Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia/International Goldfields Ltd

[2005] NNTTA 18

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia/International Goldfields Ltd, [2005] NNTTA 18 (24 March 2005)

Application No:        WO04/118

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

-and-

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

Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People – WC99/29
(native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

International Goldfields Ltd (grantee party)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Tribunal:                   Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  24 March 2005

Catchwords:             Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licences –expedited procedure objection application – direct interference with carrying on of community or social activities unlikely – interference with sites of particular significance unlikely – major disturbance to land unlikely – act attracts the expedited procedure.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 151(2), 237

Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 57(4)

Cases:Cheinmora v StrikerResources NL (1996) 142 ALR 21

Dann v Western Australia (1997) 74 FCR 391

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/International Goldfields Ltd, NNTT WO04/188, [2005] NNTTA 7 (8 March 2005) Hon C J Sumner

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/61, [2005] NNTTA 11 (19 March 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

Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia/Internickel Australia Pty Ltd, NNTT WO04/43, [2005] NNTTA 6 (8 March 2005), Hon C J Sumner

Little v Western Australia [2001] FCA 1706; (2001) 6(4) AILR 67

Smith v Western Australia [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442

Walley v Western Australia [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437

Representative of the

native title party:             Ms Elizabeth Sambo

Counsel for the

Government party:         Ms Karen Dougall & Mr Rod Wahl, State Solicitor’s Office

Representative of the

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

Representative of the
grantee party:                 Mr Nathan McMahon

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

Background

1. On 16 June 2004, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant the following prospecting licences ('proposed licences') to International Goldfields Ltd (‘the grantee party’) under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) and included in the notice a statement that it considered the grants attracted the expedited procedure (that is, are future acts which can be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act):

• P24/3829, P25/1789, P25/1790, P25/1791, P25/1792, P25/1793, P25/1794, P25/1800, P25/1801, P26/3195, P26/3196, P26/3197, P26/3198, P26/3199, P26/3205, P26/3206, P26/3207, P26/3208, P26/3209, P26/3238, P27/1601, P27/1602, P27/1603, P27/1604, P27/1605, P27/1606 and P27/1607

1. On 28 June 2004 Linda Champion, a named applicant and representative of the Central West Goldfields People (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal, relying on all three limbs of s 237 of the Act. The native title party’s application for a determination of native title (WC99/29) was entered on the Register of Native Title Claims from 4 October 1999.

2. All of the proposed licences are located in the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and overlap the registered native title claim at 100%. The sizes and locations from Kalgoorlie are as follows:

• P24/3829 - 0.3905 square kilometres, 41 kilometres northwest of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1789 - 2.0019 square kilometres, 16 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1790 - 1.9910 square kilometres, 16 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1791 - 1.9939 square kilometres, 16 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1792 - 1.3196 square kilometres, 14 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1793 - 1.8619 square kilometres, 14 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1794 - 1.9909 square kilometres, 16 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1800 - 1.9139 square kilometres, 23 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P25/1801 - 1.6702 square kilometres, 22 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3195 - 1.6990 square kilometres, 17 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3196 - 1.9089 square kilometres, 16 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3197 - 1.4918 square kilometres, 15 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3198 - 2.0577 square kilometres, 15 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3199 - 1.1923 square kilometres, 14 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3205 - 2.0387 square kilometres, 24 kilometres southeast of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3206 - 1.9403 square kilometres, 23 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3207 - 1.9096 square kilometres, 21 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3208 - 1.8281 square kilometres, 22 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3209 - 1.0051 square kilometres, 22 kilometres southeast of Kalgoorlie

• P26/3238 - 1.9846 square kilometres, 24 kilometres southeast of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1601 - 1.5386 square kilometres, 14 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1602 - 1.5686 square kilometres, 17 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1603 - 1.6534 square kilometres, 17 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1604 - 1.8499 square kilometres, 19 kilometres northeast of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1605 - 1.6165 square kilometres, 18 kilometres northeast of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1606 - 1.4653 square kilometres, 18 kilometres northeast of Kalgoorlie

• P27/1607 - 1.6505 square kilometres, 17 kilometres northeast of Kalgoorlie

1. In addition two other registered claim groups overlap the proposed licences at 100% and have the status of native title parties:

• Widji People (WC98/7)

• Maduwongga People (WC99/9)

1. For the record I observe that two unregistered claims also overlap the proposed licences at 100%:

• Gubrun (WC95/27)

• Kalamaia Kabu(d)u People (WC97/100)

1. On 16 August 2004 the Widji native title party lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation, among others, to the proposed licences. The application was dismissed on 23 February 2005 on the grounds that the native title party had failed within a reasonable time to proceed with the objection and to comply with directions of the Tribunal (s 148(b)) (Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/International Goldfields Ltd, NNTT WO04/188, [2005] NNTTA 7 (8 March 2005) Hon C J Sumner). No objection application was lodged by the Maduwongga native title party.

