Cameron, Re [2003] QLRT 20

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re G.L. Cameron [2003] QLRT 20 PARTIES: In the Matter of Application for Mining Lease No. 60338 by Glen Lionel Cameron FILE NO/S: AML00013/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 13 February 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 11 February 2003 PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that ML 60338 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. (at [33]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – PAST PERFORMANCE – QUESTION OF CANCELLED TENURES – SATISFACTORY PAST PERFORMANCE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 269 Sinclair v. Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473, applied Beattie v. McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A AGENT/S: Mr Cameron represented himself [1] SMITH DP: On 13 November 2002 Glen Lionel Cameron (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No. 60338 with the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for opal. -- 1 of 5 -- [2] No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application. [3] On 10 February 2003 I refused the Applicant’s Application to deal with this matter on the papers.1 A hearing was subsequently held on 11 February 2003. The Applicant gave evidence at the hearing. [4] In taking account of land considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act, I have relied on the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of the Applicant sworn on 9 December 2002. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicant with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this Application. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. [5] In considering this matter, I have also applied where relevant Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473 and Beattie v McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993. I have also considered the provisions of the Act, in particular ss 252, 269 and 276. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [6] On 13 November 2002, the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District, issued a Certificate of Application which was accepted by the Applicant on 13 November 2002. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only issue a Certificate of Application if satisfied that the Applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Application. [7] I note that the underlying tenure is a Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease. Native title issues are therefore not relevant to this Application. [8] In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this Application. Further, no material was in evidence before me to indicate any non-compliance with any relevant provisions of the Act. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [9] The Applicant’s evidence is that the land applied for is mineralised. The Applicant further disposes that the land is known to be mineralised because of “knowledge of the area. Prospected by hand. Surface trace”. The application area is within a known mineral producing area. This is confirmed by the Field Inspection Report of J. Barnes of 18 December 2002. [10] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the land applied for is mineralised. 1 See [2003] QLRT 18. -- 2 of 5 -- Section 269(4)(c) – If the land applied for is mineralised, will there be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for? [11] The material before me reveals the Applicant’s proposed mining operations and program, and shows appropriate development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. Section 269(4)(d) – Is the land and the surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease is sought of an appropriate size and shape? [12] The material before me appears to indicate a mining lease application of an appropriate size and shape in light of the Plan of Operations. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [13] The term sought for this mining lease is 10 years. Given the nature of the mining operations and the harsh weather conditions, in my view a term of 10 years is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [14] Documents and evidence provided to the Tribunal show that the Applicant has the financial capabilities to carry on the mining operations. [15] It is also clear from his experience that the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease. [16] I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [17] With respect to this criterion, I also rely on the evidence relating to s. 269(4)(f) above. [18] The Applicant has given evidence that he has been mining for opal, on and off, for 26 years. He has sworn, both in his Statutory Declaration and in oral evidence at the hearing, that no enforcement action has been taken against him. [19] As set out in my decision of 10 February 2003 in this matter, an issue of particular concern related to whether or not the Applicant had previously had tenures cancelled due to non-payment of annual rent. [20] On 11 February 2003, the Registrar of the Tribunal received a letter from the Acting Mining Registrar, Winton District Office, in the following terms: “Re: Glen Lionel Cameron Tribunal Matter AML00012/2003 & AML00013/2003 I refer to the above and cancelled Mining Claims 4717, 4718, 4719 & 4720 held by Mr Cameron. -- 3 of 5 -- Background History On 14 November 1990, Mining Lease Application 7308 was applied for by Mr Cameron over an area of land which included Mining Claims 4717. 4718, 4719 & 4720. Mining Lease 7308 was granted on the 27 August 1992. Mining Claims 4717, 4718, 4719 & 4720 were cancelled on 1 April 1993 for non-payment of rent. I am assuming that Mining Lease 7308 was a transitional application over the claims to enable the use of machinery on the area when granted, which was now prohibited on mining claims with the introduction of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The sketch maps attached to Mining Lease 7308, clearly show that the lease was pegged to encompass the claims. It appears that an error has occurred in processing and that Mining Claims 4717, 4718, 4719 & 4720 should have been cancelled (surrendered) on the 27 August 1992 when Mining Lease 7308 was granted over the area.” [21] During his evidence on 11 February 2003, the Applicant confirmed that ML 7308 was a transitional application over the mining claims to enable the use of machinery. [22] I commend both the Applicant and the Acting Mining Registrar for the speed in which this aspect of the Application was dealt with following my decision on 10 February 2003. [23] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s past performance has been satisfactory. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [24] The Applicant held PP 61095. There is nothing in the material to indicate any disadvantage to any other person. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [25] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management. The application area is within a known opal producing area. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [26] A draft environmental authority was issued on 20 November 2002, which requires the Applicant to carry out activities in accordance with the Standard Environmental Conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. I note that there was no objection to the terms of the draft environmental authority. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not adequately be dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [27] The material before me indicates that there are no public roads or other public utilities on the application area. -- 4 of 5 -- [28] There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. [29] The material presented before me also shows that there are no identified sites of historical interest or Aboriginal significance within the application area. If any such sites are identified, strategies for their protection or site avoidance can be implemented. I also note the requirements of various enactments protecting cultural heritage and note the requirements on the Applicant pursuant to that legislation to protect any sites of indigenous significance should they be located during the mining operations. [30] I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this mining lease be granted. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [31] There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [32] The materials show that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource in accordance with the environmental processes. The Application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [33] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Mining Lease No. 60338 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. -- 5 of 5 --