Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC & Another v Korab Resources Limited & Another - [2022] NNTTA 69

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC & Another v Korab Resources Limited & Another [2022] NNTTA 69 (16 November 2022)

Application No:

WO2021/0267, WO2021/0495, WO2021/0542, WO2021/0912, WO2021/1054, WO2021/1183, WO2021/1184

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

- and -

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

Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2017/003)

Jurruru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2022/004)

(native title parties)

- and -

Korab Resources Limited

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS NOT AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Tribunal:	Mr G Kelly, Member
Place:	Perth
Date:	16 November 2022

Catchwords:	Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – consideration of multiple exploration licences – consideration of multiple native title parties – consideration of sites outside of area of determined native title - consideration of s 237(a) whether act likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – consideration of s 237(b) whether act likely to interfere with sites or areas of particular significance – consideration of s 237(c) whether act is likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters concerned - the act is not an act attracting the expedited procedure
Legislation:	Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) ss 5, 17, 18, 19 Mining Act 1978 (WA) ss 58, 66 Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) r 20 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 32, 109, 146, 237 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
Cases:	Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Squadron Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2019] NNTTA 6 (BTAC v Squadron) Dolores Cheinmora & Others on behalf of the Balanggarra Native Title Claimants v Heron Resources Ltd and Another [2005] NNTTA 99 (Cheinmora) Jones on behalf of the Yinhawangka People v State of Western Australia [2017] FCA 801 (Jones v Western Australia) Kevin Peter Walley and Others on behalf of the Ngoonoru Wadjari People and Another v Giralia Resources NL and Another [2002] NNTTA 24 (Walley v Western Australia) Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants v Western Australia and Another [2011] NNTTA 22 (Tullock) Little and others on behalf of the Badimia People v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 243 (Little v Oriole Resources) Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga v Bronze View Pty Ltd and Another [2009] NNTTA 125 (Giggles v Bronze View) Limpet Giggles & Ors on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga v Mines Services & Construction Pty Ltd and Another [2013] NNTTA 63 (Giggles v Mines Services) Marputu Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (INC 8085) v Peter Romeo Gianni and Another [2019] NNTTA 18 (Marputu v Gianni) Maureen Young on behalf of the Ngadju People v South Coast Metals Pty Ltd, and Another [2001] NNTTA 42 (Ngadju v South Coast Metals) Moses Silver, Ishmael Andrews & Sammy Bulabul v Ashton Exploration Australia Pty Ltd and Another [2002] NNTTA 18 (Silver v Northern Territory) Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation v Kalamazoo Resources Limited and Another [2021] NNTTA 2 (Ngarluma v Kalamazoo) Nicholas Cooke & Others on behalf of the Innawonga People v Dioro Exploration NL and Another [2008] NNTTA 108 (Cook v Dioro Exploration) Patricia Lewis & Others on behalf of Nyalpa Pirniku Claim Group v Robert John Anderson and Others [2021] NNTTA 59 (Nyalpa v Anderson) Robert Mumu & Ors on behalf of Karinga Lakes v Territory Potash Pty Ltd and Another [2021] NNTTA 60 (Mumu v Territory Potash) Smirke on behalf of the Jurruru People v State of Western Australia (No 2)[2020] FCA 1728 (Smirke v Western Australia No. 2) Smirke on behalf of the Jurruru People v State of Western Australia (No 4) [2022] FCA 993 (Smirke v Western Australia No. 4) Smith on behalf of the Gnaala Karla Booja People v State of Western Australia [2001] FCA 19 (Smith) Violet Drury and Others on behalf of Nanda People v Bywood Holdings Pty Ltd and Another [2002] NNTTA 171 (Drury) Wanjina-Wunggurr (Native Title) Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lucky Break Operations Pty Ltd and Another[2019] NNTTA 125(Wanjina-Wunggurr v Lucky Break) Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation (Jamukurnu Yapalinkunu) RNTBC v Teck Australia Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 56 (WDLAC v Teck) Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants v Globe Uranium Ltd and Another [2007] NNTTA 37 (Freddie v Globe Uranium) Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 (Yindjibarndi v FMG)
Representatives(s) of the native title parties:	Gwynette Govardhan, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Radhika Kayarat, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Alex Ihanimo, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

Representative(s) of the grantee party:

Andrej Karpinski, Korab Resources Limited

Representatives(s) of the Government party:

Bethany Conway, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation & Safety

Jennifer Perera, State Solicitor's Office;

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

This determination relates to a total of seven objections to the proposed grant of three tenement applications, these tenements being E52/3872, E08/3264 and E08/3302.
The State of Western Australia (State) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) that it intended to grant E52/3872, E08/3264 and E08/3302 to Korab Resources Limited (Korab). In each notice, the State asserted the proposed grants attracted the expedited procedure (see s 32 of the NTA). As outlined in s 237 of the NTA, the expedited procedure applies if the grant of the licences 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 native title 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)).

Background

E52/3872

On 13 January 2021, the State gave notice under s 29 of the NTA of its intention to grant exploration licence E52/3872 to Korab including that it considers the grant is an act attracting the expedited procedure. The area of the proposed licence is approximately 326 square kilometres and is located, at its closest point, some 30 kilometres southeast of Paraburdoo.
Approximately 80% of the proposed licence area falls within the external boundary of Jones v Western Australia. The native title in this determination area is held in trust by the Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2017/003) (YAC). On 3 February 2021, YAC lodged an objection with the National Native Title Tribunal (Tribunal) against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. This objection was given file number WO2021/0267 by the Tribunal.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued, approximately 4% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of Jurruru #2 (WC2012/012) native title claim. On 25 February 2021, the Jurruru #2 native title claim group applicants lodged an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. This objection was given file number WO2021/0495 by the Tribunal.
On 26 August 2022, The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) made a single determination of native title in the overlapping native title claims Jurruru #1 (Part B) (WC2000/008), Jurruru #2 (WC2012/012) and Yinhawangka Gobawarrah (WC2016/004) (see Smirke v Western Australia No. 4). In that decision, the FCA found that whilst non-exclusive native title existed throughout the respective claim areas it was held differently in each. This compromises of a ‘Jurruru Area’ broadly located in the south, a ‘Yinhawangka Area’ broadly located in the north and a ‘Shared Area’ centred around the Ashburton River, where Jurruru and Yinhawangka both hold native title independent of one another (see Smirke v Western Australia No. 4 at [26]).
Approximately 3% of the proposed licence falls within the ‘Shared Area’. Jurruru Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (JAC) is the registered native title body corporate which holds the native title rights and interests in trust for the native title holders in the ‘Jurruru Area’ and on behalf of the Jurruru in the ‘Shared Area’. I note that the Jurruru #1 and Jurruru # 2 native title claims, in addition to JAC, are collectively referred to as ‘Jurruru’ in this determination. This reflects that a determination of native title was made by the FCA after the lodgement of objections and the commencement of this inquiry process.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued, approximately 4% of the proposed licence area also fell within the external boundary of the Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claim (WC2016/004). The Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claim group applicants did not lodge an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence.
I note that in Smirke v Western Australia No. 4, the FCA determined that Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claimants held non-exclusive native title in the ‘Yinhawangka Area’ and ‘Shared Area’ of that determination. Gobawarrah Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (GYAC) is the registered native title body corporate which holds the native title rights and interests in trust for the native title holders in the ‘Yinhawangka Area’ and on behalf of the Yinhawangka in the ‘Shared Area’.
Approximately 16% of the proposed licence area falls within the external boundary of Jidi Jidi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2000/001) (JJAC). JJAC did not lodge an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence.

E08/3264

On 24 February 2021, the State gave notice under s 29 of the NTA of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/3264 to Korab including that it considers the grant is an act attracting the expedited procedure. The area of the proposed licence is approximately 421 square kilometres in size and is, at its closest point, located approximately 20 kilometres south west of Paraburdoo.
Around 73% of the proposed licence area falls within the external boundary of YAC. On 29 April 2021, YAC lodged an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. This objection was given file number WO2021/0912 by the Tribunal.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued, approximately 21.5% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of the Jurruru #1 (Part B) (WC2000/008) native title claim. On 10 March 2021, the Jurruru native title claim group applicants lodged an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. This objection was given file number WO2021/0542 by the Tribunal.
Additionally, at the time the s 29 notice was issued, approximately 5.5% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of the Jurruru #2 (WC2012/012) native title claim. On 8 June 2021, the Jurruru native title claim group applicants lodged an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. This objection was given file number WO2021/1054 by the Tribunal.
Following the determination in Smirke v Western Australia No. 4 (see above at [6]) approximately 6.5% of the proposed licence area falls within the ‘Shared Area’. JAC is the registered native title body corporate which holds the native title rights and interests in trust for the native title holders.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued, approximately 27% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of the Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claim (WC2016/004). The Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claim group applicants did not lodge an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence.

