTTA 99 (‘Cheinmora’)
Cheinmora v Striker Resources (1996) 142 ALR 21, ('Striker Resources')
Daisy Lungunan and Others on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala/ Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 24, (‘Geotech International’)
Harvey Murray and Others/ Western Australia/ Drew Griffin Money [2011] NNTTA 91, (‘Money’)
Karajarri Traditional Lands Association (Aboriginal Corporation) /Western Australia/ASJ Resources Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 18 (‘Karajarri’)
Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Bushwin Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 22, (‘Tarlpa’)
Leone Velickovic and Others/Western Australia/Royce William Allen NNTTA 347 (‘Royce William Allen’)
Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon [2006] NNTTA 65, (‘Maitland Parker’)
Maitland Parker and Others /Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 60 (‘Iron Duyfken’)
Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1027 (‘Parker 1’)
Parker v Western Australia and Others (2008) 167 FCR 340 (‘Parker 2’)
Ronald Crowe & Others/Charlie Lapthorne & Others/Western Australia/Zhukov Pervan [2008] NNTTA 71, (‘Zhukov Pervan’)
Silver and Others v Northern Territory of Australia and Others (2002) 169 FLR 1; [2002] NNTTA 18, (‘Silver’)
Smith v Western Australia and Another (2001) 108 FCR 442, (‘Smith’)
Violet Drury and Others on behalf of the Nanda People/Western Australia/Giralia Resources NL [2001] 38, (‘Giralia Resources NL’)
Walley and Others v Western Australia and Another (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24, (‘Walley’)
Wilma Freddie and Others/Western Australia/Asia Investment Corporation Pty Ltd [2004] NNTTA 30, (‘Asia Investment Corporation’)
WF (deceased) on behalf of Wiluna People v State of Western Australia [2013] FCA 755 (‘Wiluna’)
Representatives of the Ms Irene Assumpter Akumu, Central Desert Native Title Services
native title party: Mr Mike Allbrook, Central Desert Native Title Services
Representatives of the Mr Trevor Creewel, State Solicitor’s Office
Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines & Petroleum
Representatives of the Ms Iva Morrell, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd
grantee party:
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
The Government party, through the Department of Mines and Petroleum (‘DMP’), gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant the following licences (‘the proposed licences’) to Kimba Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’):
| Proposed Licence | Notification Date | Approximate size of proposed licence (km2) | Locality |
| E53/1644 | 22 February 2012 | 42.88 | 65 km West of Wiluna |
| E53/1657 | 25 July 2012 | 12.22 | 63 km South West of Wiluna |
| E53/1705 | 19 September 2012 | 3.07 | 80 km West of Wiluna |
The Government party included in each notice a statement that it considered the grants attracted the expedited procedure (that is, the grants could be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
The Tarlpa native title claim (WC2007/003 – registered since 30 April 2008) overlaps E53/1644 and E53/1657 by 27.72 per cent and 39.50 per cent, respectively. The Wiluna native title claim (WC1999/024 – registered since 24 September 1999) overlaps E53/1644 and E53/1705 by 72.28 per cent and 100 per cent, respectively. The Tjiwarl native title claim (WC2011/007 – registered since 13 January 2012) overlaps E53/1657 by 60.50 per cent. These will be referred to as the Tarlpa, Wiluna and Tjiwarl native title parties respectively, or collectively as the native title parties, as needed.
Due to the different notification dates for each proposed licence, parties had until 22 June 2012 (E53/1644), 26 November 2012 (E53/1657) and 21 January 2013 (E53/1705) respectively to lodge objections in relation to the expedited procedure statements. On the dates specified in the table below, objection applications were lodged with the Tribunal by Les Tullock & Others on behalf of Tarlpa, Wilma Freddie & Others on behalf of Wiluna and Keith Narrier & Others on behalf of Tjiwarl:
| Proposed Licence | Native Title Claimant | Objection Lodged | Designated Tribunal Number |
| E53/1644 | Les Tullock & Ors on behalf of Tarlpa | 21 June 2012 | WO2012/0593 |
| E53/1644 | Wilma Freddie & Ors on behalf of Wiluna | 21 June 2012 | WO2012/0599 |
| E53/1657 | Les Tullock & Ors on behalf of Tarlpa | 23 November 2012 | WO2012/1240 |
| E53/1657 | Keith Narrier & Ors on behalf of Tjiwarl | 23 November 2012 | WO2012/1241 |
| E53/1705 | Wilma Freddie & Ors on behalf of Wiluna | 18 January 2013 | WO2013/0075 |
A conditional determination (‘Wiluna’) was made by McKerracher J on 29 July 2013, which included areas claimed by the Tarlpa and Wiluna native title parties (WAD248/2007 and WAD6164/1998). It will become effective once the court makes a determination as to the prescribed body corporate for the determination area. I note that a prescribed body corporate is yet to be nominated as at the date of this decision, and so the persons whose names appear on the Register of Native Title Claims as the applicant for these native title claim groups remain the native title parties for the purposes of future acts under the Act, until a prescribed body corporate is registered.
The Tribunal issued directions to parties to provide contentions and evidence for an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure is attracted. These directions allow a period after the closing date for lodgement of objections for parties to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement which could lead to disposal of the objection by consent. Parties attempted to reach agreement between approximately August 2012 and May 2013, and the Tribunal varied directions at parties’ request to allow negotiations to progress. The Tribunal then programmed these matters for inquiry when agreement could not be reached.
