Deane v Burnett[2015] QLC 24

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Background

1. [1]
   Mr John Smith Deane has applied under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease. In accordance with s 265(4) of the Act the Chief Executive has referred the objections to the granting of the lease to the Land Court for hearing. The parties have chosen to make written submissions and have requested the Court to conduct the hearing by considering those submissions and make its decision on the basis of the written material.

The Court’s duty

2. [2]
   Section 268 of the Act requires the Court to hear the application and the objections. Section 269 requires the Court to then forward to the Minister the objections, the evidence and exhibits and the Land Court’s recommendation. It is most important to appreciate that the Court simply makes a recommendation and that the decision-making authority is held by the Minister. Section 269 is of central importance in cases such as the present and it is worthwhile to set it out in its entirety.

“269 Land Court’s recommendation on hearing

3. (1)
   Upon the hearing by the Land Court under this part of all matters in respect of an application for the grant of a mining lease, the Land Court shall forward to the Minister—

1. (a)
   any objections lodged in relation thereto; and

2. (b)
   the evidence adduced at the hearing; and

3. (c)
   any exhibits; and

4. (d)
   the Land Court’s recommendation.

Note—

For other relevant provisions about forwarding documents, see section 386O.

3. (2)
   For subsection (1)(d), the Land Court’s recommendation must consist of—

1. (a)
   a recommendation to the Minister that the application be granted or rejected in whole or in part; and

2. (b)
   if the application relates to land that is the surface of a reserve and the owner of the reserve has not consented to the grant of a mining lease over the surface area, the following—

1. (i)
   a recommendation to the Minister as to whether the Governor in Council should consent to the grant over the surface area;

2. (ii)
   any conditions to which the mining lease should be subject.

3. (3)
   A recommendation may include a recommendation that the mining lease be granted subject to such conditions as the Land Court considers appropriate, including a condition that mining shall not be carried on above a specified depth below specified surface area of the land.

3. (4)
   The Land Court, when making a recommendation to the Minister that an application for a mining lease be granted in whole or in part, shall take into account and consider whether—

1. (a)
   the provisions of this Act have been complied with; and

2. (b)
   the area of land applied for is mineralised or the other purposes for which the lease is sought are appropriate; and

3. (c)
   if the land applied for is mineralised, there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for; and

4. (d)
   the land and the surface area of the land in respect of which the mining lease is sought is of an appropriate size and shape in relation to—

1. (i)
   the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c); and

2. (ii)
   the type and location of the activities proposed to be carried out under the lease and their likely impact on the surface of the land; and

5. (e)
   the term sought is appropriate; and

6. (f)
   the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease; and

7. (g)
   the past performance of the applicant has been satisfactory; and

8. (h)
   any disadvantage may result to the rights of—

1. (i)
   holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences; or

2. (ii)
   existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences; and

1. (i)
   the operations to be carried on under the authority of the proposed mining lease will conform with sound land use management; and

10. (j)
    there will be any adverse environmental impact caused by those operations and, if so, the extent thereof; and

1. (k)
   the public right and interest will be prejudiced; and

10. (l)
    any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease; and

10. (m)
    taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of that land, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use.

3. (5)
   Where the Land Court recommends to the Minister that an application for the grant of a mining lease be rejected in whole or in part the Land Court shall furnish the Minister with the Land Court’s reasons for that recommendation.

3. (6)
   If—

1. (a)
   the application is for the grant of a coal mining lease; and

2. (b)
   under section 318BA, a preference decision is required; the Land Court can not recommend that the lease not be granted so as to give preference to petroleum development.”