E08/3302

On 16 June 2021, the State gave notice under s 29 of the NTA of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/3302 to Korab including that it considers the grant is an act attracting the expedited procedure. The area of the proposed licence is approximately 69 square kilometres in size in is located, at its closest point, approximately 43 kilometres to the south west of Paraburdoo.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued approximately 25% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of Jurruru #1 (Part B) (WC2000/008) native title claim. A further 75% of the proposed licence area fell within the external boundary of Jurruru #2 (WC2012/012) native title claim.
On 9 July 2021, the Jurruru native title claim group applicants for both Jurruru #1 (Part B) and Jurruru #2 lodged objections with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence. These objections were given the given file numbers WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184 by the Tribunal. Following the determination in Smirke v Western Australia No. 4 (see above at [6]), approximately 1% of the proposed licence area now falls within the ‘Jurruru Area’ and a further 92% within the ‘Shared Area’.
At the time the s 29 notice was issued, the proposed licence area also fell entirely within the external boundary of the Yinhawangka Gobawarrah (WC2016/004) native title claim. The Yinhawangka Gobawarrah native title claim group applicants did not lodge an objection with the Tribunal against the expedited procedure applying to the proposed licence.

The Inquiries

I have been appointed to decide whether the expedited procedure applies. My decision is based on addressing the criteria set out in s 237 of the NTA and making a predictive assessment (see Yindjibarndi v FMG at [15]-[21] and cases cited therein). I must look at what is likely to occur as a result of each grant and decide whether there is a real chance of interference or major disturbance, having regard to the rights conferred by the grant of the licences, evidence of the grantee’s intentions, and the applicable regulatory regime (see Walley v Western Australia at [8]-[9] and cases cited therein).
Both YAC and Jurruru are pursuing the objections on the ground of s 237(a)-(c). For the reasons outlined below, my determination is that the expedited procedure does not apply to the proposed licences.

The Conduct of the Inquiries

WO2021/0267 & WO2021/0912 – Yinhawangka matters

On 18 February 2021, directions were set in matter WO2021/0267, on 6 May 2021, directions were set in matter WO2021/0912 and on 12 May 2021, directions were aligned in these two matters. I will collectively refer to these matters as the Yinhawangka matters.
In consultation with each party, a variety of extensions were provided to allow for matters to be aligned together (including with the Jurruru matters), to allow time for parties to seek to reach agreement and ultimately, for materials to be lodged.
On 30 November 2021, following consultation with the parties, non-disclosure directions were issued. The non-disclosure directions restricted the disclosure of certain portions of YAC’s material to the parties to this matter as well as requiring that the material be returned to YAC following the conclusion of these matters.
On 13 January 2022, YAC sought permission to file an updated copy of the statement of Mr Halloway Smirke which on 17 January 2022, I accepted for filing. In the interests of procedural fairness, Korab was provided with an opportunity to make any comments on the updated statement by close of business 21 January 2022. The State was also provided with a one week extension to compliance dates.
On 18 January 2022, Korab provided a supplementary statement (Korab supplementary statement) and by 2 February 2022, all parties had confirmed they were content for these matters to be determined on the papers.

WO2021/0495, WO2021/0542, WO2021/1054, WO2021/1183 & WO2021/1184 – Jurruru matters

Directions were set over a range of dates reflecting the wide range of time over which objections were lodged. Compliance dates in each of these matters (along with those of the Yinhawangka matters) were ultimately aligned with those of WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184 which were lodged some four months after the initial objection (WO2021/0495) on 9 July 2021. I will collectively refer to these matters as the Jurruru matters.
On 26 November 2021, following consultation with the parties, non-disclosure directions were issued. The non-disclosure directions restricted the disclosure of certain portions of Jurruru’s material to the parties to this matter as well as requiring that the material be returned to Jurruru following the conclusion of these matters.
On 14 December 2021, a one week extension was granted to allow the grantee party time to lodge their contentions. This was supported by the Government party and opposed by Jurruru.
By 31 January 2022, all parties had confirmed they were content for these matters to be determined on the papers.

Submissions from the Parties

The State, through the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) provided initial materials, including searches of the Aboriginal Heritage and Inquiry System (AHIS). Those searches indicate:
(a)The proposed licence area for E08/3302 contains one registered site, Japakuru (Jabargoodu) being a skeletal material/burial site, and no other heritage place registered under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (AHA).
(b)The proposed licence area for E08/3264 contains one registered site, Neerambah Springs (Mud Springs) being a mythological site, and no other heritage place registered under the AHA.
(c)The proposed licence area for E52/3872 contains no registered sites or other heritage place registered under the AHA.
These materials included a set of Endorsements and Conditions to be applied to the proposed leases upon grant. The materials also included an extract of the Korab work program statement as required by s 58 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act) (s 58 statement).
On 29 November 2021, Jurruru lodged their contentions (Jurruru contentions) in the Jurruru matters. These contentions were accompanied by a variety of materials and included the:
(a)Witness statement of Ivan Smirke, undated, which provides that he is a senior Jurruru man (I Smirke statement);
(b)Affidavit of Max Serjeant, dated 18 November 2021, which provides that he is an anthropologist employed by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) (Serjeant Affidavit); and
(c)Affidavit of Radhika Kayarat, dated 18 November 2021, which provides that she is a lawyer employed by YMAC (Kayarat affidavit).
The statement of Mr Smirke contains testimony of his membership to the Jurruru group. This statement is unsigned, however in her affirmed affidavit, Ms Kayarat details a field trip undertaken with Mr Smirke in which notes and photographs were taken and from which Ms Kayarat prepared the statement of Mr Smirke (Kayarat affidavit [17]-[21]). While the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence (see s 109(3) of the NTA), it is not ideal to have an unsigned statement from a witness. Nonetheless, I am satisfied the affidavit of Ms Kayarat provides a verification of Mr Smirke’s statement and accept Mr Smirke has the authority to provide evidence for the Jurruru people.
In regard to the evidence put forward by Mr Serjeant, I take the approach set out in Tullock by Deputy President Sumner at [35]-[37]. Consequently, and noting his stated expertise as an anthropologist, I accept the evidence provided by Mr Serjeant.
On 10 December 2021, YAC lodged their contentions (YAC contentions) in the Yinhawangka matters. These contentions were accompanied by the:
(a)Statement of Roy Tommy, unsigned and undated, (Tommy statement) which provides that he is a Yinhawangka man who is authorised to speak for Yinhawangka country (at [1], [5]);
(b)Witness statement of Halloway Smirke dated 13 January 2022; and
(c)Affidavit of Gwynette Govardhan dated 22 November 2021 (Govardhan affidavit), which provides that she is a lawyer employed by YMAC.

On 17 January 2022, YAC received permission to lodge an updated and signed statement of Halloway Smirke, dated 13 January 2022 (updated H Smirke statement). The updated H Smirke statement provided that Mr Smirke is a Yinhawangka person with authority to speak for country (at [2], [4]). YAC also provided a marked up version of the statement, identifying the differences between the updated H Smirke statement and the statement provided on 10 December 2021. I accept Mr Smirke’s standing within and membership of the Yinhawangka community, and his ability to provide evidence in these matters.
In her affidavit, Ms Govardhan deposes that Mr Tommy was unable to sign his statement due to his location. Ms Govardhan also deposes that she interviewed and drafted Mr Tommy’s statement before reading it to him in full, after which he verified it was an accurate and proper reflection of his statements (Govardhan affidavit [3]-[5]). Given this verification, I accept Mr Tommy’s statement, his standing within and membership of the Yinhawangka community, and his ability to provide evidence in these matters.
On 20 December 2021 and on behalf of Korab, Executive Chairman Mr Andrej Karpinski lodged a statement in the Jurruru matters dated (perhaps in error) 20 January 2021 (Korab Jurruru statement). On 11 January 2022, Mr Karpinski also lodged a statement on behalf of Korab dated 10 January 2022 in the Yinhawangka matters (Korab YAC statement). Korab also submitted a supplementary statement relating to the Yinhawangka matters following the acceptance of the updated H Smirke statement, as it was invited to do so.
On 12 January 2022, the State lodged their contentions in the Jurruru matters (State Jurruru contentions) and on 24 January 2022, lodged its contentions in the Yinhawangka matters (State YAC contentions).
Both Jurruru and YAC lodged their contentions in reply on their respective matters (Jurruru reply contentions and YAC reply contentions).
All parties submitted their view that a determination could be made on the papers.