I note the grantee party has requested to the Government party that the portion of E53/1657 that overlaps with the Tjiwarl native title claim be excised from the area applied for. Parties have therefore not lodged any submissions in relation to the overlap with Tjiwarl (being file WO2012/1241) and I do not deal with the objection by Tjiwarl further in this determination. Accordingly, the only remaining objection in relation to E53/1657 considered in this determination is the objection lodged on behalf of Tarlpa (being WO2012/1240).
Final directions were issued by the Tribunal, and in compliance with those:
·DMP provided evidence to the Tribunal and other parties on behalf of the Government party on various dates (29 May 2013 for WO2013/0593 & WO2013/0599, 3 July 2013 for WO2012/1240, and 7 August 2013 for WO2013/0075);
·the native title parties provided a statement of contentions on 12 August 2013 together with an:
a. Affidavit of Ms Roxanne Anderson affirmed 30 July 2013;
b. Affidavit of Mr Robert Wongawol affirmed 1 August 2013; and
c. Affidavit of Ms Lena Long sworn 16 September 2013.
·the grantee party provided a statement of contentions on 19 August 2013;
·the State Solicitor’s Office (SSO) provided the Government party’s statement of contentions in response to the contentions of the native title parties on 17 September 2013; and
·The native title parties provided a reply to the grantee party and Government party contentions on 3 October 2013.
The native title parties’ contentions state they would not be pursuing a determination in respect of s 237(c) of the Act. As such I will be considering information and evidence relating to s 237(a) and (b) only in this determination.
I consider this a matter which can be determined ‘on the papers’ as provided for in s 151 of the Act, and I note that no party has requested otherwise.
On 5 November 2013, I was appointed as the Member for the purpose of determination of these inquiries.
On 12 November 2013, the Tribunal provided parties with a copy of a Tribunal map to be used for the purposes of this determination, and no objections were received in response.
Legal principles
Section 237(a) of the Act provides:
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.
In Walley, the Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President, considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]–[23]) and the nature of exploration and prospecting licences and conditions to be imposed, including the activities permitted by the licences and the limits placed on those activities (at [24]–[35]). I adopt Deputy President Sumner’s findings for the purposes of this inquiry (see s 146 of the Act), while noting that the Mining Act 1978 (WA) has since been amended and the Standard Conditions imposed on exploration licences have been strengthened.
In relation to s 237(a), I adopt the legal principles identified in Tarlpa at [10]-[16].
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the legal principles identified by the Tribunal in Maitland Parker at [31]–[38] and [40]-[41] (see also Parker 1; Parker 2).
Evidence and information provided about the proposed act
Government party
The Government party has provided: a statement of contentions; tengraph plan with topographical detail, tenement boundaries, historical land tenure and Aboriginal communities within and in the vicinity of the proposed licence areas; a report and plan from the Register of Aboriginal Sites maintained by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) (formerly known as the Department of Indigenous Affairs); a copy of the tenement applications; a copy of the proposed endorsements and conditions of the grants; the instruments of licence; and quick appraisal documents.
Government party documentation establishes the underlying tenure and services affected (see Annexure A). The DAA registered sites list indicates the following sites on the proposed licences:
| Proposed licence | Site ID | Name | Type |
| E56/1644 | 1664 1665 | Lake way artefacts 6 Lake way artefacts 7 | Artefacts/scatter Artefacts/scatter |
| E53/1705 | 17236 | Water source | Mythological |
The draft tenement endorsements and conditions extract provided by SSO indicates that the grant of each of the proposed licences will be subject to the conditions and endorsements as outlined in Annexure B to this determination.
The Government party also states it intends to impose on the proposed licences a condition that the grantee party, ‘if so requested by the Native Title Parties in writing and within 90 days of the grant [of the proposed licences], must execute the Central Desert Regional Standard Heritage Agreement in favour of the Native Title Party so requesting’.
Grantee Party
The grantee party states that its exploration activities on the proposed licences are the usual activities associated with exploration licences, including the conduct of field reconnaissance and geological mapping, surface geophysics, low impact broad spaced hand auger drilling, collection of samples for core assays, soil sampling, and surveys (at 32, WO2012/0593 contentions)[1].
[1] References to the grantee party and Government party contentions are to paragraph numbers in one matter only, for consistency, although the grantee party contentions for all matters in relation to this decision are essentially the same in substantive respects, as are the contentions of the Government party.
The grantee party states that DAA heritage searches show no heritage sites recorded in E53/1644 as it affects the Tarlpa claim, but notes there are two registered sites in the overlapping area with the Wiluna claim (at 20). The grantee party states that DAA heritage searches show one heritage site in E53/1705, but argues that this site is actually slightly to the north of E53/1644 when plotted on Tengraph (at 18, WO2013/0075 contentions). Tribunal mapping indicates the registered site does overlap a portion of E53/1705. The grantee party may have referred to the site number as a pinpoint, rather than the whole circular boundary of the site.
The grantee party states it has offered the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) for the proposed licences to the native title parties’ representatives on 28 November 2011, and the offer remains open (at 9-10, WO2012/0593). The grantee party submits that the offer of the RSHA over the proposed licences more than adequately ensures that the grantee party is compliant with existing law and policy and also imposes additional obligations (for example, at 12-14 and 33, WO2012/0593 contentions). It notes the operation of s 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (‘AHA’), and indicates it has never been prosecuted under, or accused of breaching, the AHA (for example, at 15-18, WO2012/0593).
