Christie v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2026] QCAT 333

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Christie v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2026] QCAT 333 PARTIES: ANDREW CHRISTIE (applicant) v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR453-25 & GAR493-25 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 27 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 25 June 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Cosgrave ORDERS: The Tribunal confirms the Respondent’s 24 June 2025 internal review decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a permit to enter the Black Canyon (Albert River Gorge) Restricted Access Area within Lamington National Park. The Tribunal confirms the Respondent’s 10 July 2025 internal review decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a permit to enter the Coomera Gorge Restricted Access Area within Lamington National Park. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decisions to refuse restricted access area permits – canyoning in national park – where applicant sought permits to conduct canyoning trips through Black Canyon (Albert River Gorge) and Coomera Gorge in Lamington National Park – where both areas declared Restricted Access Areas under s 28 of the Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2024 (Qld) – whether proposed canyoning activities inconsistent with management principles under s 76(1)(a) – whether activities inconsistent with Management Plan s 4.5.3 under s 76(1)(b) – whether insurance precondition in s 77(2) satisfied – application of precautionary principle under s 115(1)(g) – cumulative impact under s 115(1)(m) – fair and equitable access under s 115(1)(d) – orderly and -- 1 of 15 -- 2 proper management under s 115(1)(n) – public interest under s 115(1)(i) – partial invalidity of applications under ss 8 and 90 – applications dismissed – decisions confirmed. Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld), s 17(1), s 17(2), s 143D, s 143I(1), s 143I(2) Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2024 (Qld), s 8, s 28, s 76(1), s 77(2), s 90, s 115(1), s 119 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Dr McGrath of DETSI, instructed by Mr Rush of DETSI. REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] These proceedings concern applications by Mr Andrew Christie (‘Applicant’) for review of decisions by the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (‘DETSI’ or the ‘Respondent’) to refuse two applications for Restricted Access Area permits (‘RAA permits’) to conduct canyoning trips in Lamington National Park, Queensland. [2] Mr Christie’s two applications for review – GAR453-25 (Black Canyon, also known as the Albert River Gorge) and GAR493-25 (Coomera Gorge) – were heard together on 25 June 2026 but remain separate proceedings. The Applicant’s grounds of review are the same in both applications. For convenience, and unless a distinction between the two sites is necessary, these reasons address both applications together. Background The Restricted Access Area declarations [3] On 6 March 2024, DETSI declared a Restricted Access Area in relation to Black Canyon (Albert River Gorge) and a separate Restricted Access Area in relation to Coomera Gorge (each an RAA), both within Lamington National Park. The declarations were made under s 28 of the Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2024 (Qld) (‘NCPAM Regulation’), a subordinate legislation under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (‘NCA’). [4] Each declaration had the stated purpose of protecting rare and threatened species and critical, sensitive habitat from impacts caused by visitor access. The RAA declarations formed part of a broader strategy to achieve greater protection of the World Heritage Tweed Caldera area within the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area (‘GRWHA’). [5] NCPAM defines an RAA as ‘an area declared to be a restricted access area under section 28.’ The Respondent’s chief executive can declare an RAA following a -- 2 of 15 -- 3 statutory process specified in s 28. RAAs appear, in the context of Lamington National Park, to be one of the tools DETSI uses to manage the park. [6] Lamington National Park is managed in accordance with the management principles in the NCA and the World Heritage Convention and is subject to the Lamington National Park Management Plan 2011 (‘Management Plan’). The Management Plan addresses rock climbing and cliff-based activities at s 4.5.3. The permit applications [7] On 13 March 2025, Mr Christie applied to DETSI for two RAA permits to conduct canyoning trips through Black Canyon and Coomera Gorge respectively. The proposed activity involved groups of four to six persons led by Mr Christie four to six times a year. The activity would involve water entry, navigation of the canyon floor, rappelling or abseiling down waterfalls using ropes and hardware, and exiting the canyons. [8] On 13 May 2025, DETSI refused the Black Canyon application, and on 19 