The Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Daly Tenements Pty Ltd
[2024] NNTTA 41
•28 May 2024
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
The Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Daly Tenements Pty Ltd and Another [2024] NNTTA 41 (28 May 2024)
Application No: | DO2022/0002 - 0003 |
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
The Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (DCD2020/006)
(native title party)
- and -
Daly Tenements Pty Ltd
(grantee party)
- and -
The Northern Territory
(Government party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: | Glen Kelly |
Place: | Perth |
Date: | 28 May 2024 |
Catchwords: | Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – change of grantee party during inquiry process - whether act likely to interfere with sites of particular significance – whether grantee party activities will interfere with place of particular significance located outside of proposed licence – finding that there are no sites of particular significance on licence areas - whether act likely to interfere with carrying on of community or social activities – intermittent nature of community or social activities – finding that community or social activities will not be interfered with by grantee party activities |
Legislation: | Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) ss 26, 27, 30, 31, 121, 123 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 151, 237 |
Cases: | Ellaga v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 670 (Ellaga v Northern Territory) Jackson v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 664 (Jackson v Northern Territory No. 1) Jackson v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 668 (Jackson v Northern Territory No. 2) King v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCA 944 (King v Northern Territory) Moses Silver, Ismael Andrews & Sammy Bulabul v Northern Territory of Australia and Ashton Exploration Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NNTTA 18; (2002) 169 FLR 1 (Silver v Northern Territory) Raymond v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 683 (Raymond v Northern Territory) Smith on behalf of the Gnaala Karla Booja People v State of Western Australia [2001] FCA 19 (Smith v Western Australia) The Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation v Scriven Exploration Pty Ltd and Another [2023] NNTTA 13 (Top End v Scriven) Violet Drury and Others on behalf of Nanda People v Bywood Holdings Pty Ltd and Another [2002] NNTTA 171 (Drury v Bywood) Ward v Western Australia (1996) 69 FCR 208; [1996] FCA 1452 (Ward v Western Australia) Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 (Yindjibarndi v FMG) |
| Representatives(s) of the native title party: | Harriet Roberts, Northern Land Council |
| Representative(s) of the grantee party: | Holly Edgar, Australian Mining & Exploration Title Services |
| Representatives(s) of the Government party: | Ruby Rayner, Solicitor for the Northern Territory |
BACKGROUND
On 1 December 2021, the Northern Territory Government (Territory) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences EL32919 and EL32920 to Cedar Resources Pty Ltd (Cedar Resources). The notice for the proposed licences included a statement that the Territory considers the grant is an act attracting the expedited procedure (see s 32 Native Title Act).
I note that during the course of this inquiry the Territory advised that the holder of the proposed licences changed from Cedar Resources to Daly Tenements Pty Ltd (Daly Tenements).
EL32919 is approximately 819 square kilometres in size and is situated approximately 110 kilometres north-east of Elliott. This licence overlaps the Amungee Mungee Pastoral Lease native title determination (see Jackson v Northern Territory No. 1) and the Beetaloo Pastoral Lease native title determination (see Raymond v Northern Territory).
EL32920 is also approximately 819 square kilometres in size and is situated approximately 80 kilometres in a northerly direction from Elliot. This licence overlaps the Shenandoah Pastoral Lease native title determination (see Jackson v Northern Territory No. 2), the Beetaloo Pastoral Lease native title determination (see Raymond v Northern Territory) and the Kalala Pastoral Lease native title determination (see Ellaga v Northern Territory).
Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC is the registered native title body corporate for each of the determined native title groups above. In this capacity, Top End lodged objections with the National Native Title Tribunal against the Territory’s assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the proposed licences.
In light of these objections, I must decide whether the expedited procedure applies. If I determine it does, the grant of one or both of the licences can be made. If I determine it does not, the right to negotiate (s 31 Native Title Act) shall instead apply and Daly Tenements will be required to negotiate in good faith with Top End with a view to obtaining the agreement of the native title groups to the granting of the exploration licences.
As set out in s 237 of the Native Title Act, the expedited procedure applies if the grant of the licence is not likely to:
a)interfere directly with the community or social activities of native title claimants 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 native title claimants, (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)).
