IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2017/007)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Native title - future acts - proposed grant of special prospecting licences - expedited procedure objection applications - whether acts are likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities - whether acts are likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance - acts are acts attracting the expedited procedure

Mining Act 1978 (WA)

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 32, 151, 237

Les Tullock and Others on behalf of Tarlpa/Western Australia/Allarrow Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 118 ('Les Tullock')

Smith v Western Australia and Another [2001] FCA 19; [2001] FCA 19; (2001) 108 FCR 442 ('Smith')

Top End (Default PBC/CLA) Aboriginal Corporation v Northern Territory of Australia [2025] FCA 22 ('Top End')

I.S. (Deceased) on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji People (Part A) v State of Western Australia [2017] FCA 1215 ('Wajarri Yamatji Determination')

Ward and Others v State of Western Australia and Another [1996] FCA 1452; [1996] FCA 1452; (1996) 69 FCR 208 ('Ward')

Ike Simpson & Ors on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Peter Andrew Wiltshire [2009] NNTTA 119 ('Wiltshire')

Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 ('Yindjibarndi')

Mitchell Caubo, State Solicitor's Office; Andrea Wyles, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration

[1] Samantha Elizabeth Whitelaw (the Grantee Party) has applied for the grant of special prospecting licences P 20/2526-S, P 20/2527-S and P 20/2528-S (the proposed licences).

[2] The areas of the proposed licences are located approximately 53 kilometres north westerly of the town Cue in Western Australia. It is intended that the proposed licences be granted over existing exploration licence E 20/885 (the underlying EL), which covers a larger area of land and waters.

[3] The State of Western Australia considers the grant of each of the proposed licences to be an act attracting the expedited procedure as defined in s 237 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and included a statement to that effect in a notice given under s 29 of the NTA.

[4] By including this statement, the State asserts that the grant of each of the proposed licences is not likely to, in summary: interfere directly with the native title holders' community or social activities (s 237(a) of the NTA); interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with the native title holders' traditions (s 237(b) of the NTA); or involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to the land and waters concerned (s 237(c) of the NTA).

[5] Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC holds non-exclusive native title on trust for the Wajarri Yamatji in relation to the areas of the proposed licences pursuant to the Wajarri Yamatji Determination, which wholly overlaps the areas of the proposed licences.

[6] WYAC has lodged objection applications with the Tribunal in response to the State's assertion that the expedited procedure applies.

[7] WYAC argues that the Tribunal should determine that the grant of each of the proposed licences is not an act attracting the expedited procedure on two bases.

[8] First, while making no specific contentions, WYAC observes that the Tribunal is not precluded from making its own inquiries based on the evidence and finding that the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere directly with community and social activities of Wajarri Yamatji (see s 237(a) of the NTA) in the form of activities which need to be undertaken by initiated Wajarri Yamatji men in the areas of the proposed licences before the Grantee Party accesses them.

[9] Secondly, WYAC contends the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere with an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions, which area includes within it the areas of the proposed licences (see s 237(b) of the NTA).

[10] In broad terms, the Grantee Party and the State do not agree that either of the bases identified by WYAC are supported on the evidence provided and contend that the grant of each of the proposed licences is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

[11] WYAC did not provide any evidence or make any contentions on s 237(c) of the NTA. Accordingly, applying the common sense approach outlined in Ward at [26], I find there is no evidence before me to support a conclusion that the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to involve the major disturbance, or create rights likely to involve the major disturbance, contemplated in s 237(c).

[12] In relation to ss 237(a) and 237(b) of the NTA, having considered the evidence and contentions of the parties, I have determined that, on the evidence provided, the grant of each of the proposed licences is an act attracting the expedited procedure for the reasons provided below.

[13] On 29 April 2025, the first directions in this inquiry were set for the provision of evidence and contentions by the parties and for the conduct of the inquiry.

[14] On 2 May 2025, the State lodged its initial material for each of the proposed licences comprising mapping, a Quick Appraisal containing key tenement information, an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Inquiry System search (ACHIS Search), a copy of the mining tenement application under the Mining Act 1978 (WA), a copy of the draft Tenement Endorsement and Conditions Extract and a list of previous determinations (if any) made by the Tribunal under s 32(4) of the NTA.

