Raymond Dann & Others on behalf Amangu People/Western Australia/Ge Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Raymond Dann & Others on behalf Amangu People/Western Australia/GE Resources Pty Ltd, [2008] NNTTA 99 (30 July 2008)

Application Nos: WO07/1444, WO07/1445, WO07/1446, WO07/1447

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Raymond Dann & Others on behalf of Amangu People (WC04/2) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

GE Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:                   Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  30 July 2008

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – excision of tenements from native title claim – 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
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 29 August 2007, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences E70/3034, E70/3035, E70/3036, and E70/3037 (‘the proposed licences’) to GE Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 17 December 2007, Raymond Dann & Others on behalf of Amangu People (WC04/2 – registered from 3 March 2005) (‘the native title party’) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in relation to each of the proposed licences.
On 22 July 2008, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licences E70/3034, E70/3035, E70/3036, and E70/3037 were granted on 4 July 2008 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC04/2.

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 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

Expedited procedure objection applications WO07/1444, WO07/1445, WO07/1446 and WO07/1447 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
30 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raymond Dann and others on behalf of the Amangu People against Western Australia and Ge Resources Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding native title rights and the proposed grant of exploration licences. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) had jurisdiction to hear objections to the grant of exploration licences under the Mining Act 1978 (WA). The Amangu People argued that the proposed exploration activities would impact their native title rights and sought to have the NNTT adjudicate on their objections.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the NNTT had the jurisdiction to hear the objection applications under section 223 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) when the excision of tenements from the native title claim area had already occurred. The court needed to decide whether the NNTT's jurisdiction was limited to cases where the proposed grant of exploration licences would affect native title rights and whether the excision of the tenements from the native title claim area precluded the NNTT from hearing the objections.

The court found that the NNTT did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection applications because the tenements in question had already been excised from the native title claim area. The court reasoned that the NNTT's jurisdiction under section 223 of the Native Title Act was limited to cases where the proposed grant of exploration licences would affect native title rights. Since the tenements had already been excised, the NNTT did not have the authority to hear the objections. Consequently, the objection applications were dismissed.

The court's decision was that the NNTT did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection applications, and the applications were dismissed. This ruling clarified the scope of the NNTT's jurisdiction in relation to objections to the grant of exploration licences and the impact of the excision of tenements from native title claim areas.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established