Plant, Re [2026] QLC 16

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Plant [2026] QLC 16 PARTIES: Dennis Brendan Plant (applicant) v Raymond Scuderi (non-active objector) and Taylia-Maree Scuderi (non-active objector) and John Hams (non-active objector) FILE NO: MRA158-26 (ML 100473) PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objections DELIVERED ON: 28 August 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 24 July 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane (on the papers) PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM ORDERS: 1. I recommend to the administering authority for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that ML 100473 be approved, subject to the reconfiguration of the mining lease to ensure that no mining will take place within 1 km of the endangered regional ecosystem. 2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of these reasons to the administering authority responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994. -- 1 of 7 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – Queensland – application for a mining lease – objections to application for a mining lease – where the objectors raised issues regarding loss of biodiversity, environmental impact and land degradation, water pollution and air pollution – where the objectors did not elect to be active in proceeding – where evidence is led by the applicants only – where the proposed mine is a gold mine – where the proposed method of mining is a simple push and detect method with a mobile dry blower – where the proposed mine is located near an endangered regional ecosystem (Category B) – where the applicant says they will not be able to comply with the relevant conditions for a Category B environmentally sensitive area – where the proposed mining lease overlaps with existing exploration permits and state forest land – where land clearing and water pollution impacts will be minimised – where dust will be generated but not sufficient to warrant concern – whether the Court should recommend the application for a mining lease be approved HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 s 58 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity – where the Court must give proper consideration to human rights relevant to its recommendation – Human Rights Act 2019 s 28 – where an objector is a First Nations Australian who claims there will be significant impacts on the land – whether there is a limitation on their human rights Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 269 Human Rights Act 2019 s 28, s 58 [1] Dennis Plant has applied for a mining lease over 128 ha of land 25 km northwest of Clermont (the MLA). He intends to mine for gold. He also intends to locate living quarters, a processing plant, workshop and machinery storage on the MLA. [2] There are three objectors. They are concerned about: (a) Loss of biodiversity; (b) Environmental impact and land degradation; (c) Reduced access to fossicking areas; (d) Water pollution; and (e) Air pollution. -- 2 of 7 -- 3 [3] Because of the objections, the MLA has been referred to the Court for a recommendation. The Court must consider the factors set out in s 269(4) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA). The Court is also undertaking an administrative review, so it must also consider the implications of the Human Rights Act 2019 (HR Act). s 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the MRA been complied with? [4] There is no suggestion that Mr Plant has not complied with the MRA when making this application. s 269(4)(b) – Is the area of land sufficiently mineralised or are the purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] In his application, Mr Plant submitted that the MLA contained approximately 50 000 m3 of mineralised material at 0.3 gram per m3 of gold. He intends to mine 5000 m3 per annum. [6] Mr Plant says the entire MLA is “variably mineralised” with alluvial and colluvial gold. He says that he intends to test the entire MLA for deeper mineralisation. s 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? [7] The operation of the MLA is relatively simple – a push and detect method with a mobile dry blower to process fine gold-bearing material. s 269(4)(d) - Is the MLA of an appropriate size and shape? [8] The MLA is roughly triangular and, according to the documents filed, follows a known resource on an adjoining property. [9] The MLA is located around 590 m from an endangered regional ecosystem (ERE) (Category B). Condition A13 of the Environmental Authority (EA) states that Mr Plant must not carry out activities in or within 1 km of a Category B environmentally sensitive area. [10] Mr Plant says he will not be able to comply with that condition and proposes several “workarounds.” [11] I am concerned that Mr Plant is already telegraphing his intention to breach the EA conditions. The preferable course would be to change the boundaries of the MLA so that Mr Plant was prevented from working in that area. -- 3 of 7 -- 4 s 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [12] The MLA overlaps EPC2013 which is owned by Hannigan & Associates. By letter dated 16 February 2026, Hannigan asked Mr Plant to apply for a term that is no longer than is necessary. [13] Mr Plant has applied for a 10-year lease. Given he is required to undertake progressive rehabilitation, that seems a reasonable term. s 269(4)(f) – Does Mr Plant have the necessary financial and technical capabilities? [14] Mr Plant already holds a mining lease in this area. He has a significant amount of equipment that can be used in the MLA. He has over 30 years’ experience in the operation of heavy machinery. [15] Mr Plant has outlined an annual work program expenditure budget. The projected amounts do not appear to be onerous. He has provided a letter from his accountants who say that, based on the information Mr Plant has provided, he has the necessary financial resources for the MLA. s 269(4)(g) – Has Mr Plant’s past performance been satisfactory? [16] Mr Plant has been mining in this area for about two years. There is no record of any complaints about his past performance. s 269(4)(h) – Is there any disadvantage to the holders of, or applicants for, existing exploration permits or mineral development licences? [17] By letter dated 16 February 2026, Hannigan notified Mr Plant that it is developing an open cut coal mining project that will be situated close to the MLA. Hannigan does not object to the MLA but has concerns that the MLA should not interfere