The application

3. [3]
   Mr Deane has applied for a mining lease over an area of 5.6041 ha for a period of five years. The mineral being sought is gold. The site is about 35 km north west of Clermont. The application states that the land is used for cattle grazing. It is proposed that the surface area be used for mining and processing. In the referral to the Court the Chief Executive’s Principal Mining Registrar has stated that no mining activities are proposed to be carried out on strategic cropping land (SCL) or potential SCL. The tenure is identified as ML 70522 (application) (MLA).
4. [4]
   The applicant proposes to commence operations on the lease as soon as it is granted, if it is granted. The mining program template signed by the applicant states that “any surface disturbance will be rehabilitated within days of disturbance”. There will be no employees engaged and Mr Deane states that he has sufficient funds to proceed with the work. A storage and maintenance shed, water tank and camping area are planned. Mr Deane claims 42 years of mining experience. He plans to commit a 4 wheel drive vehicle, trailer, a D3 GXL bulldozer and a metal detector to the project.
5. [5]
   The MLA overlies an Exploration Permit for Coal (EPC) and the holder of that tenure, Cuesta Coal, has notified in writing that it has no objection to the present application. Queensland Ores Holdings Pty Ltd has an Exploration Permit for Minerals (EPM) over the land and has advised that it has no objection to the application.

Objections

6. [6]
   Objections have been received from the respondents, John and Jan Burnett, Grant Wallace and Dan and Hazel Mayes. In a joint statement dated 12 January 2015 the respondents have stated that on 17 December 2014 they applied to freehold Blair Athol Station (BAS), which would be impacted by the proposed lease. They currently lease the land which includes the proposed mining lease area and trade as Blair Athol Farming Company. The statement is best appreciated in view of the grounds of objection relied on by all five respondents. They are:

1. Impact on current farming operations:

1. (a)
   access to the mining area – security of current equipment and fuel;

2. (b)
   security of stock in paddocks;

3. (c)
   potential spread of weeds and disease on current farming land;

4. (d)
   impact on roads;

5. (e)
   rehabilitation of the area so that the costs are not put on to them;

6. (f)
   impact on freeholding application.

2. Current coal mining application from Cuesta Coal – Moorlands project.

3. Opportunities for the applicant to use the state forest for prospecting.

7. [7]
   The respondents point out that the public road on BAS is maintained by them and they propose to apply to have it closed once their freeholding application has been approved. This is to save costs and to improve security and weed and disease control. Tourists, prospectors and pig hunters, among others, use the road but another access to the state forest is available a few kilometres away. Gates have been left open and fuel stolen from vehicles. The sharefarmers on the land would have their activities threatened by the spread of weed seeds and crop pests including Ascochyta Blight. Parkinsonia and Prickly Acacia are also of concern as are Feathertop Rhodes, Summer grass and Fleabane which are costly to control.
8. [8]
   Damage to roads, particularly in wet weather, would be costly to repair and there is a major concern that rehabilitation of the mining lease will be neglected. The respondents have applied to freehold the land and are considering increasing the cropping area. A high value agriculture application is being considered.
9. [9]
   The respondents believe that Cuesta Coal Limited would not want the applicant crossing their mining area, which would complicate access. The respondents suggest that prospectors can use the nearby State Forest rather than potentially threaten the viability of their cropping activities. They ask that the application be rejected.
10. [10]
    The respondents have provided affidavits in support of their contentions. By affidavit sworn on 20 April 2015 John Stephen Burnett, a trustee of a partner in Blair Athol Partnership which owns the lease over BAS informs the Court that existing coal mining related infrastructure has significantly reduced the productivity of BAS. Mr Don Lindeman, the respondents’ agent in the present matter, was engaged to investigate what approvals would be required to develop land for cropping. Land suitable for such development includes the area of the proposed mining lease. The application process for approval to farm this land has been commenced. The exhibits to this affidavit show the land in question and its status.
11. [11]
    The affidavit of Hazel Mayes was sworn on 17 April 2015. The respondent is also a trustee of a partner of the leaseholder of the BAS. Ms Hayes’ affidavit states that BAS is a farming and grazing holding where effective land management is crucial to achieving acceptable productivity. A share farmer is engaged to undertake seasonal cropping, predominantly with wheat and sorghum. Beef cattle operations are also conducted so there is great reliance on the fences and gates. Unauthorised visitors who leave gates open result in cattle damaging crops, which is expected to be an increasing problem if the lease is granted. Weeds and plant pests would also be potentially likely to increase the extent of these risks. The access sought by the miner will be the subject of a road closure application. There is other access to the State Forest where fossicking can be conducted and possible future operations of Cuesta Coal Limited may conflict with the proposed gold mining.
12. [12]
    The existing coal mining and associated rail infrastructure already impacts on the farming and grazing operations and the existing road, maintained by BAS, is likely to require more maintenance, particularly if used in wet weather. Attached as an exhibit to this affidavit is the objection material to which reference has already been made, plus a map of the relevant area showing surrounding mining tenures.
13. [13]
    A second affidavit sworn by John Stephen Burnett, also on 20 April 2015, points out that the proposed mining lease is located within an existing grazing paddock. It has one permanent source of stock water which at the closest point is about 250 m from the proposed mining lease. It is fenced, has steel traps to assist with mustering stock and is connected to other grazing areas by fenced laneways. It is asserted that mining in this paddock will disturb the cattle so that their weight is reduced and will make mustering more difficult. A map illustrates this.
14. [14]
    A statement has also been provided by Mr John Jago, a share farmer on BAS. It is in the form of a letter and is dated 21 April 2015. Mr Jago states that he has been share farming on BAS since January 2006. He found that the cultivation areas had been poorly managed but are now able to produce crops with some measure of financial success. Mr Jago is concerned that the proposed mining lease will most probably result in the spread of disease and weeds onto the current farming land which is presently free of Ascochyta. This fungal plant pathogen could, he states, potentially wipe out an entire crop of chickpeas, which is grown there every year when possible, and chickpea is the most financially rewarding crop. Increasing traffic flow is seen as a major risk of introducing disease and weeds, and mining would increase vehicle movements over the land. The farming enterprise, along with its capacity to employ staff and support local business, will be undermined. Gates being left open allow cattle to potentially destroy crops and the vehicles and horses needed to muster the stray horses or cattle may spread weeds.
15. [15]
    Mr Jago has had fuel stolen from tractors on two separate occasions and also from a fuel trailer. These incidents have been close to the gazetted road. If the lease is to be granted, Mr Jago wants a written guarantee that all mine-associated vehicles entering the property are washed down before entry and are Ascochyta free and that all people wear suitable disposable boots and trousers. He states that, effectively, the Minister would be responsible if Ascochyta gets on to the property.

The applicant’s submissions

16. [16]
    Mr Deane states that he has, over more than the last 20 years, been in Clermont for approximately 3 to 4 months in the cooler part of the year. He holds a mining lease at Black Ridge and has gained a great deal of knowledge from the landowner there about grazing and farming in the area. He is fully aware of issues related to security of stock, road maintenance and weeds as well as theft of machinery and fuel. He acknowledges that the respondents have made a good case and asks not to be compared to others but considered on his own merits.
17. [17]
    Mr Deane states that he has found nuggets of alluvial gold on the area of the proposed lease when he was there with the permission of the then owner, so the area is known to be mineralised. The only development he proposes is a 24 by 12 foot removable shed. He will use a D3 bulldozer to mine and rehabilitate the land and will seed it with natural grass. The area to be worked at any one time will be 15 by 15 metres. The five year period sought will be sufficient for the 5.6 ha area involved. In his view, because of timber and a few rocky areas not suitable for agriculture, as well as low rainfall, the area is very marginal for grazing. Work will only be carried out during the winter months so regrowth can occur in the spring. He has the permission of the holders of all other mining tenements over the proposed lease area. Mr Deane claims about 50 years mining experience and he claims that over the last five years he has successfully rehabilitated areas he has mined on ML 2386, which is at Black Ridge and has an area of 49 ha. He states that this is about 6 km from the lease now being sought.
18. [18]
    Mr Deane has replied to the material filed on behalf of the respondents with a written reply. The first page of the substantive part of the material is in the form of an affidavit. That page, in large font, states only that he is the applicant and that “this” is in response to the objection. It bears the stamp of Commissioner for Declarations 98830 and is signed by J.S. Deane and, presumably, the person registered as 98830. None of the ensuing 19 sheets bear any indication that they were part of the purported affidavit when it was executed. It cannot therefore be accepted that the contents of those pages are an affidavit. The material is considered in the light of this.
19. [19]
    Mr Deane challenges that the relevant paddock has only one source of water, and he has provided a map showing a second dam in the paddock. He states that the mining area will have no impact on mustering or on the cattle accessing water. He states that he has attached a map “exhibit A” showing that the proposed lease is in an isolated area backing onto a timbered area which cattle do not frequent as much as open grazing areas. There is an overhead image with the proposed lease and “second dam” marked on it and one with a note on it that states that the proposed lease is not in the identified farming area “as shown by the Respondents”. Neither is marked as Exhibit A, or as being part of the document, which must be inferred from what they show and their presence within the document.
20. [20]
    Mr Deane states that he has a good relationship with other property owners in the area and that the respondents have referred to incidents from which no adverse inference ought to be drawn against him. He refers to his rehabilitation of ML 2386 and states that a mining lease with a locked gate would improve security in the area. He states that he has always reported the presence of noxious weeds to the relevant authorities.
21. [21]
    Mr Deane states that the small area of the lease would be fully restored as mining progresses. He and his son will have the machinery to keep the road in good condition. The public road will not, he asserts, have more traffic than usual and his fuel and machinery will also bear the risk of theft. In relation to washing down vehicles and the use of special clothing he states that he will do what is required by the “local authorities”.
22. [22]
    There is a dispute relating to the location of the proposed mining lease and the proposed extended farming area. In relation to this, Mr Deane states as follows:

