Australian Indigenous Law Reporter
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Indigenous Law Reporter |
|
Perth, October 1996
The President of the National Native Title Tribunal is required by s.133 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to give to the Commonwealth Minister a report of the administrative affairs of the Tribunal during each financial year. This Annual Report covers the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996.
The extracts reproduced below are the President's Overview (part), Registrar's Corporate Overview (part), status of various applications (statistics), ensuring efficient and nationally consistent management of claims that respond to the needs of parties, and effective management of the Tribunal's future acts process in Western Australia (part). The extracts reflect the large increase in the number of both claimant and non-claimant applications during the 1995-1996 year. The Western Australian State Government's use of the future act processes in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (mainly for mining purposes) was particularly heavy during the year.
...
In the year ended 30 June 1996, the Tribunal tried to refine and improve its administration and its processes. Reviews of the administration and of the mediation process were carried out at my request during the reporting period with the assistance of the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General's Department. The administrative review led to the development of business plans for each section of the Tribunal and the revision of its corporate goals.
The mediation review was based upon a survey of stakeholders and led to a further revision of goals and procedures. Additional user-group input was obtained from liaison committees representative of a variety of user-groups which were established early in the life of the Tribunal. Their views were sought at meetings and workshops conducted around Australia.
The mediation procedures used by the Tribunal have been revised and simplified and indicative time frames adopted. They reflect a more proactive and structured approach to mediation with earlier plenary conferences, the use of negotiating framework agreements and interim agreements which may be legally non-binding but nevertheless represent common understandings about progress achieved in the course of negotiation.
A threshold question which has frequently arisen in native title claims is that of intra-indigenous conflict. This may be manifested by the lodgement of overlapping claims by different groups claiming that a particular area of land is their traditional country. Alternatively, one sub-group or family may wish to ensure its interests are properly protected and so lodges a claim which partly overlaps another lodged by a larger group of which it is part. Sometimes an individual will lodge a claim overlapping a group claim. In other cases indigenous people who are in fact part of the community of native title holders in whose name a claim is made will become parties to the claim to ensure their separate interests are protected.
Tribunal policy is that intra-indigenous issues should be resolved or managed by the indigenous people themselves. It also recognises the primary role of representative bodies in this regard. Discussions were undertaken with the various representative bodies to ensure this is known. Nevertheless, where an intra-indigenous conflict cannot otherwise be resolved the Tribunal will seek to assist in resolving it.
There are a number of cases before the Tribunal in which intra-indigenous conflicts are being managed or have been resolved. These resolutions take time. In Broome a number of different groups with adjacent claims have come together in a joint working group and are engaged in negotiations affecting some 11 native title claims on land and waters in the Broome region. Outstanding disputes with particular family groups are being mediated by a consultant engaged by the Tribunal in order to maximise the possibility that the Rubibi group is able to speak with one authoritative voice and pursue the construction of agreements with the State and local governments which may form the basis of a regional settlement of the claims.
In the Goldfields area a joint working group was formed of eight overlapping claimants through the efforts of the Goldfields Land Council. The formation of further groups is being pursued.
In North Queensland agreements were made resolving, or providing for the management, of intra-indigenous conflict in at least three sets of claims.
In some mediations the relevant State government has declined to negotiate on the question of native title whereas other parties are prepared to negotiate to reach a position in which they can withdraw as parties. This is a positive outcome because it can reduce the scope of issues and the number of parties involved in proceedings if the matter is referred to the Federal Court.
In the period under review, local governments have shown themselves, in a number of cases, to have very positive attitudes to the resolution of native title claims within their municipal boundaries. In the case of the Broome Shire, this has led to a positive and forward looking interim agreement.
The Native Title Act as originally drafted, was underpinned by such features as a need for substantial preparation for the lodgement of applications, a screening process prior to acceptance, a conference to see whether agreement would be reached, determination of unopposed or agreed applications by the Tribunal and referral of applications, where no agreement had been made, to the Federal Court. The scheme of the Act was also consistent with the proposition that the registration of a claim and the right to negotiate and arbitrate mining grants and acquisitions were dependent upon acceptance of the application.