Conduct of the inquiry

1. On 14 July 2004, the Tribunal made Directions for all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure is attracted.

2. On 15 November 2004, the native title party confirmed that P24/3829 was included in a heritage agreement between the grantee and native title parties and withdrew the objection in relation to that proposed licence.  The balance of the proposed licences are in the same general vicinity to the east of Kalgoorlie.

3. On 12 January 2005 the grantee party advised the Tribunal that it would rely on the submissions of the Government party. The Government party complied with the Directions by 19 January 2005. No material relevant to the inquiry was submitted by or on behalf of the native title party by the due date of 14 February 2005.

4. On 18 February 2005 I convened a Listing Hearing during which the grantee party advised that it had previously considered the Central West Goldfields People's Alternative Heritage Agreement ('CWAHA') but was not prepared to enter into it as the terms were unacceptable.  It advised that it had already executed a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RHSA’) with the Central West Goldfields native title party according to the Government party's procedures, on which it chose to rely.  This RHSA had been forwarded to the Goldfields Land & Sea Council (‘the GLSC’) the Native Title Representative Body (‘NTRB’) for the area of the proposed licences.  Ms Elizabeth Sambo, representative for the native title party, advised that the RHSA was not acceptable to the native title party.

5. At the same Hearing, the Government party requested permission to submit amended contentions and I directed that these be submitted by 18 February 2005.  I also amended Directions, requiring native title party compliance by the same date.

6. On 18 February 2005 the native title party complied with the amended Directions and the Government party submitted its amended contentions. I accepted the amendments and allowed further time for parties to inspect that evidence and make further submissions if they chose.  No further submissions were received from any party. 

7. Ms Elizabeth Sambo, representative for the native title party, requested that the objection be heard ‘on country’. The Government and grantee parties have submitted that the matter be dealt with ‘on the papers’ before the Tribunal. In recent times in Western Australia, the Tribunal has not found it necessary to conduct an oral hearing ‘on country’ in expedited procedure matters and there is nothing peculiar to this matter which makes such a hearing necessary. I am satisfied that I can adequately deal with the matter on the papers in accordance with s 151(2) of the Act.

Legal principles

1. 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.’

1. In Walley vWestern Australia [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437 (‘Walley’), I considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]-[23]) and the nature of exploration and prospecting licences and conditions to be imposed including what activities are permitted by it and what limits are placed on those activities (at [24]-[35]). I adopt those findings for the purposes of this inquiry. The Mining Act has recently been amended including in relation to exploration and prospecting licences. The amendments come into effect on 30 June 2005 but do not apply to exploration and prospecting licences applied for or granted prior to that date.  Whether these amendments will be relevant to future expedited procedure inquiries will need to be considered after the amendments come into effect.

The Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA)

1. Throughout the preliminary proceedings the grantee party maintained that it had followed the Government party’s procedures relating to the RSHA.  Ms Sambo said that the GLSC (to whom the RSHA had been sent) no longer represented the Central West Goldfields claim group.  The Government party’s policies and procedures in relation to RSHAs and their relevance to expedited procedure objection inquiries has been considered in 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 ('Linda Champion') (at [15]-[35]).  In the circumstances of this matter the RSHA is evidence of the grantee party’s intention regarding the protection of sites of significance and of a preparedness to enter into an agreement with the native title party for a heritage survey but is not a binding agreement.

