Robert Clancy and Others on behalf of Wulli Wulli People #2/State of Queensland/Aeon Metals Ltd, [2013] NNTTA

[2013] NNTTA 95

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Robert Clancy and Others on behalf of Wulli Wulli People #2/State of Queensland/AEON Metals Ltd, [2013] NNTTA [2013] NNTTA 95 (19 July 2013)

Application No:        QO2013/0046

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Robert Clancy and Others on behalf of Wulli Wulli People #2 (QC2011/005)

(native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland   (Government party)

- and -

AEON Metals Ltd   (grantee party)

DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:         Dr Valerie Cooms, Member
Place:  Brisbane
Date of non-acceptance:      19 July 2013
Date of reasons:                    19 July 2013

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permit – expedited procedure objection application – tenement abandoned – tenement application withdrawn prior to acceptance – expedited procedure objection application not accepted.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 32, 76, 77, 148

REASONS FOR DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

1. The State of Queensland (‘Government party’) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant Exploration Permit for Minerals 19780 (‘the proposed licence’) to AEON Metals Ltd (‘grantee party’) and included a statement, pursuant to s 29(7), that it considered that the proposed future act attracted the expedited procedure. Pursuant to s 29(4), 20 February 2013 was specified as the notification day.

2. Section 32 of the Act deals with proposed future acts where the Government party asserts the expedited procedure. Subsection 32(3) provides that a native title party may, within the period of four months from the notification day, lodge an objection with the National Native Title Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) against the inclusion of the statement. If the native title party does not lodge an objection with the Tribunal in accordance with s 32(3), the Government party may do the act (ie. grant the proposed licence).

3. On 17 June 2013, being within four months from the notification day, the Tribunal received an expedited procedure objection application from Just Us Lawyers, detailing the applicant as Robert Clancy and others on behalf of the Wulli Wulli People #2 (‘the native title party’). On 20 June 2013, being four months from the notification day, the native title claim of the native title party overlapped the proposed tenement by 64.2 per cent. The native title determination applications of the Wakka Wakka People #3 (QC2011/010) and Wakka Wakka People #4 (QC2012/003) also overlapped the proposed tenement. However, as neither lodged an objection, the only native title party for the purpose of these reasons is the Wulli Wulli People #2. 

4. In paragraph 1 of the Form 4, it was stated that the native title party ‘object to the inclusion in the notice issued under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in relation to Exploration Permit for Minerals No 19780 (Exploration Permit) of the statement that the grant of the Exploration Permit is an act that attracts the expedited procedure’.

5. On 9 July 2013, before the application had been considered for acceptance by the Tribunal, the Tribunal received an email from a representative of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines on behalf of the Government party stating that the proposed licence had been abandoned by the grantee party on 18 June 2013. As the objection application had not yet been accepted, these reasons constitute a decision on acceptance under s 76 of the Act rather than a consideration of dismissal under s 148(1) of the Act.

6. According to s 76 of the Act, an expedited procedure objection application must be in the prescribed form, be given to the Native Title Registrar, contain the prescribed information and be accompanied by the prescribed documents and fee. If the application complies with the requirements of s 76, the Tribunal must accept the application (see s 77).

7. On the current facts, the abandonment of the tenement application amounts to a significant change to a key aspect of the objection application and the Tribunal is no longer entitled to deal with the objection application associated with the withdrawn application.

Decision

1. I am satisfied that the objection application does not meet the requirements of s 76 due to the withdrawal of the tenement application for Exploration Permit for Minerals 19780 on 18 June 2013. Accordingly, the application is not accepted.

Valerie Cooms
Member
19 July 2013