“Additional farming areas the map shows Areas that the B.A.owners are concerned with, Are not on the Mining Area.

It passes close, the reason being is that there is a shelf of Billy Stones and a barrier of Strata rock between existing cropping area and lease, also a sloping natural gully where In heavy rain it drains this area.

If this area had been any good for farming the early settlers would have cultivated it. How I am aware of this is because previous owner a Mr Glen Harrison gave me a tour Of the whole area in concern and showed me where their was a likely chance of gold Recovery, I believe his father and family were born on B. A. Station, If necessary they could substantiate my claims and support my application for A M/L on the Area

To show that it does not encroach a map marked will show where B. A. have marked the Area they want to increase their farming.

My area for 70522 is shaped they way it is for several reasons the main ones are To avoid timber loss to only mine the areas where surface gold was found and Areas where Mr Harrison said there were gold was found, the timber areas for fencing Posts were avoided any big trees were kept out of the area to be mined.

The old main track into the area will be kept, and a small area will be cleared for A small shed 24ft x 12ft to house machinery and fuel at no time will any of this Impact on cattle in this area, being inquisitive as they are you have to keep this Away from them for obvious reasons.”

23. [23]
    In response to Mr Jago’s statement, Mr Deane states that he and his son will be the people most involved with the proposed mining and that his experience working in this area will help him to overcome the concerns raised. Mr Deane’s statement includes a copy of his Application for Mining Lease and a Property Details Report from the Queensland QVAS system which shows that the primary land use is for cattle grazing and breeding. Also included is a copy of his infrastructure proposal and human and technical resources statement. The information in these has been referred to earlier.

Closing submissions on behalf of the respondents

24. [24]
    Mr John Stephen Burnett provided an affidavit sworn on 1 June 2015. He uses it to contend that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the area is sufficiently mineralised and that there would be sound land management and appropriate land use. He also contends that there is insufficient evidence of past satisfactory performance and that the proposed operation would not adversely impact on the environment.
25. [25]
    It is incorrectly asserted that the applicant’s evidence on mineralisation relies on observations of a former landowner. In fact the applicant states that he was the one who found nuggets of alluvial gold on the proposed lease area. This is to be found in the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 19 January 2015 which was supplied on Form 9 to the Court and which is on the Court file. It was provided by the Chief Executive as part of the referral to the Court and was available for search.
26. [26]
    The objector points out, correctly, that the applicant did not provide evidence, beyond his claim, that he had satisfactorily rehabilitated ML 2386. There was no statement from the landowners, Mr Bill Feint and his son Ross.
27. [27]
    The proposed measures relating to environmental considerations are said to show a casual attitude and the evidence of the applicant’s financial resources is said to be insufficient. Rather than matters of evidence appropriate to an affidavit, these are actually matters of argument on the interpretation of the evidence.
28. [28]
    Mr Burnett points out that the dam in the paddock is not a permanent source of water so it cannot be relied on. The permanent water source is most important. Mr Burnett states that Mr Deane’s maps are inaccurate, misleading and misrepresent the location of the proposed mining lease in relation to the water facility and the proposed farming area. Mr Deane’s asserted knowledge of the behaviour of cattle is questioned and it is submitted that the proposed lease is in the middle of a thoroughfare used to funnel the movement of cattle and would severely impact mustering of stock. Shifting the water point could cost over $50,000, it is claimed.
29. [29]
    It is submitted that the mining would of itself increase vehicular traffic. It is pointed out that not only the applicant but also his son are proposed to be involved. Mr Burnett argues that a mining lease should include a condition that management procedures for control of weeds and bio-hazards including pests be complied with. If the lease applied for is granted, the respondents indicate that they will seek compensation for road maintenance costs.
30. [30]
    The respondents remain in dispute about the location of the proposed lease on various maps presented by the parties. The actual location is shown in the Application for Mining Lease which includes the “Plan of set out and Pegging”. The Court accepts the evidence of the respondents who carry on business on this land in preference to that of the applicant where there is any conflict related to the behaviour of cattle and the relative position of the pegged proposed lease area in relation to the permanent water point, the fencing and the proposed future cropping land.