[15] It is convenient to note at this point the following factual matters arising from the State's initial material:

(a) the list of previous determinations for each of the proposed licences show one previous overlapping expedited procedure determination made on 6 October 2009, namely Wiltshire (E 20/666) (WO2008/0299), where the Tribunal determined that the expedited procedure did not apply; and

(b) the ACHIS Searches for each of the proposed licences do not disclose any registered or lodged Aboriginal cultural heritage sites overlapping the areas of the proposed licences. However, as it will become apparent, a central theme of WYAC's evidence and contentions in this inquiry is the proximity of the proposed licences to Registered Site ID 6826 (Aga Khan Bora Ground, Ritual/Ceremonial; Creation/Dreaming Narrative; Traditional Structure), a site previously found by the Tribunal to be of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA: see Wiltshire at [35]. Registered Site ID 6826 is not shown on the mapping included in the ACHIS Searches but is variously mentioned in the parties' evidence and contentions and its location relative to the areas of the proposed licences is shown on the map attached to Mr Carl Hamlett's statement. Also relevant in this inquiry is the proximity of the areas of the proposed licences to Lodged Site ID 21211 (Poona Mine A, Artefacts/Scatter; Rock Shelter) which is shown on the mapping included in the ACHIS Searches. This site was referred to in Wiltshire but no finding of particular significance was made in relation to it. This site is located just outside the boundary of P 20/2528-S and is near the other proposed licences. This site is not discussed by WYAC in its contentions and evidence nor by the State in its contentions but is discussed by the Grantee Party in her contentions and evidence. The significance of Registered Site ID 6826 and Lodged Site ID 21211 is discussed below.

[16] On 16 July 2025, WYAC lodged its primary contentions and an unsigned statutory declaration of Carl Hamlett. Subsequently, on 25 July 2025, WYAC lodged the signed version of the statutory declaration of Carl Hamlett (Mr Hamlett's statement).

[17] On 30 July 2025, the Grantee Party provided her contentions and a statement of evidence.

[18] On 5 August 2025, the State provided its contentions.

[19] On 15 August 2025, WYAC provided its reply contentions.

[20] The parties indicated that they are agreeable to this inquiry being determined on the papers as is permitted by s 151(2) of the NTA. Having reviewed the material, I am satisfied I can adequately determine this inquiry on that basis.

[21] WYAC's evidence is contained within Mr Hamlett's statement. It is convenient to reproduce Mr Hamlett's statement in full:

1. I have authority to speak for the area of those 7 prospecting licences P 20/2525-S to P 20/2531-S (tenement area) because I am the son of Colin Hamlett and the grandson of William Hamlett. I am part of the proper initiated family for that area. This family includes my brothers Brendan and Brian and some of our sons (family/we). Our law and culture continues.
2. I've looked at the DEMIRS notification plans, the satellite map and the DPLH printout. I know where that tenement area is. It's west of the old Poona mine. It's my grandfather's country passed down to my father and now to us. When I was growing up, my grandfather and father told Brendan and I not to go there until initiated. Even as initiated men there are dangerous places and things there. My grandfather told us "look but don't touch". Some of those dangerous places have been recorded with DPLH in that box 6826 under a previous survey. That survey didn't cover the tenement area towards the Poona mine. If it did, then that box 6826 would have covered the tenement area for sure.
3. I can't tell you about that tenement area under our law. It's for initiated men only. You've told me the Tribunal can make confidentiality orders to protect my evidence. Those orders on a piece of paper aren't going to protect me, or you or the Tribunal! If I told you, then really bad things would happen to me. They'd happen to you too and to anyone who read what I told you. Physical and spiritual bad things.
4. All I can say is this. What is recorded on the DPLH register for box 6826 goes into that tenement area. The DPLH register says "Ritual / Ceremonial; Creation / Dreaming Narrative; Traditional Structure". In other words, there is secret law, a powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things in that tenement area. I can't tell you more. Right now, my skin is tingling and my heart is beating faster - yours should be too.
5. We have to go to the tenement area first before the prospectors. We have to do a survey, find those dangerous places and things and put fences or barriers around them. The prospectors won't recognise them, but we will. If those prospectors touch or move or go near those places and things before us, then really bad things would happen to them. There are special rituals we have to do to keep everyone safe from the bad things. It's our responsibility under our law.
6. A few years ago, Brendan, Brian and I went on a survey near that tenement area. It wasn't far - only about 10-15 kilometres from there. But that area is still within my grandfather's country and connected to that same Jukurrpa. I reminded Brendan and Brian about what our grandfather and father told us - "look but don't touch". They didn't listen. They got curious and thought they were strong enough to touch things. They weren't. They both got really sick and ended up in hospital in Perth. They're better now, but it took a while. That is how dangerous that Jukurrpa is - even initiated men have to be careful.

