NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Tjurabalan Native Title Lands Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Rich Resources Investments Pty Ltd and Another [2016] NNTTA 16 (12 April 2016)

Application No: WO2015/0023, WO2015/0289, WO2015/0290, WO2015/0291

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Tjurabalan Native Title Lands Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (native title party)

- and -

Rich Resources Investments Pty Ltd (grantee party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Tribunal: Ms H Shurven, Member Place: Perth Date: 12 April 2016

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – anthropological evidence – existing heritage agreement – terms of agreement confidential – whether Tribunal may have regard to evidence filed in alleged breach of contractual obligation –whether grant of licences is likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to the native title holders – expedited procedure applies

Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 155, 156(2), 174, 237 Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 57(2a) Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)

Cases: Andrews v Northern Territory (2002) 170 FLR 138; [2002] NNTTA 170 (‘Andrews v Northern Territory’) Andy Campbell & Ors on behalf of the Birriliburu Native Title Holders/Western Australia/Murchison Metals Ltd [2012] NNTTA 48 (‘Campbell v Murchison Metals’) 2

Barbara Sturt and others on behalf of Jaru v Baibao Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 38 (‘Sturt v Baibao Resources’) Champion v Western Australia (2005) 190 FLR 362; [2005] NNTTA 1 (‘Champion v Western Australia’) Cheinmora v Striker Resources NL & Ors; Dann v Western Australia (1996) ALR 21; [1996] FCA 1147 (‘Cheinmora v Striker Resources’) Delores Cheinmora, Vernon Gerrard & Others on behalf of the Balanggarra Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd & Timothy Vincent Tatterson [2011] NNTTA 17 (‘Cheinmora v Geotech International’) Isaac Hale and Others on behalf of #2 v Mings Mining Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 49 (‘Hale v Mings Mining Resources’) Jango v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 318 (‘Jango v Northern Territory’) Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC and Others v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Other [2015] NNTTA 4 (‘Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) v FMG’) Neowarra v Western Australia [2004] FCA 1092 (‘Neowarra v Western Australia’) Ngalpil v Western Australia [2001] FCA 1140 (‘Ngalpil v Western Australia’) Ngarrawanji Native Title Claimants and Koongie-Elvire Native Title Claimants v Sammy Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 2 (‘Ngarrawanji v Sammy Resources’) Old Papa’s Franchise Systems Pty Ltd v Camisa Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 11 (‘Old Papa’s Franchise Systems v Camisa Nominees’) R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; [1999] NSWCCA 166 (‘R v Young’) Sayer v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 132 (‘Sayer v National Mutual Life Association’) Silver v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 1; [2002] NNTTA 18 (‘Silver v Northern Territory’) Tarlka Matuwa Piarku (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v WA Mining Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 41 (‘Tarlka Matuwa Piarku (Aboriginal Corporation) v WA Mining Resources’) Walley v Western Australia (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24 (‘Walley v Western Australia’) 3

Wanjina-Wunggurr (Native Title) Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Braeburn Resources Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 150 (‘Wanjina-Wunggurr (Native Title) Aboriginal Corporation v Braeburn Resources’) Weld Range Metals Ltd v Western Australia (2011) 258 FLR 9; [2011] NNTTA 172 (‘Weld Range Metals Ltd v Western Australia’) Western Australia v Thomas (1996) 133 FLR 124; [1996] NNTTA 30 (‘Western Australia v Thomas’) Western Australia/Winnie McHenry on behalf of the People [1999] NNTTA 210 (‘Western Australia v McHenry’) Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation v Western Australia (2009) 232 FLR 169; [2009] NNTTA 49 (‘Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation v Western Australia’) WF (Deceased) & Ors on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Emergent Resources Ltd [2012] NNTTA 17 (‘WF v Emergent Resources’) Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 (‘Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation v FMG Pilbara’)

Representatives of the Ms Julia Taylor, native title party Mr Tim Ognenis, Kimberley Land Council Representative of the Mr Ken Green, Green Legal grantee party

Representatives of the Ms Sarah Power, State Solicitor’s Office Government party Mr Matthew Smith, Department of Mines and Petroleum 4

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

[1] This decision considers whether the State Government of Western Australia can validly grant exploration licences E80/4869, E80/4919, E80/4920 and E80/4921 (‘the licences’) to Rich Resources Investments Pty Ltd (‘Rich Resources’), without the normal requirement for negotiations with the native title holders. That question arises because the registered native title body corporate for the area, Tjurabalan Native Title Lands Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (‘Tjurabalan’), has objected to the National Native Title Tribunal, on behalf of the native title holders, to the State’s assertion that the activities permitted by the licences are such that, under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), their grant can be expedited. All references to legislation in this decision are to that Act, unless otherwise noted.

[2] As the registered native title holder for the land and waters on which the licences are proposed to be situated, Tjurabalan has the right to object to the State’s assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licences. It has exercised that right and I have been appointed by the President of the Tribunal, Raelene Webb QC, to conduct an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure applies.

[3] A decision that the expedited procedure applies means the State can grant the licences to Rich Resources without negotiations with Tjurabalan. A decision that the expedited procedure does not apply means that Rich Resources, Tjurabalan and the State must negotiate in good faith with a view to reaching agreement about the grant of the licences. Such negotiations may take place with or without mediation assistance from the Tribunal.

[4] The proposed licences are situated in the Tanami Desert near the border of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, approximately 100 kilometres easterly of Balgo Community. The land and waters over which the State proposes to grant the licences form part of a much larger area comprising almost 26,000 square kilometres (approximately 2,600,000 hectares), in which Tjurabalan holds exclusive native title rights and interests on trust for the persons recognised as the common law native title holders by the Federal Court in Ngalpil v Western Australia. 5

[5] My task is to determine whether the licences are acts attracting the expedited procedure by reference to the criteria set out in s 237 of the Act. Specifically, I must determine whether the licences are likely to:

(a) directly interfere with community or social activities carried on by the native title holders; or

(b) interfere with areas or sites of particular significance in accordance with the traditions of the native title holders; or

(c) involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance t