Shirley Purdie & Others on behalf of Yurriyangem Taam v Raz Resources Pty Ltd
[2020] NNTTA 50
•16 June 2020
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Shirley Purdie & Others on behalf of Yurriyangem Taam v Raz Resources Pty Ltd [2020] NNTTA 50 (16 June 2020)
Application No: | WO2020/0240 |
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Shirley Purdie & Others on behalf of Yurriyangem Taam (WC2010/013)
(native title party)
- and -
Raz Resources Pty Ltd
(grantee party)
- and -
State of Western Australia
(Government party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS NOT AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: | Helen Shurven, Member |
Place: | Perth |
Date: | 16 June 2020 |
Catchwords: | Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – whether act likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act likely to interfere with sites or areas of particular significance – whether act likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure – the act is not an act attracting the expedited procedure |
Legislation: | Native Title Act 1993(Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 56(1), 57(2), 151(2), 237 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) ss 5, 17, 18 Mining Act 1978 (WA) ss 58, 66 Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) r 20 |
Cases: | Delores Cheinmora v Striker Resources NL & Ors; Jack Dann v Western Australia [1996] FCA 1147; (1996) 142 ALR 21 (Cheinmora v Striker Resources) FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2014] FCA 1335; 227 FCR 182 (FMG v Yindjibarndi) Hale on behalf of the Bunuba #2 Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 560; (2015) 233 FCR 96 (Hale v Western Australia) Isaac Hale and Others on behalf of Bunuba #2 v Mings Mining Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 49 (Hale v Mings Mining Resources) Purdie on behalf of the Yurriyangem Taam Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2019] FCA 696 Silver v Northern Territory of Australia[2002] NNTTA 18; (2002) 169 FLR 1 (Silver v Northern Territory) Tjiwarl (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v Peter Romeo Gianni [2019] NNTTA 53 (Tjiwarl v Gianni) Wakamurru (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC and Another v Kalium Lakes Potash Pty Ltd & Another [2019] NNTTA 128 (Wakamurru v Kalium) Ward v Western Australia [1996] FCA 1452; (1996) 69 FCR 208 |
| Representative of the native title party: | Chloe Thomas, Kimberley Land Council |
| Representative of the grantee party: | Brett Anderson, Anderson’s Tenement Management |
| Representatives of the Government party: | Michael McMahon, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety Domhnall McCloskey, State Solicitor’s Office |
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
Introduction
This is a decision under s 32 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (the Act) about whether the expedited procedure applies to the grant of exploration licence E80/5416 (the licence) to Raz Resources Pty Ltd (Raz Resources). All references to legislation are to the Act unless stated otherwise.
The State of Western Australia (the State) gave notice of their intention to grant the licence and included a statement that they consider the grant is an act attracting the expedited procedure. This would, subject to any successful objection, allow the licence to be granted without the s 31 requirement to negotiate.
The licence is just over 4000 hectares, and located in the Wyndham-East Kimberley Shire. The licence is on land and waters where the Federal Court has ordered there will be a determination of exclusive native title in favour of the Yurriyangem Taam native title claimants, which will take effect immediately upon a prescribed body corporate being determined under s 56(1) or s 57(2) (see Purdie on behalf of the Yurriyangem Taam Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia).
Yurriyangem Taam lodged an objection with the National Native Title Tribunal (the Tribunal) to the State’s inclusion of the expedited procedure statement. The Tribunal must make a determination about whether the expedited procedure applies (s 32(4)). The President of the Tribunal appointed me to constitute the Tribunal for this purpose.
For the reasons outlined below, my determination is that the grant of the licence is not an act attracting the expedited procedure.
Issues for Inquiry
Under s 237, the grant of a license is only an act attracting the expedited procedure if it is not likely to, in summary:
(a)interfere directly with the community or social activities of the holders of native title in relation to the licence area (s 237(a));
(b)interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with their traditions, to those holders (s 237(b)); or
(c)involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to any part of the licence area (s 237(c)).
