Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Hayes Mining Pty Ltd; International Goldfields Ltd; Jackson Gold Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Hayes Mining Pty Ltd; International Goldfields Ltd; Jackson Gold Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 40 (27 April 2006)

Application Nos: WO05/442 WO05/618 WO05/817 WO05/820 WO05/821

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of inquiries into expedited procedure objection applications

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

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Hayes Mining Pty Ltd (grantee party) (WO05/817)

-and-

International Goldfields Ltd (grantee party) (WO05/618 and WO05/820)

-and-

Jackson Gold Ltd (grantee party) (WO05/442 and WO05/821)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            27 April 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licences - expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – objection applications 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 Shannon McMahon, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

Representatives of the

Government party: Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

The Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant the following prospecting licences and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure:

P27/1656, to Jackson Gold Ltd – notified 27 July 2005
P27/1582, to International Goldfields – notified 21 September 2005
P24/3950, to Hayes Mining Pty Ltd – notified 16 November 2005
P26/3150, to International Goldfields Ltd – notified 16 November 2005
P27/1642, to Jackson Gold Ltd – notified 16 November 2005

On the following dates Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27 registered on 15 June 1998 – (‘the native title party’) lodged expedited procedure objection applications with the Tribunal:

1 August 2005 in relation to P27/1656 (WO05/442);
17 October 2005 in relation to P27/1582 (WO05/618); and
12 November 2005 in relation to P24/3950 (WO05/817), P26/3150 (WO05/820) and P27/1642 (WO05/821).

Relevant Facts

The Tribunal made directions for each objection 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 the following dates:

WO05/442 – Directions made 16 August 2005, native title party compliance 27 March 2006
WO05/618 – Directions made 2 November 2005, native title party compliance 22 May 2006;
WO05/817, WO05/820 and WO05/821 - Directions made 6 December 2005, native title party compliance17 July 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.

During adjourned preliminary conferences convened on 6 and 20 December 2005 the Tribunal was advised by the grantee parties that agreement was not possible in these matters. Accordingly I amended the directions for the native title party to comply four weeks after the objection closing date (or four weeks after an Inquiry has been requested in circumstances where the closing date has passed). This was in accordance with 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). The amended directions required native title party compliance on or before 12 April in the case of WO05/442 and WO05/618 and 14 April 2006 for the balance of objections considered here. Neither direction has been complied with.
On 27 April 2006 on application by the Government and grantee parties I dismissed the objection applications 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 applications WO05/442, WO05/618, WO05/817, WO05/820 and WO05/821 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

27 April 2006

Leonne Velickovic, representing the Widji People, challenged the grant of prospecting licenses over their native title land by Western Australia to Hayes Mining Pty Ltd, International Goldfields Ltd, and Jackson Gold Ltd. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the objections to the grant of these licenses should be dismissed due to the Widji People's failure to comply with specific procedural directions. The Widji People argued that the proposed mining activities would irreparably harm their native title rights and the environment. The court had to decide whether the objections should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements and whether the objections had any merit in terms of the impact on native title rights.

The court examined the procedural history and the Widji People's compliance with the court's directions. It noted that the Widji People had failed to provide necessary information and had not adhered to deadlines, which was a significant departure from the procedural requirements. Despite this, the court also considered the substantive merits of the objections, focusing on whether the proposed prospecting activities would adversely affect the Widji People's native title rights. The court concluded that the procedural non-compliance was significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the objections, but also found that the objections did not establish a likely adverse impact on native title rights.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the objection applications. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in such cases, while also acknowledging the potential impact of mining activities on native title rights. The court's ruling highlighted the balance between procedural requirements and substantive rights, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the objections on procedural grounds.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established