May 2025 refused the Coomera Gorge application. The refusals were made by a delegate of the chief executive of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (‘QPWS’) which comes under DETSI. [9] The stated grounds for refusal included: (a) inconsistency with the management principles for Lamington National Park under s 76(1)(a) of the NCPAM Regulation; (b) inconsistency with s 4.5.3 of the Management Plan under s 76(1)(b) of the NCPAM Regulation; (c) failure to satisfy the insurance precondition under s 77(2) of the NCPAM Regulation; and (d) considerations under s 115(1) of the NCPAM Regulation including the precautionary principle (s 115(1)(g)), cumulative impact (s 115(1)(m)), public interest (s 115(1)(i)), and orderly and proper management of the area (s 115(1)(n)). Internal reviews and proceedings [10] Mr Christie applied for internal review of each decision. DETSI confirmed the Black Canyon refusal on internal review on 24 June 2025. The Coomera Gorge refusal was confirmed on internal review on 10 July 2025 (‘the Review Decisions’). [11] Mr Christie filed his applications for review in this Tribunal on 21 July 2025 (GAR453-25, Black Canyon) and 5 August 2025 (GAR493-25, Coomera Gorge). The Legislative framework The nature conservation laws and regulations [12] Section 17 of the NCA sets out the management principles. [13] Section 17(1)(a) of the NCA requires that a park be managed to provide, to the fullest extent possible, for permanently preserving the area’s natural condition and the protection of the area’s cultural resources and values (‘the preservation principle’). -- 3 of 15 -- 4 [14] Section 17(2) of the NCA says that the preservation principle is the cardinal management objective. [15] The NCPAM Regulation is subordinate legislation made under the NCA. [16] Section 76(1) of the NCPAM Regulation provides that the chief executive may not grant an activity permit for a protected area if the activity would be inconsistent with: (a) the management principles that apply to the area; or (b) the management plan for the area. [17] Section 77(2) of the NCPAM Regulation provides that the chief executive may grant an activity permit only if the chief executive considers there is adequate insurance cover for the activities proposed to be conducted under the permit. [18] Section 115(1) of the NCPAM Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters to which the chief executive must have regard in considering an application for an activity permit. [19] The QPWS Operational Policy for RAA permits (QPW/2013/819 v2.01) (‘QPWS Policy’) provides that a permit to enter a RAA will only be issued when the proposed use is consistent with: ‘(a) the purpose for which the RAA has been declared; (b) the management principles for the protected area; and (c) the provisions of any approved management plan’. QCAT’s Jurisdiction [20] The decision whether or not to grant a restricted access area permit is a reviewable decision under the NCA. The internal review notices issued by DETSI in both matters expressly stated that the Applicant had the right to appeal to this Tribunal under s 119 of the NCPAM Regulation. [21] Before applying to this Tribunal, an affected person must first seek internal review of the original decision. That requirement is imposed by s 143D of the NCA, which provides that an affected person may apply to QCAT for review of a decision only if a decision on an application for internal review has been made, or taken to have been made, under NCA Part 8A Division 2. [22] Mr Christie satisfied the prerequisite in each matter he applied for: the internal review of each refusal decision, and the internal review decisions confirming refusal were issued on 24 June 2025 (Black Canyon) and 10 July 2025 (Coomera Gorge). [23] The external review right is conferred by s 143I of the NCA. Section 143I(1) applies to a person who is given, or is entitled to be given, a QCAT information notice for an internal review decision. Section 143I(2) provides that such a person may apply to QCAT, as provided under the QCAT Act, for a review of the internal review decision. [24] DETSI issued QCAT information notices to the Applicant with each of the internal review decisions. The Applicant filed his applications for review within the 28 day period required by s 119 of the NCPAM Regulation. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine both applications. [25] Under s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), the Tribunal must decide what the correct or preferable decision is, having regard to the material before it. The review is a merits review, where the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and applies the relevant statutory provisions afresh to the evidence before it. The Tribunal is not limited to the -- 4 of 15 -- 5 grounds relied upon by the delegate or the internal reviewer, and may affirm, vary or set aside the decisions under review. The Evidence Mr Christie’s evidence [26] Mr Christie relied on the documentary evidence he tendered in conjunction with his submissions. He did not call any expert ecological evidence. He explained that he would have engaged an expert witness if a suitable person had been available at no cost, but was unable to do so. [27] Acknowledging that he only made submissions and did not give testimony, the Tribunal finds that Mr Christie was credible. He qualified his arguments in light of the evidence and DETSI’s submissions, made concessions and applied an exacting scrutiny to Mr Weber’s testimony. [28] Mr Christie filed a witness statement on 18 June 2026 responding to the Respondent’s evidence and submissions. He relied on photographs of the canyon interiors sourced from ropewiki.com as well as two photographs included in Mr Weber’s report (‘Weber Report’) showing Coomera Canyon’s interior and floor. [29] He also submitted: (a) a Response to Respondent’s Written Submissions filed 25 May 2026; (b) Applicant Written Submissions filed 27 May 2026; (c) a witness statement from Mr Hayden Bentley, Policy and Legal Officer of the Australian Climbing Association (Queensland) Inc (‘ACAQ’), filed on 9 April 2026. ACAQ is the recognised peak body for recreational climbing in Queensland and a member of Outdoors Queensland. Mr Bentley’s statement addressed the consultation process conducted by QPWS prior to the RAA declarations and information obtained through a Right to Information request that ACAQ lodged in March 2024; and (d) further submissions filed shortly before the hearing. [30] He tendered a Right to Information (‘RTI’) response (RTI 25-358, received 11 June 2026) relating to visitor numbers and the impacts of canyoning in Lamington National Park. That response confirmed that DETSI holds no data on visitor numbers in the canyon areas or on the actual impacts of canyoning in the Park at any relevant time. DETSI’s evidence [31] DETSI relied principally on the evidence of Mr Weber, an ecologist engaged by DETSI. Mr Weber conducted ecological surveys of the relevant areas in 2021 and again in 2025. The Weber Report was filed as part of the Respondent’s evidence. Mr Weber gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by the Applicant. [32] Mr Weber’s surveys covered the broader study areas associated with the two RAAs, including areas adjacent to the public walking tracks (the Albert River Circuit and the Coomera Circuit). The surveys did not include physical entry into the true canyon floors, being the specific areas that are the subject of Mr Christie’s permit applications. Mr Weber was unable to safely access those canyon floors. In respect of -- 5 of 15 -- 6 part of the western side of one canyon, he relied on binoculars and long-range photography. [33] Mr Weber acknowledged in cross-examination that budgetary and safety constraints prevented physical entry into the core canyon areas. He stated that he conducted his surveys as far as possible in compliance with Queensland’s methodology for surveying regional ecosystems, notwithstanding those constraints. I accept his explanation as credible. [34] Mr Weber’s surveys identified multiple threatened species and ecological communities in the areas surrounding but not within the true canyon floors. He identified multiple pathways of potential ecological harm that could result from canyoning activities, including: (a) introduction of pathogens such as Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and Phytophthora via footwear and equipment; (b) microplastic and nanoplastic contamination from synthetic canyoning gear; disturbance of saxicoline biota; (c) trampling of spray zone plant communities; and (d) risk to aquatic invertebrates and crayfish. [35] The Respondent also relied on the written submissions of Mr Matthew Sutton filed 13 February 2026, and further submissions and a witness statement from Mr Lachlan Rush of QPWS filed 29 May 2026. Issues for determination [36] The parties agreed that the following issues are relevant: (a) Issue 1: Consistency with management principles – s 76(1)(a) of the NCPAM Regulation (b) Issue 2: Consistency with the management principles – s 76(1)(b) of the NCPAM Regulation (c) Issue 3: Insurance - s 77(2) of the NCPAM Regulation (d) Issue 4: Impact and the Precautionary principle – s 115(1)(c) and (g) of the NCPAM Regulation (e) Issue 5: Cumulative impact – s 115(1)(m) of the NCPAM Regulation (f) Issue 6: Public interest – s 115(1)(i) of the NCPAM Regulation (g) Issue 7: Fair and equitable access - s 115(1)(d) of the NCPAM Regulation (h) Issue 8: Orderly and proper management – s 115(1)(n) of the NCPAM Regulation (i) Issue 9: Partial invalidity of the applications – ss 8 and 90 of the NCPAM Regulation [37] Mr Christie’s submissions had raised arguments whether the RAAs in question were validly declared. -- 6 of 15 -- 7 [38] He also tendered evidence going to the substance of that validity challenge, including the statement of Mr Hayden Bentley addressing material obtained by ACAQ under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) concerning the process by which the RAAs were declared, and images proposing amended or