Raymond William Ashwin & Others on behalf of Roman Road Pty Ltd / Pendragon (WA) Pty Ltd

[2018] NNTTA 56

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond William Ashwin & Others on behalf of Roman Road Pty Ltd / Pendragon (WA) Pty Ltd [2018] NNTTA 56 (19 September 2018)

Application No: WO2018/0136

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 & Others on behalf of Wutha (WC1999/010)

(native title party)

- and -

Roman Road Pty Ltd / Pendragon (WA) Pty Ltd

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:	Ms H Shurven, Member
Place:	Perth
Date:	19 September 2018

Catchwords:	Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting 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 Roy Arthur and Mr Ian Bamborough, Roman Road Pty Ltd / Pendragon (WA) Pty Ltd
Representatives of the Government party:	Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 21 February 2018, the State Government of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P51/3031 to Roman Road Pty Ltd/Pendragon (WA) Pty Ltd (the grantee party) without requiring the grantee party or the State to negotiate with the Wutha native title claim group (the Wutha claim group). The area of the proposed licence is wholly overlapped by the Wutha claim group’s native title claim (WC1999/010).

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

3. On 5 March 2018, 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 23 July 2018, the grantee party wrote to the Tribunal and all parties stating:

   The grantee party hasn’t received any direct correspondence in respect to P51/3031 from the objecting party. In the absence of correspondence for the objector, and having signed a RSHA, the grantee party would like to progress the application process by proceeding to enquiry.

2. On 24 July 2018, 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 4 September 2018.

3. Neither contentions nor evidence were received from the Wutha claim group by the due date. On 6 August 2018, the State provided its initial compliance, copied to the Tribunal and all parties.  There was no response from Wutha.  On 5 September 2018, 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.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the all representatives, requesting a response to the State’s request to dismiss the objection. Parties were given until 12 September 2018 to respond. The Tribunal did not receive any communication from Wutha in regards to 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. 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 prospecting licence P51/3031 is dismissed, according to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Ms Helen Shurven
Member
19 September 2018