My decision is based on addressing the s 237 criteria set out above and in light of the authorities established in relation to this section. I must look at what is likely to occur as a result of the grants and conduct a predictive assessment to decide whether there is a real chance of interference or major disturbance. Yindjibarndi v FMG at [15] – [21] provides a summary of these considerations and authorities, which I adopt for this determination.
For the reasons given below, I have concluded that the grant of the exploration licences EL32919 and EL32920 are acts attracting the expedited procedure.
The Conduct of the Inquiry
Following confirmation there would be no agreement to resolve the objections, directions were set, with occasional extensions being provided to parties following requests and conferral.
Following the submission of contentions and evidence from the Top End, the Territory advised that the proposed tenements had changed ownership following the registration of a transfer of title from Cedar Resources Pty Ltd to Daly Tenements Pty Ltd (transfer of title). The Territory also advised it understood that the representative for Daly Tenements was the same as that for Cedar Resources.
Due to this transfer of ownership, directions were suspended to seek further information from the Territory concerning the transfer of title. A conference was convened on 26 July 2022 during which the representative of Daly Tenements confirmed that it did not intend to seek agreement and was content to accept and adopt the contentions and evidence provided by Cedar Resources as well as Cedar Resource’s proposed work program. The representative for Daly Tenements confirmed that they would provide a written statement to this effect. The issues surrounding this transfer are examined at [31] - [37].
Directions were reinstated, with the parties providing materials to the Tribunal in accordance with these directions.
Top End provided contentions (Top End contentions) in support of a witness statement from Mr Jeremy Jackson and a supplementary affidavit from Ms Harrier Roberts (Roberts affidavit). Top End also lodged reply contentions (NTP reply contentions).
The statement of Mr Jackson is unsigned, however Ms Roberts seeks to affirm its content. In her statement, Ms Roberts provides that she is a lawyer for the Northern Land Council (NLC) and explains that Mr Jackson lives in Marlinja, a remote community, and did not have access to printing and scanning facilities. Ms Roberts attests that the NLC was unable to arrange for Mr Jackson to sign his statement however provides that it was prepared in close conjunction with Mr Jackson and that in a telephone interview conducted on 14 June 2022 he confirmed the accuracy of his statement.
Similar issues arose in Top End v Scriven at [26]-[28]. I adopt the reasoning set out in Top End v Scriven and in light of Ms Roberts affidavit, accept the statement of Mr Jackson.
In his statement, Mr Jackson provides he is ‘kulyungkulyungpi,’ a policeman or manager for the country inherited from a person's mother (see King v Northern Territory), for Bamarrnganja country and for his uncle Mr Terry Jackson, who he says is the main boss for this country. Mr Jackson says that he acts as a spokesman for Bamarrnganja country and that he speaks together with his Uncle Mr Terry Jackson. Mr Jackson also details how he learned about Bamarrnganja country. I note that Bamarrnganja is an estate group determined to hold native title in relation to both of the proposed licences.
Having reviewed his statement, I am satisfied that Mr Jackson possesses the requisite connection and standing to provide evidence in this matter.
As previously mentioned, the grantee party changed during the course of this inquiry. An initial set of information was provided by Cedar Resources which included contentions (grantee contentions) and supporting documentation provided for both exploration licence applications. As indicated during the conference of 26 July 2022, a representative of the new grantee party, Ms Holly Edgar, provided an affidavit (Edgar affidavit) confirming that Daly Tenements accepted and adopted the contentions and evidence as well as the work program provided by Cedar Resources.
The Territory itself provided contentions (Territory contentions) in addition to a range of supporting material.
All parties agreed to the matters being determined on the papers as permitted by s 151(2) of the Native Title Act. In my view, having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied the matters can be determined without the need for a hearing.
The Proposed Licences and the Proposed Activities
Tenure
The proposed licences are exploration licences, a type of licence outlined in Part 3 Division 1 of the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT). Exploration licences can be granted for up to six years with the Minister able to grant additional two year extensions (ss 27(3) and 30 Mineral Titles Act). The licences applied for in this instance are for a term of six years.