The grantee party refers (at 49, WO2012/0593) to the previous Tribunal decision of Tambling to state that the native title party 'is obliged to inform the tribunal where there are any sites of particular significance in the specific area or vicinity...and explain the sacredness of such a site through evidence'. In Tambling, Member Sosso referred to the decision of Carr J in Striker Resources (at [34]-[35]) where His Honour referred, firstly to the principle that a site must be of more than ordinary significance, and, secondly, that this special quality is assessed from a proper consideration of the traditions of the relevant native title holders.
The grantee party argues there is a lack of clarity in the native title parties’ evidence arising from its ‘bulk’ approach to its contentions and evidence (at 48, WO2012/0593). I appreciate that, from time to time, a great number of tenements will be dealt with in single contentions, and single affidavits, for expediency. This does not mean that evidence presented can be any more general than evidence which would be presented in a matter dealing with one tenement. This is addressed in the native title parties’ reply (at 2.10) where the native title parties explain that 'the so-called bulk approach was adopted by the Native title parties in an attempt to streamline the enquiry process'. However, party representatives would be aware that general evidence is of little usefulness in expedited procedure matters, whether it is provided as part of evidence in multiple matters, or single matters.
The native title parties explain that it was their understanding each tenement addressed in the bulk documents forms the basis of the same project being developed by a third party not directly involved in these proceedings. They considered it prudent to adduce evidence from the native title holders in the form of a single affidavit from each deponent that adequately covered all the tenements that formed part of the contemplated project (at 2.10). As such, I do not criticise the 'bulk approach'. It is merely that the evidence within the affidavits and contentions, for these particular proposed licenses, is broadly presented.
In any event, the grantee party submits that the native title parties’ contentions do not provide any evidence that the grant of the proposed licences are likely to interfere with sites of particular significance or community or social activities (for example at 44, WO2012/0593), specific sites of significance or the likelihood of interference with any sites (at 50, WO2012/0593), nor constitute major disturbance to land (at 51, WO2012/0593).
Native title parties
In regard to s 237(a), the native title parties contend the grant of the proposed licence is likely to interfere with the carrying on of the community and social activities of the native title parties in relation to the land concerned because:
·the Native Title Act should be beneficially construed (at 2.2 – 2.3);
·evidence of regular travelling, camping and hunting for various traditional activities is sufficient to sustain an objection under section 237(a) (at 3.9) and they cite a number of decisions in support of this (for example, Royce William Allen and Giralia Resources).
·off-site activities can be taken into account in consideration of interference with the carrying on of community or social activities if there is a clear nexus between those activities and the issue being considered (at 3.10); and
·there is a community in the area and point to the Wiluna registered claim (now conditionally determined) (3.11-3.12). Tribunal mapping does not identify any particular community specifically on or near the proposed license, and the native title parties contend the notion of community should be construed broadly.
In relation to the matter of Royce William Allen, Deputy President Franklyn QC acknowledged 'extensive' evidence from the native title party in relation to social and community activities on the proposed licence, and there were no contentions from the grantee party. As such, that matter can be distinguished from the present matter, where it could not be said the native title parties had provided 'extensive' evidence in relation to social and community activities, and where the grantee party has provided contentions in some detail. Similarly, in Giralia Resources, there was no evidence from the grantee party. In that matter, it was determined some 12 years ago, and there is little guidance in the decision about the nature and extent of the evidence provided by the native title party. It appears there was evidence about the social and community activities undertaken on the relevant area, but it was uncontested by the Government or grantee parties. In the present matter, the evidence of the native title parties has been challenged by both the Government and grantee parties, and so I must weigh up the evidence provided, and the challenges, in making my decision.
Ms Long, Mr Wongawol and Ms Anderson state they are each traditional owners for the Wiluna and Tarlpa claim and that as Martu people they can speak for the area covered by the proposed licence as it is Martu country. I accept these deponents have the authority to speak for this area on behalf of the native title parties. The native title parties’ contentions refer to the affidavits and specifically that:
·the proposed licence areas are within, or in close proximity to, the town of Wiluna and Bondini Aboriginal Community Reserve where many native title holders reside and exercise their native title rights (at 3.12(a) – (b); Ms Long’s affidavit at 2, 5, 7, 21-23; Ms Anderson’s affidavit at 4-8, 17-19; and Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 3-4, 9). [I note that Bondini Aboriginal Community Reserve and the town of Wiluna are up to 50 kilometres away from the proposed licences (at their furthest point)];
·the native title parties carry on community and social activities in the proposed licences, including frequent travel, hunting (for bush turkey, goanna and emu eggs), camping and inter-generational knowledge transfer (at 3.13(a)-(d); Ms Long’s affidavit at 4-9, 12-15, 17-24; Ms Anderson’s affidavit at 4-5, 12-13, 17-18, 20; and Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 4-6, 9-11, 13); and
·activities of the grantee party will interfere with the ability of the native title parties to conduct community and social activities within the proposed licences, including hunting and camping, and to fulfil their obligations to look after the area (at 3.14(a)-(d); Ms Long’s affidavit at 4, 12-15, 18-19, 24-25; Ms Anderson’s affidavit at 5, 7, 10, 12-13 17, 19-20; and Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 3-9, 11, 14, 21).
