Drouvalakis, Re [2026] QLC 15

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Drouvalakis [2026] QLC 15 PARTIES: Elefteria Drouvalakis (applicant) v Raymond Scuderi (non-active objector) and Taylia-Maree Scuderi (non-active objector) FILE NO: MRA143-26 (ML 100484) PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objections DELIVERED ON: 28 August 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 7 August 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 100484 be approved. 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. 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 -- 1 of 6 -- 2 and detect method with a mobile dry blower – 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] Elefteria Drouvalakis has applied for a mining lease over 27.13 ha of land 24 km northwest of Clermont (the MLA). She intends to mine for gold. She also intends to locate living quarters, a processing plant, workshop and machinery storage on the MLA. [2] There are two objectors. They are concerned about: (a) Loss of biodiversity; (b) Environmental impact and land degradation; (c) Water pollution; and (d) Air pollution. [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). MRA s 269(4) criteria s 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the MRA been complied with? [4] There is no suggestion that Ms Drouvalakis has not complied with any of the provisions of the MRA. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 s 269(4)(b) – Is the area of land sufficiently mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] Ms Drouvalakis has been prospecting the area for the last six years. She says that the areas is variably mineralised with alluvial and colluvial gold present. She intends to test for deeper mineralisation, but she has informed the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development that she estimates a resource of “approximately 50,000 cubic metres of mineralised material grading 0.3 gram per cubic metre gold”. 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? [6] Ms Drouvalakis proposes a simple push and detect method of operation with a mobile dry blower for fine gold-bearing material. s 269(4)(d) - Is the land of the appropriate size and shape? [7] The southern boundary of the MLA follows an ephemeral watercourse. It is otherwise roughly triangular. It seems that the shape of the MLA allows Ms Drouvalakis sufficient room away from the watercourse to store overburden and topsoil, run the blower and establish camp facilities. s 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The MLA overlaps EPC2013 which is owned by Hannigan & Associates. By letter dated 16 February 2026, Hannigan asked Ms Drouvalakis to apply for a term that is no longer than is necessary. [9] Ms Drouvalakis seeks a term of 10 years. That is appropriate in the circumstances. s 269(4)(f) – Does Ms Drouvalakis have the necessary financial and technical capabilities? [10] Ms Drouvalakis’ proposed operation is “low level”. She has set out the annual fees payable; they are less than $5000 per annum. She has supplied a letter from her accountants which confirms that, based on the information she has provided, they confirm she has the necessary resources to operate the MLA. [11] Ms Drouvalakis’ technical capacity to carry out the operation is based upon her 6 years’ experience. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 s 269(4)(g) – Has Ms Drouvalakis’ past performance been satisfactory? [12] There is nothing to suggest that Ms Drouvalakis’ past performance has not been satisfactory. s 269(4)(h) – Is there any disadvantage that may result to the rights of holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences? [13] Ms Drouvalakis’ application intersects with two existing exploration permits. Gerry Skilton, the holder of EPM27649, expressly consents to Ms Drouvalakis’ proposed MLA. [14] Hannigan notes 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 does voice its concern 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? [15] The MLA sits over state forest land. The Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation’s (DETSI) 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 standard Environmental Authority conditions (EA) will ensure those values are protected. s 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts? Land clearing [16] The objectors are concerned about the effect of land clearing on local fauna. [17] Ms Drouvalakis says that each “extraction area” will be less than 50m x 50m and that no more than 1 ha will be open at any time. She expects excavation will be no more than 7 m deep, and overburden will be stockpiled adjacent to each cut. She will minimise the removal of vegetation and mature trees. [18] Ms Drouvalakis says the area has been extensively mined before. She will minimise the clearing of vegetation and mature trees. She says that the vegetation of the MLA is mapped as “least concern” for all relevant plant species and it is not located near any endangered regional ecosystem. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 Water pollution [19] 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. [20] Ms Drouvalakis will 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. Ms Drouvalakis says mining activity will be restricted to less than 10 m below ground level. [21] Ms Drouvalakis 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. [22] Conditions A5 and A6 of the EA state that Ms Drouvalakis must design, install and maintain adequate erosion control measures. Dust and greenhouse gases [23] The objectors say that mining operations release significant amounts of dust and greenhouse gases from machinery and processing. [24] Ms Drouvalakis concedes that the use of machinery will generate dust and diesel particulates. She says, however, that the level of mining is not at such a level that there is cause for concern. She also notes that EA Condition A3 states that she must not cause an unreasonable release of dust. [25] What is unreasonable must be considered in light of the surrounding land use. It is possible that Ms Drouvalakis’ mining operations will affect nearby fossickers and she should take care to ensure that the effect of dust to those people is minimised. [26] Ms Drouvalakis’ proposal cannot be equated with a coal mine, which emits Scopes 1 and 2 emissions in a large quantity. The greenhouse gas emissions from Mr Plant’s proposed mining operations are not sufficient to warrant any particular concern. Other environmental concerns [27] The objectors say that underground mining can cause subsidence and ground failure. Ms Drouvalakis will not be doing underground mining. Subsidence and ground failure (i.e. sinkholes) do not appear to be issues. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 s 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [28] The objectors are both fossickers who access the general permission areas (GPA) in the Clermont region. The MLA does not impinge on any GPA. There is nothing to suggest that the public right and interest will be prejudiced. s 269(4)(l) – Is there a good reason to refuse? [29] I must consider the application on the basis that Ms Drouvalakis will comply with the EA conditions. There is no good reason to refuse the MLA. s 269(4)(m) – Are the current and prospective uses appropriate land uses? [30] The current use of the MLA area is state forest land. Ms Drouvalakis intends to return the land to that use as she progressively rehabilitates the land. HR Act Criteria [31] The Court must give proper consideration to human rights relevant to its recommendation (s 58 HR Act). [32] 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? [33] 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. [34] 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. [35] 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 100484 be approved. 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. -- 6 of 6 --