Glenn Derrick Councillor & Ors on behalf of Naaguja; Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu/Western Australia/Gascoyne Resources WA Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Glenn Derrick Councillor & Ors on behalf of Naaguja; Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu/Western Australia/Gascoyne Resources WA Pty Ltd [2013] NNTTA 61 (24 May 2013)

Applications No: WO2012/0597 & WO2012/0603

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Glenn Derrick Councillor & Ors on behalf of Naaguja &
Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Gascoyne Resources WA Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Daniel O’Dea
Place:  Perth
Date:  23 May 2013

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 (11 August 2000)
Representative of the
native title party: Marcus Fort, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation
Representative of the

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

Representative of the

grantee party: Eldon Stone, Anderson Tenement Management

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 25 January 2012 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E70/4106 to Gascoyne Resources WA Pty Ltd and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 22 May 2012 Glenn Derrick Councillor & Ors on behalf of Naaguja & Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu, made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal.
On 21 May 2013 the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E70/4106 was granted on 20 May 2013 on the basis that the excision of all land capable of supporting native title rights would enable that action to occur.
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 WO2012/0597 and WO2012/0603 in relation to E70/4106 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Daniel O’Dea
MEMBER
24 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicants, Derrick Councillor and Frederick Taylor, sought to challenge the grant of an exploration licence by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum. The applicants, representing the Naaguja and Amangu native title groups, argued that the grant of the exploration licence would extinguish their native title rights over the land, which they claimed through their respective native title determinations. The applicants filed an objection application under the Native Title Act 1993, seeking an expedited procedure to challenge the grant of the exploration licence, which was proposed to be granted to Gascoyne Resources WA Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the objection application under section 223E of the Native Title Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the proposed grant of the exploration licence constituted a "future act" as defined by the act, and whether the proposed grant would result in the extinguishment of native title rights. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the objection application once the tenement had been granted and excised from the native title claim.

The court held that the proposed grant of the exploration licence did not constitute a "future act" as defined by the Native Title Act. The court reasoned that the act only applies to acts that are yet to occur, and since the tenement had already been granted and excised from the native title claim, the act did not apply. Consequently, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the objection application. The court further noted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was similarly limited and did not extend to reviewing the grant of the tenement once it had been issued. As a result, the 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