In relation to s 237(b), the native title parties note concerns about the State’s regulatory regime, citing, for example, the WA Auditor General’s report entitled Ensuring Compliance with Conditions on Mining dated September 2011 (at 2.16-2.17). The native title parties state that I should adopt my decision in Karajarri. I do note my comments in that case as extracted by the native title parties (at 2.18), including in relation to various reports which had been written in relation to the weaknesses of the states regulatory regime. However, I also concluded in Karajarri (at [48]-[53]) that each matter must be dealt with on its individual facts to determine whether the protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely that there will be interference with any sites of particular significance found to exist.
The native title parties also submit:
·the proposed licences contain sites of particular significance, including:
o a dingo dreaming story traversing E53/1644 (and other tenements not the subject of this inquiry); and
o an emu dreaming story traversing E53/1705 (at 4.24; Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 16 and 18);
·they have an obligation to maintain and protect sites of particular significance located with the proposed licences (at 4.25; Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 5-6, 9, 18, 29 and 34; Ms Long’s affidavit at 23);
·the nature of the country on, and surrounding, the proposed licences is such that entry onto parts of the proposed licences and surrounds which have not been agreed with the native title parties would be likely to result in interference within the meaning of s 237(b) of the Act; jukurrpa tracks are not readily identifiable ‘by persons other than those instilled in the mysteries of the jukurrpa’, and interference with one part may cause interference to sites and/ or country located at other points along the jukurrpa (at 4.26; affidavit of Mr Wongawol at 19-20). [I do note, however, that the jukurrpa track is only identified in the very broadest of terms in relation to these particular licences, and appears to be associated in more detail with other tenements which are addressed within the same native title party contentions and affidavits];
·the removal or interference with objects found in the natural environment in the proposed licences would constitute interference for the purposes of s 237(b) of the Act, including interference with rocks, stones and water courses (at 4.27; affidavit of Mr Wongawol at 19-20);
·the nature and importance of the sites within the proposed licences is such that certain activities permitted will constitute interference pursuant to s 237(b) of the Act, but may not necessarily be prohibited under s 17 of the AHA (at 4.28);
·the proposed condition requiring the grantee party to offer the RSHA does not mean it is unlikely that the future act will interfere with sites or areas of particular significance, including due to the nature of the sites and areas of particular significance (at 4.29); and
·meaningful consultation and negotiation between the native title parties and the grantee party are necessary to ensure that sites of particular significance are not likely to be interfered with, including due to the nature of the sites or areas of particular significance and issues such as access and gender restricted areas (at 4.30; Mr Wongawol’s affidavit at 8 and 19-21).
Mr Wongawols’ affidavit (at 8) states that 'if we run across an explorer we ask them what they are doing. Then we might call our lawyers up and make sure they understand that the explorer has to ask us before they start doing things on country. We’re always checking up on what people are doing on our country'. This is of some concern as it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the expedited procedure process and the exercise of native title rights and interests in relation to that process, which the native title party representatives may wish to clarify with their clients as native title parties do not have a veto in relation to activities of any grantee party. This is a well established principle in relation to native title matters.
The native title parties contentions argue that 'in areas where a proposed future act has been demonstrated to be site rich, it is incumbent upon the Grantee Party to lead some evidence...to provide basis upon which the NNTT might be assured that interference, intentional or otherwise, is not likely, given the practical difficulties with avoiding interference with sites in site rich areas' (at 2.13).
The term site rich is to be deciphered carefully. In Mineralogy, the use of site rich was construed by Deputy President Sosso (at [19] to [21]) as follows:
...It is open, of course, for the native title party to make such an assertion, but the question of whether an area is site rich is a question of fact. Identification of whether an area is site rich can only occur if there is evidence of sites and areas registered under the relevant aboriginal heritage legislation of a State or Territory and/or evidence from persons asserting native title identifying such sites and explaining their significance. It would be incorrect to assume that simply because there are numerous sites registered on a heritage register that the Tribunal will make a finding that an area is 'site rich'. That term is not recognised in the Act, and has been used by various Members as a short hand description of an area which is demonstrably rich in sites of particular significance to native title claimants and which sites cumulatively illustrate the overall spiritual importance of the relevant land and waters. Accordingly whether there are numerous sites registered or no sites registered is not of itself determinative of whether an area is 'site rich'.
In this matter, the native title parties point the Tribunal to the fact that the proposed licences are surrounded on all sides by sites registered with the Department of Indigenous Affairs. That is an important factor, but it is only the starting point. It would be an unusual circumstance for the Tribunal to make a finding that an area is 'site rich' without direct evidence from a person or persons from the relevant claim group who can demonstrate that they are authorised to speak on behalf of a site or area, and that they have the requisite knowledge to explain the spiritual significance of an area or site to the claim group, or to a family or other sub-group within the wider claim group. In this matter, the explanation is from the appropriate persons, but it is very broadly presented in relation to these proposed licences.
In Geotech International, it was concluded that s 237(b) is concerned with identifying sites of particular significance, and it is not a necessary requirement to combine various sites into a general assertion that an area is site rich. I adopt the following reasoning from Member O’Dea in Geotech International at [43]:
In certain circumstances it may be, depending on the evidence, appropriate to describe an area which contains numerous sites of particular significance as being rich in sites. However, in my opinion, it is unhelpful to the predictive assessment that I am required to undertake to introduce a term of art such as ‘site rich’, because it may imply a range of assumptions which are not necessarily the case in any particular evidentiary situation. In circumstances where the evidence suggests there are sites of particular significance, particularly where there are a number of such sites, the intentions of the grantee party relating to the manner in which it intends to conduct its exploration activities will be of pivotal importance in the predictive assessment as to whether or not it is likely that such sites will be interfered with during the course of those activities. To the extent that the grantee party seeks to persuade the Tribunal that the risks of interference are not likely, it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence as to how such interference, including inadvertent interference, can be avoided. In those circumstance[s], in the absence of such evidence from the grantee party, it is likely to prove difficult to persuade the Tribunal that interference with sites of particular significance is not likely.
