Equigold NL v The Wakka Wakka #2 People & the State of Queensland [2004] QLRT 130

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Equigold NL v The Wakka Wakka #2 People & the State of Queensland [2004] QLRT 130 PARTIES: Equigold NL (Applicant) and The Wakka Wakka #2 People & the State of Queensland (Respondents) FILE NO/S: NTC158/2004 PROCEEDING: Application for compensation trust decision DELIVERED ON: 27 October 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 October 2004 PRESIDING MEMBERS: Koppenol P and Kingham DP ORDER/S: Application for compensation trust decision declined. (at [3]) CATCHWORDS: HIGH IMPACT EXPLORATION PERMIT – COMPENSATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 491A(3)(b), 675(2), 707, 718 COUNSEL: Mr A. Preston for the Wakka Wakka #2 People SOLICITORS: Ms Z. Farmer for the Applicant Mr R. Beausang for the State of Queensland AGENT/S: N/A [1] This is an application for a compensation trust decision under Part 18 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA). The Applicant is the holder of a high impact exploration permit for minerals (EPM 10566). On 15 March 2001, the Applicant applied to include in EPM 10566 the Mt Perry Forest Reserve (described in Plan AP 6291). That land is the subject of a native title claim by the Wakka Wakka #2 People. The land is “non-exclusive” land (as defined in s. 422 of the MRA). An application for a native title issues decision is the subject of a decision handed down by the Tribunal today. [2] After the matter was referred to the Tribunal for a native title issues decision relating to the addition of the land, the Applicant requested the Tribunal make a -- 1 of 2 -- compensation trust decision at the same time. It was common ground between the parties that the Tribunal is not required to make a compensation trust decision in the circumstances of this case.1 The Wakka Wakka #2 People submitted that there was no agreement reached as to compensation and their representative held no instructions regarding the compensation trust decision at the hearing. The State of Queensland made submissions regarding the matters to be considered in determining compensation but made no submissions as to whether the Tribunal should make such a decision. [3] For the following reasons, we have declined the application for a compensation trust decision:  The application was made only shortly before the hearing and no directions were made or sought as to the submission of material in relation to such a decision;  There was no agreement between the parties as to the compensation payable;  None of the parties adduced any evidence as to the matters the Tribunal must consider pursuant to s. 707 MRA;  A compensation trust decision is not a pre-requisite to the Minister adding the forest reserve to the exploration permit;  The Applicant will not suffer any detriment if a compensation trust decision is not made;  The Wakka Wakka #2 People retain the right to apply for a compensation trust decision after the forest reserve is added to the exploration permit.2 1 Cf applications for an access agreement for low impact exploration permits (s.491A(3)(b) MRA) and applications for a native title issues decision for a mining lease (s. 675(2) MRA) for which a compensation trust decision must be made at the same time. 2 s. 718 MRA. -- 2 of 2 --