[22] By way of context, Mr Hamlett refers to seven prospecting licences because his evidence is provided in this inquiry, which concerns the proposed licences, and in another inquiry before the Tribunal, concerning objection applications WO2024/0847, WO2024/0848, WO2024/0849 and WO2024/0850, which concern four further applications made by Evan Kimberley Lester in respect of special prospecting licences (P 20/2525-S, P 20/2529-S, P 20/2530-S and P 20/2531-S), the areas of which are located just to the west of the areas of the proposed licences.

Does Mr Hamlett have authority to speak for the areas of the proposed licences?

[23] Mr Hamlett describes his authority to speak for the areas of the proposed licences at [1] and [2] of his statement.

[24] Mr Hamlett's authority to speak for the areas of the proposed licences is not disputed by the State.

[25] However, the Grantee Party, both in her contentions and in her statement of evidence, disputes Mr Hamlett's evidence on a number of bases including on the basis that Mr Hamlett does not have authority to speak for the areas of the proposed licences as a consequence of what the Grantee Party surmises to be Mr Hamlett's initiation status (Grantee Party contentions at [8(g)] and [9(g)] and Grantee Party statement of evidence at [16] and [20]).

[26] Having considered Mr Hamlett's evidence, I do not consider there to be a factual foundation for the Grantee Party's view in this regard. Moreover, having considered the evidence in this inquiry as a whole, I accept that Mr Hamlett has authority to speak for the areas of the proposed licences as a member of the proper initiated family for these areas.

[27] In any event, for the reasons explained herein, I have concluded - consistent with the ultimate outcome contended for by the Grantee Party, but for different reasons - that, on the evidence provided, the expedited procedure applies to the grant of each of the proposed licences.

[28] The parties' evidence and contentions reveal that there are two key issues in this inquiry.

[29] The first issue is whether the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of Wajarri Yamaji community or social activities (see s 237(a) of the NTA). This issue involves consideration of both the extent of the community and social activities undertaken and whether the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of those activities.

[30] The second issue is whether the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions (see s 237(b) of the NTA). This issue turns on whether there are such areas or sites in, or materially close to, the areas of the proposed licences and whether the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere with those areas or sites in accordance with Wajarri Yamatji traditions.

[31] I address each of these issues in turn below.

First issue: Is the grant of each of the proposed licences likely to interfere directly with Wajarri Yamatji community or social activities within the meaning of s 237(a) of the NTA?

[32] To determine whether the expedited procedure applies, I must undertake a predictive assessment by considering the likely consequences of the grant of each of the proposed licences in the sense of a real, not remote, chance: see Yindjibarndi at [15] and the general approach described there, which I have adopted in this inquiry.

[33] In Yindjibarndi at [16] the Tribunal summarised principles applicable when the Tribunal is assessing whether an act is likely to interfere directly with community or social activities within the meaning of s 237(a) of the NTA:

a) the focus is on the 'community and social activities' which are essentially physical activities, even if they are carried out because of the spiritual relationship that a native title party has to the land (see Yindjibarndi at [16(a)]);

b) the term 'community' is contextual and 'community activities' is not necessarily limited to the activities of a particular localised community. However, if evidence is not derived from the collective experiences of a localised group of persons, then specific evidence needs to be provided to identify the individuals as a community (see Yindjibarndi at [16(b)]);

c) the term 'social activities' is focussed towards activities of the native title group, though it can encompass activities carried out by an individual or small group in certain circumstances, such as where the activity is relevant beyond the person involved (see Yindjibarndi at [16(c)]); and

d) the level of interference with community and social activities must be substantial rather than trivial (see Yindjibarndi at [16(d)]).

