Baumann, Re [2005] QLRT 153

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Baumann v Wilson [2005] QLRT 153 PARTIES: In the matter of Appeal by Juergen Ruediger Baumann against the decision of the Mining Registrar at Georgetown. FILE NO/S: AML165/05 PROCEEDING: Appeal against Mining Registrar DELIVERED ON: 17 November 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Appeal refused. (at [12]) CATCHWORDS: APPEAL - PARCEL - PROSPECTING PERMIT - SECURITY DEPOSIT - FIRE DANGER Mineral Resources Act 1989 s. 39 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an appeal by Juergen Ruediger Baumann under s. 39 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) against the decision of the Mining Registrar at Georgetown in relation to the imposition of a security deposit of $1000.00 in respect of a parcel prospecting permit. [2] By direction of the President of the Tribunal, this matter is to be determined on the basis of written material submitted by the appellant and the statement of reasons supplied by the Mining Registrar. [3] On 27 September 2005, the appellant made application for a parcel prosecting permit under section 21 of the act. The appellant intends to prospect in the area which he describes at Lot 2573 on PH2065 in the County of Lang, Parish of Barra. The land is south-west of Forsayth in the local authority area of Etheridge. [4] The appellant states he has been the holder of previous permits where the security deposit required by the Registrar was the sum of $100.00. The Registrar now requires a security deposit of $1000.00 for the current application. It is against this -- 1 of 2 -- determination that the appellant now appeals, submitting that there is no reason for such an increase, and asking that the decision of the Registrar be set aside. [5] The Registrar, in his statement of reasons, indicates that there is a “high degree of risk that the motor vehicle or vehicles used by the applicant for the prospecting permit may cause a grass fire when traversing the subject property, either when in motion or when stationary”. The Registrar considers that any fire “would have the potential to destroy any property or improvements such as fence posts, gate posts, stockyards and lick sheds” [6] The Registrar asserts that he is aware of the risks of potential fire danger because of his other responsibilities as the chief Fire Warden for the District. He states he is aware of the high fire danger in the general location of the property over which the permit is sought, and the general intention of the appellant to traverse the subject property by vehicle. [7] I accept that there would be some improvements of the type referred to by the Registrar on the property in question. There is no detailed information or valuation of such improvements. However, it must be acknowledged that there has been a substantial period of adverse weather conditions brought about by a lack of rainfall in many parts of the state. I am satisfied that the Registrar would have the knowledge about his own area to arrive at the conclusion that he has reached. [8] I am not prepared to accept that the third party insurance policy of any motor vehicle is sufficient to protect the property owner. There must be independent written verification of this fact before any reliance could be placed on it. In addition, the owner of the vehicle must be the one and same as the holder of the prospecting permit. Any variation could void the policy and leave the landowner bearing the loss. [9] There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any code of conduct which would bind the appellant to comply with any requirements. The appellant has not suggested that he will observe any conditions that would afford some protection to the property owner. [10] I therefore consider that the determination of the Registrar in assessing the security deposit at $1000.00, where there is a high fire danger brought about by the lack of rainfall and the presence of a body of dry grass or vegetation, is justified. [11] Where there has been a lack of rainfall and there is a body of grass or vegetation present, I would further suggest that this and any other permit be conditioned as follows:  Where possible, formed roads and tracks are utilised;  Vehicles be parked in an area that is safe or has been made safe;  Vehicles be not left unattended until any period of risk has passed;  A hand pump or spray with a water supply is used where there is any danger of ignition;  The holder of any permit keep a written record of times and dates when he/she has entered the property the subject of the permit. [12] The appeal is refused. -- 2 of 2 --