Consequently, I conclude that the term 'site rich' is not particularly helpful in this matter. The central issue remains whether there are any areas or sites of particular significance likely to be interfered with under s 237(b) by the activities of the grantee party.
The native title parties’ reply disagrees with the grantee party contention that there are no aboriginal communities in the area of the proposed licences, and refers to the affidavit material to assert that the close proximity of Wiluna is sufficient to establish a community. I do note the affidavit material refers to the Bondini community also, which is not raised in the native title parties’ reply. Even taking into account the geographical proximity of Wiluna and Bondini to the proposed licenses, the native title parties have not made out how the community relies on these particular proposed licences for the conduct of social and community activities, but rather talks in broad terms about the areas around Wiluna as being areas which are generally used for hunting and other social and community purposes.
The native title parties also outline some of the proposed grantee party activities which they indicate are ground disturbing (at 2.5) but, as outlined above, and in the Annexures to this decision, mining activities have been undertaken over part of E53/1644for at least 27 years and so it is likely they were of a higher impact than any exploration activities the grantee party is entitled to do under the Mining Act. In addition, exploration licences have been held on 100 per cent of E53/1705 and up to 64.4 per cent of E53/1657 since the early 1990’s.
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 licence and activities undertaken in relation to the grant are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title parties (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference), (see 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 into account factors that may already have impacted on a native title party’s community or social activities (such as mining or pastoral activity) (see Smith at [27]).
The Tribunal has accepted that the intentions of the grantee party in a particular matter are relevant in assessing whether the activities are likely to directly interfere with the carrying on of a native title party’s community or social activities, or interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to a native title party. In Silver at [29]-[30], Member Sosso (whose approach I adopt) outlined that:
The adoption of a predictive assessment necessarily allows the Tribunal to receive evidence of a grantee’s intention where that evidence is adduced. In the absence of any evidence of intention, the Tribunal would be at liberty to assume that a grantee will fully exercise the rights conferred by the tenement ... evidence of intention cannot be unilaterally discarded in advance, as it is logically relevant to the question of likelihood.
The grantee party’s intended activities and intentions are outlined at [20]–[26] above, and the Government party contentions and information is outlined at [16]-[19] above.
The native title parties’ contentions and evidence in relation to s 237(a) are outlined at [27] and [29] above. As previously noted, affidavits were submitted from Ms Long, Ms Anderson and Mr Wongawol. All three deponents indicate they were shown maps of the land affected by various tenement applications which includes E53/1644, E53/1657 and E53/1705, and which are collectively referred to as ‘the Tenements’.
Ms Long’s affidavit states that the area covered by E53/1644 (and other tenements) is south of the town of Wiluna and is ‘easy to get to’, so she can ‘get out on country and show [her] grandkids where there is good tucker in there in those tenements’ (at 19, WO2012/0596). She also notes that around E53/1644 (and other tenements) there are lots of goanna and honey ants (at 20). She recalls that '[w]e went all around that area [the Tenements, including E53/1644] for the Easter school holidays’ and spent time camping, gathering traditional food for the children and showing them rockholes (at 15 and 22).
Ms Anderson’s affidavit states that she knows the area of the Tenements (including the proposed licences) because she lives in the town of Wiluna. She indicates that ‘[l]ots of families that are also Wiluna native title holders live in the town of Wiluna and we all go over the area of the Tenements everyday, looking for food, hunting and camping and looking after country’ (at 4). She refers to hunting activities carried out by several family groups ‘all the time’, and ‘every weekend probably’ (at 17-18). She also states that when the elders go out to the area ‘they remember their stories and tell us about them. They tell stories about their country to all the grandkids’ (at 19).
In Mr Wongawol’s affidavit, he states that ‘[t]he land around Wiluna is part of my country and I go everywhere around town there in those Tenements. I go out bush to go hunting all the time’ (at 4). He states he goes out hunting and camping in the tenements with his brother and uncles ‘a lot’, and that he takes his grandchildren and nephews out there as well (at 5), including to show them how to cook goanna (at 6-7). Mr Wongawol refers to a hill in the town of Wiluna covered by E53/1645 (not part of this determination) that is the dingo dreaming, and it is there in the tenement and it moves through other tenements including E53/1644 as well as going down to Lake Way, ‘which is a very important place for us Wiluna mob’. He states that ‘that jukurrpa made that hill and is connected to that Lake Way site’ (at 16). Mr Wongawol states that if people ‘hurt the jukurrpa’ on Martu country then ‘people in Wiluna will be upset and other Martu people all over the desert will know about it and we will get growled at. If you don’t look after the jukurrpa in your country then you get in big trouble’ (at 19).
The Government party’s contentions argue that the native title parties’ statements ‘are extremely general and vague, to the point where they are incapable of conveying any useful information’ (at 26). It notes, for example, Ms Anderson’s statement that lots of families ‘live in the town of Wiluna and we all go all over the area of the Tenements everyday’ (at (4)-(5) Ms Anderson’s affidavit; at (26) SSO contentions). The Government party assert that this is ‘either an example of hyperbole or impossibly vague generalisation’, noting further that it is ‘physically impossible for all of the members of the claimant families living in Wiluna to go all over 899.96 hectares everyday and all the time’. The Government party concludes that since the statement cannot be taken literally, it remains unclear as to how many people go, how often they go and to what areas of the tenement. It asserts that similar ‘meaningless’ statements can be found elsewhere in Ms Anderson’s affidavit, as well as in Mr Wongawol and Ms Long’s affidavits. The Government party states that the generalised evidence should be given little weight (at 26).
