Alan Jones & Ors on behalf of Ballardong/Western Australia/Greenstone Metals Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Alan Jones & Ors on behalf of Ballardong/Western Australia/Greenstone Metals Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 81 (2 July 2013)

Applications No: WO2012/1165; WO2012/1166; WO2012/1167

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Alan Jones & Ors
on behalf of Ballardong (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Greenstone Metals Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date:  2 July 2013

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenements from native title claim – tenements granted – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(a)
Cases:David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000)
Representative of the
native title party: Ms Carolyn Fennelle, Southwest Aboriginal Land and Sea Council
Representative of the

Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Kevin Connell, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 27 June 2012 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences E70/4331, E70/4332 and E70/4333 to Greenstone Metals Ltd and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 25 October 2012, Alan Jones & Ors on behalf of Ballardong (WC2000/007) registered from 3 July 2008, made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 24 June 2013 the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licences E70/4331, E70/4332 and E70/4333 were granted on 21 June 2013 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within claim area WC2000/007.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO2012/1165, WO2012/1166 and WO2012/1167 in relation to E70/4331, E70/4332 and E70/4333 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
MEMBER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Alan Jones and others on behalf of the Ballardong native title group, challenging a decision made by the Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal. The dispute centred on the proposed grant of exploration licences over land claimed by the Ballardong people. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to object to the Registrar's decision to proceed with the grant of exploration licences over the contested land, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make such a decision due to the excision of certain tenements from the native title claim.

The central legal issue was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision to proceed with the grant of exploration licences over the contested tenements. The applicants argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such a decision because the tenements had been excised from the native title claim. They contended that the excision rendered the tenements outside the scope of the native title claim, and thus outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the history of the native title claim. It concluded that the excision of the tenements from the native title claim did not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction to decide on the grant of exploration licences over those tenements. The court held that the excision did not affect the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed grant of exploration licences constituted a future act under the Native Title Act. The court further found that the excision did not alter the fact that the tenements were still subject to native title rights and interests, and therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, and the Registrar's decision to proceed with the grant of exploration licences was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established