The proposed licences and the proposed activities

The proposed licences are exploration licences, a type of licence outlined in s 66 of the Mining Act. Exploration licences are granted for a period of five years (with one further five year extension in specific circumstances).
The s 58 statements for each proposed exploration licence which accompanied the DMIRS initial material, are largely the same and provide that the proposed licences are directed towards exploration for a range of minerals. Primary minerals targeted are gold, rare earth elements, copper, cobalt, zinc, lead and silver. Secondary minerals targeted are lithium, platinum, palladium and rhodium. Tenements E08/3302 and E52/3872 also identify iron ore as a secondary target.
The work program put forward by Korab for each tenement proposes to ‘discover commercial mineralisation within the exploration licence using a combination of drilling, geochemical sampling, geophysical surveys, and analysis of historical data’ and includes a rock chipping and soil sampling program, prior to progressing towards a mining lease application.
The s 58 statement provided for these inquiries included an activity budget for the first two years but nothing beyond. Given the lack of information for years three to five, I am at liberty to assume Korab will fully exercise the rights provided by the Mining Act, as I do on this occasion (see Silver v Northern Territory).

Previous Determinations

In its contentions on each of these matters, the State makes note of previous determinations of the Tribunal which have found that the expedited procedure applies. These are Cook v Dioro Exploration, Giggles v Bronze View and Giggles v Mines Services.
Although not bound by previous determinations of the Tribunal, pursuant to s 146(b) of the NTA, I may ‘adopt any report, findings, decision, determination or judgment of any court [or other recognised body]… which may be relevant to the inquiry.’ As such, I have examined each of these determinations in detail.
In each matter, it is clear the determinations rested on the materials and evidence provided by the native title parties to the Tribunal, which are reproduced in detail in each determination, rather than on contested principles. In each of these determinations, the evidence provided was insufficient for the Tribunal to reach a finding that interference of the type contemplated by s 237 was likely. The matters subject to this determination have been considered in light of the materials provided by the native title parties for this matter and my determination on this occasion is made based on the materials before me.

CONSIDERATION

Section 237(a): Risk of Direct Interference with Community or Social Activities

General

In approaching s 237(a), the Tribunal is required to undertake a predictive assessment on whether the proposed act will involve a real chance or risk of interference with community or social activities of the native title party (Smith [23]). As set out in Smith at [26], 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]). This is an approach that has been adopted by the Tribunal previously (see Tullock [75] and Cheinmora [33] for example), as it is in this determination.
In Drury at [17.2], Deputy President Franklyn provides a useful summation of consideration under s 237(a):
In my opinion, in construing s 237(a), it is necessary to first identify the activity in question. To that end it is necessary to have evidence of its nature. It may or may not be spiritual in nature or have a spiritual dimension. It is then necessary to identify from the evidence how the activity is carried on in the sense of how it is conducted. That in my view involves a consideration of the physical aspects of the carrying on of the activity as disclosed by the evidence. The next step is to assess whether the carrying on of the activity is likely to be interfered with directly by the future act. That requires a predictive assessment as to how (if at all) implementation of the future act is likely to impact on the carrying out of the activity.
I adopt this framework in making this determination.

E08/3302

WO2021/1183 Jurruru #1 and WO2021/1184 Jurruru #2

Community and Social activities identified by Jurruru

Jurruru provide contentions and evidence in relation to community and social activities at a site known as ‘Jabaguru’ which is located in the eastern portion of E08/3302. Jabaguru is located in the Jurruru #1 and Jurruru #2 application areas and is within the area determined to be the ‘Shared Area’ between Jurruru and Yinhawanga where Jurruru and Yinhawangka Gabowarrah have been found to hold native title separately (Smirke v WA No. 4 [2]).
Jabaguru is noted by Jurruru as ‘one of the most important places on Jurruru country’ (I Smirke statement [17]). Jurruru note Jabaguru has been entered into the Register of Aboriginal Sites (Sites Register) where it is labelled ‘Japakuru (Jabargoodu)’ (site ID 36131) and listed as a ‘skeletal material/burial’ site (Jurruru contentions [31]). This is confirmed in the DMIRS initial information set as mentioned in paragraph [32] of this determination.
Jurruru provide a significant body of evidence relevant to s 237(a) regarding Jabaguru however a large portion of this evidence is restricted. Even so, it can be said that part of the usage of Jabaguru is for burial purposes and this usage is contemporary, with funerals being conducted at the site as recently as October 2021 (Jurruru contentions [34]).
The Jurruru contentions also explain that materials are collected in the local area to build structures around and over gravesites and that Jurruru people visit the area to leave commemorations such as flowers (Jurruru contentions [35]-[36]). On an evidence gathering trip to the site, it was noted a number of these structures were present and there was evidence of recent visitation (Kayarat affidavit [17]-[20]).
Jurruru further contend these activities are a direct manifestation of a number of registered native title rights and interests as set out in the Native Title Claim Register extract for the Jurruru #2 native title application. I accept this submission by Jurruru, note this conforms with the scheme contemplated in Tullock at [96] and remains consistent with the native title rights and interests determined to be held by Jurruru in Smirke v WA No. 4 at [7].
Jurruru also state Jabaguru was used as a law ground for the conduct of ceremony and ritual such as initiations, however the last law meeting on this location was in the 1960s (Jurruru contentions [38], I Smirke statement [22]). Mr Smirke states that law meetings usually take place over ‘about a month or so’, with the Jurruru contentions providing this happens during the summer months (I Smirke statement [25], Jurruru contentions [40]).
While the evidence states the most recent law ceremony was in the 1960s, Mr Smirke also attests that discussion is occurring to recommence law ceremony at this location (I Smirke statement [23]). Jurruru further contend that law ceremonies are important events for community and social activities of the broader Aboriginal community of the area (Jurruru contentions [38]).
For its part, the State accepts that such activities may be conducted (State Jurruru contentions [40]). I accept the activities set out by Jurruru constitute community and social activities in the sense set out in Tullock, Silver v Northern Territory and Smith. I would also note however, that while law ceremony has an obvious physical practice, it is proposed for re-engagement at the site rather than being current.

Risk of interference

Jurruru contend that, as Korab intend to:
carry out physical work in the tenement area, including soil sampling, rock chipping and drilling, with a substantial part of the budget for the first two years dedicated to drilling … there is real and direct risk of substantial interference with the Native Title Party’s sorry (funeral) business and subsequent cultural obligations, including members of the community being able to visit the tenement area to pay their respects. Exploration may be taking place on or near the burial ground so it may be unsafe for members of the Jurruru people to enter these areas. This may have cultural consequences in being able to carry out sorry business. (Jurruru contentions [42])
Jurruru also contend that Korab’s planned work ‘has a real risk of direct and substantial interference with law ceremonies’, that having ‘mining exploration take place in the area without a heritage agreement has the potential to significantly disrupt law business’ or that traditional owners ‘may go to Jabaguru for law business and discover that exploration work is taking place on their law grounds and they cannot go through with their law ceremonies as planned’ which will have cultural and spiritual consequences for Jurruru and other Aboriginal groups (Jurruru contentions [43]).
Jurruru then contend that ‘[t]hese are all significant, direct disruptions and interferences’ with Jurruru’s community and social activities (Jurruru contentions [44]).
Korab sets out that it has provided an executed ‘regional heritage agreement’ to Jurruru (Korab Jurruru statement [5]), which I presume is a reference to the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA). Korab also sets out that it ‘intends to conduct heritage surveys and consultation with Claimant Parties prior to any ground disturbing activity being undertaken’ (Korab Jurruru statement [6]). Korab also contends that when conducting ‘low impact activities that are not considered Ground Disturbing Activities’ it will avoid entry onto exclusion areas shown on the Sites Register and other ‘heritage protected areas known to Korab’ (Korab Jurruru statement [7]).
The State contends there is unlikely to be direct interference (State Jurruru contentions [41]) and that given ‘these indications, it would be reasonable to conclude with respect to E08/3302, being the proposed tenement where Jabaguru is located, that exploration activities and the Native Title Party's activities as described could coexist on the licence at the same time’ (State Jurruru contentions [43]).
In their reply contentions, Jurruru state that even non-ground disturbing activities or the presence of people, vehicles and machinery on or near Jabaguru is likely to interfere with funerals, sorry business or ceremony (Jurruru reply contentions [10]). Further, Jurruru set out that the statement that Korab provided a partially executed RSHA is incorrect and this did not occur (Jurruru reply contentions [13]). In any case, Jurruru contend there are no conditions proposed by the State that the RSHA be entered into if Jurruru request it within 90 days of the grant of the lease (Jurruru reply contentions [13]). On an examination of the conditions proposed to be imposed on E08/3302, this is shown to be correct. Further, Jurruru contend that even if the RSHA were in place, it does not require consultation in relation to low impact activities (Jurruru contentions [81]).
While the State notes Korab’s statement that it will avoid registered sites and will conduct heritage surveys prior to ground disturbing activity (State Jurruru contentions [42]), Jurruru contend Korab’s statements should not be accepted given their lack of engagement in attempts to develop a heritage agreement (Jurruru reply contentions [14]).
The Kayarat affidavit outlines a process of attempted communication and document exchange from 29 April 2021 to 19 October 2021 in which Jurruru sent heritage agreement drafts on a number of occasions and Korab provided assurances of review, response and agreement making, none of which were realised (Kayarat affidavit [4]-[16]). This is consistent with the statements made by Jurruru’s representative to the Tribunal during case management conferences, which Korab attended and did not dispute. The inference is that Korab’s record on these types of commitment show it is either unreliable or insincere and that, accordingly, little weight can be given to its assertions.

