Raymond William Ashwin (dec) and Others on behalf of Wutha v Cue Minerals Pty Ltd

[2015] NNTTA 34

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond William Ashwin (dec) and Others on behalf of Wutha v Cue Minerals Pty Ltd [2015] NNTTA 34 (25 August 2015)

Application No:                  WO2015/0331

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Raymond William Ashwin (dec) and Others
on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010)   (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia    (Government party)

-and-

Cue Minerals Pty Ltd  (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:Ms H Shurven, Member

Place:Perth

Date of dismissal:              25 August 2015

Date of reasons:                25 August 2015

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

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)

Cases:Teelow v Page (2001) 166 FLR 266 (‘Teelow v Page’)

Representative of the        

native title party:              Mr Ron Harrington-Smith

Representative of the        

Government party:            Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party:  Mr Kevin Connell, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 28 January 2015, the State Government of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E20/836 (Amalgamation 547326) to Cue Minerals Pty Ltd. The Wutha native title claim overlaps the licence by 100 per cent.

2. The State has included an expedited procedure clause in the s 29 notice. That is, they say the grant of the licence can be made expeditiously, without the normal negotiations required under s 31 of the Act between the Wutha native title claimants and Cue Minerals.

3. The Wutha native title claimants lodged an objection with the National Native Title Tribunal against the application of the expedited procedure to the grant of the licence on 28 January 2015.  To answer the question of whether the licence can be granted in such an expedited way, I was appointed by the President of the Tribunal, Raelene Webb QC, to be the Member conducting the inquiry. 

Should the inqury proceed or should the matter be dismissed?

1. On 16 June 2015, the Cue Minerals representative advised the Tribunal that the matter was to proceed to an inquiry. I made directions requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry, to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted to the grant.  The Wutha native title claimants were directed to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements, verified where possible by affidavits, on or before 28 July 2015. 

2. Neither contentions nor evidence were received from Wutha by 28 July 2015.  On 29 July 2015, the State wrote to the Tribunal, copying in other parties, requesting the objection be dismissed because Wutha had failed, within a reasonable time, to proceed with the objection or comply with Tribunal directions.

3. On 30 July 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the Wutha native title claimants and the Cue Minerals representative, asking them to respond to the State's request to dismiss. Parties were advised ‘the objection may be dismissed forthwith in the even of native title party non-compliance’.

4. In Teelow v Page (at [13]) the Tribunal set out the principles applicable when considering dismissal of an objection application, which I have had regard to in this matter. In particular, I am required to proceed as expeditiously as possible when conducting an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection.

5. On 7 August 2015, the Tribunal again wrote to Wutha, asking them to respond by email regarding the State's request to dismiss the objections. Parties were advised the matter had been brought to my attention and would be dismissed in seven days if no response was received. As at the date of this determination, no response has been received from the Wutha native title claimants as to why the objection should not be dismissed, nor has any request for extension of directions been received, nor any reason for non compliance.

6. In the circumstances, the Wutha native title claimants have been given sufficient opportunity to comply with directions I set, and it would be unfair to prejudice the other parties with further delays.  I do not need to answer the question of whether the licence can be granted in an expedited way because I have concluded the objection should be dismissed.

Decision

1. The objection application against exploration licence E20/836 is dismissed, according to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Ms H Shurven
Member