Again, as outlined earlier, I do give weight to the information in the affidavits, however, the fact that it is largely generalised information in relation to these particular proposed licenses means that the information does not greatly assist me in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of interference in relation to the limbs of s 237 of the Act. I accept the native title parties traverse the area of the proposed licenses (and the other tenements that are part of the native title parties’ contentions but not part of this determination). This signifies to me that rather than disbelieve the native title parties do these activities in such a widespread manner, I believe they do such activities in a widespread manner (particularly given the relatively close proximity of the proposed license to Wiluna, where members of the native title parties are said to live). It just means that the likelihood of interference with native title party activities by grantee party activities is going to be unlikely. I agree with the Government party (at 44) that it is clear the community and social activities referred to in Mr Longs affidavit do occur on the proposed license area (for example, hunting and bush tucker collecting), but suggest that these activities are not outlined as being so intense that any exploration activities of the grantee party would lead to interference with them as per s 237(a) of the Act.
In terms of the more specific evidence supplied in the affidavits, the Government party maintains that these statements demonstrate hyperbole. The Government party asserts that none of the affidavits raise any substantial evidence concerning community activities or sites of special significance on the proposed licence, and argues that the evidence relates to non-specific and generalised collecting of bush tucker within the proposed licence area (at 28).
I agree with the Government party that the native title parties evidence is generalised, but do not believe it is ‘meaningless’, or ‘incapable of conveying any useful information’, or full of hyperbole.
I note the native title parties’ reply to the contentions of the Government party state that it would be ‘impractical to list every occasion where every native title holder has exercised their native title rights’ in the proposed licences (at 3.2). I accept that the native title parties engage in hunting and camping activities on the proposed licences on an intermittent but regular basis, particularly given their proximity to Wiluna. However, as the Tribunal has found in previous determinations, evidence about community or social activities which is of a general and unspecified nature will be insufficient to lead to a finding that the proposed acts will directly interfere with those activities in a substantial or more than trivial way (see Asia Investments Corporation at [14]).
I agree with the Government party (at 46) that to the extent the evidence demonstrates members of the native title parties carry out any community or social activities in the areas of the proposed licences, there is not likely to be direct interference with those activities for the following reasons:
·hunting and collecting of bush tucker can coexist with the grantee party’s proposed activities;
·the grantee party has stated most of the proposed exploration activities will be low-impact and non-intrusive, and any ground disturbing activities are intended to be conducted in a way which will not adversely impact on heritage sites;
·the proposed licence areas have been subject to prior exploration and possibly mining activity, which are likely to have affected, and continue to affect, the extent to which community and social activities can be carried out in the relevant area;
·the proposed licences are all covered by other interests including significant coverage by pastoral leases and stock routes;
·although the proposed licences are relatively near to Wiluna and Bondini, there are no Aboriginal communities in the proposed licences;
·the low-scale exploration activities planned by the grantee party do not appear likely to have any disruptive effect upon the hunting and gathering of bush tucker in the proposed licences;
·hunting and exploration activity are by their nature inherently capable of coexistence; and
·the grantee party has indicated a willingness to enter into an RSHA agreement with the native title parties, and the native title parties have the opportunity of formally enforcing this expression of intention by the grantee party by invoking the proposed RSHA condition which the Government party intends to place on the proposed licences.
I do note Ms Anderson states (at 13) that the pastoralist for the Lake Way lease 'doesn't bother us when we're out there, just asks us to make sure we bury our rubbish. Some pastoralists don't like us hunting on their station, but the mob at Lake Way don't mind'. This is confirmed by Ms Long’s affidavit (at 18). This suggests that this particular pastoral activity on the proposed licenses has not significantly affected community or social activities of the native title parties. E53/1657 is covered 100 per cent by the Lake Way pastoral lease, suggesting a lesser level of interference by pastoral activities than may have occurred on E53/1644 and E53/1705 which are affected by other pastoral leases and stock routes. It is likely, given the native title party evidence, that pastoral leases other than Lake Way have had an effect on the native title parties activities, and I note previous underlying mineral licences have existed since the 1970’s. The general principle is that, unless displaced, hunting and collecting of bush tucker and other such activities can co-exist with exploration activities, must be given significant weight in this matter.
I also take into account the fact that each of the affidavits has indicated similar community and social activities take place across a wide area of the native title parties claims and so it does not appear there are any particular activities which are performed in a way such that they would be confined to any particular licence or such that they would be interfered with by the exploration activities of the grantee party on these particular licences. For example, Ms Longs’ affidavit indicates that hunting for bush tucker is done 'all around that country, not just in those tenements. We go all the way down south to Yeelirrie country and out west to Ullula Station as well as out east to Lake Violet, hunting Goanna and teaching our children' (at 14).
I appreciate that the proposed licenses are relatively close to Wiluna where members of the native title parties are said to live. However, I note that Ms Anderson (at 20) indicates that 'we can’t go hunting around some of the places near to Wiluna as much anymore. The drilling noise from mining activity interferes with the hunting, and scares the animals off…..they don’t want to stick around. It makes them hard to find for us'. Given that these proposed licences have been subject to mining for some years suggests that it may not be an area where community and social activities take place to such an extent that they would be interfered with by the grantee party.