excised boundaries for the RAAs. [39] The Tribunal explained to both parties that, as Mr Christie’s applications for review both went only to reviewing DETSI’s refusal to grant his permit applications, it could not consider this part of Mr Christie’s submissions. The Tribunal also explained that there was no clear path to reviewing the validity of an RAA declaration in either the NCA or the NCPAM Regulation. [40] Consistent with this jurisdictional limitation, the Tribunal has only considered the evidence only as it goes to the correctness of the decisions to refuse Mr Christie’s permit applications. The Tribunal has given no weight to anything in the evidence going to the validity or appropriateness of the RAA declarations themselves. Findings and reasons Issue 1: Consistency with the management principles - s 76(1)(a) [41] Section 76(1)(a) of the NCPAM Regulation provides that the chief executive may not grant an activity permit if the activity would be inconsistent with the management principles (including the preservation principle), its interim or declared management intent, its management plan or its conservation agreement for the area in question. [42] Section 17(1)(a) of the NCA sets out the preservation principle. [43] Section 17(2) of the NCA designates this preservation principle as the cardinal principle. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘cardinal’ as ‘of prime importance; chief; principal.’ When describing concepts or rules, it signifies something fundamental, paramount, or that on which everything else depends. [44] Mr Christie submitted that s 17 of the NCA contemplates a balance among multiple management principles, including ecologically sustainable use (s 17(1)(b)) and appreciation and enjoyment of the park’s resources (s 17(1)(c)). He argued that the preservation principle should not be read as excluding all recreational use, particularly in remote canyon floors that are rarely visited. [45] The Tribunal cannot accept Mr Christie’s submission for the following reasons. [46] Section 17(2) of the NCA says that ‘The preservation principle mentioned in subsection (1) (a) is the cardinal principle for the management of national parks.’ [47] The Tribunal considers that granting a permit for canyoning through a declared RAA, an area closed to public access, is inconsistent with managing that area consistent with the preservation principle because granting a permit risks introducing physical human presence, water entry, rope and hardware use, and potential pathogen transfer into an area closed for the purposes of preventing such risks. Declaring an RAA under s 28 of NCPAM is itself an operative expression of the preservation principle. [48] The Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 1 because it considers that granting a permit as sought by Mr Christie would be inconsistent with the preservation principle. -- 7 of 15 -- 8 Issue 2: Consistency with the Management Plan - s 76(1)(b) [49] Section 4.5.3 of the Management Plan addresses rock climbing and cliff-based activities in Lamington National Park. A table in that section expressly states that rock climbing and other cliff-based activities are not to be permitted in declared RAAs. Canyoning is included as a cliff-based activity for the purposes of s 4.5.3. [50] Mr Christie submitted that s 4.5.3 does not categorically prohibit canyoning and that other provisions of that section address permitted activities in remote areas and the desired outcome that cliff-based activities be conducted in a safe and controlled manner with minimal environmental impacts. He argued his proposals for canyoneering contained in his permit applications (characterised by small groups, an experienced leader, no new bolts) were consistent with that desired outcome. [51] The Tribunal does not agree with his submission because the prohibition in the table at s 4.5.3 is unambiguous. Cliff-based activities are not to be permitted in declared RAAs. That prohibition is not qualified by exceptions for small groups, experienced leaders, or low-impact technique. What Mr Christie relies upon addresses access in park areas outside declared RAAs and do not weaken the express prohibition on such activities within RAAs. To read those provisions as qualifying the prohibition would render them meaningless and contrary to the principles of statutory construction. [52] Mr Christie also relied on a letter of consent for canyoning in Gibraltar Range National Park and the Dorrigo National Park Plan of Management, both in New South Wales, which permit canyoning subject to conditions. These parks are in another jurisdiction, governed by different legislation and management plans made under a different statutory scheme. They are not a valid comparator for, and do not inform the proper construction or application of, s 4.5.3 of the Management Plan, made under Queensland law. Because of these facts, the Tribunal gives them no weight on that question. [53] Section 76(1)(b) of the NCPAM Regulation gives a discretion to not grant a permit for activities