Raymond William Ashwin (dec) & Others on behalf of Wutha v Murchison Gold Mines Pty Ltd

[2017] NNTTA 56

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond William Ashwin (dec) & Others on behalf of Wutha v Murchison Gold Mines Pty Ltd [2017] NNTTA 56 (11 September 2017)

Application No: WO2016/0697

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

- and -

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

Raymond William Ashwin (dec) & Others on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010)

(native title party)

- and -

Murchison Gold Mines Pty Ltd

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:	Ms H Shurven, Member
Place:	Perth
Date:	11 September 2017

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] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (‘Teelow v Page’)
Representative of the native title party:	Mr Ron Harrington-Smith

Representative of the grantee party: Mr Michael Giles, Murchison Gold Mines Pty Ltd

Representatives of the Government party: Mr Michael McMahon and Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum (now Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 5 October 2016, 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 E21/197 to Murchison Gold Mines Pty Ltd (Murchison Gold Mines). By including an expedited procedure statement in the public advertisement of the licence, the State asserted that the grant can be made without requiring Murchison Gold Mines or the State to negotiate with the Wutha native title claim group (the Wutha claim group). The Wutha claim group’s native title claim (WC1999/010) overlaps the licence by approximately 57 per cent.

2. On 24 October 2016, the Wutha claim group lodged an objection with the National Native Title Tribunal against the application of the expedited procedure to the grant of the licence. 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 in this matter.

Should the inquiry proceed or should the matter be dismissed?

1. On 6 July 2017, 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 was directed to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements, verified where possible by affidavits, on or before 16 August 2017.

2. The Wutha claim group did not provide contentions or evidence, or request further time to provide the requisite documents, by 16 August 2017. On 18 August 2017, the State wrote to the Tribunal and all parties requesting the objection be dismissed on the basis that the Wutha claim group had failed, within a reasonable time, to proceed with the objection or comply with the Tribunal’s directions.

3. On 21 August 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the representatives of the Wutha claim group and Murchison Gold Mines, asking them to respond to the State’s request to dismiss the objection. Parties were given until 28 August 2017 to respond.

4. On 28 August 2017, Murchison Gold Mines wrote to the Tribunal advising that they supported the State’s request to dismiss the objection. There was no response from the Wutha claim group concerning the request for dismissal.

5. 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.

6. In the circumstances, the Wutha claim group has 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 objection should be dismissed.

Decision

1. The objection application against exploration licence E21/197 is dismissed, according to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Ms Helen Shurven
Member
11 September 2017