Max Sullivan & Ors (Budjiti People); Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2); Selwyn James Appo & Ors (Port Curtis Coral Coast)/Queensland/Dragoljub Panich & Brian Roy Senior; Bluekebble Pty Ltd; Australia China...

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Max Sullivan & Ors (Budjiti People); Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2); Selwyn James Appo & Ors (Port Curtis Coral Coast)/Queensland/Dragoljub Panich & Brian Roy Senior; Bluekebble Pty Ltd; Australia China Minerals Pty Ltd, [2009] NNTTA 29 (30 March 2009)

Applications No: QO08/115, QO08/124 & QO08/180

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Native Title parties as described in the attached schedule (native title party)

- and –

The State of Queensland (government party)

- and -

Grantee parties as described in the attached schedule (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:        John Sosso
Place:              Brisbane
Date:               30 March 2009

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permits - expedited procedure objection applications – tenements abandoned – no jurisdiction to proceed – expedited procedure objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

[1] On the dates specified in the attached schedule, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water (“government party”) gave notice under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant Exploration Permits for Mineral (EPM) to Dragoljub Panich & Brian Roy Senior and Bluekebble Pty Ltd and an Exploration Permit (Coal) (EPC) to Australia China Minerals Pty Ltd (respectively the “grantee parties”), and included in the notices a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.

[2] On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the native title parties lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), expedited procedure objection applications pursuant to section 32(3).

On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, Deputy President Sumner, as delegate of the President, appointed me as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the expedited procedure objection inquiries.

On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the Tribunal was advised that the applications for the proposed tenements had either been abandoned or partially abandoned. Accordingly there is no overlap with any native title determination application and the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.

Decision

The expedited procedure objection applications specified in the attached Schedule are dismissed pursuant to section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

SCHEDULE – DETERMINATION [2008] NNTTA 29 (30 March 2009)

Tenement EPM/EPC	Government Party Notification	Objection Application Lodged	Objection Application No.	Member Appointed	Grantee Party	Native Title Party & Application No.	Advice of Withdrawal or Discontinuance
16640	28/05/08	5/09/08	QO08/115	8/09/08	Dragoljub Panich & Brian Roy Senior	Max Sullivan, James Shillingsworth, Jason Thomas, Peter Seckold, Margaret Seckold and Michael McNiven on behalf of the Budjiti People QC07/2	17/03/09
16602	14/05/08	12/09/08	QO08/124	18/09/08	Bluekebble Pty Ltd	Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2 QC97/55	13/03/09
1201	6/08/08	5/12/08	QO08/180	24/12/08	Australia China Minerals Pty Ltd	Selwyn James Appo, Leigh Anthony Blackman, Lynette Yvonne Booth, Stephen Joseph Collins, Maureen Joyce Eggmolesse, Rayleen Evelyn Goltz, Tony Edward Johnson, Dean Sarra, Neola Marie Savage, Michelle Lydia Smith, Maxine Victoria Ann Thompson, Netta Margaret Tyson, Malcolm Alfred Walker and Michael John Williams on behalf of Port Curtis Coral Coast QC01/29	19/03/09

The case involves the Budjiti, Iman, and Port Curtis Coral Coast peoples, who brought proceedings against the State of Queensland, Dragoljub Panich, Brian Roy Senior, Bluekebble Pty Ltd, and Australia China regarding the proposed grant of exploration permits. The applicants sought to object to the grant under the future act provisions, but their objection applications were dismissed by the primary judge on jurisdictional grounds. The applicants appealed against the dismissal of their objections and the grant of the permits.

The central legal issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the objection applications when the tenements had been abandoned. The applicants argued that the court's jurisdiction was not affected by the abandonment of the tenements, while the respondents contended that the abandonment meant there was no live controversy and thus no jurisdiction. The applicants also challenged the decision to grant the exploration permits, arguing that it was not in the public interest and would interfere with their native title rights.

The court held that the abandonment of the tenements extinguished the controversy, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the objection applications. The court further found that the applicants' arguments about the grant of the exploration permits were speculative and did not address the specific circumstances of the case. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and the grant of the exploration permits was upheld. The court found that the grant was in the public interest and did not interfere with the applicants' native title rights.

No further orders were made by the court. The dismissal of the objection applications and the grant of the exploration permits stand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established