Cropping land proposal

31. [31]
    In relation to the proposal for extending cropping land, it is noted that this is presently a proposal, much as the applicant has a proposal and there is no suggestion that the proposed lease is over land which is presently used for cropping, as distinct from cattle grazing and breeding.
32. [32]
    The respondents have provided mapping to show that the relevant area is in Class A Good Quality Agricultural Land. They submit that potential future cropping should have a higher priority as a use of this land than mining. They go on to state that:

“The loss of access to that area of the ML which is outside of the proposed cropping area still impacts BA Station in that it is no longer available as a proponent-driven offset (land based offset) should there be a development proposal that requires the provision of a conservation outcome equivalent to the value (area) being lost.”

33. [33]
    In relation to the shelf of stones and the rock strata which the applicant states are between the existing cropping area and the proposed lease, the respondents state that improvements to farming equipment and systems mean that new areas are being opened to cultivation.
34. [34]
    The respondents submit that no permanent structures should be allowed to be built on the site.

Consideration of the matters set out in s 269 required to be taken into account and considered by the Court

35. [35]
    Whether ―

2. (a)
   the provisions of this Act have been complied with

The material provided by the Chief Executive and the applicant and respondents does not indicate anything to the contrary so, on the material provided, the answer is “Yes”. The applicant has provided a Declaration of Compliance with the public notice requirements in the Act (ss 252A – 252C).

2. (b)
   the area of land applied for is mineralised or the other purposes for which the lease is sought are appropriate

The Court accepts the applicant’s claim that he has personally found nuggets of alluvial gold on the area of the proposed lease. The answer to this question, on the material provided, is “Yes”.

2. (c)
   if the land applied for is mineralised, there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for

The proposal to use a D3 bulldozer in the 5.6 ha area over a five year lease term and using a 24 x 12 foot removable shed indicates an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources. The proposal to mine in the cooler part of the year does not distract from this. As before, the answer is “Yes”.

2. (d)
   the land and the surface area of the land in respect of which the mining lease is sought is of an appropriate size and shape in relation to―

2. (i)
   the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c);

and

2. (ii)
   the type and location of the activities proposed to be carried out under the lease and their likely impact on the surface of the land;

The applicant claims that the 5.6 ha area should be sufficient and his explanation for the shape applied for is to keep away from timber and he knows the area of mineralisation. The four sided shape is not seriously irregular in its outline. The likely impact on the surface of the land is use of a D3 bulldozer with rehabilitation of the disturbed areas “within days of disturbance”. There will be the shed, water tank and a camping area. It is proposed to work a 15 x 15 m area at a time. On the material provided, the answer to this question is “Yes”.

2. (e)
   the term sought is appropriate

There is nothing to contradict the applicant’s claim that five years would be sufficient. The area involved and the scale and timing of operations for the cooler months is not inconsistent with the five year period. The answer is “Yes”.

