Alagrow Pty Ltd, Re [2002] QLRT 12

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Alagrow Pty Ltd [2002] QLRT 12 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease 70264 - Application by Alagrow Pty Ltd FILE NO/S: AML00116/2001 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 3 April 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 3 April 2002 PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: Application adjourned to a date to be fixed, with leave to each party to bring the matter back before the Tribunal on giving the other 2 days notice in writing. at ([7]) CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – NON-EXCLUSIVE LAND – NATIVE TITLE PROVISIONS – ADJOURNMENT Mineral Resources Act 1989, s. 269(4)(c) Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and State of Queensland [2002] FCA 58 COUNSEL: Ms Bowskill for the State of Queensland SOLICITORS: Crown Law for the State of Queensland [1] KINGHAM DP: The Applicant has applied for a mining lease to mine zeolite over a 26.92ha area of land. The underlying land tenure is a pastoral lease, the grant of which did not necessarily extinguish native title. The application was adjourned until today to enable the Applicant and the State of Queensland to consider the effect of the decision of his Honour Justice Wilcox in the Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal -- 1 of 3 -- Corporation v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and State of Queensland [2002] FCA 58 (“the CQLCAC case”). [2] In the CQLCAC case, Wilcox J decided that the Commonwealth Attorney-General had erred in relying on uncommenced provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the MRA) in making determinations under s. 43(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth) (the NTA) that these provisions complied with the requirements of s. 43(2) of the NTA. [3] The Applicant and the State of Queensland have both made written and oral submissions that I have taken into account in making my decision. The Applicant has requested that the Tribunal proceed to deal with this matter immediately. The State has requested that the matter be adjourned pending the outcome of an appeal lodged by the Commonwealth and the State against the CQLCAC case. [4] I do not consider the effect of the CQLCAC case is to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction to consider this matter. Nevertheless, I accept the State’s submission that, pursuant to s. 269(4)(l), the question of whether the grant of a mining lease at this stage would be invalid as a result of the operation of s. 25(4) of the NTA is a relevant matter for me to consider. [5] There is no evidence before me that the requirements of the NTA have been complied with. As the State made clear in its submissions, there can be no reflection on the company in this regard as the company was proceeding under provisions of the MRA which, at that time, were considered to be valid and operative. Nevertheless it is possible that, were action taken under the NTA to comply with the relevant provisions, an application could be made by a person or group for registration as a native title claimant. [6] In the circumstances, it is likely that, were I to proceed in this matter at this point, I would recommend to the Minister that the lease not be granted, not on the merits of the case but because of the situation of uncertainty in relation to native title. I consider it is in the best interests of all parties if this matter is adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal. -- 2 of 3 -- [7] The Applicant has requested that the Tribunal immediately proceed to deal with the application once the outcome of the appeal is known. This matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed, with leave to either party to bring the matter back on before the Tribunal on giving the other 2 days notice, so that it can be dealt with expeditiously once the outcome of the appeal is known. -- 3 of 3 --