[34] In Smith, the Federal Court of Australia at [26] explained that direct interference involves an evaluative judgement that the act "is likely to be a proximate cause of the apprehended interference". The Court also observed that trivial impacts which are not relevant to the carrying on of the community or social activities are outside the scope of the kind of interference contemplated by the section.

[35] Mr Hamlett's evidence in relation to community and social activities, which I accept, is contained in [4] and [5] of his statement (refer to [21] of these reasons).

[36] As mentioned above, while making no specific contentions, WYAC observes that the Tribunal is not precluded from making its own inquiries based on the evidence and finding that the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere directly with community and social activities undertaken by initiated Wajarri Yamatji men (see s 237(a) of the NTA).

[37] WYAC observes that these activities are, in summary, for the proper initiated family to go to the areas of the proposed licences first before the Grantee Party gains access to it, to guide non-Wajarri Yamatji persons away from dangerous objects and places by identifying and fencing them, and to perform special rituals to keep everyone involved safe.

[38] In contrast to WYAC, the Grantee Party and the State argue against the Tribunal finding on the evidence provided that the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere directly with any community and social activities within the meaning of s 237(a) of the NTA.

[39] The Grantee Party essentially argues that there is no need for the activities identified by WYAC to be undertaken because: these activities are against the Grantee Party's personal beliefs; there is already a live tenement over the area of the proposed licences namely the underlying EL; the Grantee Party already has a tenement adjoining the proposed licence areas to which attracted the expedited procedure which the Grantee Party visits frequently without regard to Wajarri Yamatji people; and the Grantee Party has pegged the proposed licence areas so as to avoid any overlap with Lodged Site 21211 and the proposed licences do not otherwise overlap any registered or lodged sites.

[40] The State essentially argues that the activities identified by WYAC would not otherwise occur but for the impending grant of each of the proposed licences. Relatedly, the State argues that there is no evidence that these activities are regular or ongoing practices or that these activities are conducted at particular locations or at particular times.

Consideration - have any community or social activities been identified?

[41] Having considered the evidence and contentions of the parties, I find the grant of each of the proposed licences is not likely to interfere directly with any community or social activities which fall within the scope of s 237(a) of the NTA.

[42] The reason I have reached this conclusion is that, on the evidence provided by Mr Hamlett, I am not satisfied that Wajarri Yamatji, including Wajarri Yamatji initiated men, undertake community or social activities within the areas of the proposed licences which fall within the scope of s 237(a) of the NTA.

[43] While I accept Mr Hamlett's evidence in relation to the activities which under Wajarri Yamatji tradition are the responsibility of initiated Wajarri Yamatji men and which need to be prospectively performed in the areas of the proposed licences before the Grantee Party gains access to them, I agree with the State's argument that these activities would not occur but for the impending grant of each of the proposed licences, and further, that there is no evidence that these activities are regular or ongoing practices.

[44] It follows that there is no evidence of the kind required to support a finding that Wajarri Yamatji carry on community or social activities in the area of the proposed licences which fall within the scope of s 237(a) of the NTA.

Question of likely interference does not arise

[45] As there is no evidence of the kind required to support a finding that Wajarri Yamatji carry on community or social activities in the areas of the proposed licences areas which fall within the scope of s 237(a) of the NTA, the question of likely interference as a result of the grant of each of the proposed licence does not arise.

Second issue: Is the grant of each of the proposed licences likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance according to Wajarri Yamatji traditions within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA?

