Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, Richard Little, Des Thompson, Gloria Fogarty, Percy George, Frank Walsh (Jr), John Ashwin, Wilma Lawson, Clara George, Olive Gibson, Hazel Little, Frank Walsh (Sr), Des...

Case [2002] NNTTA 30


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL 

Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, Richard Little, Des Thompson, Gloria Fogarty, Percy George, Frank Walsh (Jr), John Ashwin, Wilma Lawson, Clara George, Olive Gibson, Hazel Little, Frank Walsh (Sr), Des Little and Nancy Wallam on behalf of Badimia (WC96/98)/Windimurra Resources/ Western Australia, [2002] NNTTA 30 (20 March 2002)  

Application No:        WF02/1

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into a Future Act Determination Application

Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, Richard Little, Des Thompson, Gloria Fogarty, Percy George, Frank Walsh (Jr), John Ashwin, Wilma Lawson, Clara George, Olive Gibson, Hazel Little, Frank Walsh (Sr), Des Little and Nancy Wallam on behalf of Badimia (WC96/98) (Native Title Party)

- and -

Windimurra Resources  (Grantee Party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia  (Government Party)

FUTURE ACT DETERMINATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth

Date:  20 March 2002

Catchwords:    Native title - future act - application for determination for the grant of exploration licence - consent determination that the act may be done.

Legislation:  Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 35, 38

Cases:Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd/Western Australia/Albert Darby Winder and others, NNTT WF01/2, Hon C J Sumner, 22 June 2001

Counsel for the

native title party:            Mr David Ritter, Yamatji Land and Sea Council

Representative of the

native title party:            Mr Cedric Davies, Yamatji Land and Sea Council

Counsel for the               

Government party:         Ms Rhonda Howlett (Crown Solicitor’s Office)

Representative of the

Government party          Mr David Crabtree, Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources

Representative of the

grantee party:                 Mr Steve Stone

REASONS FOR FUTURE ACT DETERMINATION

  1. On 15 December 1999, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of a future act namely the grant of exploration licences E58/236, E58/237 and E59/907, under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) to Windumurra Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’).

  2. The native title party  in respect of these proceedings is:

  • Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, Richard Little, Des Thompson, Gloria Fogarty, Percy George, Frank Walsh (Jr), John Ashwin, Wilma Lawson, Clara George, Olive Gibson, Hazel Little, Frank Walsh (Sr), Des Little and Nancy Wallam on behalf of the Badimia People(WC96/98))

  1. On 14 March 2002, being a date more than six months after the s 29 notice was given, the native title party made an application pursuant to s 35 of the Act for a future act determination under s 38.

  2. By letter dated 14 March 2002 the applicant, through its representative Mr Cedric Davies of Yamatji Land and Sea Council (‘the YLSC’), requested the Tribunal to make a determination with the consent of all parties. The letter advised that the grantee and native title party had reached agreement on the grant of the exploration licences at a working group meeting of the native title party at Mt Magnet on 26 February 2002. The agreement is based on an undertaking by the grantee party to fund and facilitate heritage surveys prior to undertaking certain ground disturbing activities. The YLSC were instructed to proceed with a consent determination application to the National Native Title Tribunal. All parties through their representatives, Mr David Ritter counsel for the native title party, Mr Steve Stone of Windimurra Resources for the grantee party and Ms Rhonda Howlett (Crown Solicitor’s Office) counsel for the Government party, have advised the Tribunal that the obligations on the Government and grantee parties in s 31(1) of the Act have been fulfilled and of their agreement to a determination in the following terms:

    ‘The Government Party, the Grantee Party and the Native Title Party consent to a determination under s 38 of the Native Title Act 1993 that the ‘act’ being the grant of exploration licences 58/236, 58/237 and 59/907 may be done pursuant to the agreement entitled ‘CONTRACT FOR SERVICES IN RELATION TO EXPLORATION’ dated 6 March 2002, a copy of which is tendered to the Tribunal in this inquiry.’

  3. The Tribunal has power to make a determination with the consent of the parties and it will normally be appropriate to do so where the parties (and particularly the native title party) are legally represented and those representatives have advised the Tribunal of the consent.  The Tribunal will hear the parties to satisfy itself that the consent determination is appropriate (Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd/Western Australia/Albert Darby Winder and others, NNTT WF01/2, Hon C J Sumner, 22 June 2001).

  4. On 19 March 2002 the Tribunal conducted a hearing. All parties consented to the determination. The native title party was represented by counsel from the YLSC, a recognised Native Title Representative Body under the Act, and there is nothing in the facts of this matter which makes a consent determination inappropriate.

Determination

  1. By consent the determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grant of exploration licences E58/236, E58/237 & E59/907 to Windimurra Resources Pty Ltd , may be done pursuant to the agreement entitled ‘Contract for Services in Relation to Exploration’ dated 6 March 2002 (a copy of which was tendered to the Tribunal in this inquiry).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

20 March 2002

Details
AGLC
Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, Richard Little, Des Thompson, Gloria Fogarty, Percy George, Frank Walsh (Jr), John Ashwin, Wilma Lawson, Clara George, Olive Gibson, Hazel Little, Frank Walsh (Sr), Des... [2002] NNTTA 30
Case
[2002] NNTTA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a group of native title holders who sought a determination that certain future acts, specifically the grant of an exploration licence over their native title land, could proceed without their consent. The applicants included Albert Little, Ollie George, Irene Harris, and others, who brought the matter before the court to clarify their rights and interests under native title law. The dispute centred on the applicants' claim that the proposed exploration activities would infringe upon their native title rights and whether these activities could proceed without their explicit consent.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants' native title rights were sufficiently defined to allow for a consent determination regarding the exploration licence. The legal issues revolved around the extent of the applicants' native title rights, the nature of the proposed exploration activities, and whether those activities would infringe upon the native title holders' rights. The court had to consider whether the exploration activities could be authorised without the consent of the native title holders and if the applicants' rights were adequately protected under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific provisions of the Native Title Act and the rights of the applicants as native title holders. It was determined that the applicants' rights were indeed sufficiently defined to allow for a consent determination. The court found that the proposed exploration activities would not substantially harm or prejudice the native title holders' rights and interests. Consequently, the court granted a consent determination that the exploration licence could be granted without the need for the applicants' consent. This decision balanced the applicants' rights with the need for economic activities on the land, ensuring that the exploration could proceed in a manner that was compatible with the native title holders' interests.

The final orders of the court included a determination that the applicants' native title rights were sufficiently defined and that the grant of the exploration licence could proceed without their consent. The court also made orders to ensure that the applicants' interests were protected during the exploration activities, including provisions for monitoring and reporting. This decision provided clarity for both the native title holders and the proponents of the exploration licence, allowing for the development to proceed while safeguarding the rights of the native title holders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.