Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia /Aphrodite Gold Limited

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia /Aphrodite Gold Limited [2014] NNTTA 16 (18 February 2014)

Application No: WO2013/1316

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf
of Central East Goldfields People (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Aphrodite Gold Limited (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date:  18 February 2014

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – tenement 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 (‘Daniel v Western Australia’);
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (‘Garlett v Western Australia’)

Representative of the
native title party: Mr Andrew Burke, Goldfields Land and Sea Council
Representative of the

Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Ms Jenny Johnson, Tenement Administration Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 14 August 2013 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E24/186 to Aphrodite Gold Limited and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 13 December 2013, Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People (WC1999/030) registered from 4 October 1999, made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 14 February 2014, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E24/186 was granted on 13 February 2014 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within claim area WC1999/030.
The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (Daniel v Western Australia). Further, as all the land capable of claim has been excluded from the grant, it is not a future act as native title would not be affected (Garlett v Western Australia).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO2013/1316 in relation to E24/186 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
MEMBER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Central East Goldfields People, on behalf of Western Australia, initiated proceedings against Aphrodite Gold Limited, objecting to a proposed exploration licence. The dispute centred around the impact of a grant of an exploration licence on their native title rights. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the grant in light of the native title claim. The legal issues at hand were whether the Federal Court had the authority to review the decision of the Registrar of the Native Title Tribunal and if the grant of the exploration licence would infringe upon the native title rights of the applicants.

The court examined the statutory framework governing native title claims and the process for granting exploration licences. It noted that the Tribunal had already determined the excision of the tenement from the native title claim and found that the Tribunal's decision was final and conclusive. The court held that the Federal Court did not have the jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision under section 232(3) of the Native Title Act 1993. Furthermore, the court found that the grant of the exploration licence did not infringe upon the native title rights of the applicants, as the Tribunal had already determined that the tenement was excised from the native title claim.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the objection application, affirming the decision of the Registrar. The Federal Court found that it was not appropriate to interfere with the determination of the Tribunal regarding the excision of the tenement from the native title claim. The court also concluded that the grant of the exploration licence did not amount to a future act that would adversely affect the native title rights of the applicants. The Central East Goldfields People's objection application was dismissed, and the grant of the exploration licence was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established