Russell Doctor and Others on behalf of Bigambul People/State of Queensland/RMA Energy Limited

[2013] NNTTA 125

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Russell Doctor and Others on behalf of Bigambul People/State of Queensland/RMA Energy Limited, [2013] NNTTA 125 (23 August 2013)

Application Nos:        QO2012/0046 and QO2012/0047

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Russell Doctor and Others on behalf of Bigambul People (QC2009/002)

(native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland   (Government party)

- and -

RMA Energy Limited   (grantee party)

EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS DISMISSED

Tribunal:         Dr Valerie Cooms, Member
Place:  Brisbane
Date of dismissal:                 23 August 2013

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permit – expedited procedure objection application – tenement abandoned – tenement application withdrawn–expedited procedure objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 30, 32, 75, 76, 77 and 148

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

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 Coal 1945 (‘the first proposed licence’) and Exploration Permit for Coal 1944 (‘the second proposed licence’) to RMA Energy Limited (‘the grantee party’) and included a statement, pursuant to s 29(7) of the Act, that it considered that the proposed future acts attracted the expedited procedure. Pursuant to s 29(4) of the Act, 15 August 2012 was specified as the notification day for both proposed licences.

2. On 16 August 2012, the Tribunal received two expedited procedure objection applications from Just Us Lawyers, pursuant to s 32(3) and s 75 of the Act, in respect of the first and second proposed licence. For both applications, it detailed the applicant as Mr Russell Doctor and others on behalf of the Bigambul People, QC2009/002 (‘the native title party’) and stated that they object to the inclusion in the notice issued under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of the statement that the grant of the relevant Exploration Permit is an act that attracts the expedited procedure.

3. Both proposed licences wholly overlap the native title party’s claim area. The native title party’s claim was accepted by the Tribunal for registration on 6 April 2009. On 17 December 2012, being four months from the notification day for both proposed licences, the objector constituted a registered native title claimant and accordingly, a “native title party” within the meaning of s 30(1) of the Act.

4. On 2 October 2012, former President Neate appointed himself as the Member to conduct both inquiries pursuant to s 123(1)(c) of the Act, and accepted both objections (see ss 76 and 77 of the Act). On 28 March 2013, former President Neate directed that I would constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of both objections, pursuant to s 123(1) of the Act.

5. Both objection applications were listed in status conferences on 1 February 2013, 1 March 2013, 5 April 2013, 3 May 2013, 31 May 2013, 28 June 2013 and 26 July 2013. On 26 July 2013, I issued Directions requiring each party to submit contentions and supporting evidence as to whether the expedited procedure should apply (see s 237 of the Act), requiring grantee party compliance on 23 August 2013, Government party compliance on 30 August 2013 and native title party compliance on 6 September 2013.

6. In relation to the first proposed licence, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines notified the Tribunal on 19 August 2013 that the tenement application had been abandoned by the grantee party, effective 15 August 2013. In relation to the second proposed licence, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines notified the Tribunal on 22 August 2013 that the tenement application had been abandoned by the grantee party, effective 15 August 2013. The Government party provided an Exploration Permit Public Enquiry Report for the first and second proposed licences, confirming that both tenement applications had been abandoned. The native title party did not withdraw either objection after they were informed of the abandonment.

7. As there is no longer a future act for the objection applications, the Directions issued 26 July 2013 are vacated and I am satisfied that the Tribunal can no longer deal with the objection applications, as per s 148(a) of the Act.

Decision

1. The expedited procedure objection applications QO2012/0046 in respect of Exploration Permit for Coal 1944 and QO2012/0047 in respect of Exploration Permit for Coal 1945 are both dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Act.

Dr Valerie Cooms
Member
23 August 2013