The amendments to the bill in the initial legislative process and later decisions of the High Court and the Federal Court have produced outcomes which were not expected. The lodgement of an application gives rise immediately to the right to be placed on the Register of Native Title Claims and to invoke the mediation and arbitration provisions of the Act in relation to the grant of mining tenements and compulsory acquisitions. The right to negotiate can be acquired and exercised by individuals without community consent or involvement. There is now very little scope for the assessment of applications in deciding whether to accept them. The Tribunal's power to make useful determinations in respect of unopposed or agreed applications is of dubious constitutional validity in the light of the decision of the High Court in Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1994-95) 183 CLR 245. Some of these issues are being addressed by the proposed amendments introduced by the Government.
At the end of the reporting period, eight cases have been referred to the Federal Court for litigation, the mediation process having reached a point where no further useful outcomes were likely to be achieved. The first of these claims, the Mirriuwung Gajerrong claim, was referred in February 1995 and will go to trial in March 1997, although opening submissions are likely to be heard before the end of the year. The case will raise, inter alia, the question of the effect of Western Australian pastoral leases on native title. It is noteworthy that in a second adjacent claim lodged by the same people over an area covered by the proposed second stage of the Ord River development, the State of Western Australia and the applicants agreed to negotiate with each other directly to endeavour to resolve that claim. At the end of the reporting period that negotiation had not been completed.
Other cases referred to the court raise issues including the existence and nature of native title in the seas, in forests and reserves, in Crown land in and around a large town (Alice Springs), in a town, in a town common and around an international airport. Since the close of the reporting period additional cases have been referred.
The workload of the Tribunal has increased sharply in terms of the number of claims lodged, particularly in the second half of the reporting period. This is no doubt attributable to a combination of factors including concerns about the impact of proposed amendments to the Act and the ease with which claims can now be registered and accepted. Some of these claims are unlikely to attract funding support from representative bodies and, being large and contentious, are unlikely to achieve negotiated outcomes. Their future, if referred to court, is doubtful. The Tribunal will support the negotiation process for as long as the parties wish it to continue or where there is a real prospect of an agreement that will resolve the matter or a partial agreement that will substantially narrow the issues or reduce the number of parties involved. It will not, however, expend more resources on claims than are necessary to meet its statutory obligations where claims are unlikely to achieve any such result. Thus a claim affecting the surrounds of the Perth airport involved apparently unresolvable conflict between two indigenous parties and no prospect of an agreement which would resolve the claim. A plenary conference under s. 72 was held, time allowed for further exploration of the intra-indigenous issues and the matter referred to court a few weeks after the plenary conference.
It is anticipated in the coming months that an increasing number of claims will be referred to the Federal Court. The Tribunal is, however, not referring claims where the parties, or a reasonable subset of the parties, wish to continue negotiating provided there is a reasonable likelihood that an agreement or partial agreement will be reached. In most cases the negotiation process, with or without direct Tribunal involvement, will stretch over many months.
The point is made from time to time that there has not been one determination of native title on mainland Australia in the two and a half years since the Tribunal was established. This is not because the Tribunal has forced parties to keep negotiating for an unreasonable length of time. When negotiation has reached the end of its useful life, the cases are, and will be, referred to court. But there is little point in forcing into court, with all the associated costs both public and private, parties who wish to continue their discussions. The length of time being taken to resolve these difficult issues is not surprising given their complexity. International comparisons, particularly with analogous processes in New Zealand and Canada, suggest the duration of negotiating process in Australia is predictable.
It is also predictable that as court decisions in cases now pending resolve some of the key legal issues parties, and particularly governments and applicants, will have a clearer idea of the likely outcomes of litigation. Precedents also flow in modest ways from interim or process agreements. A negotiating framework agreement achieved in one Queensland case has become a potential template for use in others.
The Tribunal has sought to encourage the development of models for negotiation and agreements particularly through its sponsorship and organisation of the Indigenous Land Use Agreements conference held in Darwin in September 1995. The proceedings of that conference, which was jointly conducted with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, were published and incorporate model issues, lists and process agreements for a variety of negotiating circumstances. The Tribunal has also begun building up a database of agreements which are available to staff and Members and will be available for public access to ensure potential precedents become a resource available to all (subject to the consent of those who are parties to them and to the requirements of confidentiality).
