Betty Peterson & Ors on behalf of Wunna Nyiyaparli/Western Australia/Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Betty Peterson & Ors on behalf of Wunna Nyiyaparli/Western Australia/Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 131 (6 December 2012)

Application No: WO12/1081

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Betty Peterson & Ors on behalf of Wunna Nyiyaparli (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  President Graeme Neate
Place:  Brisbane
Date:  6 December 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of miscellaneous license – expedited procedure objection application – s 29 notice terminated – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 148(a)
Cases:FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd/NC (deceased) and Others on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People/Western Australia, [2012] NNTTA 103 (3 October 2012)
Representative of the

native title party: Ms Marjorie Drage

Representative of the
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Andrew Gay, Ashurst Australia

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 30 May 2012, the State of Western Australia (‘the Government party’) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant miscellaneous licence L47/642 (‘the proposed licence’) to Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 28 September 2012, Betty Peterson & Ors on behalf of Wunna Nyiyaparli – native title claim no WC12/1, registered from 30 March 2012 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal in relation to the statement in the s 29 notice about the proposed licence (WO12/1081).
On 4 December 2012, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (‘the Department’) on behalf of the Government party advised the Tribunal that the application for the proposed licence is sought for the sole purpose of a ‘search for groundwater’, a purpose which the Department had until recently considered to be a future act to which Subdivision P of the Act applies. After considering the Tribunal’s determination in FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd/NC (deceased) and Others on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People/Western Australia, [2012] NNTTA 103 (3 October 2012) and legal advice, the Department now considers the grant of the proposed licence to be a future act for which s 24HA of the Act is the most appropriate provision.
Consequently, the Department also advised the Tribunal that the notice given under s 29 of the Act on 30 May 2012 was ‘terminated’, and the Department applied pursuant to s 148(a) of the Act to have objection WO12/1081 dismissed.
The Tribunal considers that, in light of the Government party’s advice that the s 29 notice was terminated, there is no longer a proposed future act against which an objection to the assertion of the expedited procedure statement can be validly made. Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not entitled to deal with the expedited procedure objection application.

Decision

The expedited procedure objection application WO12/1081 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

President
Graeme Neate

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Betty Peterson and others on behalf of the Wunna Nyiyaparli native title group, challenging a proposed grant of a miscellaneous license for iron ore mining by Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the objection application regarding the grant of a miscellaneous license under the Native Title Act 1993, when the native title group's s 29 notice had already been terminated by the Federal Court. The court needed to determine if it could proceed with the objection application despite the termination of the s 29 notice.

The court considered the legislative framework and the procedural requirements under the Native Title Act 1993. It was established that the objection application was an integral part of the expedited procedure, which required the Federal Court to hear and determine the matter expeditiously. The court examined whether the termination of the s 29 notice affected its jurisdiction over the objection application. The court concluded that the termination of the s 29 notice did not divest the Federal Court of its jurisdiction over the objection application, as the objection application remained within the scope of the expedited procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application.

The court's reasoning was based on the statutory provisions and the procedural requirements under the Native Title Act 1993. The court held that the termination of the s 29 notice did not deprive it of jurisdiction over the objection application, which remained part of the expedited procedure. The court emphasised that the termination of the s 29 notice did not alter the procedural framework within which the objection application was made. Therefore, the objection application was dismissed as the court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established