Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation RTNBC v Yandan Gold Mines Pty Ltd

[2020] NNTTA 7

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation RTNBC v Yandan Gold Mines Pty Ltd and Another [2020] NNTTA 7 (24 January 2020)

Application No: WO2019/0847

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation RTNBC (WCD2007/001 and WCD2012/002)

(native title party)

- and -

Yandan Gold Mines 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:	24 January 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:

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) s 5

Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 66

Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) r 20

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 32, 237

Cases:

Ben Ward; Clarrie Smith and Ors v Western Australia; Australian United Gold Nl; CRA Exploration Pty Ltd; BHP Exploration Pty Ltd; Asian Mining Nl and Sorna Pty Ltd; Wag 6002 of 1996 Fed [1996] FCA 1452 (Ward v Western Australia)

Delores Cheinmora v Striker Resources NL; Dann v State of 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; 324 ALR 580 (FMG v Yindjibarndi)

Harvey Murray on behalf of the Yilka Native Title Claimants v Goldphyre WA Pty Ltd [2013] NNTTA 101 (Yilka v Goldphyre WA)

Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 (Hughes v Western Australia)

Kevin Peter Walley and Others on behalf of the Ngoonoru Wadjari People; Robin Boddington and Others on behalf of the Wajarri Elders/Western Australia/Giralia Resources NL [2002] NNTTA 24; (2002) 169 FLR 437 (Walley v Western Australia)

May Rosas/BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd/Northern Territory [2002] NNTTA 113 (Rosas v Northern Territory)

Moses Silver, Ishmael Andrews & Sammy Bulabul/Northern Territory/Ashton Exploration Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NNTTA 18; (2002) 169 FLR 1 (Silver v Northern Territory)

Smith on behalf of the Gnaala Karla Booja People v Stateof Western Australia [2001] FCA 19 (Smith v Western Australia)

Representative of the native title party:

Aaron Rayner, Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation

Representative of the grantee party: Yvette Collins, Hetherington Exploration & Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

Representatives of the Government party: Amelia Devlyn, State Solicitor’s Office
Matthew Smith and Bethany Conway, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

1. The State of Western Australia (the State) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) of its intention to grant exploration licence E47/3900 (the licence) to Yandan Gold Mines Pty Ltd (Yandan). The notice included a statement that the grant of the licence is an act attracting the expedited procedure (see s 32 of the Act). By including this statement, the State asserts the grant is not likely to, in summary:

   (a)interfere directly with the native title holders’ community or social activities    (s 237(a));

   (b)interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with the native title holders’ traditions (s 237(b));

   (c)involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to any land or waters concerned (s 237(c)).

2. The licence is approximately 500 square kilometres in size.  The town of Tom Price intersects with part of the licence. The land of the licence is subject to the native title determination of Hughes v Western Australia, which determined the Eastern Guruma people have native title rights and interests over that area. The Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC) holds non-exclusive native title rights and interests on behalf of the Eastern Guruma people in the area of the licence.  To give an idea of the size of the licence application, in context with the determined area, WGAC contentions note (at 10) that it is ‘approximately 500 square kilometres in size representing approximately 7% of the Native Title Determination Area’.

3. WGAC lodged an objection application with the National Native Title Tribunal (the Tribunal) in response to the State’s assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licence. Having been appointed to determine this matter, I must look at what is likely to result from the grant of the licence and decide whether there is a real chance or risk of the interference outlined in s 237 (see FMG v Yindjibarndi). I must have regard to the rights conferred by the grant, the nature of the proposed grant and the applicable regulatory regime (see Walley v Western Australia).

4. For the reasons outlined below, I find the expedited procedure does not apply to the grant of the licence.

Preliminary Matters

Native title party

1. WGAC provided contentions, as well as:

   ·the affidavit of Mr Dennis Hicks Senior, annexed with a map marked by Mr Hicks Senior.

   ·the affidavit of Dr Kathryn Przywolnik, Heritage Manager Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, annexed with photographs, as well as maps marked by Dr Przywolnik.

2. I accept the experience and authority of Mr Hicks Senior who is an initiated Eastern Guruma lore man and has authority to talk about the cultural heritage of the licence. I also note and accept the expertise of Dr Przywolnik, who holds a doctorate specialising   in Aboriginal Australian archaeology and who outlines her experience in that field, which includes working specifically with Eastern Guruma people, and the areas in and around the licence.