[46] In Yindjibarndi at [17], the Tribunal summarised principles found to be applicable when the Tribunal is assessing whether an act is likely to interfere with an area or site of particular significance within the meaning of s 237(b) of the NTA:

a) the area or site must be of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders, and it is well established that a site or area may be of particular significance without being recorded on the Government's cultural heritage register (see Yindjibarndi at [17(a)]);

b) if an area or site is of particular significance, it must be known and must able to be located and the nature of its significance explained to the Tribunal (see Yindjibarndi at [17(b)]);

c) even slight interference to a relevant area or site may be unacceptable in the context of s 237(b) but the interference must involve actual physical intervention (see Yindjibarndi at [17(c)]);

d) generally the relevant area or site will be located within the proposed licence, in order for it to be directly affected by grant. It is possible for an area or site of particular significance located outside the proposed licence to be taken into consideration where evidence is adduced demonstrating how the relevant activities under the grant would directly and physically affect the relevant site, and that the activities off-site are, in fact, an integral part of the activities on-site. Examples include construction of roads and truck movements to and from the proposed licence (Yindjibarndi at [17(d)]);

e) there must be a real chance or risk of interference with the area or site (see Yindjibarndi at [17(e)]).

[47] The extent to which the "particular significance" of an area or site needs to be "explained" to the Tribunal (see Yindjibarndi at [17(b)]) was recently considered by the Federal Court in Top End, where the Court relevantly observed that:

a) the legislation does not in terms require the native title holders to provide an explanation of the particular significance (in accordance with their traditions) of the area or site, nor does it implicitly require this (see Top End at [80]);

b) that an area or site is of particular significance (in accordance with the traditions of the native title holders) may be established in a variety of ways. Those ways do not necessarily require an explanation of the particular significance of the area or site. For example, it may be sufficient to show (with cogent evidence) that the area or site is considered to be of special or more than ordinary significance (in accordance with the traditions of the native title holders), without providing an explanation of why the area or site is so regarded. Indeed, it may be very difficult to explain why the area or site is so regarded see (Top End at [80]); and

c) however the evidence of the native title holders needs to go beyond mere assertion (see Top End at [81]).

[48] Mr Hamlett's evidence in relation to areas or sites of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions, which I accept, is contained throughout his statement (refer to [21] of these reasons).

[49] In summary, WYAC contends that the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere with an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions which includes within it the areas of the proposed licences (see s 237(b) of the NTA).

[50] More particularly, WYAC contends this area is known and able to be located by Mr Hamlett on the basis of Mr Hamlett's evidence that:

a) he has seen the relevant mapping showing the proposed licence areas and the extract from the ACH Register in relation to Registered Site ID 6826;

b) this area is his grandfather's country, which has been passed down to his father and now to him and his brothers and some of their sons;

c) he knows where the licence areas are located, namely to the west of the old Poona mine; and

d) if the heritage survey in relation to Registered Site ID 6826 had covered the proposed licence areas towards the Poona mine then the area of this registered site would have covered the proposed licence areas.

[51] Furthermore, WYAC contends that the nature of the particular significance of the area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions which includes the areas of the proposed licences, is explained by Mr Hamlett's evidence as follows:

a) this area is a unique area, known for at least three generations as restricted to initiated men;

b) this area contains a 'powerful Jurkurrpa' that is so 'dangerous' that 'even initiated men need to be careful';

c) explaining the significance this area requires extreme care under Wajarri Yamatji law and custom to ensure 'physical and spiritual bad things' do not occur to Mr Hamlett, the legal representative who took his statement and anyone who reads his statement;

d) to the best of his ability under Wajarri Yamatji law and custom Mr Hamlett has used public information from the ACH register and general wording to explain the significance of this area.

[52] In response to WYAC's contentions on this issue, the Grantee Party contends that no area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions has been identified by WYAC for reasons including:

a) there is no registered or lodged site in the proposed licence areas, nor will the grant of the proposed licences otherwise interfere with any registered or lodged site, including Registered Site ID 6826;

b) a historical survey (attached to the Grantee Party's statement) has cleared an area included the proposed licence areas of 'any significance to aboriginal people'; and

c) due to the extensive history of mining in this area in the view of the Grantee Party 'any significant Aboriginal sites or remnants of cultural heritage would likely no longer exist'.

[53] In response to WYAC's contentions on this issue, the State relevantly contends that, on the evidence provided, no area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions has been identified by WYAC.

[54] A central critique of WYAC's evidence raised by the State is that it is unclear, in the view of the State, whether the relevant area of particular significance asserted by WYAC is:

a) a large contiguous area which extends from Registered Site ID 6826 and encompasses all of the proposed licence areas, including a substantial part of the underlying EL; or

b) made up of several non-contiguous areas, which are small enough to be fenced off, and that may or may not be within the boundaries of the proposed licence areas.

