Raymond William Ashwin & Others on behalf of Wutha and Cue Consolidated Mining Pty Ltd

[2018] NNTTA 74

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond William Ashwin & Others on behalf of Wutha and Cue Consolidated Mining Pty Ltd [2018] NNTTA 74 (11 December 2018)

Application No:    WO2017/0865; WO2017/0866; WO2017/0867; WO2017/0869; WO2017/0870.

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 -

Cue Consolidated Mining 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 December 2018

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 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 Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 29 November 2017, 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 P20/2319, P20/2320, P20/2321, P20/2322 and P20/2323 to Cue Consolidated Mining Pty Ltd. The area of the proposed licences is overlapped by the Wutha claim group’s native title claim (WC1999/010).

2. By including the expedited procedure statement in the public advertisement of the licence, the State has asserted the grant of these licences can be made without negotiation between Wutha, the State and Cue Consolidated Mining Pty Ltd.

3. On 21 December 2017, 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 licences. To answer the question of whether the licences can be granted in such an expedited way, I have been appointed to conduct the inquiry in this matter.

Should the inquiry proceed or should the matter be dismissed?

1. 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. These directions were sent to all parties on 12 October 2018.  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 21 November 2018.

2. Neither contentions nor evidence were received from the Wutha claim group by

   
   

   21 November 2018. 

3. On 23 November 2018, the Tribunal received a request from the State to dismiss the objections under s148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), as the native title party had failed to provide contentions and evidence by their due date of 21 November 2018, and no request to extend this date had been received.

4. The Tribunal wrote to all parties on 26 November 2018 requesting parties to provide any response to the dismissal request received from the State by no later than the close of business 3 December 2018, for my consideration.

5. The Tribunal received an email from Cue Consolidated Mining Pty Ltd on 28 November 2018 stating that they were in support of the dismissal request by the State. The Tribunal did not receive any communication from the Wutha claim group in regard to the request for dismissal.

6. In considering the dismissal request, 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.

7. 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 licences can be granted in an expedited way because I have concluded the objections should be dismissed.

Decision

1. The objection applications against prospecting licences P20/2319, P20/2320, P20/2321, P20/2322 & P20/2323 are dismissed, according to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Ms Helen Shurven
Member
11 December 2018