in a protected area where the proposed activities are inconsistent with an area’s management principles (including the preservation principle), intent, plan or conservation agreement. Because of the considerations set out above, the Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 2. Issue 3: Insurance - s 77(2) [54] Section 77(2) provides that the chief executive may grant an activity permit only if the chief executive considers there is adequate insurance cover for the activities proposed. [55] On 24 March 2025, DETSI asked Mr Christie to provide evidence of, or the ability to obtain, $20 million public liability insurance explicitly naming himself and covering the specific proposed activities, including participant coverage and departmental indemnity. [56] Mr Christie provided certificates of currency for the Northern Rivers Outdoor Adventure Club (‘NROAC’), of which he told the Tribunal that he was a member. He submitted at hearing that insurance coverage details were available online through the NROAC’s website or that of Bushwalking NSW. [57] There are multiple gaps with what he provided to DETSI. There is no documentary evidence before the Tribunal that: -- 8 of 15 -- 9 (a) Mr Christie is an NROAC member; (b) Mr Christie is personally covered by the NROAC’s policy; (c) the insurer has been notified of the specific proposed canyoning activities; or (d) the policy explicitly covers those activities, names Mr Christie, provides the required $20 million cover, covers the proposed participants, and indemnifies the Respondent. A certificate of currency for a club is not adequate evidence of personal coverage for an individual member for specific activities in a specific location. [58] Mr Christie also submitted that the insurance requirement was premature or unreasonably onerous for non-commercial, club-based canyoning. The Tribunal does not accept that submission because s 77(2) imposes the same condition regardless of whether the proposed activity is commercial or recreational. [59] Mr Christie also submitted that he had offered to provide or negotiate revised policy wording addressing the specific gaps identified, and that the Respondent did not respond to that offer. [60] Even if the Tribunal accepted this submission, it does not solve the gaps in what Mr Christie offered DETSI in support of his permit applications. The onus rests on Mr Christie to establish, on the material before the chief executive and now before the Tribunal, that adequate insurance cover is in place. An unanswered offer to negotiate wording is not itself evidence of adequate cover, and DETSI’s silence after Mr Christie’s offers does not shift that onus. [61] The Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 3. Issue 4: Impact and the Precautionary principle - s 115(1)(c) and (g) [62] Section 115(1)(c) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the impact the activities proposed to be conducted under the authority may have on the conservation of the cultural or natural resources of the area. [63] Section 115(1)(g) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the precautionary principle. [64] Section 115(3) defines the precautionary principle as ‘the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent threatening processes.’ [65] Mr Christie’s principal argument on this issue was that the Weber Report does not assess the true canyon floors which he contends are the specific areas he proposes to access. As the Tribunal understands Mr Christie, he is arguing that DETSI has provided insufficient evidence to support a decision under s 115(1)(c) and (g). [66] He submitted that, on the basis of photographs from ropewiki.com and the Weber Report’s two photos, the true canyon interiors are characterised by cold, dark, flood- swept sections of riverbed with either limited species diversity or devoid of flora and fauna entirely, and that the area is unlikely to support significant populations of threatened species. He also conceded, following the Tribunal’s questions, that the -- 9 of 15 -- 10 nature and extent of flora in the canyons and canyon floor would fluctuate due to destructive seasonal flooding. [67] The Tribunal accepts that the Weber Report does not include physical survey data from within the true canyon floors. This is a limitation in the Respondent’s evidence. Mr Weber credibly conceded this in his testimony. [68] However, the lack of site-specific survey data from the canyon floors does not allow anyone to then infer that the canyon floors are ecologically insignificant. [69] The Tribunal considers that, when the precautionary principle is applied as part of the consideration of an application for a protected area authority, it works to tell a decision maker that a lack of full scientific certainty must not hold back taking action to prevent processes that pose a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. [70] Mr Christie also submitted that the specimens Mr Weber did record (including the (New Zealand) Lime Fern, a Fleay’s frog, and a Euastacus Binzayedi