A substantial effort has been devoted by the Tribunal in the reporting period to public information and education and to community liaison. This has involved Members and staff in conferences, seminars and workshop presentations around the country, to a variety of groups and in combination with other organisations. The dissemination of accurate information to the media, briefing of journalists, the preparation of information columns for regional newspapers and responses to requests for interviews were all designed to maximise the amount of accurate information about native title in the public arena generally and in areas subject to pending claims. The Tribunal has also made available various papers and speeches given by Members, produced explanatory brochures and published proceedings of its conference on Opportunities for Understanding, held in December 1994. Research papers were commissioned on matters of importance to the resolution of native title claims.
...
The conduct of the right to negotiate process in Western Australia was affected by court decisions as to the conditions on which the expedited procedure will apply to the grant of mining tenements, and as to the statutory requirement that the State negotiate in good faith with native title parties affected by proposed grants. It has also been affected by the lodgement in some areas of multiple overlapping claims which require governments and mining companies to negotiate with a variety of groups or individuals in relation to the one tenement grant.
Nevertheless over 90 per cent of exploration tenements were granted without objection, and agreements struck between mining companies and native title parties about exploration and mining issues under the right to negotiate. The Tribunal has moved to provide special support to the process in the Goldfields area by establishing a mediation service in Kalgoorlie and a Goldfields Mediation Council of stakeholder groups from that region which is the most intense focus of activity under the right to negotiate process.
The Tribunal has endeavoured to achieve cost efficiencies where possible. It is also recognised the work of the Tribunal under the right to negotiate process will be carried out by state tribunals when they are established. It is anticipated Western Australia will set up its own tribunal within the next twelve to eighteen months. The permanent component of Tribunal staff devoted to future act work in Western Australia has therefore been comparatively low so that the Tribunal can contract in response to the expected diminution of work from that source.
During the reporting period and beyond, there was much discussion about amendments to the Act, and the Tribunal has contributed to that discussion in areas relevant to its own operations without entering the political debate about the appropriate balance of interests under the Act. It has also helped to facilitate discussions conducted under the aegis of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation seeking common ground on amendments to the Act between indigenous and industry groups.
...
Justice RS French
President
During the year under review the National Native Title Tribunal encountered significant external and internal pressures in carrying out the goals and objectives stated in the 1994/95 Annual Report.
In August 1995, the Tribunal predicted a total of 330 claimant applications would be lodged during the financial year ended 30 June 1996. 285 claimant applications were lodged during this period and in the six months from January to June 1996, the Tribunal's claimant application workload doubled. This represents an extraordinary increase in the workload of the Tribunal, particularly as, in Western Australia, the Tribunal also processed 5,114 notices under the future act negotiation regime, and dealt with 169 future act determination applications.
The Tribunal also faced the challenge of rapid growth with intensive staff recruitment and the need to provide adequate training to carry out the functions of mediation and arbitration in a novel, complex and rapidly changing legal and political environment.
The need for resources to support these functions is an important issue for the Tribunal. The 1994/95 Budget allocation for the Tribunal was $9,241,450.
In August 1995 Cabinet approved a substantial increase in the Tribunal's budget to $20,041,000 for the 1995/96 financial year, representing an increase of approximately $11 million. This figure was intended to reduce in subsequent years to reflect the fact that the large increase predicted in claimant applications would occur through claimant groups asserting the right to negotiate in relation to grants of mineral tenements in Western Australia.
The increase in workload could be attributed not only to the Western Australian mining tenement procedures, but also to the combined effect of the High Court's Waanyi decision in February 1996 and the proposed introduction of significant amendments to the Act by the incoming Coalition Government in March 1996.
This increase in workload places significant pressure on the Tribunal, not only in relation to the mediation of native title applications, but also in relation to informing the community of the existence and nature of native title claims, and in providing appropriate research support to the mediation process.
In seeking to achieve the right conditions for mediation, the Tribunal often finds itself swimming in cross-currents of:
* legal opinion on the continued existence of native title, including questions of extinguishment;
* localised community sentiment antagonistic to acceptance of a continued Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander connection to the country which is claimed; and
* a reluctance to engage in the process of mediation from some interest groups who fear that those who hold interests in land may be pressured into diluting or impairing the quality or extent of that interest.