Evidence in relation to the proposed act

1. Notable underlying tenure in the Government party documentation is as follows:

• Hampton Hill Pastoral Lease 3114/1214 held by BC, CBC, JLC & BFC Jones

• Black Flag Pastoral Lease 3114/951 held by Centaur Mining & Exploration Ltd

• Special Lease 3116/5879 (grazing) held by Centaur Mining & Exploration Ltd

• Lease Grazing 332/1909 (grazing) held by BC, CBC, JLC & BFC Jones

• Reserve (common) 4459 and 17642

1. With the exception of P26/3209, there are no Aboriginal communities or sites registered with the Department of Indigenous Affairs pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) within the proposed licences. P26/3209 contains an open access site on the interim register named "Glass Cave-Snake Hill" and described as a Rockshelter with site identification number 16970. The site file held by the Department reveals the site to be a small 2 x 5 x 3 metre rock shelter with scattered glass and quartz fragments located inside.

2. The mapping documentation provided by the government party shows extensive exploration and interest in the area of the proposed licences and that adjacent to it. Indeed, there is little land within a 10 kilometre radius of the proposed licence that is not encompassed by past, active or pending tenements. Maps provided by the Tribunal's geospatial unit show a number of abandoned mining centres in the surrounding area. More specifically, the quick appraisal from Tengraph shows that s 57(4) of the Mining Act applies to 100% of the area of all the proposed licences with the exception of P25/1800, P25/1801, P26/3205, P26/3206 and P26/3238 where it is said to apply to 88-91% of the area. A ministerial direction pursuant to s 57(4) of the Mining Act prohibits the making or grant of an exploration licence on the basis that extensive mining is being carried out.  My finding based on the documentation is that there is a considerable history of exploration and mining activity over and adjacent to the area of the proposed licences.

3. The Government party will impose the following condition on the grant of the proposed licences:

   ‘The Licensee, if so requested in writing by the Central West People, the applicants in Federal Court application no. WAG65 of 1998 (WC99/29), such request being sent by pre-paid post to reach the Licensee’s address c/o Cazaly Resources Limited, PO Box 396, West Perth WA 6872 not more than ninety days after the grant of this licence, shall within thirty days of the request execute in favour of the Central West Goldfields People the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (“RSHA”) endorsed by peak industry groups and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council in respect of the area covered by this licence.’

4. The grant of the proposed licences will be subject to the standard endorsement and conditions applicable to all prospecting licences in Western Australia as previously set out in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/61, [2005] NNTTA 11 (19 March 2005), Hon C J Sumner at [16].

Native title party evidence

1. The native title party has submitted two affidavits of Elizabeth Sambo sworn in Kalgoorlie on 17 February 2005 in support of their contentions.  The general information contained in paragraphs 1-8, 10, and 11-15 of the affidavit is similar to the information contained in the affidavit submitted in relation to Linda Champion on behalf of the Central West Goldfields People/Western Australia/Internickel Australia Pty Ltd, NNTT WO04/43, [2005] NNTTA 6 (8 March 2005), Hon C J Sumner (‘Internickel’) at [31] (with the exception of the proposed licence numbers) and will not be included below.  Paragraph 9 appears to be specific to this matter and is set out hereunder (the second affidavit refers to the remaining tenement numbers):

   9.   Prospecting Licences P25/1789, 25/1790-1794, 26/3197-3199 and 27/1601-1606 are located in close proximity to creeks that drain the rocky country around Golden Ridge and Boorara through Balagundi towards Perkolilli. These areas contain traditional Aboriginal water-sources that were created in the Dreaming and are of high spiritual significance to my people in accordance with our traditions.  The water represents a spiritual force that keeps my people alive.  Destroy it and you destroy my people.  Some of these spiritual sites appear to be close to the tenements in question and could be destroyed by mineral exploration carried out without first consulting Aboriginal people traditional to the area.’

2. Ms Sambo is one of eight persons who collectively form the applicant for the Central West Goldfields People native title claim, and currently represents the group in future act matters.  Her evidence is uncontested and I accept her statement that she is a senior woman of the Central West people, with attendant responsibilities towards the guardianship of the land with which the native title party is associated.

Community or social activities (s 237(a))

1. For the objection to be upheld the evidence must show there is a likelihood (in the sense of a real risk) that there will be substantial impact on the community or social activities of the native title party.

2. The Government party relies on relevant aspects of its regulatory regime under the Mining Act and conditions to be imposed for prospecting licences detailed in Walley at [24]-[37] to contend that there is not likely to be direct interference with the carrying on of community and social activities (s 237(a)) by the native title party in relation to the area of land concerned.