[55] Relatedly, the State contends that the level of identification of the area or areas is not sufficiently certain for the relevant area or areas to be categorised as being of particular significance within the meaning of s 237(b) of the NTA.

[56] In response to this critique, WYAC in its reply contentions relevantly contends:

a) the evidence is that the proposed licence areas are within a larger area of particular significance for initiated men only and that this area is deeply secret and spiritually dangerous to explain;

b) the State seeks to compartmentalise the evidence by focussing on 'sacred things' stored in 'places', rather than upon men's 'secret law' under the 'powerful Jukurrpa' in so doing encourages the Tribunal to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of particular significance because these places may not be within the boundaries of the proposed licence areas; and

c) the Tribunal should instead consider the totality of WYAC's evidence and contentions (per Les Tullock at [40]) and conclude that the proposed licence areas are within an area which meets the threshold of particular significance under s 237(b) of the NTA.

Consideration - has any area or site of particular significance been identified?

[57] As noted at [46] of these reasons, before an area can be found to be of particular significance, it must be known and must able to be located (see Yindjibarndi at [17(b)]).

[58] Mr Hamlett asserts that "secret law, a powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" are located within an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions, which includes within it the areas of the proposed licences, but does not provide any further information in relation to:

a) the geographical extent of this area beyond that it includes within it, in addition to the proposed licence areas, Registered Site ID 6826; or

b) where the "secret law, ... powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" are located within this area.

[59] Because of this, I find the evidence is insufficient for me to, first, identify the extent of the area of said to be of particular significance and the location of the "secret law, ... powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" within it which so characterise it, and, secondly, assess whether and to what extent the grant of each of the proposed licences is likely to interfere with this area in accordance with Wajarri Yamatji traditions.

[60] Furthermore, three other aspects of the evidence in this inquiry which support this conclusion in my view.

[61] The first aspect of the evidence is the provisional way in which Mr Hamlett frames parts of his evidence on this issue. For example, Mr Hamlett identifies:

a) that the survey conducted to identify Registered Site ID 6826 did not extend to the areas of the proposed licences but if it did then that box 6826 would have covered the proposed licence areas (see Mr Hamlett's statement at [2]); and

b) that it is necessary for the initiated family for the area including the proposed licence areas to conduct a survey, find the dangerous places and things, and put fences or barriers around them (see Mr Hamlett's statement at [1] and [5]).

[62] In my view, these are material qualifications to Mr Hamlett's assertion that "secret law, a powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" are present within the broader area said to be of particular significance and, in turn, within the areas of the proposed licences included within it.

[63] The second aspect of the evidence relates to the first aspect, in that I am sympathetic to the State's critique of WYAC's evidence in relation to the area said to be of particular significance, as summarised above at [54] and [55] of these reasons.

[64] In my view, the primary but not exclusive focus of Mr Hamlett's statement is the areas of the proposed licences, which he asserts contain "secret law, a powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" but without providing any information about where these things are located within these areas.

[65] It is true that Mr Hamlett also refers to areas which fall outside the areas of the proposed licences, including: the area comprising Registered Site ID 6826; an area about 10-15 kilometres from the areas of the proposed licences where he and his brothers conducted a survey a few years ago; and his grandfather's country generally. But, despite these references, the geographical extent of the area asserted by WYAC to be the area of particular significance, and location of the areas or sites within it which so characterise it, remains unclear in my view.

[66] A related point is that while I acknowledge Mr Hamlett's concerns that:

a) for cultural reasons he is unable to provide details of the "secret law, ... powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" that are located within an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions which includes the areas of the proposed licences; and

b) the Tribunal's practice of making directions restricting access to such evidence is insufficient to protect him and any recipient of this information;

as explained at [59] of these reasons, without further information in relation to extent of the area said to be of particular significance I am unable to conduct the two-step analysis which is required when assessing evidence against the requirements of s 237(b) of the NTA.

[67] The final aspect of the evidence is the approach taken by the Tribunal in Wiltshire, and the findings made in that inquiry. Wiltshire concerned the area of land and waters within the area of a proposed exploration licence, E 20/666, the area of which includes within it the proposed licence areas and Registered Site ID 6826.