crayfish) were located outside the RAAs, on or near the public walking tracks, and not within the true canyon floors his proposed canyoning permits would traverse. [71] This argument does not assist Mr Christie. The absence of a recorded specimen within the narrow canyon floor at the specific point of time when Mr Weber conducted his survey does not prove the absence of ecological value there, particularly given Mr Weber’s evidence that he could not safely survey that specific area. [72] The Tribunal also considers that the relevant question, applying the precautionary principle is whether there is a plausible threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. It is not whether particular species have already been positively identified within the exact footprint of the proposed activity. That threat, identified through the pathways set out below, does not depend on any species being at the specific location in question. [73] Mr Christie also contended that DETSI’s reliance on the precautionary principle is disingenuous, given that his offer to guide Mr Weber through the canyons was not taken up, and his own applications to conduct research entries were refused by DETSI. [74] The Tribunal does not accept this contention. The precautionary principle addresses the state of scientific knowledge, not the reason for any gap in this knowledge. Even if entry to an RAA had been permitted for research purposes, that would not have altered the position under s 115(1)(g). [75] Mr Weber’s identified pathways of potential harm arise from the nature of the proposed canyoning activity itself, not from any deficiency in survey coverage that further access might have cured. The refusal of access does not weaken the case for applying the precautionary principle to the permit applications actually before the Tribunal. [76] The precautionary principle does not require proof of harm. Instead, it requires a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty. [77] Mr Weber identified multiple pathways of potential harm that are scientifically plausible and recognised in ecological literature – pathogen introduction, microplastic contamination, disturbance of saxicoline biota, and trampling of spray zone communities. His identification of these also identifies their uncertainty and the risk they pose as threats. -- 10 of 15 -- 11 [78] Those pathways and the uncertainty they bring are not negated by the absence of a baseline survey of the canyon floors. Mr Christie’s proposed canyoning activity may crystallise those risks regardless of what any such survey might show. [79] The precautionary principle is engaged precisely because of the uncertainty, and the RAA declaration reflects DETSI’s considered judgment that the conservative approach which excludes all recreational visitor access is the appropriate response in a World Heritage Area of exceptional biological diversity. [80] The Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 4. Issue 5: Cumulative impact - s 115(1)(m) [81] Section 115(1)(m) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the likely cumulative effect of the proposed use and other uses on the area. [82] Mr Christie submitted that cumulative impact of his proposed use was manageable and that DETSI had provided no data on visitor numbers, impact measurements, or comparisons with other national parks. The RTI 25-358 response confirmed that DETSI holds no such data. Mr Christie also proposed an initial research project to the two RAA sites to determine sustainability. [83] The absence of visitor numbers or historical impact measurement data does not assist Mr Christie. In terms of s 115, cumulative impact must be assessed prospectively. [84] Each category of harm identified by Mr Weber is inherently and prospectively cumulative. Repeated visits compound the risk of damage over time. Further, granting a permit to one applicant for canyoning establishes a precedent and may generate demand from other groups for access to the same or similar areas or to conduct similar activities. [85] The Coomera Falls Lookout provides a line of sight to the final abseil of the Coomera Gorge canyoning route. Park visitors at the lookout would see the canyoneering party. It is conceivable that video of the canyoning party may be taken and then posted on social media. Social media visibility of the canyoning activity would foreseeably generate further applications that DETSI would be obliged to consider equitably. [86] Mr Christie compared his proposed canyoning activity with the annual Lamington Classic running event, which permits up to around 100 participants on formed tracks of up to 42 kilometres, and submitted that the cumulative impact of that event is left unaddressed while his much smaller proposed activity is refused. That comparison does not assist Mr Christie. The Lamington Classic operates on existing public tracks under separate event conditions. These characteristics means the Lamington Classic carries little comparative weight in considering whether access into an RAA for canyoning should