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

Native title - future acts - proposed grant of exploration licence - proposed grant of prospecting licence - expedited procedure objection application - failure to comply with directions - objection application dismissed

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31(1), 32(4), 109(1), 148(b)

David Stock & Others on behalf of the Nyiyaparli People/Western Australia/Giralia Resources NL [2000] NNTTA 333 (David Stock v Giralia)

Gilla on behalf of the Yugunga-Nya People v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2021] FCA 1338 (Yugunga-Nya Part A determination)

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

Anja Gambie-Becker, Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC

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

• [1] This is a decision made under s 148(b) of the Act, which empowers the National Native Title Tribunal to dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the applicant fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or comply with a direction of the Tribunal.
• [2] The State gave public notification of the proposed grant of a special prospecting licence to the grantee parties,[1] and included a statement that it considers the grant attracts the expedited procedure.[2] The effect of giving such a notice is that unless a native title party lodges an objection, the act may be done without first requiring all parties to negotiate in good faith.[3]
• [3] The proposed special prospecting licence falls wholly on land subject to a determination of native title made by the Federal Court of Australia in the

Yugunga-Nya Part A determination. As set out in the determination the YN PBC holds native title on trust for the Yugunga-Nya people. As the relevant native title party in relation to land and waters that will be affected by the grant, YN PBC lodged an objection to the State's inclusion of the expedited procedure statement in respect of the special prospecting licence application. As a result, unless the application is withdrawn or dismissed, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the grant of the proposed licence is an act attracting the expedited procedure.[4]

• [4] In February 2025, initial directions were made requiring all parties to provide their contentions and evidence. On 2 April 2025, these directions were amended, at the request of YN PBC's representative, to allow the native title party further time to provide its contentions and evidence. In accordance with the amended directions, YN PBC's contentions and evidence were due on or before 22 April 2025.
• [5] On 28 April 2025, the Tribunal emailed all parties noting that the native title party had failed to comply and that the objections were now at risk of dismissal under s 148(b) of the Act. On 13 May 2025, YN PBC's representative responded requesting the directions be amended again to give the native title party a further two-week extension. On 14 May 2025, the directions were amended in accordance with this request, resulting in YN PBC's contentions and evidence being due on or before 27 May 2025.
• [6] On 3 June 2025, the Tribunal was informed that YN PBC would now be represented by an in-house employee in this matter. The new representative informed the Tribunal that they would consult with the Board about this matter and that the objection application would likely be withdrawn.
• [7] On 9 June 2025, the new representative for YN PBC informed the Tribunal, via telephone call, that the objection application would not be withdrawn and that they were aware that meant the matter would proceed to dismissal as no contentions or evidence were to be filed.

• [8] In considering this dismissal, I have had regard to the applicable principles set out in Teelow v Page.[5] I am required to proceed as expeditiously as possible when conducting an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection. Once an objection application is made it is incumbent on the objector to progress the application and to communicate with the Tribunal and all parties.[6] The Tribunal must also 'pursue the objective of carrying out its functions in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way.'[7]
• [9] Under s 148(b) the Tribunal may dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the applicant 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, it is not an action to be taken lightly.
• [10] In this matter, YN PBC have failed to progress the objection application within a reasonable period despite being afforded sufficient opportunity. They have failed to comply with directions set by the Tribunal. Further, their representative has confirmed they do not intend on complying in the future.
• [11] Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.

• [12] The expedited procedure objection application in relation to P 52/1671-S is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act.