Ruby Saltmere (Indjilandji/Dithannoi)/Queensland/Savannah Resources Pty Ltd - [2005] NNTTA 54

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ruby Saltmere (Indjilandji/Dithannoi)/Queensland/Savannah Resources Pty Ltd, [2005] NNTTA 54 (5 August 2005)

Application No: QO 04/94

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Ruby Saltmere on behalf of the Indjilandji/Dithannoi People (native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland (government party)

- and -

Savannah Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:        John Sosso
Place:              Brisbane
Date:               5 August 2005

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence expedited procedure application – failure to proceed within a reasonable time - objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 66B, 148(b)

Hearing Dates: 17 December 2004, 18 February 2005, 1 April 2005, 8 April 2005, 15 April 2005, 6 May 2005, 10 June 2005, 1 July 2005, 22 July 2005, 5 August 2005.

Representatives -

Native title party:                Mr Greg Carter, Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers
Government party:             Miss Leanne O’Neill, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
Grantee party:  Mr Peter Hwang, Minter Ellison Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

[1] On 14 July 2004, the State of Queensland (“the government party”) gave notice under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant Exploration Permit (EPM) 14384 (the proposed tenement) to Savannah Resources Pty Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

[2] On 15 November 2004, Ruby Saltmere, on behalf of the Indjilandji/Dithannoi People (“the native title party”), lodged with the Tribunal an expedited procedure objection application, pursuant to section 32(3).

The Indjilandji/Dithannoi native title determination application (QUD6031/99) was filed with the Federal Court on 6 November 2002 and entered on the Register of native title claims on 16 July 2003.

On 16 November 2004 Deputy President Sumner, as delegate of the President, appointed me as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of this expedited procedure objection inquiry.

On 24 November 2004 I considered the expedited procedure objection application lodged by the native title party and accepted it pursuant to section 77.

This matter was first listed for a Preliminary Conference on 17 December 2004, and subsequently listed for Status Conferences on 18 February, 1 April, 8 April, 15 April, 6 May, 10 June, 1 July, 22 July and 5 August 2005. At the Status Conference of 15 April 2005 I issued Directions, which were subsequently amended on four occasions. On each occasion the time for compliance was altered to allow the parties further time to negotiate an agreement.
The proposed tenement overlaps two registered native title determination applications. Apart from the Indjilandji/Dithannoi application, the proposed tenement also overlaps the Kalkadoon native title determination application (QC99/32B). Only the Indjilandji/Dithannoi People lodged an expedited procedure objection application. However, in order that an agreement can be reached with the government party…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ruby Saltmere (Indjilandji/Dithannoi)/Queensland/Savannah Re... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NNTTA 54
Decision Date: 5 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Ruby Saltmere, an Indjilandji and Dithannoi native title holder, and Queensland and Savannah Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute revolved around a proposed grant of an exploration licence under the Mining Act 1978 and the subsequent application for an expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicants had failed to proceed within a reasonable time, thereby warranting the dismissal of their objection application.

The court had to determine if the applicants had acted with due diligence in the negotiation process and whether their delay was justified. It examined the conduct of both parties, assessing the reasonableness of their respective timelines and actions. The court noted the applicants' efforts to negotiate and their response to the native title holders' objections, but also considered the overall delay in reaching an agreement. The court concluded that the applicants had not acted with the necessary urgency and diligence, leading to the dismissal of their objection application.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of timely action in the context of native title claims and mining exploration licences. It highlighted the need for all parties to engage in good faith negotiations and to act promptly to avoid unnecessary delays. The court found that the applicants' failure to proceed within a reasonable time resulted in the dismissal of their objection application, thereby allowing the native title holders to object to the proposed exploration licence.

Orders