Is interference likely?

In this matter, three main sets of community and social activity are put forward: the conduct of funeral ceremonies and burial; the continued visitation and commemoration of the deceased by community and family members which includes the building of structures from locally sourced material and leaving tributes of flowers and mementoes; and the conduct of other types of ceremony such as law business and other restricted ceremony.
In relation to law ceremony, the evidence provided establishes these have not been specifically practiced on-site at Jabaguru for some time, although they are in other places in the region. While Jurruru has provided evidence that discussion is occurring to re-establish Jabaguru as a place of law ceremony, it is not occurring at present. On the basis that there is no current physical manifestation of these activities at Jabaguru, I cannot find that the proposed act will interfere with them.
The activities related to funerals and burials as well as ongoing visitation for commemoration purposes are quite different. Jurruru provide evidence of current and ongoing practice of these activities and the circumstances in which they are undertaken. In my view, Jurruru have provided sufficient evidence for these to be considered an active manifestation of community and social activities and for them to be viewed as a manifestation of the claimed and now determined native title rights as contemplated by Tullock at [96].
It can also be ascertained from the evidence provided by Jurruru that, given the nature of the activities, they are neither scheduled nor follow a particular pattern. As such, they are not predictable and could be viewed as being effectively continuous, undertaken privately on some occasions by a small number of community members or in larger numbers and communally in others.
Korab has stated that it will conduct heritage surveys (prior to ground disturbing activities), avoid ‘exclusion areas’ shown on the Sites Register and other ‘heritage protected areas’ and offered the RSHA, the details of which are not provided. The Sites Register search included in the DMIRS information set shows the site location and that this is contained within a 2km x 2km polygon. This doesn’t appear to be an ‘exclusion area’ or ‘heritage protected area’ in the way it may be considered by the Protected Areas provision (s 19) of the AHA although would require a s 18 AHA approval prior to any activity which may physically disturb the area.
In any case, given the lack of response by Korab to the agreement making efforts of Jurruru over an extended period of time, which would include (as Jurruru put it) a ‘framework for communication’ (Jurruru reply contentions [12]) between the parties, in my view little weight can be given to Korab’s stated commitments to avoid places of significance, conduct heritage surveys or communicate openly with Jurruru on its activities. This is particularly in light of the statement by Jurruru that an executed copy of the RSHA was not provided by Korab, in contrast to the information given in Korab’s statement (Jurruru reply contentions [13]).
In the absence of these measures, I find that the grant of E08/3302 is likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of Jurruru’s identified community and social activities. In the instance where funerals may be taking place or where community members are visiting the area to pay their respects and commemorate their deceased community members, it is my view that even if the site area as set out in the Sites Register is not physically entered, exploration activity in the vicinity of and in proximity to Jabaguru may have the effect of interrupting funeral services and ceremony as well as the quiet enjoyment of the area by community members during commemoration visits. This is partly due to the small size of the registered site area and the nature of the potential interruption.
To clarify, in my view this interruption could occur in two main forms; the presence of personnel and vehicular traffic in close proximity to and during these activities while low impact exploration is being conducted, along with the generation of noise, the potential for visual disturbance and the generation of dust and other impacts from the operation of heavy machinery during high impact activity. In my view, these factors are likely to create intrusions on the community and social activities and are likely to interfere directly with their conduct.
As put forward by Jurruru, it is my view these issues could be overcome with a heritage agreement between the parties which allows for communication to be established and the activities of Korab and Jurruru to be coordinated. In the absence of this, it is my view there is a risk of direct interference.

E52/3872

WO2021/0495 – Jurruru #2

The same contentions and evidence are provided by Jurruru for this inquiry as those in WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184 relating to E08/3302. There are no specific contentions made on s 237(a) matters in relation to E52/3872 aside from those relating to Jabaguru, the closest point of this tenement’s western extremity being approximately 1.3 km to the north east of the north east corner of the site area as it is recorded on the Sites Register. As in the previous section, I have accepted the activities outlined by Jurruru as community and social activities as contemplated by s 237(a).

Similarly, the submissions of both Korab and the State are the same as those provided for E08/3302. In their contentions, the State notes that the extent to which the cultural and social activities outlined by Jurruru have not been expressed in relation to E52/3872 (State Jurruru contentions [38]), that there is nothing to suggest the community and social activities outlined for Jabaguru relate to E52/3872 (State Jurruru contentions [44]) and that interference is unlikely (State Jurruru contentions [45]).
While the marked area of Jabaguru does not overlap the external boundary of E52/3872, it is my view that the site and E52/3872 are in close proximity and as a result, exploration activities are likely to interfere with the carrying on of community activities.
This arises from several factors. Firstly, and as Jurruru point out, the s 58 statement lacks detail and therefore I assume Korab will exercise the rights granted to them by the licence to their fullest extent. Secondly, while there is a site location on AHIS, it is unclear whether this is the full extent of the site area, and as such, activities that occur at this location may go beyond this marked area.
Even if this is not the case, while low impact activity on E52/3872 is not likely to provide any risk of interference, it is my view that given the type of activities that occur at Jabaguru and their sensitive nature, in addition to the proximity of E53/3872, high impact activity is likely to create disturbance through noise, dust, visual impacts and the movement of personnel. As such, I am of the view there is a risk of interference.
It is likely I would not hold this view if the activities conducted by Jurruru were not sensitive or if the western most block was not included in E52/3872. In this case, the proposed licence would be approximately 3 km distant, which in my view would have been a satisfactory buffer to overcome the risk of interference.

WO2021/0267 – Yinhawangka

Social and Cultural activities identified by YAC

Much of the material provided by YAC is also restricted. As an outline however, in his statement, Mr Tommy sets out that in the areas around Urary Creek and Mininer, in and near the southern portion of E52/3872, there is a special connection with the land and waters, that he visits the area often and that the Yinhawangka people gather in the area for traditional activities (Tommy statement [42]-[44]).
Mr Tommy also states there are freshwater fish present in the area and that Yinhawangka people continue to fish for these Mr Tommy further states there is an important plant collected in the area that has ceremonial uses and that that there are multiple camping spots throughout the tenements which are used in cultural practices (Tommy statement [49]-[52]), although these places are not specified and neither is the frequency of the activity.
Additionally, Mr Tommy says that Yinhawangka people ‘continuously access the land for collecting bushfoods as well. There are a huge amount of plants growing on this area of Yinhawangka Country’ and provides examples of these plant resources (Tommy statement [53]). Mr Tommy also states that the area is used for ochre collection for ceremonial use and that there are only certain places where this white ochre is collected (Tommy statement [54]-[55]).
The statement of Mr Halloway Smirke is focused more on matters related to s 237(b), however he does state of the areas north of the Ashburton and Angelo Rivers, which are in the southern portion of E52/3872, that ‘[i]t is a good hunting ground, good country. Yinhawangka People gather there from time to time and walk around to collect bush tucker and medicine. There are bush turkeys, goannas and kangaroos, witchetty grubs. There is lots of bush tucker. There are eels in the water catchments’ (updated H Smirke statement [10]).

Risk of interference

YAC contend these statements indicate that Yinhawangka people regularly visit areas of the proposed tenements for social and cultural activities and that it is important to continue this (YAC contentions [24]-[25]). YAC further contend that ongoing access to conduct traditional activities is essential for the continuance of Yinhawangka culture and that without a work plan or proposal to minimise cultural harm, the granting of the tenement will result in interference and impede transmission of cultural knowledge (YAC contentions [32]).
In their contentions, YAC set out that the statement of Korab is general in nature and provides no information on how Korab will consider community and social activities (YAC contentions [30]). As such, YAC state it is not clear how Korab proposes to remove the risk of interference generally or specifically (YAC contentions [38]) and have made no commitment for consultation prior to activities, including low impact activities (YAC reply contentions [7]). As a result, YAC contend exploration activities will significantly impact community and social activities without appropriate cultural heritage arrangements (YAC contentions [41]).
Korab submitted a statement in very similar terms to that which it submitted in the Jurruru matters. For the purposes of this s 237(a) inquiry, I simply note that Korab repeats each of the contentions outlined above at [66]. As discussed above at [27] and [40], Korab also submitted a supplementary statement in the Yinhawangka matters. This supplementary statement adds little to the information on the activities of Korab and instead notes that the tenements are covered by operational pastoral leases and have been subject to previous exploration including sampling, drilling, costeaning and excavation (Korab supplementary statement [3]- [4]).
For its part, the State sets out that it accepts the activities described may be conducted but that there is unlikely to be interference (State YAC contentions [34]-[35]). The State references Korab’s stated intent to conduct heritage surveys, to consult prior to ground disturbing activities and to avoid sites listed on AHIS when conducting low impact activities (State YAC contentions [36]) and notes that this, in addition to Korab’s references to the RSHA, may alleviate YAC concerns as there ‘does appear to be an intention to consult’ (State YAC contentions [38]).

