11 September 2007
Key Points:
The Act effectively diminishes the role of the Land and Resources Tribunal by conferring its jurisdiction on the Land Court.
The Land Court and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (Qld) was assented to 29 August 2007 and will commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The purpose of the Act is to improve the system for administration of justice by conferring upon the Land Court most of the jurisdiction of the Land and Resources Tribunal ("LRT").
Conferral of LRT jurisdiction on the Land Court
The Act effectively diminishes the role of the LRT by conferring on the Land Court the jurisdiction of the LRT, with the exception of the LRT’s jurisdiction relating to the Alternative State Provisions which is preserved. The Alternative State Provisions jurisdiction relates to proceedings concerning applications under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 which were lodged on or before 31 March 2003 and to which the native title (mining) provisions apply. This means that the Land Court will have jurisdiction over proceedings already before the LRT, and for that purpose, will have all the powers of the LRT.
Cultural Heritage Division
A major change which will follow from the merger of the LRT into the Land Court is the creation of a new Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Land Use Agreement Division within the Land Court. This new division is a consequence of the rollover of jurisdiction that the LRT had over cultural heritage and Indigenous land use agreements under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003.
Practically, this amendment will mean that the Land Court has two separate jurisdictions - the general division and the cultural heritage division. To assist with the establishment of the cultural heritage division, the Act provides for the appointment of Indigenous assessors to the Land Court. The Land Court will have the same powers of the Supreme Court when exercising jurisdiction under the cultural heritage division.
Other considerations
Given that the Land Court’s current jurisdiction extends to a wider range of matters than the jurisdiction of the LRT, proceedings before the Land Court may take longer to be heard than similar proceedings previously before the LRT. This will depend upon the resourcing of the Land Court. While neither the LRT nor the Land Court are bound by the rules of evidence, and are entitled to inform themselves in the way they consider appropriate when conducting proceedings, there is no requirement for the Land Court, as there is for the LRT, to act quickly.
The LRT had established practice directions and undertaken general practices such as the calling of directions hearings promptly upon receipt of applications or other originating documentation with a view to ensuring the handling of matters as quickly as possible. It is not yet clear whether the Land Court will adopt similar procedures for mining and petroleum matters.
