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

Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2021/008)

Aidan Willis, Anthony Jasperson, Lisa Jasperson and Peter Willis

Native title - future act - proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application - failure to comply with directions - s 148(b) - objection application dismissed

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 148(b)

Michael Daniel Teelow/Michael Page/Northern Territory [2001] NNTTA 107; [2001] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (Teelow v Page)

Andrea Wyles and David Crabtree, Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

• [1] On 14 June 2024, the State of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E 51/2226 to Aidan Willis, Anthony Jasperson, Lisa Jasperson and Peter Willis (the grantee). The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the proposed licence to be an act attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act (expedited procedure statement).
• [2] If the expedited procedure applies, the State may grant the proposed licence without requiring parties to enter the right to negotiate procedure per s 31 of the Native Title Act.
• [3] The proposed licence is located approximately 39 km in a southeasterly direction from Peak Hill and covers an area of approximately 12 km². It overlaps the following native title determination areas:
  • Wajarri Yamatji Part A native title determination (WCD2017/007), held in trust by the Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC as the registered native title body corporate, by 36.34%; and
  • Yugunga-Nya People Part A native title determination (WCD2021/0008), held in trust by the Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC as the registered body corporate, by 63.66%.
• [4] On 19 June 2024, Yugunga-Nya lodged an objection to the State's assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licence with the National Native Title Tribunal. The objection application was lodged within the timeframe outlined in s 32(3) of the Native Title Act and as such, under s 32(4), the Tribunal is required to determine whether the grant of the proposed licence is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

• [5] Under a delegation from the President of the Tribunal, I was appointed to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of the inquiry in this matter.
• [6] At an adjourned preliminary conference held on 18 September 2024, the grantee stated its preference for the matter to proceed to inquiry and the matter was referred to a directions hearing on 16 October 2025. On that date I made directions requiring all parties to provide submissions to the inquiry. Yuguna-Nya were directed to provide contentions and evidence by 18 December 2024 however on the date of compliance, no contentions or evidence was received from Yugunga-Nya.
• [7] On 20 January 2025, the Tribunal emailed all parties noting that Yugunga-Nya had failed to comply with directions and that the objection application was now at risk of dismissal. Parties were provided until 28 January 2025 to make any comments. In response, Yugunga-Nya sought an extension and directions were amended on 22 January 2025 providing the Yugunga-Nya until 12 February 2025 to provide contentions and evidence.
• [8] Parties continued to work towards reaching agreement in February 2025 and provided the Tribunal with regular updates. On the basis of these negotiations, a further extension was sought by Yugunga-Nya with the support of the grantee which I granted on 12 February 2025, providing Yugunga-Nya until 12 March 2025 to provide contentions or evidence.
• [9] On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal did not receive any contentions or evidence from Yugunga-Nya. The Tribunal once again sent an email to all parties on 19 March 2025 noting that Yugunga-Nya had failed to comply with directions and that the objection application was again at risk of dismissal_._ Parties were provided until close of business 26 March 2025 to provide any comments.
• [10] On 27 March 2025, the representative for Yugunga-Nya advised the Tribunal that the native title party were considering accepting the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA) with the grantee party. Further advice was provided on 7 April 2025 indicating that Yugunga-Nya intended to enter into the RSHA with the grantee party.
• [11] A subsequent extension request was made by Yugunga-Nya on 11 April 2025 to the Tribunal only, seeking a one week extension to the direction dates whilst the RSHA was in the process of being executed and provided back to the grantee party. The grantee party emailed all parties on the 15 April 2025 to indicate that they would like the matter to proceed to dismissal, thereby indicating an agreed outcome had not been arrived at.
• [12] Following this, on 15 April 2025, the Tribunal emailed all parties to advise that I had formed the view that the native title party had been provided with sufficient time to present its case and declined to grant the further extension. It was noted however, that the option to resolve the matter by agreement, including via the RSHA, remained open.
• [13] Yugunga-Nya responded on 16 April 2025 to all parties, to indicate that the RSHA was being executed and a copy would be provided to the grantee party. At the date of drafting however, the objection remained on foot, indicating no agreement was made.

• [14] Pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act, the Tribunal may dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the native title party fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the objection application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal. While the Tribunal has broad discretion to dismiss an objection application, doing so has significant consequences for the native title party and is not an action taken lightly.
• [15] The nature of the expedited procedure and the principles relevant to consideration of dismissal of an objection application for failure to comply with directions are set out in the Tribunal's decision in Teelow v Page ([13]). I have applied those principles in my consideration of this matter.
• [16] On this occasion, it is my view that Yugunga-Nya has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress this objection application but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. The Tribunal granted several extensions to enable Yugunga-Nya to provide evidence into the inquiry however Yugunga-Nya have failed to comply with directions on each occasion.
• [17] Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.

• [18] The expedited procedure objection application in relation to exploration licence E 51/2226 is dismissed under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.