Maitland Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People/Western Australia/FMG Chichester Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Maitland Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People/Western Australia/FMG Chichester Pty Ltd, [2007] NNTTA 103 (5 December 2007)

Application Nos: WO07/892, WO07/893

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

- and -

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

Maitland Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People (WC98/62) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

FMG Chichester Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:                  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  5 December 2007

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of miscellaneous licences – expedited procedure objection applications – excision of tenements from native title claim – tenements granted - Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed.

Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 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), Hon C J Sumner
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 9 May 2007, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant miscellaneous licences L47/193 and L47/198 to FMG Chichester Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 5 September 2007, Maitland Parker on behalf of the Martu Idja Banyjima People (WC98/62 – registered from 29 September 1998) (‘the native title party’) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal.
On 3 December 2007 the Government party advised the Tribunal that miscellaneous licences L47/193 and L47/198 were granted on 7 November 2007 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC98/62.

Relevant Facts

The Tribunal has decided that it 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). Further, in this case the grants were not a future act as native title was not affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO07/892 and WO07/893 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
5 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Maitland Parker, representing the Martu Idja Banyjima People, Western Australia, and FMG Chichester Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around an objection application concerning a future act, specifically the proposed grant of miscellaneous licences. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Martu Idja Banyjima People, represented by Maitland Parker, lodged an objection under section 33 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) against the grant of miscellaneous licences by Western Australia. FMG Chichester Pty Ltd sought to conduct mining operations on the proposed tenements, which had been excised from the native title claim area.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to determine the objection application and whether the Tribunal had the authority to consider the objection under the expedited procedure. The court was required to decide if the grant of miscellaneous licences constituted a future act as per section 223 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the excision of tenements from the native title claim area affected the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to assess if the proposed grant of licences would have a significant impact on the native title rights and interests of the Martu Idja Banyjima People.

The court found that the grant of miscellaneous licences constituted a future act under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). However, the court concluded that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the objection application because the tenements had been excised from the native title claim area. The court further held that the proposed grant of licences did not have a significant impact on the native title rights and interests of the Martu Idja Banyjima People. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, and the court ruled that the Tribunal lacked the authority to consider the objection under the expedited procedure. The court determined that the grant of licences did not constitute a future act that would affect the native title rights and interests of the Martu Idja Banyjima People.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established