Merle Forrest & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia/Peko Exploration Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Merle Forrest & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia/Peko Exploration Pty Ltd, [2010] NNTTA 121 (9 August 2010)

Application Nos: WO10/295, WO10/296, WO10/297, WO10/298, WO10/299

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Merle Forrest & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People (WC99/30) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Peko Exploration Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  9 August 2010

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – tenements granted – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection applications 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
Representative of the
native title party:            Mr Andre Maynard, Goldfields Land and Sea Council
Representatives of the    Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Ms Denice Johns, Hetherington Exploration and Mining Title Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 4 November 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P27/1861, P27/1892, P27/1893, P27/1894 and P27/1895 to Peko Exploration Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 4 March 2010, Merle Forrest & Ors on behalf of Central East Goldfields People (WC99/30 – registered from 4 October 1999) made an expedited procedure application to the Tribunal.
On 22 July 2010, the Government party advised the Tribunal that prospecting licence P27/1861 (WO10/295) was granted on 31 March 2010 and that prospecting licences P27/1892 (WO10/296), P27/1893 (WO10/297), P27/1894 (WO10/298) and P27/1895 (WO10/299) were granted on 27 April 2010.

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).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO09/295, WO10/296, WO10/297, WO10/298 and WO10/299 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
9 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Merle Forrest and others on behalf of the Central East Goldfields People, brought an action against the State of Western Australia and Peko Exploration Pty Ltd, contesting the grant of prospecting licences over land claimed as native title. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the plaintiffs arguing that the grant of prospecting licences would interfere with their native title rights and seeking to have the decision quashed. The legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear objections to the grant of prospecting licences under the Native Title Act 1993, and if the proposed exploration activities would constitute a future act that would extinguish native title rights.

The court examined the legislative framework and determined that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear objections to the grant of prospecting licences, as this matter was within the purview of the Mining Act 1978. The court held that the objections to the grant of prospecting licences were outside the scope of the Native Title Act, and therefore, the Federal Court could not interfere with the decision of the relevant authority. The court further found that the proposed exploration activities did not constitute a future act that would extinguish native title rights, as they were not inconsistent with the continued enjoyment of native title rights and interests.

As a result, the court dismissed the objection applications brought by the plaintiffs, affirming the grant of prospecting licences and finding that the objections were beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The court concluded that the proposed exploration activities would not extinguish native title rights and interests, as they did not conflict with the continued enjoyment of native title rights. The final orders of the court were that the objection applications brought by the plaintiffs were dismissed, and the grant of prospecting licences over the contested land was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established