Yurriyangem Taam do not submit contentions or evidence regarding s 237(a) or s 237(c). Applying the common sense approach to evidence required by administrative tribunals (Ward v Western Australia at [26]), there is nothing before me which indicates the grant of the licence is likely to involve major disturbance to the land or waters concerned. As such, this inquiry is focused on s 237(b).
Raz Resources have applied for excision of parts of the licence, including the portion that overlaps the Yurriyangem Taam claim (which is approximately 20 per cent of the licence area). This excision will come into effect on grant of the licence. Raz Resources contentions summarise their view of the effect of the excision request (at 1.4-1.7):
The grantee party originally applied for E80/5416 in the amount of 15 blocks of which 3 coincided with a portion of the area in which the Native Title party has applied for native title, being WC2010/013, WAD44/2019, (Yurriyangem Taam).
E80/5416 currently covers approximately 12 blocks, after the excision of those blocks affected by the Native Title Party’s claim.
As the Grantee has taken the step of excising the area of overlap between the application for E80/5416 and the Native Title Party’s claim they now believe that the NTP has no rights over the remainder of the area applied for.
The GP has separately applied for another application, E80/5490, over the overlap area and intends to negotiate an agreement over that application separately with the NTP.
As outlined in Hale v Mings Mining Resources, I must take into account the whole of the licence when considering the effect of the grant on s 237 criteria. However, the excision application will be particularly relevant in my consideration of the likelihood of interference with any sites of particular significance found to exist on or near the licence. I outline more on this below, particularly at [25]-[30].
Determination on the papers
The State provided a statement of contentions and evidence including mapping, tengraph quick appraisal tenure documents, search results from the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage’s Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS searches), the licence application with the accompanying statement under s 58 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act), and details of proposed endorsements and conditions to be imposed, including their Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA).
Raz Resources provided contentions and annexures in support of their arguments.
Yurriyangem Taam provided a statement of contentions, the affidavit of Shirley Purdie and a reply to the State’s and Raz Resources’ submissions. Ms Purdie states she is a native title holder for the area of the licence and that ‘I have given this statement in the company of my daughter, Madeleine Purdie, and Eithel McLennan. They grew up with this story and they helped me share it with you’. I accept Ms Purdie’s evidence on that basis.
I was satisfied the inquiry could be adequately determined without a hearing (s 151(2)) and no party took exception to that course of action.
The s 237 predictive assessment
As outlined in Silver v Northern Territory (at [21]), which I adopt for the purposes of this inquiry (emphasis in original):
…section 237 requires the Tribunal to make a predictive assessment about the likelihood of the act in question having any of the consequences outlined in paragraphs (a) – (c) set out above. The proper approach to the application of section 237 was explained by French J in Smith v Western Australia [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442. His Honour pointed out (at 450): "The Tribunal is therefore required to assess whether, as a matter of fact, the proposed future act is likely to give rise to the interference or disturbance referred to in pars (a), (b) and (c) of s 237. That involves a predictive assessment not confined to a consideration of the legal rights conferred by the grant of the proposed tenement." … [T]his approach was also endorsed by R D Nicholson J in Little v Western Australia [2001] FCA 1706 at [69].
Section 237(b): is the grant of the licence likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance?
My assessment of s 237(b) turns on whether or not there are areas or sites of ‘particular significance’ – meaning of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders in accordance with their traditions (Cheinmora v Striker Resources at 34–35). If an area or site is of particular significance, it must be known and able to be located, and the nature of its significance explained (Silver v Northern Territory at [91]).
What areas or sites have been identified and are any of particular significance?
As a starting point for sites and areas on or near the licence, I note there are eight registered sites and four other heritage places recorded on the AHIS, as listed later in this paragraph. Registered sites are those where the site or place has been assessed as meeting s 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA). An ‘other heritage place’ includes sites or places which have been assessed as not meeting s 5, and places where information has been received in relation to the place but an assessment has not been completed to determine if it meets s 5. As has been outlined in previous Tribunal decisions, being recorded on the AHIS does not necessarily mean a site or area is or is not of particular significance. That is a matter for the evidence provided in each inquiry.