be permitted. [87] Mr Christie’s proposal to conduct a research project as a precursor to evaluating sustainability effectively concedes that there is a lack of evidence needed to answer and overturn the cumulative impact factor. Because of the lack of evidence and the application of the precautionary principle, combined with the need to better assess and address the likely cumulative impact, the Tribunal considers that Mr Christie’s argument is not sufficient to overcome s 115(1)(m). [88] The Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 5. -- 11 of 15 -- 12 Issue 6: Public interest - s 115(1)(i) [89] Section 115(1)(i) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the public interest. [90] As part of the Management Plan review process, the Black Canyon and Coomera Gorge RAAs were the subject of public consultation as required by NCPAM. Preserving the RAAs’ integrity and intent is part of upholding long-term conservation outcomes for the GRWHA. [91] Mr Christie’s public interest submissions substantially reprise his challenge to the validity of the RAA declarations, which the Tribunal has already determined it will not consider for the reasons given above. [92] To the extent that Mr Christie advances an independent public interest argument distinct from that challenge, the Tribunal identifies it as a general submission that recreational access of the type he seeks permits for ought to be permitted. [93] Recreational enjoyment is a legitimate but specific public interest. By itself, it cannot outweigh the broader public interest in maintaining the conservation values of a World Heritage Area, particularly where those values are protected by declared RAAs which are also the locations of the proposed recreational activity. [94] Mr Christie’s submissions also weaken his argument on this point. He stated that, while the Black Canyon and Coomera Gorge canyoning experiences were ‘average’ (to use his words), their advantage was how relatively easily they could be accessed from Brisbane. The Tribunal considers that because this is an argument about convenience, it weighs less than a consideration of the broad public interest. [95] The Tribunal considers that, if it characterises Mr Christie’s submissions as setting out the public interest justifications for his permit application, there should be a balancing of the competing public interest embodied in the preservation and precautionary principles. Because of the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that the public interest in maintaining the World Heritage Area’s conservation values outweighs Mr Christie’s narrower public interest argument. This means that this issue weighs against Mr Christie’s application. [96] The Tribunal finds against Mr Christie’s argument on Issue 6. Issue 7: Fair and equitable access - s 115(1)(d) [97] Section 115(1)(d) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the effect of granting a permit may have on the fair and equitable access to nature, including the ecologically sustainable use of protected areas. [98] Mr Christie submitted that it is unfair that bushwalkers may access areas near the RAAs, including public tracks where Mr Weber’s surveys located most of the threatened species, while canyoners are categorically excluded from the more remote canyon floors. [99] The Tribunal considers that fair and equitable access to nature does not require that every visitor type must have the same level of access to every area of the park. -- 12 of 15 -- 13 [100] The existing differentiation between bushwalkers and canyoners is not arbitrary. It is grounded in the dissimilar characteristics of each of these activities and their respective potential for environmental harm. [101] Canyoning creates particular and additional risks beyond those created by bushwalkers on formed tracks: water egress, rappelling, use of ropes and harnesses with potential for microplastic shedding, and contact with spray zone communities. Applying the precautionary principle, these risks are a threat to the protected areas in question. [102] An RAA is a management tool that restricts visitors from specific park areas. There was no evidence of RAA permits being granted to other recreational park users for entry into RAAs. [103] Because of these reasons, the differential treatment of bushwalkers using tracks adjacent to RAAs and canyoners operating within an RAA does not amount to creating a position of unfair or inequitable access to nature favouring bushwalkers over canyoners. [104] As a result, a consideration of s 115(1)(d) does not support the grant of Mr Christie’s canyoneering permits. [105] The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against granting Mr Christie’s applications, Issue 8: Orderly and proper management of the area - s 115(1)(n) [106] Section 115(1)(n) requires the chief executive, when considering an application for a protected area authority, to have regard to the orderly and proper management of the area when considering a permit application. [107] DETSI identified two concerns under