[68] While no party provided any contentions in this inquiry addressing Wiltshire, I have had regard to it because it is identified in the State's initial material as overlapping the proposed licences and because I consider it contains findings which bear consideration in the context of this inquiry, particularly in relation to Registered Site ID 6826.

[69] It is apparent that a central theme of WYAC's evidence and contentions in this inquiry is the proximity of the areas of the proposed licences to Registered Site ID 6826, which is located near to, but does not overlap, the areas of the proposed licences, as is shown on the map attached to Mr Hamlett's statement. This proximity is confirmed by the Tribunal's publicly available mapping tool, Native Title Vision, which indicates that the boundary of Registered Site ID 6826 is within, approximately, 1500 metres of the boundary of P 20/2528-S, 1790 metres of the boundary of P 20/2527-S and 2170 metres of the boundary of P 20/2526-S.

[70] While no party referred to it, Registered Site ID 6826 was found by the Tribunal in Wiltshire to be a site of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal had regard to a joint witness statement provided in that inquiry by Mr Hamlett and his brother Brendan Hamlett, which is reproduced in full in that determination at [23] (Hamlett joint statement).

[71] In Wilshire at [35], the Tribunal found on the basis of the Hamlett joint statement that there were, in addition to Registered Site ID 6826, other sites of particular significance within the area of E 20/666, namely: areas of rock and stone arrangements around Aga Khan; caves and paintings on the road to Wilgie Mia; and the granites on the road into the Poona Mine.

[72] In the final analysis however, the Tribunal's findings in Wiltshire, including the Tribunal's finding that Registered Site ID 6826 is a site of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA, do not dissuade me from my view that no area or site of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA has been identified in or materially close to the areas of the proposed licences the subject of this inquiry. There are three reasons for this.

[73] First, while Registered Site ID 6826 was found in Wiltshire to be a site of particular significance, there is no evidence in this inquiry that the Grantee Party would need to, or intends to, access this area (or the much more proximate area comprising Lodged Site ID 21211) in the event that the proposed licences are granted. It follows that this is not a case where evidence has been adduced demonstrating how the activities under the proposed licences would directly and physically affect these sites (per Yindjibarndi at [17(d)]).

[74] Secondly, there is no evidence or contentions in this inquiry linking the areas found to be of particular significance in Wiltshire to the areas of the proposed licences other than Mr Hamlett's evidence in this inquiry that the survey conducted to identify Registered Site ID 6826 did not extend to the areas of the proposed licences but if it did then that registered site would have covered the areas of the proposed licences; evidence which, in common with other evidence, I have already found to be insufficient to identify any area of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA.

[75] Lastly, the locations of the areas found by the Tribunal in Wiltshire at [35] to be of particular significance were in each case identified by name and location in the Hamlett joint statement. By way of contrast, in this inquiry Mr Hamlett's statement relevantly contains an assertion that "secret law, a powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" are located within an area of particular significance to Wajarri Yamatji in accordance with their traditions which includes within it the areas of the proposed licences, but contains no further information in relation to either the geographical extent of this area beyond that it includes within it, in addition to the areas of the proposed licences, Registered Site ID 6826, or, in relation to where the "secret law, ... powerful Jukurrpa and sacred things" are located within this area which so characterise it. While an explanation has been provided in relation to why this approach has been adopted (refer to [66] of these reasons) it remains the case that the particularity of the evidence provided in this inquiry and the particularity of the evidence provided in the inquiry conducted in Wiltshire, are distinguishable.

[76] In these circumstances, having considered the evidence and contentions of the parties, I am not satisfied that WYAC has identified any area of particular significance within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA in or materially close to the areas of the proposed licences.

Question of likely interference does not arise

[77] As no area of particular significance has been identified within the scope of s 237(b) of the NTA in or materially close to the areas of the proposed licences, the question of likely interference as a result of the grant of each of the proposed licences does not arise.

[78] I determine the grant of each of the special prospecting licences P 20/2526-S, P 20/2527-S and P 20/2528-S to Samantha Elizabeth Whitelaw is an act attracting the expedited procedure.