Australia: Federal Court confirms National Native Title Tribunal's approach to future act determinations

by DLA Piper
Contact

Warning: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this article may refer to the names of people who are deceased.

Summary

In Watson on behalf of Nyikina & Mangala v Backreef Oil Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1432, the Federal Court of Australia rejected several challenges to the National Native Title Tribunal's approach to determining whether or not interests in land that are subject to the 'right to negotiate' provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) should be granted. The decision reinforces that the Tribunal's task is the application of the criteria set out in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to the specific evidence and information brought before it and underscores the need for parties to carefully address those criteria with detailed contentions and supporting materials.

Background

Backreef Oil Pty Ltd and Oil Basins Ltd (together the Proponent) applied for an onshore petroleum exploration permit (Permit) over an area in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, approximately two thirds of which is subject to the Nyikina & Mangala native title claim.

Western Australia applies the 'right to negotiate' provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) to the grant of Permits, requiring the Proponent to negotiate in good faith with the Nyikina & Mangala people (Native Title Party) with a view to obtaining their agreement to the grant of the Permit.

The Proponent and the Native Title Party engaged in negotiations from early 2008 to May 2012, with mediation assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal (Tribunal) over the final 12 months, but were ultimately unable to reach agreement.1 The Proponent subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a determination as to whether or not the Permit should be granted in the absence of agreement.

Tribunal's determination

The Tribunal determined that the Permit should be granted to the Proponent subject to the imposition of specified 'Aboriginal Heritage Conditions' and a set of 'Extra Conditions' limiting the extent to which the Proponent could restrict the exercise of native title rights in the relevant area, requiring the Proponent to give the Native Title Party copies of certain documents and dealing with assignment of interests in the Permit.2

The Tribunal's determination was made with regard to the applicable criteria set out in the NTA including, relevantly:

  1. Effect of grant – the effect of the grant of the Permit on the Native Title Party's registered native title rights, way of life, culture and traditions, social, cultural and economic development, freedom of access to land and areas or sites of particular significance
  2. Native Title Party's wishes – the interests, proposals, opinions or wishes of the Native Title Party in relation to the management, use or control of the area of the Permit in which the Native Title Party has registered native title rights that will be affected by the grant of the Permit, and
  3. Economic and other significance – the economic or other significance of the grant of the Permit to Australia, Western Australia, the area in which the Permit is located and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in that area.


In each respect, the Tribunal found that the evidence before it did not support a conclusion that the Permit should not be granted. The Tribunal found, in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, that the grant of the Permit and the subsequent conduct of petroleum exploration activities:

  • would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the Native Title Party's rights to use and enjoy, make decisions about or control access to, use and enjoy resources from the area of the Permit and were unlikely to have any effect on that Native Title Party's rights to maintain, protect and prevent misuse of cultural knowledge
  • would have a marginal effect on the Native Title Party's way of life, culture and traditions
  • would be likely to have a beneficial effect on the development of the social, cultural and economic structures of the Native title Party
  • would have a minimal effect on the Native Title Party's access to the area of the Permit and that conditions could be imposed to further mitigate against any interference, and
  • could not be found to have a significant effect on sites of 'particular significance' that may exist within the area of the Permit and that the 'Aboriginal Heritage Conditions' would further mitigate any possible effects.

The Tribunal chose not to accord much weight to the Native Title Party's stated opposition to the grant of the Permit in the context of the Native Title Party's previous conduct, including consented to other petroleum exploration in the past, although it did take into account that previous consent had been predicated on securing an appropriate agreement. The Tribunal also found that expenditure on the proposed petroleum exploration activities was likely to create economic benefits for the local economy, including local Indigenous people.

Native Title Party's application to the Federal Court

The Native Title Party applied to the Federal Court seeking findings to the effect that:

  1. Failure to weigh – the Tribunal had failed to consider together (ie as opposed to individually) and weigh the criteria, evidence and information in relation to the effect of grant before making its determination
  2. Failure to account for beliefs – the Tribunal had failed to take into account and give weight to the beliefs of members of the Native Title Party, in accordance with traditional laws and customs, that people may come to harm if sites of cultural and/or traditional significance are damaged
  3. Failure to account for future dealings – the Tribunal had failed to take into account the future intentions of the Proponent with regard to the Permit, particularly in circumstances where it was known that one of the applicants intended to assign its interest to a third party
  4. Failure to apply precautionary principle – the Tribunal had failed to apply the 'precautionary principle' (ie the concept, employed in environmental protection regimes, that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage) to its assessment of the effect that the grant of the Permit would have on areas or sites of particular significance to the Native Title Party, and
  5. No basis for finding in relation to local benefits – that there was no evidence or information before the Tribunal to support its findings that the grant of the Permit would result in economic benefits for local Indigenous people, including local Aboriginal people.

Federal Court's decision

In each case, the Federal Court declined to accept the Native Title Party's contentions. In particular, the Court found that the Tribunal:

  • having considered each of the criteria relating to the effect of grant, expressly engaged in a weighing process in a manner which was 'entirely unexceptional'
  •  is not required to consider the 'strength of cultural belief of the level of harm that would befall persons consequent upon an interference with sites of significance' as a separate consideration and had properly taken evidence in relation to such matters into account as part of its consideration of both the effect of grant and the Native Title Party's wishes
  • is not required to have regard to a proponent's intentions in relation to future dealings with an interest as a separate consideration and, in this case, had relevantly taken the proposed assignment of the interests of one of the applicants for the Permit to a third party into account when considering the effect of grant
  • is not required to adopt the 'precautionary principle' in assessing the effect of the grant on areas or sites of particular significance to native title parties (or even to apply the 'cautious approach' to evidence that it had done in this case); and 
  • had a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which it could base its findings in relation to the economic significance of the grant of the Permit to local Aboriginal people.

Comment

The Federal Court's decision in this case confirms the Tribunal's approach to applying the criteria set out in the NTA to the task of determining whether or not interests in land which are subject to the 'right to negotiate' provisions should be granted in the absence of agreement between proponents and native title parties. The decision reinforces that the Tribunal's task is the application of the criteria set out in the NTA to the specific evidence and information brought before it and underscores the need for parties to carefully address those criteria with detailed contentions and supporting materials.

1 See Backreef Oil Pty Ltd and Oil Basins Ltd, John Watson and others on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala, Western Australia [2012] NNTTA 98.
2 See Backreef Oil Pty Ltd and Oil Basins Ltd, JW (name withheld) and others on behalf of Nyikina and Mangala, Western Australia [2013] NNTTA 9.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© DLA Piper | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

DLA Piper
Contact
more
less

DLA Piper on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.