Is interference likely?

Having considered the materials before me, I accept the activities outlined by YAC as community or social activities. I do note however, that the information provided is relatively broad in that it describes a series of activity types but does not go beyond more general information on these activities or enable me to draw strong conclusions about whether they occur in limited or specific locations.
Given the nature of the activities described by YAC, that the evidence points to activities which occur broadly throughout the tenement area and given the type of activity that is conducted during mining exploration, I have formed the view there is not likely to be interference to these community and social activities by the grant of E58/3872.

E08/3264

WO2021/0542 – Jurruru #1 and WO2021/1054 – Jurruru #2

Jurruru provide the same contentions and evidence as provided for WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184 concerning E08/3302. As examined previously, the main focus of this evidence is Jabaguru and the cultural and social activities that take place there, with Jabaguru being approximately 11 km to the south east of the closest point of E08/3264 within the Jurruru #2 native title application area. This area is now determined to be in the ‘Shared Area’ in which both Jurruru and Yinhawangka Gobawarrah hold native title separately (Smirke v Western Australia No 4). No contentions or evidence for cultural and social activities is provided for the area covered by E08/3264 itself.
The submissions of both Korab and the State are also the same as those provided for E08/3302. As such, the same contentions are being made, these being that the State notes that the extent to which the cultural and social activities outlined by Jurruru has not been expressed in relation to E08/3264 (State Jurruru contentions [38]), there is nothing to suggest the community and social activities outlined for Jabaguru relate to E08/3264 (State Jurruru contentions [44]) and that in any event, interference is unlikely (State Jurruru contentions [45]).
In keeping with my reasoning expressed at paragraph [85], I am not of the view there is a risk of interference with the Jurruru community and social activities by the grant of E08/3264.

WO2021/0912 – Yinhawangka

YAC also provides the same materials as for WO2021/0267 regarding E52/3872. As examined previously, Mr Tommy sets out that there are various types of fish in the waterways going through the area, that Yinhawangka people fish in these waterways (Tommy statement [49]-[50]), that there are multiple campsites used by Yinhawangka people throughout the tenement and that Yinhawangka people continuously use the land for collection of bush foods and other resources (Tommy statement [51]-[54]).
Mr Halloway Smirke also sets out general details on a number of activities, however these are contained within restricted paragraphs of his statement. To the extent this statement outlines community and social activities, it focuses on types of activities rather than their manifestation by community members.
The contentions of the State are the same as those submitted in relation to the YAC objections relating to E52/3872 which are examined at paragraph [93] of this determination. Similarly, Korab provides the same materials it did for WO2021/0267, as do YAC in their contentions in reply.
Like at paragraph [94], I note the information provided is relatively broad in that it describes a series of activity types but does not go beyond more general information on these activities or to a level of information that enables me to draw further conclusions. As such, I have formed the view there is not likely to be interference to these community and social activities by the grant of E08/3264.

Section 237(b) – Is the grant of the proposed licence likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance?

E08/3302

WO2021/1183 Jurruru #1 and WO2021/1184 Jurruru #2

Are there places of particular significance?

For an area or site to be regarded as a place of particular significance for the purposes of the Tribunal, it must be of more than ordinary significance to the native title holders, 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).
Jurruru submit there to be two main areas or sites of particular significance. The first of these is Jabaguru as examined in some detail previously. There is little need to re-examine this site, the activities that occur there and its significance. It is clear that Jabaguru more than adequately fulfils the criteria of a place of particular significance.
The second area submitted by Jurruru is the Ashburton River in its entirety. In his statement, Mr Smirke refers to several ‘yinda’ sites; places where the river pools and the thurru snake deity rests (I Smirke statement [38]). One such site is at Jabaguru (I Smirke statement [43]) while others are listed further down river, outside of the tenement area (I Smirke statement [39]-[40]).
In his statement, Mr Smirke also illustrates the connection the river creates with native title groups downstream and notes that all the yinda are similarly connected (I Smirke statement [33], [37], [42]). As a result of this, Mr Smirke states his view that the river needs protection in this upstream Jurruru area so downstream sites are not polluted (I Smirke statement [37]). Additionally, in their reply contentions, Jurruru set out that if the river is interfered with and the thurru cannot travel, there will be spiritual consequences for the Jurruru people (Jurruru reply contentions [19]).
In its contentions, the State recognises the significance of the Ashburton River however does not overtly recognise it as a place of particular significance, deferring this to the Tribunal (State Jurruru contentions [50]). The State does set out however, that the statement of Mr Smirke indicates the ‘desire to protect the Ashburton River arises from an absence of clarity regarding [Korab’s] activities rather than the inherent and particular significance of the site itself’ (State Jurruru contentions [51]).
Korab make no submissions on this issue.
While the points made by Mr Smirke and YAC are understood and the Ashburton River can be seen to be of significance, in my view, the materials presented support the notion that the places of particular significance are the yinda sites rather than the Ashburton River per se. One yinda is located at Jabaguru, already noted as a place of particular significance, while others are listed as downstream. I cannot therefore, accept the entirety of the Ashburton River as a site of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b) and this inquiry.

Is interference likely?

In relation to Jabaguru, Jurruru contend exploration activities are likely to create a disturbance to the site, both to the structures built by Jurruru people to commemorate the deceased and to graves themselves. Jurruru contend that without a heritage agreement in place, the significance of the structures will be unknown or overlooked and given the number of unmarked gravesites, there is a risk that soil sampling (considered a low impact activity) and drilling will disturb graves and human remains (Jurruru contentions [66]).
Jurruru further contend that given the nature of the site as a law ground and yinda site, there is a real risk that high impact exploration activities will physically interfere with and desecrate the site (Jurruru contentions [67]). In his statement, Mr Smirke says there would be a significant community backlash if the site were to be interfered with, that he would likely be held responsible and there would be ramifications in the community (I Smirke statement [45]-[50]).
Jurruru contend that Korab has not made reference to how it will engage with Jurruru, how it proposes to mitigate the likelihood of interference or manage its responsibilities under the AHA (Jurruru contentions [73]). Jurruru further state that after providing their preferred heritage agreement to Korab on 29 April 2021 and an updated agreement on 10 May 2021 to include E08/3302, Korab did not make substantive comment on this agreement despite being prompted to on 9 separate occasions by Jurruru’s legal representatives (Jurruru contentions [75], Kayarat affidavit [5]-[17]).
I note this was raised during case management conferences before the Tribunal and despite Korab’s assurances of its intention to respond to the Jurruru at various conferences, this did not appear to occur. This, Jurruru says, ‘supports the contention that [Korab] are not likely to carry out any heritage surveys before commencing work, making interference with sites of particular significance likely’ (Jurruru contentions [75]).
As in all other matters, Korab submits that to the best of its knowledge, it’s staff and contractors have not interfered with sites, that it has provided an executed copy of the RSHA, that it will conduct heritage surveys and consult prior to ground disturbing activities and when conducting low impact activities (ie prior to any consultation) will avoid entry onto sites (Korab Jurruru statement [4]-[7]).
On the matter of the RSHA, Jurruru contend that Korab did not send a partially executed copy. Jurruru further contend that in any case, entering into the RSHA (should Jurruru require it) is not a condition imposed by the State when there are overlapping claims, as there are on this occasion (Jurruru contentions [80]). An examination of the conditions provided by the State confirms any condition relating to the RSHA is absent.
Further, Jurruru contend the RSHA is inadequate as it allows a grantee party to conduct low impact activity without consultation or a heritage survey (Jurruru contentions [81]). Low impact activity would include aerial survey, geological mapping, metal detecting, rock chipping and soil sampling (Jurruru reply contentions [32]). Citing BTAC v Squadron [26], Jurruru note that this may extend to access by reconnaissance vehicles, camping and surveying (Jurruru reply contentions [33]).
In regard to the AHA, Jurruru contend it does not protect areas of particular significance. As quoted from the Jurruru contentions at [77] these reasons include (including citations):
·the “protection” afforded under the AHA “may not extend to areas or sites to which s 237(b) applies” (citing Marputu v Gianni [44]);
·the offence proscribed by s 17 of the AHA is more limited than the concept of ‘interference’ under section 237(b) of the NTA. Jurruru contend it is possible for the Grantee Party to “interfere” with a site without being in breach of the AHA, as the concept of interference is broader than the proscribed activities in s 17. Therefore, even compliance with the AHA is no guarantee that interference will not occur (citing Ngadju v South Coast Metals [57]);
·s 18 permits the destruction of sites without committing an offence under the AHA. Section 18 does not require the consent or agreement of the native title holders; and
·even when sites are destroyed without s 18 approval the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) is not likely to prosecute the offender, providing little disincentive for companies to avoid destroying sites of significance.[1] Jurruru state that between 2015 and April 2021, there was only one prosecution for damage to a site under the AHA[2] and that DPLH itself has identified low rates of enforcement and prosecution under the AHA as problematic.[3]
[1] Hannah Barry, ‘Traditional owners angry at decision not to prosecute Kimberley granite miner’, ABC News (online, 20 April 2021),
[2] Michael Ramsay, ‘WA decision casts doubt on heritage revamp’, The West Australian (online, 21 April 2021),
[3] Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (Discussion Paper, March 2019) 6.
The State contends that interference is unlikely for a number of reasons in that it ‘asserts that the indications by [Korab] as to the execution of regional heritage agreements, an intention to conduct heritage surveys and consult in relation to ground disturbing activities, and to avoid entering known sites of significance in relation to non-ground disturbing activities immediately reduces the risk of interference’ (State Jurruru contentions [52]).
The State also contends there is unlikely to be interference due to the protection afforded by the AHA and that as Jabaguru is a registered site, it is subject to the provisions of the AHA as are other places that may not be registered but fall within the definition of an Aboriginal site pursuant to s 5(b) of the AHA (State Jurruru contentions [58]-[60]).
The State makes mention of s 17 of the AHA which makes it an offence to excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter an Aboriginal site without Ministerial consent pursuant to s 18 and contends the Tribunal should presume Korab will comply with AHA requirements (State Jurruru contentions [62]). Further, the State contends, if Korab were to seek s 18 approval to disturb the site, the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) would need to be satisfied of the adequacy of consultation with relevant Aboriginal people prior to making a recommendation to the Minister (State Jurruru contentions [63]). It is unclear whether low impact activities would require s 18 approval.
The State cites Freddie v Globe Uranium at [51] in what it says is a summary of the Tribunal’s position in relation to the AHA (State Jurruru contentions [64]). As this passage remains a useful framework, I will reproduce it here:
In summary, the Tribunal's position is that the AHA and its protective regime will normally be sufficient to ensure that s 237(b) interference is unlikely to occur but there will be circumstances where this is not the case taking into account the nature of any sites, whether the area is 'site rich', whether there is an area of particular significance, the nature and size of such an area and the intentions of the grantee party with respect to the protection of sites; and the intentions of the grantee including whether it is willing to enter into an agreement which provides for a site survey to be carried out are relevant consideration (citations omitted).