Registered sites
ID 13083 Margumbarren – Male access only – Mythological
ID 13085 Lullumallulu – No gender restrictions – Mythological
ID 13725 Argyle 15 – No gender restrictions – Artefacts / Scatter
ID 13972 Tjamindum/Nanbum – No gender restrictions – Ceremonial, Mythological
ID 14014 Yulitj – No gender restrictions – Mythological
ID 14011 Standing Rock – No gender restrictions – Man-made structure, Mythological
ID 14012 Sugar Bag Yard Hole – No gender restrictions – Mythological, Water source
ID 14019 Witikara – Female access only – Mythological
Other heritage places
ID 13671 Argyle 16 – No gender restrictions – Lodged – Artefacts / Scatter
ID 13691 Argyle 36 – No gender restrictions – Lodged – Artefacts / Scatter, Mythological
ID 22035 RTE / ADM 0803-07 – No gender restrictions – Lodged – Artefacts / Scatter
ID 24399 – Bow River Boulder Arrangement #1 – No gender restrictions – Lodged – Man-made structure
Yurriyangem Taam contentions (at 20) argue the high concentration of these sites is consistent with the evidence provided in this inquiry that the licence area is strongly connected with the Nullagalli dreaming and holds great spiritual significance to Yurriyangem Taam. The State are critical that the evidence does not refer to these sites or areas by name, or identify them in the context of their AHIS recording.
The Yurriyangem Taam reply (at 33) argues that Ms Purdie’s evidence is based on personal knowledge and not references to names or details on the AHIS. They argue I should infer that Mr Purdie’s evidence refers or relates to the registered sites and other heritage places, notwithstanding that names or other details do not match the AHIS details. I accept Ms Purdie did not refer to AHIS sites by name specifically in her evidence, however, I do not consider this omission to diminish her evidence. Ms Purdie has clearly outlined which sites or areas are of significance to Yurriyangem Taam, and explained why. I need then to assess whether that information allows a conclusion about whether there are sites or areas of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b).
I do note that Mt Nyulasy and the rocks area is overlapped by the area of some of the registered AHIS sites, including:
ID 13083 Margumbarren – Male access only – Mythological
ID 14011 Standing Rock – No gender restrictions – Man-made structure, Mythological
ID 14019 Witikara – Female access only – Mythological
I make further comment about that as relevant below in my consideration of interference.
Ms Purdie identifies the licence with a map attached to her affidavit, and her description of the area indicates clarity about the area of the licence, and its position in relation to areas which are important to Yurriyangem Taam. I need to assess whether those areas are of particular significance to Yurriyangem Taam, in relation to s 237(b) of the Act.
Ms Purdie is clear that she is focusing on areas and sites in relation to the licence – for example, she states (at 11) ‘I am going to talk about the part of the Tenement Area in relation to the old man on the hill, the Nullagalli dreaming’.Ms Purdie describes that the Nullagalli dreaming travels through the licence, and she identifies Mt Nyulasy as a place where the dreaming is located. Ms Purdie goes on to explain the dreaming story, its relation to specific activity by the kangaroo associated with that dreaming, and how the dreaming came to be linked with Mt Nyulasy. I do not repeat that story here as there are sensitivities to be taken into account, and I do not need to do so to explain my reasoning in this decision.
Ms Purdie (at 16) states there are rocks associated with Mt Nyulasy and the dreaming, and the Wilson River and Bow River also feature in the dreaming story – these rivers flow through the western side of the licence. That the dreaming story is strongly related to the traditions of the native title party is supported, for example, where Ms Purdie states ‘We all know that story and grew up with that story, the Nullagalli dreaming. We shared this story to a linguist in Warmun, Francis Koford. She can tell you about it too’.
On the basis of the evidence provided, I accept Mt Nyulasy is associated with the Nullagalli dreaming, is located on the licence, and is a site of particular significance to Yurriyangem Taam. I also accept the rocks near Mt Nyulasy are of particular significance to Yurriyangem Taam because of their association with the dreaming and with Mt Nyulasy.