Pursuant to s 26 of the Mineral Titles Act, the holder of an exploration licence possesses the right to occupy the title area and the exclusive right to conduct exploration for minerals in the licence area. This includes geological survey, rock sampling, drilling digging pits, trenches and holes, the sinking of bores, digging tunnels and extracting and removing for testing samples from the licence area (s 31(1) Mineral Titles Act). Section 31(2) of the Mineral Titles Act also provides that the holder may remove samples in larger quantities if the Minister is satisfied that it is appropriate and has authorised the removal.
The underlying land tenure is pastoral lease. EL32919 overlaps the Amungee Mungee and Beetaloo pastoral leases while EL32920 overlaps the Shenandoah, Beetaloo and Kalala pastoral leases.
Work Program
The material provided by the Territory includes information provided with the tenement applications such as information on the proposed work program. Initially, Cedar Resources described themselves as a company seeking to explore and develop battery metals, uranium and base metals. Given the affirmation provided by Daly Tenements via the Edgar affidavit, I assume exploration is for any or all of these things.
In terms of the work program, in year one the grantee party intends to collate and review existing data and conduct research to identify gaps in data sets, before examining historic cores from this and adjacent tenure in the Northern Territory Geological Survey core library in Darwin for analysis. The grantee party also intends to sample and analyse groundwater from bores once historic data is reviewed.
In the year two, the grantee party plans to undertake a regional geophysical survey, as guided by the studies undertaken in the first year. Following this, a drilling program is anticipated to be undertaken, as guided by the results of the activities conducted in years one and two.
As no work program is provided following year two for me to assess, I will assume Daly Tenements will exercise the full suite of rights provided by the exploration licences over the full extent of the licences. In doing so, I adopt the approach made by Member Sosso in Silver v Northern Territory at [30].
Heritage Places
The Territory provided a copy of the abstract of records from the Aboriginal Affairs Protection Authority (AAPA), the AAPA abstract, for the area of the proposed leases. The AAPA abstract shows the area of the proposed licences contains six recorded sacred sites, three each in EL32919 and EL32920, clustered in the northern portion of each of the proposed licences.
The AAPA abstract also shows that much of the two proposed leases were covered by previous Authority Certificates, certificates issued by the AAPA to conduct activity. For current purposes it can be noted that within these Authority Certificates, two of the recorded sites in EL32919, are surrounded by restricted work areas. This has the meaning that in issuing an Authority Certificate for a previous activity, the AAPA placed restrictions on the kind of activities which were permitted in these areas.
CONSIDERATION
The Change in Ownership of the Proposed Licences
As previously mentioned, on 4 July 2022, the Territory wrote to the Tribunal to advise the proposed licences had changed ownership following the registration of a transfer of title from Cedar Resources to Daly Tenements which took effect on 29 June 2022. This raised questions regarding the validity of the notice.
Following the receipt of this correspondence, directions were suspended and further information was requested from the Territory concerning the registration of a transfer of title. In providing this information, the Territory noted that:
(a)The Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade (DITT) does not have a policy prohibiting the transfer of applications for mineral titles prior to the grant of the tenement.
(b)Transfer of applications for exploration licences is permitted under the Mineral Titles Act.
(c)The definition of ‘mineral rights interests’ at s 121(2)(e) of the Mineral Titles Act includes ‘legal and equitable interests held by persons in applications and mineral titles.’ The Territory submitted that this is to be read with s 123(1) of the Mineral Titles Act which provides that a person who intends to transfer all or part of the person’s mineral rights interest to another person must apply to the Minister for approval and registration of the transfer.
(d)The transfer application was lodged with DITT on or about 16 June 2022.
Following the receipt of this advice, I set the matters down for a conference to discuss the directions and the future conduct of these matters. Prior to the conference, two questions were put to parties on which I would seek comment. These were:
(a)What are the views of the parties on the impact of the transfer on the validity of the s 29 notice?
(b)Do the parties consider there to be any consequent impacts on the Tribunal’s power to conduct an inquiry and the inquiry process itself?