3. WGAC argue the expedited procedure should not apply to the licence on the basis that the grant will likely cause the interference contemplated in s 237(a) and s 237(b) of the Act. WGAC do not make submissions in relation to s 237(c) of the Act. As such, I find there is no evidence to support a conclusion the grant of the licence will likely involve, or create rights whose exercise will likely involve, major disturbance to land or waters. The focus of this inquiry is on s 237(a) and (b) of the Act.

Grantee party

1. Little information was provided in relation to Yandan’s exploration activities.  No submissions or evidence was received directly from Yandan.  The State provided a copy of Yandan’s proposed exploration program, which was part of Yandan’s initial application for the licence. 

The State

1. 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 Yandan’s accompanying statement under s 58 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA), and details of proposed endorsements and conditions to be imposed.

Determination to be made on the papers

1. No party had any objection to me determining this matter on the papers, and I considered the matter suitable for such determination (s 151(2)).

Section 237(a) - Is the grant of the licence likely to directly interfere with the native title holders’ community or social activities?

1. The Tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the licence and activities undertaken pursuant to it are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference) (see Smith v Western Australia at [23]).

2. The predictive assessment for the purposes of s 237(a) involves an evaluative judgment about whether the grant of the licence is likely to be the proximate cause of the interference, which must be substantial and not trivial (Smith v Western Australia at [26]). On numerous occasions, the Tribunal has balanced a native title party’s evidence of social or community activities against a grantee party’s proposed exploration activities, and has concluded exploration and social or community activities can coexist without direct or substantial interference (see for example, Rosas v Northern Territory at [71]).

Community or social activities of the native title party

1. In their contentions, WGAC assert that direct interference will occur with the following current community and social activities undertaken by Eastern Guruma people on the licence:

   (a)visiting and caring for culturally significant sites and two associated dreaming tracks which traverse the licence;

   (b)visiting and caring for culturally significant rock art site engravings;

   (c)travelling between the culturally connected sites (for example, those associated with the dreaming tracks) and other rock art site engravings and conducting ceremony; and

   (d)regular intergenerational cultural transmission activities.

2. In his affidavit, Mr Hicks Senior (at 19, 32-3, 43, 52 and 55-56 for example) provides support for these social and community activities, indicating that members of the native title community regularly visit:

   (a)Jartunguninganha to participate in social and cultural activities which relate to two dreaming’s on the licence (the swan and the turtle/Pingki dreaming) which are described and marked on the map as traversing the licence;

   (b)The turtle dreaming and song line sites to participate in various cultural activities and traditional rituals; and

   (c)The rock engraving sites to participate in camping, cultural activities, and field trips.

   I note Jartunguninganha is in the south of the licence, and is one of the rock engraving sites in the south of the licence, marked by Mr Hicks Senior on mapping annexed to his affidavit.

3. This evidence is also complemented by Dr Przywolnik’s affidavit (for example, at 20-23, 35, 59, 61).  Mr Hicks Senior (at 14 and 43) and Dr Przywolnik (at 51) provide evidence that senior Wintawari Guruma men attend sites and areas within the licence approximately fifteen to twenty times per year, including with young Wintawari Guruma people to teach them the lore and singing of the Pingki songs at specific sites within the licence area. These songs are secret songs and are restricted to men only.

4. The mapping provided by Mr Hicks Senior and Dr Przywolnik clearly mark the sites which are subject to these social and community activities.  This includes sites recorded on the State’s AHIS kept as part of its obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA), and sites not recorded on the AHIS.  These sites are concentrated within the southern part of the licence.  In addition, Mr Hicks Senior has clearly marked the pathways of the two dreaming’s, which run through the southern part of the licence, and which are the focal point of much of the social and community activities of the Eastern Guruma people in this area. 

5. The photographs provided by Dr Przywolnik provide clear evidence of the nature and extent of the type of features which the Eastern Guruma people focus their social and community activities on. 

6. I do not repeat the evidence in relation to the two dreaming’s, or the social and community activities around the dreaming’s and the relevant sites, due to the sensitivities associated with them.

The proposed grant of the licence and likely activities to be undertaken

1. The State provided Yandan’s application statement, which outlines brief information about the exploration goals and program.  This program provided expenditure and activities for year 1 only.  The activities intended for year 1 were stated as:

   ·Collation of previous data regarding the licences, followed by ‘a detailed, on ground geological mapping programme, inclusive of surface sampling’. 