Given most of the considerations set out here are already addressed, that which remains is the intentions of the grantee party with respect to the protection of sites, including whether it is willing to enter into an agreement which provides for a site survey to be carried out. As in other matters, in considering this, I assume the presumption of regularity and that Korab will comply with all laws and conditions set by the State.
Korab states that it provided an executed copy of the RSHA, that it intends to conduct heritage surveys prior to ground disturbing activities (Korab Jurruru statement [5]-[6]) and will avoid ‘exclusion areas’ shown on the Sites Register (Korab Jurruru statement [7]). While it may be an issue of semantics, the area on the Sites Register that is marked as the location of Jabaguru is not specifically an ‘exclusion area’ in the way this term is contemplated in other parts of the AHA. It is unclear whether Korab understand this and use this proximate language deliberately or whether it does not and uses this language mistakenly.
The circumstances here are slightly unusual in that the site area as it appears on the Sites Register is not large, so the specific location of the site is known with a relatively high degree of precision. I note, as in paragraph [82], that it remains unclear whether the marked boundaries reflect the extent of the site. What is more relevant is that I assume s 18 approval would be required for activity to be conducted on the defined site area and possibly its immediate surrounds.
Korab has made a statement that it will avoid ‘exclusion zones’ however it has also stated it provided Jurruru with an executed RSHA, which Jurruru deny. Korab also failed to respond to Jurruru in its efforts to reach agreement, as observed during case management conferences.
Given the approach of Korab in this matter, it is difficult to place a great deal of weight on its statement of site avoidance. As such, I am not of the view it is unlikely that Korab would seek a s 18 approval, even if just as a risk mitigation measure rather than out of an actual intent to explore on the site. Such approval would make Korab immune to prosecution if it did disturb the site, although as Jurruru note, there seems little disincentive to site disturbance given the low number of prosecutions.
It should also be noted there is no requirement to consult with traditional owners in the AHA and no statement of policy or practice has been provided to support the assertion the Minister or ACMC would require consultation, although it would be sensible for them to do so. Further to this, the RSHA does not require consultation for low impact activities and in any case, entering into the RSHA should Jurruru require it, is not a condition currently proposed to be imposed by the State on the grant of the lease.
Had Korab approached the matter differently, even if it had not reached agreement, I may have found differently on this topic. While I have given Korab the presumption of regularity, its approach means that even with this in place, the lack of communication and consultation shown to date significantly increases the risks of Korab engaging in acts that don’t offend the legislative regime but present a risk of interference. As a result, I have formed the view there is a risk of interference with Jabaguru as contemplated by s 237(b) of the NTA.

E52/3872

WO2021/0495 – Jurruru #2

The Jurruru #2 submissions for WO2021/0495 relating to E52/3872 are the same as those submitted for WO2021/1184 relating to E08/3302, as is the evidence in the form of the statement from Mr Ivan Smirke. As set out, this evidence relates to Jabaguru, which I previously accepted was a place of particular significance, and the Ashburton River, which, based on the evidence before me, I did not. The area marked as Jabaguru on the Sites Register is approximately 1.3 km to the south west of E52/3872 at its closest point although it is unclear whether this covers the full extent of the site or alternatively, whether the site is a smaller portion of the broader area.
Similarly, both the State and Korab submissions are the same as those submitted for WO2021/1184, with the contentions within them having been outlined previously.
On the question of whether activities allowed by the grant of E52/3872 will interfere with sites of particular significance, in this case Jabaguru, I am not of the view that this will be the case. Based on the materials before me, it is my view that while proximate, there is little risk of direct interference on Jabaguru by exploration activities provided for by the grant of E52/3872.

WO2021/0267 – Yinhawangka

In support of their s 237(b) objection YAC has provided contentions, statements from Mr Halloway Smirke and Mr Roy Tommy, and contentions in reply. I note these materials apply both in this matter and in the case of WO2021/0912.
Much of Mr Tommy’s statement relating to sites of particular significance on E52/3872 is restricted, thus only a summary can be provided. In the first instance, Mr Tommy identifies Jabaguru, which I have already noted as a place of particular significance. Jabaguru is some 1.3 km south west of the western extremity of E52/3872.
Mr Tommy identifies a number of places which are asserted to be places of particular significance. Without divulging restricted information, these are:
1.       a tabletop hill with resources used for ceremonial purposes within the tenement (Site 1);
2.       a thalu or increase site in the south western extremity of the tenement (Site 2);
3.       a birthing and burial place within the southern portion of the tenement with both story and song associated with it (Site 3);
4.       a large hill outside of the tenement (some 5 km and between E52/3872 and E08/3264) which is a landmark for navigation and which has a songline connected to it (Site 4);
5.       a site immediately to the south of Site 4, also outside of the tenement (Site 5);
6.       a further birthing place to the east of Site 5, outside of the tenement (Site 6); and,
7.       a birth place outside of the tenement, to the north of its southern portion (Site 7).
The statement of Mr Smirke is also restricted. It corroborates the information provided concerning Site 3 and that this place is also associated with a songline. Mr Smirke also describes a location to the north of E52/3872 (within E08/3264) along with ceremonial aspects of this location and particular plant species used in ceremony. Mr Smirke outlines that the ‘run’ for this plant and its associated landscape goes to the south to the Angelo River, which is within E52/3872, and says this area may contain birthing and burial sites.
Mr Smirke also corroborates the information provided concerning Site 4 and Site 6 and the songline that is associated with those sites and speaks of the significance of the country to the north of the Angelo and Ashburton rivers. In an unrestricted portion of his statement, Mr Smirke also outlines that the Ashburton River is viewed as sacred, is known to the Yinhawangka as Gobawarrah and is attached to a goanna dreaming story (updated H Smirke statement [10]).
In a further unrestricted portion of his statement, Mr Smirke outlines the significance of country generally in addition to the mountain ranges and hills within the broader area and states the hills have a songline running along them (updated H Smirke statement [11]). It seems reasonably clear from this statement that these areas are outside of E52/3872.
Regarding the level of information or explanation required to enable the Tribunal to find that an area or place is of particular significance, in their reply contentions at [27], YAC quotes Member Shurven in Wanjina-Wunggurr v Lucky Break stating that an explanation:
does not need to be lengthy to establish a site or area is of particular significance – it does need to go beyond a mere claim that it is so, and the nature of the significance in accordance with the native title party traditions be explained (Wanjina-Wunggurr v Lucky Break [21])
My reading of this passage is that an explanation need not be lengthy however it does need to go beyond a mere claim that a place is of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders, and the nature of the significance in accordance with the native title party traditions needs to be explained. This seems a reasonable reading in the context of Wanjina-Wunggurr v Lucky Break, as it is apparent the native title party in that case provided information that enabled Member Shurven to form an understanding about multiple aspects of the places in question and of their particular significance. This reading would also be consistent with Silver v Northern Territory at [91].
In relation to the sites listed at [134], for the main part the information provided by YAC is either overly generalised or insufficient to enable me to reach a finding that these areas are of particular significance. In previous inquiries I have held that sites such as the ones outlined are of particular significance, thalu sites in Ngarluma v Kalamazoo Resources for example. In Ngarluma v Kalamazoo Resources however, the detail provided by the native title party enabled findings of particular significance and each case must stand on its own merits.
The exception in this inquiry is Site 3. In his statement Mr Tommy provides detail as to births and burial in the area, story and song associated with the site along with an offer to provide this song and a statement that the place is extremely significant. This area is also said by Mr Smirke to be of great significance due to the presence of an important songline in the area, although the details of this songline and places along it (with this exception) are not provided. Even so, I am satisfied Site 3 is a place of particular significance.