At the conference, the Territory noted that the Native Title Act does not require a s 29 notice to bear the name of a grantee party and that in the Territory’s view, the s 29 notice remained valid. The representatives for Top End and Daly Tenements did not contest this and confirmed they had no additional comments to make on that question.
I noted during the conference that I held a view similar to that of the Territory in that the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act focus on the doing of the act itself rather than on the identity of the grantee party. Due to this and that none of the parties had contested the issues, I concluded that the transfer of the proposed licences had no impact on the validity of the s 29 notice or the ability of the Tribunal to conduct the inquiry.
Following the conference, I issued new directions requiring the grantee party to provide an affidavit confirming that Daly Tenements accepts and adopts the contentions and evidence previously provided by Cedar Resources in the course of these matters and accepts and adopts the work program provided by Cedar Resources to the Territory. An executed affidavit of Ms Edgar providing this was received on 29 July 2022.
In light of the above I intend to proceed on the basis that the contentions and evidence provided by Cedar Resources ought to be treated as though they were made on behalf of Daly Tenements.
Section 237 Assessment
In conducting this inquiry, I must look at what is likely to result from the grant of the licences and decide whether there is a real chance or risk of interference or disturbance as outlined in s 237 of the Native Title Act and therefore, whether they are acts that attract the expedited procedure (Smith v Western Australia at [23]). The legal principles are summarised in Yindjibarndi v FMG at [15] – [21].
Section 237(a): is the grant of the proposed licences likely to interfere directly with the native title party’s community or social activities?
In approaching this s 237(a) assessment, Smith v Western Australia at [26] sets out that the ‘notion of direct interference involves rather an evaluative judgement that the act is likely to be a proximate cause of the apprehended interference’ where this interference is substantial in its impact rather than trivial.
Silver v Northern Territory at [59]-[60] provides a useful analysis of the term ‘community,’ which I adopt for the purposes of this determination. It also adduces that for the purposes of s 237(a), it is the physical manifestation or ‘active manifestation’ of these activities that are in question (Silver v Northern Territory [61]), including where the activities have a spiritual dimension (Silver v Northern Territory [62]). Drury v Bywood at [17.2] provides further guidance as to the conduct of this assessment for the purposes of s 237(a).
What activities occur in the area of the proposed licences?
As Top End contend, the evidence surrounding community or social activities revolve around native title holders hunting and conducting intergenerational teaching on the area of the proposed licences.
Mr Jackson’s evidence focuses primarily on EL32920, to which he says he travels to regularly to hunt emu, goanna, turkey, turtle and echidna in two main locations, Bamarrnganja waterhole and on transit to and towards a locality known as Warrbani. Mr Jackson also explains that children can visit Bamarrnganja waterhole, so knowledge can be taught and passed on. Mr Jackson notes the importance of taking children to sites to show them how to travel on the land and to look at the country and expresses that the group are keen to continue teaching children about sites and law.
Is the grant of the proposed licences likely to interfere with the community and social activities of the native title party?
Top End contend there is a high probability of interference, in particular, with hunting and intergenerational teaching. Top End contend that Mr Jackson’s affidavit demonstrates that members of the native title party actively practice and pass on their culture and that this will be directly interfered with if what it terms as strangers, including the grantee party, are permitted to enter country unannounced and without prior consultation.
The grantee party contends that the proposed licences do not threaten ‘amenity’ as it terms it, that it does not control access to the land and that any exclusions would be around the immediate vicinity of a work zones for safety reasons, which it says is usually a drill pad of only a few hundred square metres. The grantee party also suggests that in the event of ceremonial activity, it should be advised and work timelines will be adjusted. I note that while this commitment is provided, it is non-binding.
The Territory notes that the evidence of Mr Jackson relates to EL32920 and submits the contentions of Top End should carry no weight in relation to EL32919. The Territory also notes that the evidence does not establish that any Aboriginal people live on or near the area of the proposed licences.
The Territory submits that the evidence does not demonstrate the grant of the proposed licences would substantially affect community or social activities and contends the evidence does not establish activity on the proposed tenements more broadly, rather it focuses on activities undertaken by Mr Jackson himself in one main locality. In keeping with this, the Territory contend the evidence does not establish frequent use of the area for the noted activities or establish duration of use and it does not establish the conduct of community or social activities by the community over the broader area of the tenements.