   ·‘Low level high resolution airborne magnetic survey or a high resolution ground magnetic survey may be required to assist in stratigraphic and structural mapping of the exploration licence area’.

   ·‘Targets generated from the geological mapping and geophysics will be subjected to detailed assessment which may lead to drill testing to determine the presence of potential mineralisation’.

2. Following year 1, it is stated that exploration ‘will continue in stages’.  It is not clear where exploration will be conducted, but from the information provided I conclude exploration may include drilling and ground survey work, and will include surface sampling. It is not clear how or where these activities will be conducted in relation to: the licence area; the social and community activities conducted by Eastern Guruma people; and the sites which have been identified by WGAC around which such activities are conducted by the native title holders.

3. The WGAC reply addresses this evidence (at 4.2), outlining its concerns that ‘there is no explanation of:

   (a)how frequent the activities will be;

   (b)what tools and equipment will be used in the activities;

   (c)how the 'airborne magnetic surveys' or 'ground magnetic surveys' will be carried out; and

   (d)whether the NTP [native title party] would be notified when any of these events are to take place’.

4. In the absence of any further materials from Yandan, I assume it will undertake the full scope of activity to which it is entitled under the grant of the exploration licence (as per Silver v Northern Territory). These activities are set out in s 66 of the Mining Act 1972 (WA):

   An exploration licence, while it remains in force, authorises the holder thereof, subject to this Act, and in accordance with any conditions to which the licence may be subject –

   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.

5. The Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) outline the amount of material able to be removed from the exploration licence:

   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.

What does the State outline regarding s 237(a) interference?

1. The State accepts that camping, ceremonies and visiting and caring for sites is conducted on and around sites in the southern part of the licence.  However, the State is concerned that it is not clear how many visits to the licence are associated with such activities, and how many people are involved. The State appear to accept (at 21-25) that intergenerational teaching is conducted at sites in and around the licence, which are associated with dreaming stories.  The State notes the frequency of 15-20 times per year, but argue that no information is provided about how many people are involved in this activity or whether it occurs on a regular basis.

2. Considering the totality of Mr Hicks Senior’s evidence, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that such social and community activity does take place on a regular basis and involves members of the Eastern Guruma community.  For example, Mr Hicks Senior describes the frequency of current activity as 15-20 times per year in the context of decades of such activity (‘I’ve been to all those places hundreds of times over the course of my life’ (at 18)), and he also describes the nature of the activities undertaken, the location of specific sites, and how the proximity to Tom Price facilitates access to the area by members of the community.

3. The State argue that interference with community or social activities is unlikely because (at 30 for example) Yandan could be notified of the ceremonies and avoid the area at relevant times. No specific mechanism for that communication has been proposed by the State or Yandan.

4. WGAC address this in their reply (see for example at 5.6), outlining that:

   …the specific number of ceremonies or social activities that occur or how many members from the NTP attend those activities, is not relevant. There is no minimum threshold as to the number of ceremonies that need to be held on the Tenement, or how many members of the NTP need to be in attendance, before the social activity can be considered significant or before a disruption can be made to it. 

5. WGAC accepts the contention that Yandan is likely to comply with relevant State laws and regulatory regime.  However, their reply goes on to outline (at 5.2-5.3) that:

   …the NTP [native title party] respectfully submits that the State's regulatory regime does not compel the GP [grantee party] to cooperate to avoid interference to social and community activities in the manner contemplated by the GVP [government party/State].  Nor does it provide for any reliable mechanism for the NTP and GP to ensure that such interference does not occur.

   In the absence of a mechanism that provides for cooperation, coupled with the types and frequency of use by the NTP of the cultural places identified in the Tenement, there is more than a small possibility that the GP's exploration activities could interfere with social and community activities of the NTP.

Conclusion

1. Yandan have not provided information about how its exploration activities would not be likely to cause such interference. This does not mean Yandan had any burden of proof in terms of information to be provided. Rather, as Carr J in Ward v Western Australia outlined (at [26]) ‘In administrative matters such as these, any party (not just the native title party) has what might be termed an evidentiary choice. They might choose not to lead any evidence on a particular issue. However, where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of party to an issue, its failure to produce evidence as to those facts may lead to an unfavourable inference being drawn when the administrative tribunal applies its common-sense approach to evidence’. In the absence of such information from Yandan, I have considered the full extent of exploration activities which can be conducted on the licence. This includes activities such as entering and camping on the licence.