3. The native title party’s contentions signed by Ms Elizabeth Sambo (para 3) say that it ‘has been the custom of the objectors to visit areas in the vicinity of Boorara Hill, Golden Ridge and surrounds to hunt for traditional meat food and to gather traditional vegetable foods, bush medicines and material for the manufacture of traditional tools and implements’.  It is then said that exploration will lead to ‘large areas’ of traditional land being closed off and that there will be evacuation of wild game and destruction of vegetable food and fruits.  The contentions further say that the claimant group ‘have been accustomed to bring young group members and other children regularly to Boorara Hill-Golden Ridge area for the purpose of instructing them’.  The contentions then give an example of this activity by reference to Cadley Sambo, his children including Elizabeth and Dennis Sambo, and their uncles. As noted in Internickel at [34], this kind of evidence suggests that such activity occurred in the past as there is no specific reference to contemporary activity of this kind.

4. According to mapping documentation, the "rocky country around Golden Ridge and Boorara through Balagundi towards Perkolilli" described at paragraph 9 of the affidavit runs within or near the area of the proposed licences.

5. However, the evidence of community and social activities of the native title party in that "rocky country" is generally not specific in terms of its nature, frequency or the number of people involved and it appears that any activities are not restricted entirely to the area of the proposed licences or indeed that rocky country.  Further, the grant of the proposed licences does not confer exclusive rights of access to the grantee party.  Any restriction on access by the native title party will be very limited in area given the nature of exploration activities and the wide area over which any hunting or gathering may occur.  Any restriction would also be temporary.

6. The Tribunal has held that the existence of prior mining or pastoral activities which have in the past or which currently affect the native title party’s community or social activities may be taken into account in assessing whether the grant of an exploration tenement is likely to further affect such activities (Smith v Western Australia [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442 at [26]-[28]; Walley at [12]). In this matter, I take into account that the area of the proposed licences has been subject to extensive exploration and mining activities and that much of the area is also subject to pastoral or grazing leases. I therefore find that there is unlikely to be any substantial direct interference with native title party’s current community or social activities as a result of the grant of the proposed licences.

1. With respect to the contention that the spirituality of the land will be destroyed by exploration (prospecting) activities, that misfortune, illness or unexpected death will occur if there is damage to special places for which they have responsibility, and that traditional punishment may be administered if this damage occurs, the Tribunal accepts the evidence relating to the responsibility of claimants to care for the land.  The same evidence arose in Linda Champion at [65]-[66] and Internickel at [39]-[40].  In those matters I noted the difficulty with such submissions including that exploration activity has occurred over many years in the Goldfields area but there is no evidence that traditional punishment has in fact been administered in the circumstances outlined by Ms Sambo.  I adopt those findings here.

2. A further difficulty with Ms Sambo’s contentions, which also arose in Linda Champion at [66] and Internickel at [41] is that the native title party asserts that a proper heritage survey (in her view one carried out according to a CWAHA) will ensure that her responsibilities to look after the country are met.  In those matters I noted the differences between the RSHA and CWAHA, and was satisfied that both involve the conduct of surveys that will identify Aboriginal heritage including sites of particular significance to the native title party. I adopt those findings here.  The Government party’s proposed condition means that the native title party will be able to insist on a RSHA.

3. Taking all these factors into account I find that the activities on the proposed licences will not directly interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party in a substantial or more than trivial way.

Sites of particular significance (s 237(b))

1. The issue here is whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with areas or sites of particular (i.e. more than ordinary - Cheinmora v Striker (1996) 142 ALR 21 at 34-35) significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions. The fact that only one site is recorded on the Interim Register kept under the Aboriginal Heritage Act does not mean there may not be sites or areas of particular significance to the native title party over the area of the proposed licences. 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 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) protects all Aboriginal sites, whether on the Register or not.

2. The regulatory regime based on the Aboriginal Heritage Act has been described on numerous occasions by the Tribunal (I adopt the findings in Walley at [50]-[51]). The Federal Court (Little v Western Australia [2001] FCA 1706; (2001) 6(4) AILR 67 at [77]) found the protective effect of the Aboriginal Heritage Act such as to make interference with sites of particular significance unlikely.  More recently in Linda Champion at [70]-[71] I found that the combined effect of the Government party's revised ‘Guidelines for Consultation with Indigenous People by Mineral Explorers by Mineral and Petroleum Exploration’ (July 2004) which is sent out to each grantee of an exploration or prospecting licence and increase in penalties under the Aboriginal Heritage Act was to enhance the effectiveness of the regulatory regime for the protection of Aboriginal sites.  I adopt those findings for the purpose of this inquiry.  As in the past, the Tribunal will continue to have regard to whether this protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely that there will be interference with sites of particular significance found to exist.