Additionally, the Territory submits that the evidence does not establish that intergenerational teaching or peer-to peer knowledge transfers occurs regularly in the area of the proposed licences. While the evidence discusses that children may go to Bamarrnganja waterhole to learn about country, it does not provide concrete or specific examples of this occurring.
The Territory also contends interference is not likely as the proposed licences do not confer a right of exclusive possession and have a localised and intermittent effect. Further to this, the Territory contends that any grant would be subject to the standard conditions, including that the grantee party minimise interference with community and social activities and consult with the native title party when conducting any activities other than reconnaissance.
Having examined the evidence provided and the contentions of the parties, I have concluded that the evidence presented has not sufficiently established a body of community social or cultural activities. I accept that Mr Jackson may undertake the activities that he sets out in his statement, however this does not establish a broader pattern of community activities and provides little information on frequency and duration of activity. Additionally, the evidence provided by the native title party has not established how the activities of the grantee party may be the proximate cause of interference in a real or substantial manner.
Even so, I have examined the described activities and the rights to be possessed by the grantee party under the proposed licences, and even assuming these are implemented to their fullest extent, I have formed the view that it is not likely that the activities carried out by the grantee party will interfere with the activities outlined by Mr Jackson. I have also formed the view that the conditions to be imposed by the Territory further mitigate risk of interference.
Based on this, I do not find the grant of the proposed licences is likely to directly interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party.
Section 237(b): is the grant of the proposed licences likely to interfere directly with areas or sites of particular significance to the native title party?
What sites or places are on the proposed licences?
For an area or site to be regarded as being of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b) of the Native Title Act, it must be of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders in accordance with their traditions. It must be known, able to be located and for its significance to be explained to the Tribunal (see Yindjibarndi v FMG [17] and cases cited therein). An area or site need not be registered or recorded to be of particular significance for s 237(b) and the Tribunal must consider the evidence provided in each matter on its merits.
The native title party identifies three sites of particular significance within EL32920. I note that a review of the native title party’s material suggests that they do not contend there any sites of particular significance on EL32919. The sites are:
a)Bamarrnganja Waterhole;
b)Kitiburu; and,
c)Warrbani.
The grantee party makes no contentions regarding particular sites but sets out that it is not disputing any assertion that sacred sites exist within the areas of the proposed licences.
Bamarrnganja Waterhole
As detailed in the statement from Mr Jackson, Bamarrnganja Waterhole is located within EL32920 and gives directions on how to travel to the locality by reference to surrounding landmarks. This provides significant certainty as to the location of the site.
In addition to this, mapping provided in Annexure 1 of the Jackson statement and topographic mapping provided by the Territory identify a ‘Barmaranja Waterhole’ in the northeastern portion of EL32920. I am satisfied this is the same site and location of the site described by Mr Jackson. This also looks to match or overlap a recorded sacred site labelled C2010/234 in the AAPA abstract. Having reviewed the material before me, I am also satisfied that this recorded sacred site is the Bamarrnganja Waterhole described by Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson explains that the site possesses the same name as the broader area that a dreaming traverses, that it’s the main waterhole and that there was ceremony there. Mr Jackson further states that Bamarrnganja Waterhole is the main place for the Goanna dreaming and there is a song cycle sung at initiation ceremonies, although this is not further explained and from the description, it seems this is a general practice rather than one specific to this site. Mr Jackson also notes there are stone tools at the waterhole as well as red, yellow and white ochre and that children can attend the site for the passing on of knowledge.
The Territory contend that the fact a dreaming may have passed through a site or that a site is associated with a dreaming is not sufficient to establish that it is a site of particular significance. In effect, the Territory argues that insufficient evidence has been provided, notably that Mr Jackson does not describe, by reference to songs, traditions or ceremonies, that it is a place of more than ordinary significance.