In the circumstances, taking into account the evidence available, I conclude that there is unlikely to be interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(a) of the Act in this matter.
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 parties in accordance with their traditions. As noted, it is established in DIA documentation that there are no registered sites within the proposed licence. However, this does not mean there may not be other sites or areas of particular significance to the native title parties over the areas of the proposed licences 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.
The grantee party’s intended activities and intentions are outlined at [20]–[26] above, and the Government party contentions and information in relation to s 237(b) is outlined at [16]-[19] above.
The native title parties contentions and evidence in relation to s 237(b) are outlined at [29]-[33] above. In addition, the native title parties’ contentions in relation to s 237(b) of the Act state that the proposed licences contain sites of particular significance, including: a jukurrpa traversing E53/1746; a dingo dreaming story traversing P53/1562, P3/1557, P53/1558-P53/1559 and E53/1644; and an emu dreaming story that traverses E53/1705. Of relevance to the current inquiry is the dingo dreaming story, which is said to traverse E53/1644, and the emu dreaming story relating to E53/1705. Mr Wongawol states that ‘[t]here is a hill in the town of Wiluna covered by E53/1645 that is the papa jukurrpa [dingo dreaming]. It is there in the tenement and it moves through P53/1562, P53/1557, P53/1558, P53/1559 and E53/1644 as well as going down to Lake Way, which is a very important place for us Wiluna mob. That jukurrpa made that hill and is connected to that Lake Way site. He goes on to state that ‘[i]n E53/1705 there is the karlaya jukurrpa [emu dreaming] which is part of the water course called West Creek which feeds into Lake Way. The jukurrpa travels down from the two hills called tarlka near the Rosslyn Hill mine’ (at 18).
While Mr Wongawol indicates that the dingo and emu dreaming stories are related to E53/1644 and E53/1705 respectively, I do not find that their particular significance is established for the purposes of s 237(b) of the Act. The Tribunal has held on previous occasions that the native title parties must provide evidence with sufficient detail and specificity to allow the Tribunal to make the predictive assessment required by s 237(b) (see for example Iron Duyfken at [39]; Cheinmora at [43]). To the extent that the grantee party’s activities may cause interference to sites in the area of the proposed licences, I note the grantee party has made it clear in their contentions that they seek to consult with the native title parties’ in this regard by offering entry into an RSHA agreement (at 9-14).
I do note the native title parties contentions argue that the Government party has not provided evidence as to which provisions of the RSHA it considers to have a 'sufficiently protective effect' (at 4.16) and outlines (at 4.18) the defects it saw the proposed RSHA had in relation to other regional standard heritage agreements. Had the native title parties made out with greater detail the existence of sites of particular significance in the proposed license, then I would have looked further into these arguments to see the level of protective effect they may have had.
However, given the general nature of the native title parties’ evidence in relation to this limb of s 237, I do not intend to address these points in any great detail. For example, the native title parties have argued that 'the nature of the country on, and surrounding, the tenements is such that any entry on to parts of the tenements or the surrounding country which has not been agreed with the Native title parties, would be likely to result in interference within the meaning of s 237(b)’ (at 4.26). The native title parties cite Zhukov Pervan (at [99]) in support of this. However, in that decision, a site of particular significance was shown to exist on the relevant area, was identified in the evidence, and its 'particular sacredness' was explained by the native title party (at [90]). In addition, a vast array of sites were said to exist in the relevant area, including gender restricted sites, and none of this evidence was contested by other parties.
In the present matter, the evidence provided by the native title parties does not appear to be extensive or detailed and the evidence has been contested by the Government and grantee parties. They refer, for example, to the interference with the jukurrpa (for example at 4.26 (b) and 4.29 (b)) but again these references are so general, referring to a domino effect of interference between tenements, that it is of little use in this matter.
As mentioned, the native title parties’ express concern in their contentions about the adequacy of the State’s regulatory regime (at 2.14-2.21). I refer to the Tribunal’s previous findings in this regard, that both the existence of the AHA and the availability of the RSHA give rise to a presumption that sites will be protected, and the Auditor General’s Report does not necessarily affect this presumption unless evidence indicates that it should (see for example, Money).
The regulatory regime based on the AHA has been described on numerous occasions by the Tribunal (see Maitland Parker (at [31]-[38], [40]-[41]). While the Tribunal has usually found the site protection regime based on the AHA is sufficient to ensure any interference with sites of particular significance is unlikely, each matter must be considered on its own facts (see for example the summary of cases as outlined in Butcher Cherel (at [81]-[91])). The Tribunal must consider, based on facts of a particular case and the nature and extent of sites of particular significance, whether this protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely there will be interference with those sites.
The native title parties’ contentions argue there are circumstances where the AHA and the associated regime will not be sufficient to ensure that s 237(b) interference is unlikely, taking into account the nature of any site or area, whether there is an area or site of particular significance, the nature and size of such an area or site, and the intentions of the grantee party (at 4.12). In this respect I agree with the native title parties and have taken into account each of these factors in relation to this limb of s 237. I do not believe that the native title parties have, in their contentions or evidence, convinced me that there is a site or area on the proposed licenses which is of particular significance and so I can draw no conclusions about the nature of the size or such an area or site.