...
The
Tribunal's procedures operate as guidelines, and are administered in a way
which has regard to the requirements of
s. 109 of the Act.
The Tribunal must pursue the objective of carrying out its functions in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way. In conducting inquiries the Tribunal must take account of the cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders and is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence.
The Tribunal releases draft procedures to stakeholders for comment prior to amendment, and seeks comments through the liaison committee structure. Anyone who feels the procedures are applied unfairly may seek to review the decision of the Member or officer of the Tribunal in several ways.
Formal decisions or determinations of Members can be reviewed under the Act by appeal to the Federal Court. Administrative decisions made under the Act may be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Decisions made by the Registrar (or a delegate under the general procedures) may be reviewed by seeking a direction from the President under s. 97 of the Act.
The general procedures were amended twice during the reporting period. The first set of amendments was issued on 8 September 1995. These amendments accommodated the decision of Justice O'Loughlin in Northern Territory v Lane (1995) 59 FCR 332, in which His Honour considered applications ought to be registered on the Register of Native Title Claims when received by the Tribunal, rather than on acceptance of the application for mediation (see also the decision of the Full Federal Court in Kanak v National Native Title Tribunal (1995) 132 ALR 329). Justice O'Loughlin also decided there was no obligation on the Registrar to go beyond the material provided by the applicant (for example, by conducting searches of the current or historical land tenure of the area).
The effect in practice of the decision was that applications were more likely to be accepted, not because of any change in the threshold test for acceptance, but because the existence of potentially extinguishing events was less likely to be revealed. The amendments imposed a timeframe of three months for consideration of applications for acceptance, as immediate registration conferred a right to negotiate in relation to future acts affecting the land, and provided that no submissions from third parties were to be received in relation to the acceptance decision.
The amendments also provided a procedure in respect of unopposed applications consequent on the decision in Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, which cast doubt on the enforceability of determinations registered in the Federal Court as provided by the Act.
The second set of amendments was made in response to the Waanyi decision, when the High Court held the President and Registrar were not entitled to take into account any material other than that provided by the applicants when deciding whether an application should be accepted. The Registrar might, however, have regard to extrinsic evidence when it is apparent on the face of the application that it might be frivolous or vexatious.
The High Court also decided the President could not reject an application on forming a view of the law if the applicant's assertion of native title was fairly arguable. This meant the application was to be accepted unless there was no question that native title had been extinguished. The Tribunal guidelines for acceptance of application were revised accordingly to provide for referral of an application only if it was obvious on the face of the application that it included freehold (other than Crown freehold, in which a question of the extinguishment of native title by Crown to Crown grant arises, or Aboriginal freehold granted under legislation).
The amendments also set out new procedures for persons seeking party status after the close of notification. Under them, persons seeking to become a party after the close of notification were not formal parties to the application, but the Tribunal would facilitate discussions between the applicants and that person, considering such factors as the applicants' opinion, any explanation for lateness, and the period of time since notification ended.
The amendments replaced the draft mediation strategy with an appendix setting out Tribunal mediation procedures. These procedures expressed a framework within which mediation would be conducted. Importantly, the procedures set out indicative timeframes for mediation, which were revised from 16 months (set out in draft procedures) to 28 months as a result of concerns expressed at liaison committee meetings about the effect this would have on both indigenous and non-indigenous parties. The procedures also emphasised the role of the Tribunal in actively preparing options for parties' consideration by providing the Tribunal draft agreements and negotiation frameworks for progression of the application with the parties' consent.
Other amendments made in the 30 April 1996 procedures include:
* widespread dissemination of summary information about the application at lodgement is no longer carried out. In some States a limited and informal dissemination takes place at the request of the State Government and other key stakeholders;
* discarding the open file and working file in favour of a single file in which certain documents are available for public inspection. This brought the Tribunal system into line with the general philosophy of access to documents contained in the Freedom of Information Act, and resulted in time saved in administration;
* amendments to the map and land description specifications to respond to stakeholder concerns about references to colour maps, which were difficult to photocopy and transmit by facsimile; and
* provision for the Registrar to carry out current interest searches prior to acceptance to facilitate notification but, bearing in mind the Waanyi decision, not take them into account in deciding whether to accept an application.