It is clear that Bamarrnganja is a place of significance, with a number of cultural attributes that converge on the site. While this might be the case, it is my view that while the evidence names these factors and provides a baseline of evidence to its significance, it does not then go further to explain how or why Bamarrnganja is of particular significance with sufficient detail. Given this, I am of the view there is insufficient evidence and do not find Bamarrnganja is a place of particular significance.
Kitiburu Site
Mr Jackson provides that, also within EL32920, there is a sacred site called Kitiburu, which is about 15-20 km west of Bamarrnganja situated within the Kalala pastoral lease but close to the boundary with Shenandoah pastoral lease. Mr Jackson explains that there are large sinkholes in that particular area and that Kitiburu is a sinkhole site.
The mapping at Annexure 1 of Mr Jackson’s statement shows a sinkhole marked in the approximate position described by Mr Jackson as does the topographic mapping provided by the Territory. This also looks to match one of the recorded sacred sites on the AAPA abstract. Given these sources, I am satisfied of the location and that the site described by Mr Jackson corresponds to the recorded sacred site indicated on the AAPA abstract.
Mr Jackson describes this place as a sacred site where the Goanna went from Bamarrnganja to Kitiburu, where it dug around Kitiburu to make the sinkholes and to bury itself there.
The Territory again contends that the fact a site is associated with a dreaming is not sufficient to establish that it is a site of particular significance. While the Territory states that it does accept that Kitiburu may be of significance to Mr Jackson, it contends the evidence does not describe how Kitiburu is of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders.
Having examined the materials before me, it is my view the evidence provided is insufficient. As before, some information on the attributes of the site is provided and it is clear that the site is of some significance. Section 237(b) however, is concerned with particular significance. As such, evidence provided must also explain why and how a place is of particular significance, which is this case, it has not. As such, I do not find Kitiburu is a place is of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b).
Warrbani Site
Mr Jackson also identifies a site named Warrbani which he describes as being located only a few kilometres to the north of Bamarrnganja waterhole. In a similar fashion to previously described, Annexure 1 of the Jackson statement and the topographic mapping provided by the Territory show a site called Warramban Waterhole located approximately 2.5 km to the north-north-east of Barmaranja Waterhole inside the north-eastern boundary of EL32920, which I am satisfied is this same place. Additionally, this location corresponds to a recorded sacred site shown in the AAPA abstract which I am also satisfied is Warrbani.
Mr Jackson provides that there are sinkholes and a cave at this place and that it is a dangerous place to camp at night as it is sacred ground. Mr Jacksons evidence goes no further as he states that because it is sacred ground, he is unable to talk about it.
The main contention of the Territory in response is that there is insufficient evidence to make a finding it is of particular significance. In reply, Top End contend the significance of Warrbani is evidenced by Mr Jackson’s statements on the laws and customs relating to the site, including restrictions on visiting the site except where and the consequences when, those laws and customs are not followed.
Top End further notes Mr Jackson’s statement that he cannot speak about the site in the context of evidence and submits that sharing details about the site would be inappropriate the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders. In the context of inquiries such as this, it is not unusual for there to be concerns surrounding the disclosure of culturally sensitive evidence. I do note however that the Tribunal has systems and processes such as non-disclosure directions to cater for concerns such as these.
This type of situation was addressed in Ward v Western Australia at [26], and I adopt the approach set out therein. In light of this, it is my view that insufficient evidence has been provided to satisfy the requirements of s 237(b). Accordingly, I do not find the Warrbani site is a place of particular significance.
Is there likely to be interference with places of particular significance?
Given I have not found there to be a place of particular significance within the area of the proposed licences, I find the grant of the proposed licences is not likely to cause interference under s 237(b).
Section 237(c): Is the grant of the proposed licences likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to any part of the area of the proposed licences?
Top End make no contentions in relation to s 237(c). As such, there is no factual material before me in regard to this criteria. Applying the approach outlined in Ward v Western Australia at [26], I find the grant of the licences are not likely to cause interference or disturbance under s 237(c).
DETERMINATION
I find the grant of exploration licences EL32919 and EL32920 to Daly Tenements Pty Ltd are acts attracting the expedited procedure.
Mr Glen Kelly
Member
28 May 2024
1
0
0