Is there a risk of interference?

As previously discussed, Korab submitted a statement in very similar terms to that which it submitted in the Jurruru matters and repeats each of the contentions outlined at [123] (Korab YAC statement [4]-[7]). Additionally, Korab states it is aware of ‘third parties’ who entered and worked on particular sites located within tenements held by subsidiaries of Korab (Korab YAC statement [8]).
In these Yinhawangka matters, Korab also submitted a supplementary statement. This outlines that the tenement areas are pastoral leases which are subject to normal and routine pastoral activity, which can include ground disturbing activity such as earthworks and road building, and that the area has been subject to past ground disturbing exploration and mining (Korab supplementary statement [3]-[4]). The inference is that the area is likely to have been disturbed previously, therefore further interference in this case isn’t likely.
Should this be the assertion, it would seem to contain somewhat of a logical fallacy, that if an area has been previously subject to some interference then it is unlikely to be subject to further interference for the purposes of s 237(b) (irrespective of the magnitude of the additional disturbance), the damage having been done so to speak. This would seem new information for the fields of land, environmental and heritage management which would be more likely to take the opposite view – that if some disturbance has occurred, then further disturbance should be prevented or mitigated in order to maintain the integrity of the place or system in question.
Little turns on this point however as in this matter, as contended by YAC, no evidence has been put forward by Korab or the State on what previous disturbance may have occurred (YAC reply contentions [9]). YAC instead contend that the evidence indicates there has not been noticeable mining activity in the area (YAC reply contentions [10]), although I would note this to be a general statement pertaining to the entire exploration licence. Even so, if there has been previous interference, YAC contend this does not mean cultural activities have not resumed or that the area has lost its particular significance (YAC reply contentions [10]).
On this, I would follow that which is set out in Nyalpa v Anderson at [16] and WDLAC v Teck at [123]: that insufficient evidence has been provided by Korab and the State to come to a conclusion about previous activity and that in any case, a place of particular significance doesn’t necessarily lose this status due to exploration or mining activity, and further activity may still create a risk of interference.
The other main issues again revolve around the RSHA and the AHA with similar arguments as in other matters within this determination. Korab states it has offered the RSHA (Korab YAC statement [5]) while the State contends that Korab has ‘stated its intention’ to conduct surveys (State YAC contentions [36]) and that there ‘does appear to be an intention to consult’ with YAC (State YAC contentions [38], [52]) as a result of the offering of the RSHA. YAC note that entry into the RSHA, should YAC request it, is not a proposed condition to be applied to the grant of the license (YAC reply contentions [46]), which is shown to be correct on examination of the conditions provided.
In any case YAC say, they do not enter into the RSHA (YAC contentions [74]) as it does not prevent interference with sites of particular significance (YAC reply contentions [45]). This, YAC contend, is because the RSHA does not require surveys prior to low impact activity (YAC reply contentions [47]) and Korab has not clarified the meaning of, or made a distinction between, this term and ground disturbing activities (YAC reply contentions [50]). The relevance here is that YAC contend that ‘mere entry’ for low impact activities due to the nature of the sites and the cultural protocols normally engaged in, constitutes interference (YAC reply contentions [29]).
In relation to the AHA, YAC contend similarly to Jurruru, as outlined in paragraph [117] of this determination, that the protection afforded by the AHA may not extend to sites s 237(b) applies to, that the sites put forward by YAC are not registered and the offence proscribed by s 17 of the AHA is more limited than the concept of interference under s 237(b) (YAC contentions [70]).
Given these circumstances, I am of the view there is a risk of interference to the site of particular significance. The exact location of the place is not known by Korab and so cannot be avoided without guidance from YAC and there is no agreement in place to facilitate this guidance aside from the offer of the RSHA. The RSHA itself (should it be required by YAC) is not a condition to be placed upon the proposed lease and does not require consultation for what are termed low impact activities.
While there is no obligation on a grantee party to negotiate an agreement in the expedited procedure, Korab indicated they would seek to do this but then delayed and failed to communicate with Jurruru during the considerable time the parties were allowed prior to the inquiry process, as observed during case management conferences. For this reason, it is difficult to place strong weight upon Korab’s statements regarding engagement with YAC and the protection or avoidance of sites. For that matter, it is difficult to place significant weight on its stated commitment to enter into the RSHA.
Importantly, this is not to say I hold the view that Korab will breach any laws or regulations, I do not. Rather, in these circumstances it appears compliance with the regulatory regime alone is likely to be insufficient to mitigate the risk of interference, and the approach of Korab does not overcome this risk. As a result of this, it seems likely the AHA leaves open a risk of interference in circumstances such as this one.
For these reasons, I am of the view there is a risk of interference with sites of particular significance.

E08/3264

WO2021/0542 – Jurruru # 1 and WO2021/1054 Jurruru #2

The Jurruru # 1 and Jurruru # 2 materials are the same as those submitted in other matters. In reference to s 237(b), the focus of Jurruru is Jabaguru and the Ashburton River. Jabaguru is approximately 11 km to the south east of tenement at its closest point and covers approximately 8.5 km of the course of the Ashburton River.
I have previously found that Jabaguru is a place of particular significance however based on the materials before me, have not been able to reach the same finding in relation to the Ashburton River as a whole.
Given the nature of the activities and the distance of E08/3264 from Jabaguru, I am not satisfied that Jabaguru is at risk if interference from the grant of E08/3264.

WO2021/0912 – Yinhawangka

Similarly, the materials provided by YAC are the same as those for all other matters in this inquiry. YAC do however, provide evidence in relation to places they contend are of particular significance both within and outside of E08/3264. Mr Tommy sets out evidence for a number of places, these being:
1.A birth place and mythological site in the north western portion of the tenement area (Site 8);
2.A law ground area to the west of but in proximity to the north western portion of the tenement (Site 9);
3.An area of connected law grounds and burial within the south western portion of the tenement (Site 10);
4.A food gathering area to the west of, but in proximity to, the north western portion of the tenement (Site 11).
Mr Halloway Smirke also provides information in his statement that is directly related to E08/3264. In the restricted portion of his statement, Mr Smirke outlines the significance of the Seven Mile Creek, which runs for some 6 km through the northern portion of E08/3264.
YAC contend they have explained the particular significance of each area, again citing Wanjina-Wunggurr v Lucky Break at [21] (YAC reply contentions [24]-[27]). My view is that the evidence provided is generalised and while the places described are obviously of significance to the Yinhawangka people, the information provided makes findings of particular significance difficult to reach.
The exception in this matter is Site 10 by virtue of its status as a burial ground and law grounds. In an unrestricted part of his affidavit, Mr Tommy states that ‘[n]on-Yinhawangka people should not go to burial sites. When we visit gravesites there are protocols to follow’ and ‘[i]f people disturbed our grave sites it would hugely impact us … [i]t would be like somebody trying to disturb a cemetery’ (Tommy statement [16]-[17]).
While this site is within E08/3264, it falls outside the area of the determined native title in Jones v Western Australia. Instead, this site falls within the external boundary of the determination of native title in Smirke v Western Australia No. 4, meaning it is instead within the area of native title to be held on trust by GYAC. In my view, that does not prevent YAC advancing an objection on the basis of s 237(b) in relation to these sites.
Section 237(b) requires that an area or site must be of special or more than ordinary significance in accordance with the traditions of the native title party (Silver v Northern Territory at [88]). If a site is established of being of more than ordinary significance, then it must be known, able to be located and the nature of its significance explained in the material before the Tribunal (Silver v Northern Territory at [91]). In my view, there is nothing in that regime which requires that a particular site be located within the native title party’s area of claimed or determined native title. Rather, the focus should be placed on what the material before me shows regarding the significance of the particular site within the native title party’s traditions. Whilst being located within a claimed or determined area may well be persuasive in making this assessment, I can see nothing which suggests it must be determinative.
As is also set out at paragraph [49], per s 146(b) of the NTA, I may ‘adopt any report, findings, decision, determination or judgment of any court [or other recognised body]… which may be relevant to the inquiry’. In this instance, while some of the identified significant sites fall within the area where native title is administered by GYAC, Justice Mortimer made clear that in her view, while the native title rights and interests are held distinctly and differently from those in Jones v Western Australia, the ‘body of laws and customs which confers the native title rights and interests is the same body of laws and customs’ (Smirke v Western Australia No. 4 at [53]).