There are more general references to the area of the licence (for example, areas ‘between’ Mt Nyulasy and the Bow River), but there was insufficient information for me to conclude these were areas of particular significance.
What is the effect of the excision application?
As outlined earlier in this decision, Raz Resources lodged an application with the State to excise a portion of the licence application. The excision applies on grant of the licence, and means that Raz Resources would not have, for the purpose of this licence application, access to explore the area to be excised. The State provided mapping to confirm the areas of excision, which are a portion the eastern side and a portion to the western side of the licence. The western side excision takes in the area covered by the Wilson River and the Bow River. Neither of the areas to be excised cover Mt Nyulasy or the rocks area near Mt Nyulasy. All parties were given the opportunity to comment on the State’s mapping of the excision areas, and I have considered those comments in this inquiry.
The State argues (page 5 at 30) that the Nullagalli dreaming is located in the part of the licence that will be excised. I accept that the part of the dreaming that is associated with the Wilson River and the Bow River will not be available to Raz Resources to explore following the grant of the licence, and so that part of the dreaming will not be subject to interference from such activities. However, Mt Nyulasy and the rocks associated with Mt Nyulasy are not in the excised portion of the licence.
This means Mt Nyulasy and the rocks area associated with Mt Nyulasy and the dreaming, which I have found to be of particular significance to Yurriyangem Taam, will still be available to Raz Resources for exploration purposes following the grant of this licence. I accept the Yurriyangem Taam reply (at 20, 24 and annexure 1) that the geographical feature/rocks area ‘is almost entirely located in the area not subject to the proposed excision’ (emphasis added). I am satisfied that given the location information provided in Ms Purdie’s affidavit, and information about the elevation of parts of the licence provided in the Yurriyangem Taam reply (at 27 and Annexure 1), that at least part of Mt Nyulasy and the rocks fall within the licence area (and within that part of the licence which is not to be excised on grant).
The areas Raz Resources have applied to excise from their application include the area in the west of the licence which overlaps the Yurriyangem Taam claim. It appears from their contentions and evidence that the intention of Raz Resources was to remove the issue of interference with sites of particular significance to the Yurriyangem Taam native title party, by excising the area which overlaps the claim. However, it is important to note Barker J’s conclusions in Hale v Western Australia, when examining the scope of s 237(b). This was considered in the Tribunal’s recent decision of Wakamurru v Kalium, and so I adopt and set out the relevant paragraphs ([62]-[64]) of that decision below, to ensure it is understood that, in summary:
(a)the scope of an expedited procedure inquiry is the whole of the area specified in the s 29 notice; and
(b)a native title party can object to the expedited procedure statement because part of their claim or determination overlaps with a s 29 notice. However, the act (for example, exploration activities) might still interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to the native title party which are outside the area to which they have claimed or determined native title rights and interests, but which are within the s 29 notice.
At paragraphs [62]-[63] of Wakamurru v Kalium the Tribunal stated (emphasis added):
[62] [The grantee party] argues that to the extent this site falls outside the [native title party] determination area, it does not form part of the ‘land or waters concerned’ as that term is used in s 237(b) and is therefore not relevant to these proceedings. In my view that submission is plainly incorrect having regard to the decision of Barker J in Hale, which held that the scope of the inquiry into an expedited procedure objection is concerned with the area of the proposed act specified in the s 29 notice.
[63] Relevantly, His Honour said at [107]–[113]:
107.In short, the State contends that because an inquiry by the arbitral body arises, and only arises, because of a particular objector’s objection, the “land or waters concerned”, to which s 237 relates, must necessarily be the “land or waters” which overlap the claim or determined area of an objector.
108.In my view, s 32(4), which is fundamental to the arbitral responsibilities that the Tribunal has in this case, is not amenable to such a construction.
109.In the circumstances of any objection, what matters must be considered having regard to the criteria stated in paras (a), (b) and (c) of s 237, is an evidentiary issue guided by the matters put in issue by the objector.
110.Under s 32(4), once there is an objection by a native title party, as there is here, the Tribunal “must determine whether the act is an act attracting the expedited procedure”. It must hold an inquiry to determine the question.
