Raymond Ashwin & Ors on behalf of Wutha/Western Australia/Redport Exploration Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond Ashwin & Ors on behalf of Wutha/Western Australia/Redport Exploration Pty Ltd [2014] NNTTA 40 (24 April 2014)

Application No: WO2013/0795

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Raymond Ashwin & Ors on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Redport Exploration Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date:  24 April 2014

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – tenement granted – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(a)
Cases:David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

Representative of the
native title party: Mr Stephen Catania, Mony de Kerloy
Representatives of the

Government party: Mr Matthew Smith, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Ms April French, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 27 March 2013 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E37/1144 to Redport Exploration Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 17 July 2013, Raymond Ashwin & Ors on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010) registered from 15 June 1999, made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 31 March 2014 the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E37/1144 was granted on 27 March 2014 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within the area WC1999/010.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner). Further, in this case the grant was not a future act as native title was not affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO2013/0795 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
Member
24 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Raymond Ashwin and others, on behalf of Wutha/Western Australia/Redport Exploration Pty Ltd, brought an objection application against a proposed grant of an exploration licence over land in the Pilbara region. The applicants, who claimed native title over the area, objected to the grant of the licence, arguing that it would result in the excision of a significant portion of their native title claim. The dispute arose under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and involved the interaction between the expedited procedure for granting exploration licences and the protection of native title rights. The primary issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the grant of an exploration licence under section 223 of the Act, particularly in light of the excision of native title claim area.

The court considered the scope of its jurisdiction under section 223 of the Native Title Act, which provides for an expedited procedure for the grant of exploration licences. The court examined the legislative framework and the relevant case law to determine if the Tribunal had the authority to review the grant of the licence in the context of an excision of native title claim area. The applicants argued that the proposed grant would significantly impact their native title rights and that the court should exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the excision. The court found that the statutory framework did not provide the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to review the grant of an exploration licence when an excision of native title claim area was involved. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed.

The Federal Court held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the grant of an exploration licence when it resulted in the excision of native title claim area. The court emphasised the importance of the expedited procedure for granting exploration licences and the need to balance native title rights with the interests of exploration and development. The dismissal of the objection application meant that the proposed exploration licence could proceed, subject to compliance with the relevant legislative requirements. This decision highlights the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in reviewing certain aspects of the grant of exploration licences under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established