2. (f)
   the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease

The applicant claims that he has sufficient funds and there is no convincing reason not to accept his assurance. He is claiming, and it is not in dispute, that he has very considerable industry experience and another lease, ML 2386, in the area. On the material provided, the answer is “Yes”.

2. (g)
   the past performance of the applicant has been satisfactory

The applicant claims this and there is no evidence before the Court to the contrary. He has declared that he has had no notice to rectify damage or non-compliance under the Act, no tenure cancelled and no penalty or conviction under the Act. On the material provided, the answer is “Yes”.

2. (h)
   any disadvantage may result to the rights of―

2. (i)
   holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences; or

2. (ii)
   existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences

The two existing tenure holders shown on the material provided to be affected by the proposed tenure do not object to it being granted. They have provided this information in writing. Queensland Ores Holdings Pty Ltd and Cuesta Coal Limited have both stated that they do not object to MLA (application) 70522. The answer here is that there is no relevant disadvantage claimed by these tenure holders.

2. (i)
   the operations to be carried on under the authority of the proposed mining lease will conform with sound land use management

This is, as has been discussed, very much in contention. The Court is satisfied that on the basis of the present, as distinct from a planned future use of the land, the operations proposed will conform with sound land use management. The QVAS current primary land use is shown as cattle grazing and breeding and the Chief Executive’s referral of the objections to this Court contains the following question and answer boxes:

On the material provided, the answer at present, as distinct from what the respondents may have in mind to do in the future, must be “Yes”.

2. (j)
   there will be any adverse environmental impact caused by those operations and, if so, the extent thereof

The answer here must be “Yes” as the ground is to be bulldozed. The extent has been discussed in some detail already. In summary, the disturbance is planned to be, in the cooler months, of a 15 x 15 m area at a time and the area is planned to be rehabilitated within “days of disturbance”, according to the “Application for Mining Lease”. In view of this evidence and that of the proposed 24 x 12 foot removable shed, the bulldozer, water and fuel storage and camping area, the vehicles and trailer(s) likely to be used, the extent of the adverse environmental impact can be appreciated. Whether or not this is acceptable is not a matter for this Court but is for the Minister to decide.

2. (k)
   the public right and interest will be prejudiced

There is no evidence that the public right and interest will be prejudiced. Publicly available road will not be reduced so public access as it presently exists on the roadway will continue. There is no evidence that the public interest, as distinct from the interests of the respondents and their share farmer will be affected. The answer is “No”.

2. (l)
   any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease

On the present land usage, no such reason has been shown to exist at the present time. The answer is “No”. Any interference with current use of the land may be relevant to the issue of compensation which will arise separately but is not presently relevant.

2. (m)
   taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of that land, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use

On the basis of the current land use, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. However, taking into account the prospective use of the land for cropping, the proposed mining operation would not be an appropriate land use once such cropping was able to be commenced. In this regard it is noted however that the intention to use the land for cropping has not yet been made immediately possible, although it remains in prospect and could not, on the evidence present, be said to be out of realistic prospect at some future time.

The Land Court’s recommendation to the Minister

36. [36]
    On the basis of the material provided and for the reasons given, the Land Court recommends that the application be granted in whole for the 5.6 ha area and five year period sought. Rehabilitation as planned has not been shown to rule out future cropping and the respondents’ intentions in that regard have not resulted in any indication of when cropping would, or could, be commenced. The proposed tenure could be granted and its purpose fulfilled without, on the evidence, any necessary conflict with the intention to crop the land in the future.

Conditions to which the mining lease should be subject

37. [37]
    The Land Court recommends that the mining lease should be subject to the following condition:

That practices and procedures with respect to weeds, crop and other pests and matters of bio-security on the lease will be those recommended by the local authority for the area, namely the Isaac Regional Council.

This condition is designed to address the concerns of the respondents in respect to the farming activities they presently conduct so as to protect their economic interests. It will also benefit the share farmer, who has similar interests.

Orders

1. That the application be granted in whole.

2. That the mining lease should be subject to the condition:  that practices and procedures with respect to weeds, crop and other pests and matters of bio-security on the lease will be those recommended by the local authority for the area, namely the Isaac Regional Council.

WA ISDALE

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT