Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Indigenous Law Reporter

Editors --- "Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia - Case Summary" [2002] AUIndigLawRpr 28; (2002) 7(2) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 19

Court and Tribunal Decisions - Australia

Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia

Federal Court of Australia (Lindgren J)

11 February 2002

[2002] FCA 184

Native title — joinder of peak representative body of industry under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — whether representative body had interests which may be affected by a determination in the proceedings within s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — whether invitation from the National Native Title Tribunal to participate in mediation coupled with the fact of its participation gave the body such an interest — organisations being appointed under s 84B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to act as agents on behalf of its members who were respondents to the application

Facts:

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia Inc (the Chamber) was seeking an order under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) that it be a member of the ‘Group 5 respondents’ to the native title claim brought on behalf of the Wongatha People (the Claim) and be the representative of that Group. The Chamber had been invited by the National Native Title Tribunal (the Tribunal) to participate in a mediation before it in relation to the Claim.

Held:

1. An organisation that voices or promotes the concerns of its members does not, by that reason alone, have ‘interests [which] may be affected by a determination in the proceedings’ for the purposes of s 84(5) of the Act: [2]. Byron Environment Centre Incorporated v Arakwal People [1997] FCA 797; (1997) 78 FCR 1; Woodridge v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 419; (2001) 108 FCR 527 applied.

2. No property or activity of the Chamber itself may be affected by the Claim. Further, the Chamber had no specific interest, as distinct from the interest of its members, that may be affected by a determination in the Claim: [3].

3. The Tribunal invited the Chamber to participate in a mediation in relation to the Claim because of the interests of the Chamber’s members. When the Chamber responded, it did so because of the interests of its members rather than any interests of its own: [4].

4. The considerable activity in which the Chamber engages and the likelihood that the Chamber may be able to make submissions to the Court which any one of its member who is a party might not be in a position to make, do not signify that the Chamber has an interest for the purposes of s 84(5). Rather, they suggest advantages in the Chamber’s being appointed under s 84B of the Act as agent for one or more of its members who are parties to the Claim: [5].

Order

Notice of motion for an order joining the Chamber as a respondent party to the Claim dismissed. ?