...
Table 3a shows of the 367 claimant applications lodged by 30 June 1996, eight were referred to the Federal Court because no agreement was reached. Four of these were referred during the reporting period. Seven claims were rejected after referral to a Presidential Member but one of these, Waanyi (QC94/95), was accepted on 13 February 1996 after an appeal against the rejection was heard by the High Court. Eight applications were withdrawn by the applicant(s).
Table 3a Summary of claimant applications lodged with the Tribunal from 1 January 1994 to 30 June 1994
Table 3b Summary of non claimant applications lodged with the tribunal from 1 January 1994 to 30 June 1996
Table 3c Summary of objections to expedited procedure lodged with the Tribunal from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996
Table 3d Summary of compensation applications lodged with the Tribunal from 1 January 1994 to 30 June 1996
Effective management of the Tribunal's future acts process in Western Australia.
6.1 Protecting the rights of all parties engaged in the Tribunal's future acts process.
The Native Title Act provides a scheme for the protection of native title rights in relation to proposed future acts, that is, legislative or executive acts which may affect or impair native title. The statutory process also acts to protect the rights of other parties engaged in decision-making in regard to future acts. Through its role as a mediator and arbitrator in relation to future acts affecting native title, the Tribunal also serves the protection of native title and the establishment of standards for future dealings affecting it. The workload of the Tribunal arises from the provisions of the Act relating to the proposed grant of mining interests, and compulsory acquisitions for the benefit of third parties.
The future act unit was established in the Principal Registry of the Tribunal in Perth in May 1995 to manage arbitral functions arising from the notification of proposed future acts under Subdivision B of Division 3 of the Act.
Until the Western Australian government creates its own arbitral body the future act unit will continue to absorb this workload. In recognition of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will cease when an arbitral body is established in Western Australia under s. 27 of the Act most of the unit's staff are employed on fixed term contracts.
During the reporting period only the State of South Australia introduced its own arbitral body, the Environment and Resources Development Court. That court has jurisdiction concurrent with the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The Tribunal received 5,114 notices under s. 29 of the Act in Western Australia [98 per cent of which were in relation to the proposed grant of mining tenure] (figure 6.1 sets out the referrals made by the Western Australian Department of Minerals and Energy) 16 in New South Wales; and three in Queensland. None of the s. 29 notices received in states or territories other than in Western Australia contained a statement that the State considered the expedited procedure applied to the proposed grant.
Western Australia was the only state where applications for a determination in respect of a proposed future act were made (s. 35 application). Figure 6.2 shows the cumulative rate of notification notices by the Western Australian government.
Figure 6.1 Applications for mineral titles received as at 30 June 1996
Figure 6.2 Status of all Western Australian future act proposals
Figure 6.3 Status of expedited procedure notices
Figure 6.4 Status of non-expedited procedure notices
The future act unit received 93 objections to the inclusion of the expedited procedure, and 169 s. 35 applications for a determination in relation to a future act. The unit has developed its internal procedures and practices to manage this work flow. It has also revised the future act procedures in response to the decision of the Federal Court in Ward v State of Western Australia [1996] FCA 1452; (1996) 136 ALR 557 dealing with the considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether the expedited procedure applies and the decision of the Federal Court in Walley v State of Western Australia [1996] FCA 490; (1996) 137 ALR 561 dealing with the obligation on the Government party to negotiate in good faith.