with any future development or expansion of the Hannigan project. s 269(4)(i) – Will the operations conform with sound land use management? [18] The MLA covers both grazing land and state forest land. Mr Plant says that he will rehabilitate the mined land by replacing overburden and topsoil, reshape the land to conform with surrounding contours and revegetate. s 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impact? Land clearing [19] The objectors are concerned about the effect of land clearing on local fauna. [20] Mr Plant says that each “extraction area” will be less than 50m x 50m and that no more than 2 ha will be open at any time. He expects excavation will be no more than -- 4 of 7 -- 5 7 m deep and overburden will be stockpiled adjacent to each cut. He will minimise the removal of vegetation and mature trees. [21] Mr Plant says the area has been extensively mined before. He will minimise the clearing of vegetation and mature trees. [22] He says that the vegetation of the MLA is mapped as “least concern” for all relevant plant species. [23] As I have already noted, the MLA is located around 590 m from an ERE. Mr Plant says he should be excused from compliance with Condition A13 because: (a) The mine is small scale; (b) The method of mining described in paragraph [7] above has limited impact; (c) He will use an overburden bund to separate the mine from the ERE to ensure eroded material is contained and does not “unduly effect” the ERE; and (d) He will not mine within 500 m of the ERE. [24] If Mr Plant’s proposal was acceptable to Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI), I would expect an amendment to Condition A 13. There is none. Mr Plant’s proposal, while well meant, should not derogate from the requirements of the Condition. Water pollution [25] The objectors also say that mining creates acid mine drainage and releases heavy metals into the water sources which can endanger aquatic life and human health. [26] Mr Plant does not use mercury or other chemicals to extract gold. The streams on the MLA are ephemeral. There are no registered water bores within 5 km of the MLA. There are no mapped groundwater dependent systems. There are no wetlands within several kilometres of the MLA. [27] Mr Plant says that he will minimise the disturbance of streams during the wet season and that the release of dirty water/sediment is likely to be minimal. [28] Mr Plant says mining activity will be restricted to less than 10 m below ground level. There will be no disturbance to the groundwater. [29] Conditions A5 and A6 state that Mr Plant must design, install and maintain adequate erosion control measures. -- 5 of 7 -- 6 Dust and greenhouse gases [30] The objectors say that mining operations release significant amounts of dust and greenhouse gases (GHG) from machinery and processing. [31] Mr Plant concedes that the use of machinery will generate dust and diesel particulates. He says, however, that this mining operation is not at such a level that there is cause for concern. He also notes that Condition A3 states that he must not cause an unreasonable release of dust. [32] What is unreasonable must be considered in light of the surrounding land use. It is possible that Mr Plant’s mining operations will affect nearby fossickers and he should take care to ensure that the effect of dust on those people is minimised. [33] Mr Plant’s proposal cannot be equated with a coal mine, which emits Scopes 1 and 2 emissions in a large quantity. The GHG emissions from Mr Plant’s proposed mining operations are not sufficient to warrant any particular concern. Other environmental concerns [34] The objectors say that underground mining can cause subsidence and ground failure. Mr Plant will not be doing underground mining. Subsidence and ground failure (i.e. sinkholes) do not appear to be issues. s 269(4)(k) – Will the public right an interest be prejudiced? [35] The objectors are all fossickers who prospect for gold in the Clermont region. They say that the MLA covers land that is within a general permission area (GPA) and its loss will significantly reduce access to viable fossicking grounds. [36] Mr Plant concedes that the MLA is within a GPA. [37] GPAs are managed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the DETSI will not consent to an MLA within a GPA for 20 years after a GPA is established. [38] Mr Plant says that this GPA has existed for more than 20 years. He says that the objectors’ own evidence suggests that detectable gold for fossickers has been worked out. The gold Mr Plant is targeting is not readily available for fossickers. [39] The MLA is also within the Blair Athol State Forest. DETSI’s policy requires all activities undertaken in a state forest must ensure that future production of timber and forest products and the watershed values are not harmed. Compliance with Conditions B13 to B22 of the EA will ensure those values are protected. -- 6 of 7 -- 7 s 269(4)(l) – Is there any good reason to refuse the grant? [40] There is no good reason to refuse the grant of the MLA. s 269(4)(m) – Are the current and prospective uses appropriate land uses? [41] The current use of the MLA is state forest. Mr Plant intends to return the land to that use as he progressively rehabilitates the land. HR Act Criteria [42] The Court must consider any human rights relevant to its recommendation (s 58 HR Act). [43] There are three questions: (a) Is a human right engaged? (b) Is there a potential limitation to that human right? (c) Is the limitation justifiable? [44] One objector, Taylia-Maree Scuderi, is a First Nations Australian. She says that her primary concern is to protect the land and its animals. She says that fossickers protect the land whereas mining has significant impacts on the land. [45] Section 28(2) of the HR Act provides that First Nations people must not be denied the right to enjoy, maintain and protect their cultural identity. [46] It is possible that Ms Scuderi’s human rights as a First Nations woman are engaged. However, I cannot see that there is any potential limitation to her human right. Orders 1. I recommend to the administering authority for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that ML 100473 be approved, subject to the reconfiguration of the mining lease to ensure that no mining will take place within 1 km of the endangered regional ecosystem. 2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of these reasons to the administering authority responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994. -- 7 of 7 --