In circumstances where the FCA has previously found that the body of traditional laws and customs is the same for both the Yinhawangka Gobawarrah and Yinhawangka people, in my view it is open for me to come to a finding that Site 10 is a site of particular significance to the YAC native title holders in accordance with their traditions, despite it falling within the external boundary of the Smirke v Western Australia No. 4 determination area.
Given this outline, for the same reasons as those outlined in paragraphs [150]-[153], I am of the view there is a risk of interference to sites of particular significance.

Section 237(c) – Is the grant of the proposed licence likely to involve major disturbance or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned?

General

In Little v Oriole Resources at [41]-[56], the Full Bench of the Federal Court sets out reasoning on the construction of s 237 and in particular s 237(c), in addition to the interpretation of the words ‘major disturbance’ and how this should be viewed. Little v Oriole also provides insight into how the assessment of the second limb of s 237(c) is to be approached at [44] where it states:
A construction of s 237(c) which may give its second limb some work to do would apply it to the circumstance in which there are rights which are not created by the future act itself but may come into existence as a consequence of things done under that act. So a particular legislative or executive act may empower a person to make decisions or elections or to do things upon which certain rights subsequently come into existence.
This may be said to be the case for exploration licences through the operation of s 66(c) of the Mining Act. This section provides for a grantee party to apply to the Minister to exceed the 1000 tonne extraction limit proscribed by r 20 of the Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) (Mining Regulations) and therefore forms part of this consideration.
Following Little v Oriole Resources, in Mumu v Territory Potash at [191]-[234], President Dowsett provides a comprehensive examination of s 237(c), its consideration and its application which I adopt here.
In paragraph [219] of Mumu v Territory Potash, President Dowsett sets out that relevant considerations concerning s 237(c) include:
·        the area occupied by the disturbed land or waters relevant to the larger area of which it is a part;
·        the nature, extent and duration of the disturbance;
·        the reversibility of any disturbance;
·        the nature and timelines of any relevant remedial work;
·        the regulatory regime; and
·        community attitudes, including those of Aboriginal communities.
It is on this basis that I proceed with the assessment as it relates to s 237(c).

E08/3302

WO2021/1183 Jurruru #1 and WO2021/1184 Jurruru #2

Jurruru contend that as Korab has not provided work program information past the second year, given the nature of their work it is ‘bound to involve’ further drilling and ground disturbance (Jurruru contentions [85]). Additionally, Jurruru note the rights conferred by s 66 of the Mining Act in that it, along with the operation of r 20 of the Mining Regulations, allows for the extraction of 1000 tonnes of material and with the operation of the State’s ‘Excess Tonnage Guidelines’[4], to apply for the extraction of up to 10,000 tonnes without consent of the native title party (Jurruru contentions [86]).
[4] Available via >
Jurruru also make note of the ability to extract water from waterways in accordance with the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) and that this could mean water is diverted from yinda sites in the Ashburton River (Jurruru contentions [87]). On this last point, I have already found that the grant of the licence may cause interference with sites of particular significance, which includes the yinda at Jabaguru. The point of Jurruru is broader however, that taking water will affect the flow of the rest of the river causing it to dry (Jurruru contentions [87]). These things together, contend Jurruru, will likely result in major disturbance, including to archaeological material yet to be identified (Jurruru contentions [88]). On this last point, and as the State contends (State Jurruru contentions [70]), it is difficult to find there may be major disturbance to something which has not been established to exist.
In making their contentions, Jurruru submits that the views of the Jurruru community should be provided more weight than that of the general community when considering what constitutes ‘major’ disturbance given they know and interact more with this land than does the wider Australian community (Jurruru contentions [90]). This argument seems consistent with what is set out in Little v Oriole Resources at [52]-[54], and in this respect, Jurruru contend the removal of 1000-10,000 tonnes of material is a major disturbance (Jurruru contentions [90]).
The contentions of the State are effectively that the grant of the tenement is not likely to cause major disturbance due to the statutory and regulatory regime of the State in relation to mining, Aboriginal heritage and the environment; the conditions to be imposed on the tenement; and that the activities would be no more significant than that which has occurred previously (State Jurruru contentions [73]).
I am unsure what the logic of the State’s final reason is, having discussed similar at [144]. It would seem more logical to consider ongoing activity to have a cumulative impact, depending on its magnitude, any rehabilitation measures taken and the span of time over which activity occurs. Even so, examining the conditions to be imposed on the grant of the tenement, conditions 1-3 relate to rehabilitation of land disturbance, removal of all waste materials, approval to use heavy materials and stockpiling of topsoil which appear sensible impact mitigation measures.
In Mumu v Territory Potash, the evidence concerning the activity appears to have been comprehensive, allowing the President to arrive at a strong appreciation of the magnitude and spatial extent of the disturbance. The evidence presented in this case however, is of a more general nature.
All parties would appear to be at a disadvantage as a result of not being fully appraised of Korab’s activities following year two, however I have assumed, as I am entitled to, that Korab will exercise all of its rights under the exploration licence. This includes drilling, costeaning and other such activities, and the removal of up to 1000 tonnes of material.
Even with this in mind, taking into consideration the factors outlined at [169], I am not of the view the grant of the licence will involve major disturbance to the land or water concerned. This is mainly due to the regulatory regime, the conditions to be applied to the tenement, and the general terms upon which the contentions and evidence of Jurruru are presented.
Regarding the second pillar of s 237(c), on whether the act will create rights whose exercise is likely to create major disturbance. In my view, the right created by the grant of an exploration licence for the grantee to apply for the extraction of further material is an example of the creation of rights by the act as contemplated in Little v Oriole Resources. As previously examined, this is governed by the ‘Excess Tonnage Guidelines’ in which any extraction over 10,000 tonnes requires the consent of the native title party.
While this may be the case, I am also of the view this right, should it be exercised, is not likely to create major disturbance. This is for the same reasons as outlined in paragraph [178].

E52/3872

WO2021/0495 – Jurruru #2

As in other matters, the materials provided by Jurruru in this inquiry are the same as those which relate to WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184. As such, no new material has been provided for this inquiry relating to E52/3872.
For the same reasons as those set out for WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184, I find that the grant of E52/3872 is not likely to create a major disturbance and neither will it create rights whose exercise are likely to create a major disturbance on the lands.

WO2021/0267 – Yinhawangka

The YAC contentions are similar to that of Jurruru in that they focus on almost identical issues. These include that the s 58 statement indicates further stages of activity however a detailed work program has not been provided and that Korab may seek permission to extract up to 10,000 tonnes of material. These activities YAC say, will likely cause major disturbance, including to yet to be identified archaeological materials (YAC contentions [79]-[80], [82]-[83]), an issue I have already addressed.
YAC also contend that Korab has indicated its intention to prepare for the application of a mining lease, indicating further activity and likely leading to major disturbance (YAC contentions [81]). Any future mining lease application is not part of this consideration however. If this occurs, this will be subject to a separate notification and native title process, this consideration focuses only on the application of the expedited procedure to the grant of these exploration licences.
The issues and activities raised here are very similar to those examined in WO2021/1183 and WO2021/1184. Even taking into account the differing circumstances of E52/3872, I have come to the same conclusion for the same reasons as these previous matters, that the act is not likely to create a major disturbance and neither will it create rights whose exercise are likely to create a major disturbance on the lands.

E08/3264

WO2021/0542 – Jurruru #1 and WO2021/1054 – Jurruru #2

The materials provided by Jurruru in this inquiry are the same as those provided for each other matter. As such, no new material has been provided for these inquiries relating to E08/3264.
In considering these materials in the context of E08/3264, I arrive at the same conclusion for the same reasons as set out previously. As such, I find that the grant of E08/3264 is not likely to create a major disturbance and neither will it create rights whose exercise are likely to create a major disturbance on the lands.

WO2021/0912 - Yinhawangka

Similarly to the above, no new materials have been provided by YAC in this matter relating to E08/3264.
As in the above, in considering these materials in the context of E08/3264, I arrive at the same conclusion for the same reasons as set out previously. As such, I find that the grant of E08/3264 is not likely to create a major disturbance and neither will it create rights whose exercise are likely to create a major disturbance on the lands.

Determination

I find the grants of E08/3302, E52/3872 and E08/3264 to Korab Resources are not acts attracting the expedited procedure.

Mr G Kelly
Member
16 November 2022