The following points summarise the future act unit's workload in Western Australia for the 1995/96 reporting year:
* A total of 5,114 future act notices were advertised. Of these, 5,044 were in relation to mining tenement applications and a further 70 were related to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land by the Western Australian government;
* Of these, 3,695 [72.25 per cent] claimed the expedited procedure applied;
* Of the notices which claimed the expedited procedure applied (that is, exploration licences and prospecting licences), 95 per cent were granted without objection;
* A large proportion of future act notices [2,049 or 40 per cent] related to proposals to grant exploration licences;
* An average of 99 future act notices were advertised per week;
* There were 62 claimant native title determination applications lodged as at 30 June 1996 in response to future act notices, of these 55 were accepted, four were awaiting an acceptance decision, two were withdrawn and one was referred to the President and later withdrawn under s. 64;
* There were 93 objections lodged to the application of the expedited procedure, involving 196 tenements. At 30 June 1996 their status was:
35 [37.6 per cent] were withdrawn by the objector(s), or had lapsed following withdrawal of the proposal to grant the respective mineral tenement(s),
12 [12.9 per cent] were determined after inquiry that the proposed grant was not an act attracting the expedited procedure,
15 [16.1 per cent] were determined after inquiry that the expedited procedure applies,
10 [10.8 per cent] were reserved for determination (including 5 matters remitted to the Tribunal from the Federal Court for re-determination according to law),
17 [18.3 per cent] were awaiting initial directions, or scheduled for hearing, and
4 [4.3 per cent] were awaiting acceptance;
* In relation to objections to the expedited procedure there were 96 preliminary conferences (including adjournments), 70 listing hearings and 37 objection inquiry hearings conducted during the reporting period. The Tribunal travelled to locations in the field to hear evidence in 18 [49 per cent] of the 37 hearings conducted;
* The Tribunal issued 32 determinations in relation to objection applications:
15 of these applications (involving 38 tenements) determined that the expedited procedure applied and that the tenements were cleared for grant;
12 of these applications (involving 43 tenements) determined that the proposed grants were not acts attracting the expedited procedure. Accordingly, the Tribunal requested the parties in these applications to negotiate in good faith with the view to obtaining an agreement and offered assistance to mediate among parties; and
5 of these applications (involving 7 tenements) determined that the expedited procedure applied. However, on appeal the Federal Court set aside the determinations and remitted the applications to the Tribunal for re-determination according to law (see Ward v State of Western Australia [1996] FCA 1452; (1996) 136 ALR 557 ). At the close of the reporting period all five applications were reserved for decision.
169 future act determination applications were lodged with the Tribunal under s.35 of the Act, involving 247 tenements. The status of these as at 30 June 1996 was:
10 [5.9 per cent] had been withdrawn,
9 [5.3 per cent] were the subject of an agreement, or a proposed agreement to be lodged with the Tribunal in accordance with s. 34 of the Act,
5 [3.0 per cent] were heard at inquiry and reserved for determination,
1 [0.6 per cent] was part heard, and
144 [85.2 per cent] were awaiting initial directions, or the scheduling of an inquiry hearing;
* In relation to future act applications there were 197 preliminary conferences (including adjournments), 92 listing hearings and 5 inquiry hearings conducted during the reporting period;
* The five inquiry hearings referred to were regarded as test cases. They were conducted between April and May 1996, being the first s. 35 inquiries to be heard by the Tribunal. An earlier inquiry conducted on 24 October 1994 had dealt with preliminary issues only, and no determination resulted as the application was withdrawn; and
* Three applications were dealt with together by a panel of three Members. A second panel of three Members dealt with the other two applications. As at the close of the reporting period, the Tribunal had not issued determinations in respect of any of these applications. However, reasons for determination in respect of the first three inquiries were published on 21 June 1996.
Of the 70 notices submitted by the Department of Lands Administration in relation to compulsory acquisition, the majority were proposals for subdivisional developments, and granting of special leases. The purposes for which notices were given include: subdivisional development including the provision of services (such as power, roads, water, sewerage); motel/tavern and commercial or tourist development sites; special rural/residential subdivisional development sites; sale of lots for aged persons housing development; in perpetuity to Aboriginal corporations, for the purpose of residence and water supply; caravan park, and for an ostrich farm; grant of 21 year leases (conversion to freehold included) for horticultural purposes; and for an explosives reserve.
The right to negotiate procedures first issued 7 June 1995 were amended on 8 September 1995 to clarify the status of preliminary conferences so the preliminary conference and any adjourned conference, including the listing hearing, do not form part of the inquiry in relation to a proposed future act. A Member can conduct the conferences, but need not necessarily hear the inquiry itself. The Tribunal responded to comments from the Northern Territory government in introducing other minor amendments.
The procedures dealt with the inquiry process for the expedited procedure (in Western Australia this is applied to all applications for exploration, or 72 per cent of all notices).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRpr/1998/10.html