I do not need, therefore, to go to the next stage of making a judgement about whether interference with such a site is likely to occur. However, even if a site of particular significance was found to exist on the proposed licenses, I take into account the previous mining tenements, the stated intentions of the grantee party, the fact that even exercising their full rights available under the Mining Act they are still only entitled to undertake exploration activities which are likely to be the same as, or less intrusive on any such sites than previous mining or exploration activities.
In drawing my conclusions in this matter, I have also had regard to the following:
·The grantee party has stated that most of the proposed exploration activities will be low-impact and non-intrusive;
·The proposed licences have been subject to pastoral leases and stock routes; and
·The AHA and its associated processes are likely to prevent interference with any area or site of particular significance to the native title holders.
In the circumstances, taking into account the evidence available, I conclude that there is unlikely to be interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(b) of the Act in this matter.
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of exploration licences E53/1644, E53/1657 and E53/1705 to Kimba Resources Pty Ltd, are acts attracting the expedited procedure.
Helen Shurven
Member
2 January 2014
ANNEXURE A – Underlying tenure and Services Affected on Proposed Licences
| Significant Underlying Land Tenure | E53/1644 | E53/1657 | E53/1705 | |
| · Peak Hill Stock Route (CR9699) (28.2%) · Stock Route addition to Peakhill Leonora (CR13096) (13.6%) · Pastoral Lease 3114/1260 (Millbillillie) (30.2%) · Pastoral Lease 3114/1164 (Lake Way) (15.2%) · Road Reserves (<0.3%) · Four live miscellaneous licences (encroaching variously between 0.5% and 25.7%) · One pending miscellaneous licence (encroaching 1.4%) · Two exploration licences in operation between 2005 and 2010 (encroaching 0.1% and 4.2% respectively) · One miscellaneous licence in operation between 1987 and 1992 (encroaching 0.1%) · Eight mining leases in operation between 1986 and 2011 (encroaching variously between 0.2 % and 26%) · Thirteen mineral claims in operation between 1970 and 1978 (encroaching variously between 0.1% and 5.9%) · Four prospecting licences in operation between 1994 and 2011 (encroaching variously between 1.5% and 5.8%) · Three temporary reserves in operation between 1959 and 1970 (encroaching variously between 18.7% and 100%) | · Pastoral Lease 3114/1164 (Lake Way) (100%) · One live miscellaneous licence (encroaching 1.4%) · Five exploration licences in operation between 1991 and 2010 (encroaching variously between 4.6% and 64.4%) · Six mineral claims in operation between 1970 and 1983 (encroaching variously between <0.1% and 12.2%) · Five prospecting licences in operation between 1990 and 2011 (encroaching variously between 0.6% and 25.6%) · One temporary reserve in operation between 1966 and 1972 (encroaching 100%) | · Peak Hill Stock Route (CR9699) (87.9%) · Pastoral Lease 3114/1131 (Paroo) (12.1%) · Two pending exploration licences (both encroaching 100%) · One live miscellaneous licence (encroaching 100%) · Three exploration licences in operation between 1992 and 2012 (all encroaching 100%) · One prospecting licence in operation between 2008 and 2011 (encroaching 0.7%) · Two temporary reserves in operation between 1959 and 1972 (both encroaching 100%) | ||
| Services Affected | · One open pit mine · Two major roads · Two minor roads · Thirteen tracks · Three fence lines · One well/bore with windmill · One (impermanent) lake · One Telecom route | · One minor road · One track | ||
| Annexure B: Draft Endorsement and Conditions for Proposed Licences | |
| E53/1644 | E53/1657 and E53/1705 |
| Endorsements 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. 3. The Licensee pursuant to the approval of the Minister responsible for the Mining Act 1978 under Section 11 of the Mining Act 1978 is authorised to for iron. In respect to Water Resource Management Areas (WRMA) the following endorsements apply: 4. The Licensee 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 5. 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. 6. The storage and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous 7. 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 Artesian (confined) Aquifers and Wells the following endorsement applies: 8. 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 dependent vegetation of any perennial waterway, and · 30 metres from the outer-most water dependent vegetation of any seasonal waterway. In respect to Proclaimed Ground Water Areas the following endorsement applies: 9. The abstraction of groundwater is prohibited unless a current licence to construct/alter a well and a licence to take groundwater has been issued by the DoW. 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 costean, 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 rig; 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 7. No interference with Geodetic Survey Stations G 53-7, G53-8 and WNA 10 and mining within 15 metres thereof being confined to below a depth of 15 metres from the natural surface. 8. No interference with the coaxial or optic fibre cable or the installations in connection therewith, and the rights of ingress to and egress from the facility being at all times preserved to the owners thereof. Consent to conduct exploration activities on Stock Route Reserves 9699 and 13096 granted, subject to: | E53/1657 Endorsements 1-8 of the E53/1644 endorsements. Conditions 1-6 of the E53/1644 conditions, and the following: 7. The rights of ingress to and egress from Miscellaneous Licence 53/150 being at all times preserved to the licensee and no interference with the purpose or installations connected to the licence. 8. No interference with Geodetic Survey Station ZX95 and mining within 15 metres thereof being confined to below a depth of 15 metres from the natural surface. |
| E53/1705 Endorsements 1-8 of the E53/1644 endorsements. Conditions 1-6 of the E53/1644 conditions, and the following: 7. The rights of ingress and egress from Miscellaneous Licence 53/164 being at all times preserved to the licensee and no interference with the purpose or installations connected to the licence. Consent to conduct exploration activities on Stock Route Reserve 9699 granted, subject to: | |
1
17
0