3. At paragraph 9 of her affidavit, Ms Sambo states that the proposed licences "are located in close proximity to creeks that drain the rocky country around Golden Ridge and Boorara through Balagundi towards Perkolilli" and contain "spiritual sites" of high significance created in the Dreaming.  This evidence is uncontested and although not very specific I accept that it establishes the existence of sites of particular significance to the native title party in the area specified.  I also accept the native title party's claim that many of these sites have not been mapped or recorded.  Whether any are within the area of the proposed licences is not established but there is a possibility that some may be.

4. I must now consider whether the presumption of regularity and the protective provisions and procedures of the Aboriginal Heritage Act make it unlikely that there will be interference with any area or sites of particular significance.  I am satisfied that the regulatory regime in place will ensure that interference with sites is unlikely.  Ms Sambo says that a full Aboriginal heritage survey is necessary after which the grantee party would be free to carry on exploration.  The objection application states that the objection will be withdrawn once the CWAHA is entered into and a heritage survey carried out.  The grantee party has expressed its willingness to conduct a heritage survey (albeit of the kind described in the RSHA) and is mindful of its responsibilities under the Aboriginal Heritage Act to protect Aboriginal Heritage.  I accept that the grantee party will consult with the native title party about these matters if the tenements are granted.  As stated above, having perused both agreements, I can see no reason to suggest that Aboriginal heritage will be protected more effectively by one than the other.  If, after consultation, agreement cannot be reached the native title party under the Government party’s proposed condition can insist on a survey pursuant to the RSHA (Linda Champion at [33], [35]).  Most of the identified sites are not on or near the tenement area.  The possibility exists that some other sites of particular significance exist on the area.  In both cases I am satisfied that the Government party’s regulatory regime which applies to them means that there is no real risk they will be interfered with.

Major disturbance (s 237(c))

1. Section 237(c) of the act requires a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the proposed licence or the exploration activities undertaken upon grant of the licence are likely to involve major disturbance, the meaning of which was considered in Dann v Western Australia (1997) 74 FCR 391. The Tribunal must determine whether major disturbance is likely to occur from the viewpoint of the entire Australian community, including the Aboriginal community, as well as taking into account the concerns of the native title party.

2. The concerns of the native title party are set out in Ms Sambo’s affidavit and have largely been dealt with when considering ss 237(a) and 237(b). Apart from the sites of particular significance there is no direct evidence on the issue of major disturbance to land. It is asserted in a generalised way that a permissible quantity of blasting or bulldozing, if performed on a geographical feature "established in the Creative Era by the Dreaming ancestors" would constitute major disturbance as defined by the Aboriginal community as a whole. The native title party again contends that a site survey is necessary to prevent major disturbance to land something which is within the power of the native title party to insist on. For the reasons already given on s 237(b) I do not consider disturbance to land which amounts to interference with an Aboriginal site to be likely.

3. The native title party contends that the activities permissible upon grant of the proposed licences constitute a major disturbance of the ground, "even from the viewpoint of the general community".  In Linda Champion (at [78]-[79]) I found the regulatory regime sufficient to ensure that major disturbance to the ground was not likely to result from the grant of the proposed licence. I adopt those findings for the purpose of this inquiry.

4. In finding that there is not likely to be major disturbance to land I have also had regard to the fact that there are no Aboriginal communities in the vicinity, to the Government party’s regulatory regime in the Mining Act and conditions imposed dealing with ground disturbing activities and rehabilitation.  There is no detailed evidence of any sensitive topographical, geological or environmental factors on the proposed licence area which would lead members of the Australian community generally to think that exploration activities would result in major disturbance to land.

Determination

1. The determination of the Tribunal is that the grant of prospecting licences P25/1789, P25/1790, P25/1791, P25/1792, P25/1793, P25/1794, P25/1800, P25/1801, P26/3195, P26/3196, P26/3197, P26/3198, P26/3199, P26/3205, P26/3206, P26/3207, P26/3208, P26/3209, P26/3238, P27/1601, P27/1602, P27/1603, P27/1604, P27/1605, P27/1606 and P27/1607 to International Goldfields Ltd is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

24 March 2005