111.The criteria in s 237(a) require the Tribunal to ask whether the grant of the tenement is likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the objector in relation to the land or waters concerned – that is to say the land or waters to which the act in question – the grant of the tenement – relates. The same is to be said of the criteria to be regarded in paras (b) and (c).
112.It is always going to be an evidentiary question as to whether or not an objector, even one who only has a registered native title claim over a portion of the land or waters the subject of the proposed act, will be affected in relevant ways by the act.
113.Just because the objector’s standing to object only arises because it is a registered claimant in relation to a portion of land in the proposed tenement area, does not necessarily mean that the act might not interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the objector on the land or waters to which they claim native title; or that the act might not interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to them, which are to be found outside the area to which they claim native title, but within the ground the subject of the proposed tenement. In each case, that is the factual question for inquiry and determination by the arbitral body.
This was further outlined in Tjiwarl v Gianni (at [84]-[86]) where the Tribunal held (emphasis added):
The decision in Hale at [113] suggests that for the purposes of s 237, a future act might relevantly interfere with the conduct of community or social activities outside of the determination area. Similarly, there may be interference with areas or sites of particular significance outside of the determination area. It seems, however, that Barker J concluded that any interference must be in relation to the land or waters concerned, namely the land or waters to which the proposed future act relates…there is no justification for the proposition that interference with an area or site of particular significance outside of the determination area will only be relevant if there is an effect inside the determination area.
What activities will Raz Resources likely undertake on the licence?
The State’s papers for this inquiry included the statement provided by Raz Resources with their application for the licence. Raz Resources also provided information in their contentions (at 1.36-1.39). This included the following activities:
· interpreting aerial photos and satellite imagery
· detailed ground mapping and designing of sample and geophysical stations on a close spaced grid
· strategic drilling and bulk sampling
· drilling plus 1-10 tonne bulk samples may be done on identified targets
· exploration will usually be undertaken once a year for a matter of weeks at a time by three to four personnel will be involved in these activities – accommodation will likely be off site
· use initially of standard field vehicles and if drilling if warranted later, vehicles associated with that work will be used
The Yurriyangem Taam reply (at 13-14) states that Raz Resources has provided minimal detail about proposed exploration activities, that the information provided is speculative, is only in respect to the first two years of grant, and argues in the absence of evidence about activities for the duration of the grant, the Tribunal should conclude Raz Resources will exercise the full suite of rights available to it. These rights are set out in s 66 of the Mining Act, which provides that, upon grant, an exploration licence will authorise a grantee party:
(a)to enter and re-enter the land the subject of the licence with such agents, employees, vehicles, machinery and equipment as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of exploring for minerals in, on or under the land;
(b)to explore, subject to any conditions imposed under section 24, 24A or 25, for minerals, and to carry on such operations and carry out such works as are necessary for that purpose on such land including digging pits, trenches and holes, and sinking bores and tunnels to the extent necessary for the purpose in, on or under the land;
(c)to excavate, extract or remove, subject to any conditions imposed under section 24, 24A or 25, from such land, earth, soil, rock, stone, fluid or mineral bearing substances in such amount, in total during the period for which the licence remains in force, as does not exceed the prescribed limited, or in such greater amount as the Minister may, in any case, approve in writing;
(d)to take and divert, subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, or any Act amending or replacing the relevant provisions of that Act water from any natural spring, lake, pool or stream situate in or flowing though such land or from any excavation previously made and used for mining purposes and subject to that Act to sink a well or bore on such land and take water therefrom and to use the water so taken for his domestic purposes and for any purpose in connection with exploring for minerals in the land.
The Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) outline the amount of material able to be removed from each exploration licence as follows:
20. Limit on amount of earth etc. that may be removed (Act s. 66(c))
For the purposes of section 66(c) [of the Mining Act], the limit on the amount of earth, soil, rock, stone, fluid or mineral bearing substances which may be excavated, extracted or removed during the period for which the licence remains in force is 1 000 tonnes in total, and the excavation, extraction or removal of a larger tonnage, without the Minister’s written approval, shall render the licence liable to forfeiture.