1. WGAC have provided detailed evidence about the complex number and type of community and social activities which I accept are frequently conducted on parts of this licence, particularly in the southern portion.  WGAC have also outlined the secret nature of some of those activities, and mapping has been provided showing specific sites and features on the licence where those activities are conducted. I conclude that activities of Yandan are likely to cause more than trivial interference to these social and community activities of the Eastern Guruma people (per Smith v Western Australia [at 26]).  Activities such as entering parts of the land where community and social activities are being conducted, or driving on or near such land, would be interference of a non-trivial nature in the context of the sites and activities outlined by WGAC.

Section 237(b): Is the grant of the licence likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to the native title holders?

1. An area or site of ‘particular significance’ is one of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders in accordance with their traditions (see Cheinmora v Striker Resources at 34-35). If an area or site is one of particular significance, it must be known and be able to be located, and the nature of its significance explained (see Silver v Northern Territory).

What areas or sites of particular significance have been identified by WGAC in relation to the licence?

1. Evidence provided by WGAC asserts that the following are sites or areas of particular significance to the Eastern Guruma People:

   (a)Areas containing rock engravings such as Jartunguninganha, Bumina, Split Horse, Jump Up Springs, Tadpole Pool, Barnett Well, Spinifex Pigeon Falls, Golf Course 1, Donkeyman Pool and Hamersley and their associated dreaming track (related to the dreaming’s)

   (b)Jabadunna; and

   (c)Thunkarri burial sites.

Areas containing rock engravings such as Jartunguninganha, Bumina, Split Horse, Jump Up Springs, Tadpole Pool, Barnett Well, Spinifex Pigeon Falls, Golf Course 1, Donkeyman Pool and Hamersley and their associated dreaming track (related to the swan and turtle dreaming’s)

1. Mr Hicks Senior is clear in the markings on the map annexed to his affidavit, as to the pathway of the swan and turtle dreaming’s.  He is also clear about the rock engravings and how they are interconnected to the dreaming’s.  He outlines how those dreaming’s traverse the licence, and where they pass through sites on and outside the licence, creating an area of particular significance for the native title holders.  This evidence is supported by Dr Przywolnik.  I do not repeat the evidence here due to sensitivities. 

2. The State accepts the dreaming’s are significant to Eastern Guruma people, but do not draw any conclusions on their particular significance.  The State contentions accept that one of the sites associated with the dreaming’s has been sufficiently identified so as to enable it to be located, and that the site is of particular significance (at 52).  The State contentions assert that insufficient evidence has been presented as to why the other named rock engraving sites are of particular significance to the native title holders (see for example at 56, 61 and 66).

3. I do not agree that insufficient evidence has been provided regarding the particular significance of the rock engraving sites. Mr Hicks Senior has provided detailed evidence about how the sites are ‘very important’ (for example at 44).  Mr Hicks Senior and Dr Przywolnik provide evidence which relates the sites to the customs and traditions of Eastern Guruma people, and both affidavits outline evidence in relation to each of the sites listed as to how and why each is of particular significance.  For example, Mr Hicks Senior outlines how one of the sites is ‘highly significant’ for Eastern Guruma culture, and that it is a site with a long history of practicing culture  because the ‘water in that spring never stops flowing’ (at 48-49).  Dr Przywolnik details the rock art and sacred narratives within this site, in terms of their cultural, historical, and archaeological significance, drawing on discussions with senior Eastern Guruma men (at 71 – 98). 

4. I accept that each of the rock engraving sites and the dreaming tracks are of particular significance to the Eastern Guruma people.  These sites and areas are in the south of the licence.

Jabadunna

1. This site is in the northwest of the licence.  I note there is a song associated with this site but Mr Hicks Senior is not permitted to sing it.  There is little further information about this area. 

2. The State accepts (at 70) this site is significant, however, contends that particular significance has not been demonstrated in that the nature of the significance has not been explained. I agree with the State that there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude this site is of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b), however, I have no doubt it is of importance to the native title holders.

Thunkarri burial sites

1. Mr Hicks Senior marks the location of two burial sites on the map (in the south of the licence), and explains who is buried there and how they are associated with a named ‘main lore boss’ (at 66-68).  It is explained (at 70) that the location of Thunkkarri ‘is very important to Eastern Guruma people because it demonstrates our ongoing connection to Wintawari, and is a place where we can and do honour our ancestors’.

