Raymond William Ashwin (dec) & Others on behalf of Wutha v Evanton Ross Harris

[2016] NNTTA 34

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond William Ashwin (dec) & Others on behalf of Wutha v Evanton Ross Harris [2016] NNTTA 34 (25 August 2016)

Application No:                  WO2016/0063; WO2016/0064; WO2016/0065

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) & Others   on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010)  (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia  (Government party)

-and-

Evanton Ross Harris   (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:Ms H Shurven, Member

Place:Perth

Date of dismissal:              25 August 2016

Date of reasons:                25 August 2016

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

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 148(b)

Cases:Michael Daniel Teelow/Michael Page/Northern Territory [2001] NNTTA 107; 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 Evanton Ross Harris

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

1. On 10 February 2016, the State Government of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P21/735, P21/736 and P21/737 to Evanton Ross Harris without requiring Mr Harris or the State to negotiate with the Wutha native title claim group (the Wutha claim group). The area of the proposed licences wholly overlaps the Wutha native title claim WC1999/010.

2. By including an expedited procedure statement in the public advertisement of the licences, the State has asserted that the grant can be made without such negotiation. That is, they say the grant of these licences can be made expeditiously, without negotiation between the Wutha claim group, the State, and Mr Harris.

3. On 12 February 2016, the Wutha claim group lodged objections with the National Native Title Tribunal against the application of the expedited procedure to the grant of these licences. To answer the question of whether the licences 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 in these matters.

Should the inquiry proceed or should the matter be dismissed?

1. On 28 June 2016, parties were advised that these matters were to proceed to inquiry on as requested by Mr Harris. On 1 July 2016, 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 claim group were directed to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements, verified where possible by affidavits, on or before 9 August 2016. 

2. Neither contentions nor evidence were received from the Wutha claim group by 9 August 2016. On 12 August 2016, the State wrote to the Wutha claim group’s representative and the Tribunal requesting the objections be dismissed because the Wutha claim group had failed, within a reasonable time, to proceed with the objections or comply with Tribunal directions.

3. On 15 August 2016, the Tribunal wrote to the Wutha claim group’s representative and Mr Harris, asking them to respond to the State's request to dismiss the objections. Parties were given until 20 August 2016 to respond. No response was received from the Wutha claim group or Mr Harris.

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

5. As at the date of this determination, no response has been received from the Wutha claim group as to why the objections 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 claim group have been given sufficient opportunity to comply with directions set by the Tribunal, 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 objections should be dismissed.

Decision

1. The objection applications against prospecting licences P21/735, P21/736 and P21/737 are dismissed, according to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Ms Helen Shurven
Member
25 August 2016