Background
This case concerned three exploration licenses the Northern Territory government proposed to grant to Territory Potash Pty Ltd (Territory Potash) under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT). These proposed licenses were future acts under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). In providing notice of the proposed grants under s 29 of the NTA, the Northern Territory indicated that it considered that the proposed grants attract the expedited procedure.
The applicant in this case was Robert Mumu and others, who also comprised the applicant for a native title determination application that was lodged on 13 February 2020 and had been accepted for registration which coincided with the area covered by the exploration licences. The applicant objected to the application of the expedited procedure under s 32(3) of the NTA. The decision rested on whether the notice given by the Territory Potash was compliant with s 29 of the NTA.
Submissions
The applicant submitted that the notification did not meet the requirements of s 29 of the NTA. Per s 29(3), public notification must be ‘in the determined way’, which, under s 252, means notice given in accordance with a determination by the relevant Minister. The application determination was the Native Title (Notices) Determination 2011 (No 1) (Cth). This provided that the public notification must include a clear description of the area to which the act mentioned in the notice related, as well as a description of the nature of the act. The applicant contended that the public notification of the proposed future acts made no reference to the rights that would be granted under s 83 of the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT). Furthermore, that by s 83 Territory Potash would acquire certain rights over areas other than the land and waters identified as comprising the proposed tenements. Hence, the notice did not provide a clear description of the affected area as required.
Decision
The Tribunal held in favour of Territory Potash, finding that the description only needed to include the areas where the licenses were to be granted. The Tribunal opined that it would be ‘virtually impossible’ to include all of the land which might be affected by s 83. As a result, the requirements of s 29 of the NTA had been complied with.