Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/George Juris Petersons & Rodney Benjamin Wilson

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/George Juris Petersons & Rodney Benjamin Wilson, [2006] NNTTA 71 (9 June 2006)

Application No: WO05/613

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – WC98/27 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

George Juris Petersons & Rodney Benjamin Wilson (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            9 June 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 148(b)

Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner
Representative of the

native title party: Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representative of the
grantee party: Mr George Petersons

Representatives of the

Government party: Ms Jan Mason, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 21 September 2005, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E26/79 (‘the proposed licence’) to George Juris Petersons and Rodney Benjamin Wilson (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 17 October 2005, Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27 registered on 15 June 1998 (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application in relation to the proposed licence with the Tribunal (designated WO05/613).

Relevant Facts

On 2 November 2005 the Tribunal made directions requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavits on or before 22 May 2006. The directions contain a statement that an objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters on 14 November 2005. The grantee representative was advised of the Tribunal’s practice to bring compliance dates forward to eliminate the standard 16 week negotiating period in matters where it is clear that agreement cannot be reached (see Procedures under the Right to Negotiate Scheme – 27 January 2005 (paras 3.8.2, 3.9.3) website act/procedures and guidelines). However, the grantee representative requested that compliance dates remain as originally set as he was unfamiliar with expedited procedure objection inquiries and required time to seek legal advice and prepare himself. The Government and native title parties consented to this request and directions remained as originally set.
On 9 June 2006 on application by the Government and grantee parties I dismissed the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions by the native title party for reasons similar to those given in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner (at [12]-[13]). Mr Frewen did not attend the hearing, provided no reasons for his client’s non-compliance and made no application to extend the time for compliance.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO05/613 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

9 June 2006

The case involved Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People, who sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Western Australia to George Juris Petersons and Rodney Benjamin Wilson. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the objection application should proceed under an expedited procedure. The Widji People, asserting native title rights, opposed the grant on the basis that it would affect their traditional lands. The court's role was to assess whether the application met the criteria for an expedited procedure, particularly whether the applicant had complied with prior directions to address deficiencies in the objection application.

The central legal issues revolved around the procedural requirements for an objection application under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the Widji People's objections warranted the application of an expedited procedure. The court needed to determine if the applicant had sufficiently complied with the directions issued earlier to rectify the shortcomings in the objection application. Additionally, the court examined whether the Widji People had established a credible basis for their claims that the proposed exploration activities would adversely impact their native title rights.

The court found that the applicant had not adequately addressed the deficiencies in the objection application as directed. Despite the Widji People's assertions of native title rights and concerns about the exploration activities, the court concluded that the procedural non-compliance was significant. The failure to follow the court's directions resulted in the dismissal of the objection application. Consequently, the proposed grant of the exploration licence was not subject to the expedited procedure, and the application proceeded on a standard timeline.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established