Merle Forrest and Others on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia/Peninsula Minerals Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Merle Forrest and Others on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia/Peninsula Minerals Ltd, [2009] NNTTA 155 (20 November 2009)

Application No: WO09/577

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Merle Forrest and Others on behalf of Central East Goldfields People – (WC99/30) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Peninsula Minerals Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  20 November 2009

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting 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 on behalf of the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi people/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

Representative of the

native title party: Mr Andre Maynard, Goldfields Land & Sea Council

Representatives of the Ms Claire Malavaux, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Government party: Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Andrew Ford, Peninsula Minerals Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 22 April 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting license P28/1172 to Peninsula Minerals Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
The proposed licence is located 99 kilometres north easterly of Kalgoorlie in the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and is overlapped 0.45 per cent by the registered native title claim of the Central East Goldfields People (WC99/30 – registered from 4 October 1999).
On 20 August 2009, Merle Forrest and Others on behalf of Central East Goldfields People (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 17 November 2009, the Government party advised the Tribunal that prospecting licence P28/1172 was granted on 13 November 2009 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC99/30.

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 on behalf of the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi people/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner). Further, as a result of the excision, the grant was 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

The expedited procedure objection application WO09/577 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
20 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Central East Goldfields People, represented by Merle Forrest, sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence by Peninsula Minerals Ltd over land they claimed as native title. The Federal Court of Australia considered the matter, as it involved the interpretation of native title rights and the procedures for challenging mining activities on such land. The legal issue before the court was whether the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) had jurisdiction to hear an objection application concerning a proposed prospecting licence, when the tenement in question had already been excised from the native title claim and subsequently granted.

The court held that once a tenement is excised from a native title claim, the NNTT no longer has jurisdiction to hear objections regarding activities on that tenement. The court reasoned that the excision of the tenement from the native title claim area meant that the NNTT's jurisdiction under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was no longer applicable. As such, the objection application was dismissed, as the NNTT had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The court emphasised the importance of the procedural requirements under the Act and the need for parties to follow the correct processes when seeking to challenge mining activities on native title land.

The final orders of the court were that the objection application by the Central East Goldfields People be dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the proceeding. The decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance in matters involving native title and mining activities, and highlights the limited jurisdiction of the NNTT once a tenement has been excised from a native title claim.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established