I accept that it is likely Raz Resources will engage in the full suite of rights available to it, given the information provided about their likely exploration activities.
The State (page 7 at 25-27) argue their proposed conditions and endorsements are likely to protect any sites or areas of particular significance. However, there is nothing specific in those conditions and endorsements related to Mt Nyulasy or the area around Mt Nyulasy (which would include the rocks). The State also (page 7 at 28) refer to the AHA as a protective mechanism for areas or sites of particular significance. However, they do not specifically say how that would work in the case of the area of and around Mt Nyulasy. As noted earlier in this decision, the sites of Margumbarren, Standing Rock and Witikara all overlap the Mt Nyulasy area. I note each of these sites are mythological in nature, one is male access only and one is female access only. It is an offence to interfere with such sites under the AHA (s 17), and both the State and Raz Resources indicate they are aware of the regulatory regime including the AHA and that this will be sufficient to protect any areas of particular significance. Given that Raz Resources is able to apply for Ministerial approval under s 18 of the AHA to disturb such sites or areas, I do not agree the AHA provides sufficient protection in the context of s 237(b) to prevent interference with the area of particular significance of and around Mt Nyulasy and the associated rocks.
Raz Resources stated (at 1.12) they have undertaken a search of the AHIS register and will do so again prior to the commencement of any exploration activities to ensure sites are identified and avoided. They also state (at 1.14-1.15 for example) they intend to liaise with the relevant State department and the native title party representative to avoid sites where possible. However, there does not appear to be a mechanism for site identification or avoidance. The State (at 16; page 8 at 31-32 and 34) refer to the protective effect of their RSHA. They argue an RSHA will provide Yurriyangem Taam with an opportunity to identify areas or sites of particular significance and enable Raz Resources to avoid exploration activities in these areas.
Raz Resources states (at 1.19) it is willing to undertake a heritage survey of areas that will be impacted if ground disturbing exploration is to be undertaken, and they intend to liaise with Yurriyangem Taam prior to undertaking on ground activities and take their concerns into account (at 1.25). The only mechanism which may be in place in relation to such intentions is the RSHA, where a survey can be triggered in certain circumstances, including where an explorer intends to conduct ground disturbing activities. I am satisfied that activities which are considered non-ground disturbing, including sampling of materials on and around Mt Nyulasy and the nearby rocks, entering that area, and geophysical surveys of that area, which is associated with the dreaming, would be sufficient to cause interference for the purposes of s 237(b).
The State (page 7 at 24) also argue the area has previously been disturbed by exploration activity, although there is no specific evidence about how this has occurred, in relation to the licence generally, or in relation to Mt Nyulasy or the associated rocks.
Ms Purdie states (at 19) that ‘If the mining mob destroy that thing, they won’t put it back the same way […] they might end up knocking it down […] they might come across rocks where the kangaroo was running […] If they muck around they can cause big rain, lightning, flooding everywhere’. As McKerracher J outlined in FMG v Yindjibarndi (at [79]) ‘the impact must be substantial or non-trivial. The meaning of these terms must be taken in the context of the particular site and the laws and customs in relation to that site’. At [75]-[76], McKerracher J clarified:
That is why the focus in s 237(b) is to interference with ‘areas or sites of particular significance’ in accordance with the native title party’s traditions. It follows, of course, that interference that may appear trivial to a person not a member of a native title party for the purpose of s 237(b) [of the Act], may be substantial having regard to the native title party’s traditions... It may follow that mere entry onto the site other than on supervised terms and conditions … may from the native title party’s perspective none the less be non-trivial interference...
Conclusion
In spite of Raz Resources best intentions to avoid interference with sites of particular significance by applying to excise part of the licence, my conclusion is that the area on and around Mt Nyulasy and the associated nearby rocks area is likely to suffer from interference from Raz Resources exploration activities on grant of the licence.
Determination
The grant of the grant of exploration licence E80/5416 to Raz Resources Pty Ltd is not an act attracting the expedited procedure.
Helen Shurven
Member
16 June 2020
2
3
0