this s 115(1) factor in refusing Mr Christie’s permit applications. [108] First, the final section of the Coomera Gorge canyoning route involves an abseil in full view of the Coomera Falls Lookout, an extensively used public viewing area. The visible presence of persons abseiling in the RAA would undermine the purpose of the RAA declaration and send a confusing message to other park visitors about what park areas can accessed and what areas cannot. As the Tribunal understands it, DETSI contends that this may adversely affect the orderly and proper management of the area. [109] Second, both canyon areas contain illegal anchor points (bolts drilled into cliff faces without QPWS authorisation). DETSI cannot authorise use of illegal bolts, takes no responsibility for their maintenance or safety, and cannot verify that canyoners will not rely on them. Granting access may create the false impression that DETSI sanctioned the existing illegal infrastructure. [110] The Coomera Gorge abseils’ visibility from a public lookout is a matter of geography that DETSI cannot control. DETSI provided no evidence to support its first concern. [111] The Tribunal is less convinced of the second concern. [112] The illegality and visibility of existing anchor infrastructure is a matter of law that DETSI cannot overlook in terms of executing the area’s orderly and proper management. -- 13 of 15 -- 14 [113] However, the Tribunal finds it difficult to envisage the intersection between this factor and Mr Christie’s proposed canyoning activities where he undertakes to remove his anchors dispositively impacts on the orderly and proper management of the area. Mr Christie made no claims that his proposed activities would use any existing anchor infrastructure [114] The Tribunal finds, having assessed both concerns advanced by DETSI, that this consideration has no weight in considering Mr Christie’s permit applications. Issue 9: Partial invalidity of the applications - ss 8 and 90 [115] Sections 8 and 90 of the NCPAM Regulation limit RAA permits to the holder and ‘relevant persons.’ [116] Section 8 defines a relevant person of an individual to include an employee or agent of the individual. DETSI submitted that Mr Christie’s applications were partially invalid because the other club members he proposed to bring were not relevant persons within that definition. [117] Mr Christie contended that canyon group members would be acting under his direction and therefore as his ‘agents.’ He also argued that s 90 should be read to allow the permit holder to lead a group without each member needing a separate permit. [118] The Tribunal does not need to determine the partial invalidity argument definitively. Even if Mr Christie is correct in saying that his applications were valid in full, or could be re-framed as personal applications for himself alone, the substantive grounds for refusing Mr Christie’s permit applications under ss 76, 77 and 115 of the NCPAM Regulation as considered above remain. [119] The Tribunal notes in obiter that Mr Christie’s agency argument faces difficulties, because voluntary unpaid participants in a recreational group do not necessarily act in the legal sense of agents merely by following a group leader’s directions. [120] The Tribunal makes no finding on this issue. Overall assessment [121] Mr Christie is an experienced canyoner with a genuine recreational interest in these gorges. The Tribunal considers that his applications for the permits and his applications for review have been made in good faith and with positive intent. [122] However, the arguments against his position are substantially stronger than those in his favour. [123] First, ss 76(1)(a) and 76(1)(b) of the NCPAM Regulation are both engaged. The Tribunal conducting a merits review cannot decide in favour of granting a permit where the statutory preconditions for its grant under ss 76(1)(a) and 76(1)(b) are not satisfied, as considered above. [124] Second, the s 77(2) insurance precondition was not satisfied, providing an independent ground to not grant the permit. [125] Third, the specified factors under s 115 collectively weigh against the grant of the permits. After considering and weighing both parties’ submissions and contentions on these factors, the Tribunal finds that the precautionary principle, cumulative impact, and the public interest factors all support refusal of Mr Christie’s application for a permit. The orderly and proper management factor carries no weight. -- 14 of 15 -- 15 [126] The Tribunal acknowledges that the Weber Report does not assess the true canyon floors. That is a limitation in DETSI’s expert evidence. However, for the reasons given at Issue 4, the absence of site-specific survey data within the canyon floors does not prove ecological insignificance. The precautionary principle is engaged precisely because of that uncertainty. Decision [127] For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that both decisions to refuse the RAA permit applications were correct and should be confirmed. -- 15 of 15 --