2. The State (at 73) accepts the burial site of Thunkarri may be of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title party, and accepts that it is of particular significance. 

3. Given the level of detail and explanation provided, I am satisfied the evidence demonstrates the burial sites are of particular significance to the Eastern Guruma people.

Is the grant of the licence likely to interfere with any of the identified areas or sites of particular significance?

1. When evaluating the degree of interference for the purposes of s 237(b), I must consider the nature of the site, the nature of the potential interference and the laws and traditions of the native title holders (see Silver v Northern Territory). I rely on the culture and traditions of the Eastern Guruma People as expressed in the evidence before me, which has been provided in a way that is clear, outlines the relevant sites and areas, and explains the nature of their significance in an intimate way. Mr Hicks Senior explains his and the elders’ responsibilities for the sites and the dreaming’s, as well as the consequences in accordance with their traditions should exploration activity occur at or near those sites (at 50-59, 65 and 73-75 for example). 

2. The State’s contentions assert their regulatory regime, including a Regional Standard Heritage (RSHA) condition, and other endorsements and conditions will be sufficient to provide protection for the sites.  They also outline that provisions under the AHA will apply. 

3. The WGAC reply provides detailed responses to the States assertions in the context of the native title holders in this matter. In summary, WGAC submit that:

   i)Evidence of prior mining or exploration does not negate the cultural significance of the sites (citing Yilka v Goldphyre WA at [73] (at 5.27 – 5.28))

   ii)To protect these sites from interference, an appropriate heritage agreement with the native title holders is required to manage land use activities, including those considered by the State to be ‘low-impact’ or ‘negligible’ (at 5.33)

   iii)The AHA, combined with the RSHA and Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines (AHDDG), does not prohibit the sort of exploration activities that will cause interference to the sites identified (at 5.9). The licence holder under the AHDDG is able to carry out certain activities without breaching the AHA. The activities listed would be unacceptable and constitute interference under the laws and traditions of the native title party (at 5.22 – 5.24)

   iv)The RSHA itself is not fit for purpose. It facilitates certain kinds of interference by failing to require the explorer to carry out heritage surveys or any form of communication with the native title party prior to all land use activities (at 5.26)

   v)In the context of Mr Hicks’s evidence regarding the secret and private nature of the song sung at ceremonies, it would be highly disruptive if Yandan were to ‘intersect’ with the native title holders during such ceremonies (at 5.14)

   vi)Given that the State contends disruption could be avoided by the native title holders notifying the explorer when they will be attending a particular site, that is exactly the reason why consultation is necessary (at 5.17)

   vii)The tests and thresholds for a site of special significance under s 5 of the AHA are higher than for sites of particular significance. Also, the scheme of the AHA is to preserve Aboriginal sites on behalf of the community of Western Australia (at 5.19). In addition, the concept of physical interference under the AHA is different than under s 237(b) (at 5.20 – 5.21)

   viii)The proposed endorsements and conditions will not prevent interference. Many of the standard conditions proposed are not adequate to prevent interference. Some of these contemplate disturbance and ‘speak to rehabilitation and restoring the area’ rather than preventing interference or disturbance (at 5.31 – 5.32).

4. Given the level of detail provided by WGAC in this matter, I accept each of the points outlined in the reply.

Conclusion

1. I have considered, based on the information presented in this inquiry and the nature and extent of sites of particular significance, whether the State’s protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely there will be interference with sites of particular significance. In making the predictive assessment for s 237(b) of the Act, I can take into account information from the explorer, and none has been provided in this inquiry.

2. I am satisfied that in doing lawful exploration activities, Yandan is likely to interfere with sites of particular significance to the native title holders. There is nothing in the endorsements and conditions to be imposed by the State which is likely to mitigate that interference. Whilst the AHA and RSHA might provide protection for ground disturbing work, both regimes allow for non-ground disturbing work to occur on the licence. There is sufficient evidence provided by Mr Hicks Senior and Dr Przywolnik to satisfy me that such non-ground disturbing work would be sufficient to cause interference to sites of particular significance for the purpose of s 237(b) of the Act.

Determination

1. My determination is that the grant of E47/3900 to Yandan Gold Mines Pty Ltd is not an act that attracts the expedited procedure.

Helen Shurven
Member
24 January 2020