NQMA Making Detecting On Leases Illegal.

[mbasko]

Mate I don't think anyone here is condoning stealing or being on Mining Leases or Claims they should not be on - I'm certainly not! A Mining Lease or Claim is a definite no go without permission & that should be rigorously enforced!
I follow the rules for the state (& am very aware of them).

Correct me if I'm wrong Simmo but you appear to be talking about stealing occurring off your & others current leases/claims? I don't see how changing the current rules on EPM's will change what these scum are already doing illegally now. The current rules on leases/claims hasn't stopped the scum now & changing EPM rules won't stop them in the future either! There needs to be a ramp up in compliance monitoring & enforcement of current rules not changes! If they can't police what's in place now they will never police increased areas in the future + even if they attempt to increase it will no doubt unfortunately in turn cost you blokes more in licences/fees to cover a % of costs.
Unfortunately these issues aren't isolated to mining lease/claim owners but property owners both rural + urban too. It's also not just a mining/prospecting issue either. We have more trouble around here with hunters trespassing & doing the same type of pilfering - it's a National widespread issue on a whole not selective to the small scale mining sector.

All changing EPM rules is going to do is exclude or make things harder for those of us that do the right thing. If I was in Qld I'd be opposing these changes as vigorously as possible & encourage affected Qld members here to do so! Contact your local member, let the Mining/Minerals dept. & NQMA know your opposition to it!

They are wrong & seek to be exclusive of other lawful activities on EPM's. EPM's that don't afford the holder any other rights over the land than the rest of us other than to explore on a larger scale & use machinery to do so. That is what EPM holders pay the right for NOT for occupancy rights over the land! EPM holder's DON'T have exclusive rights to the land & may not even be granted the mineral rights despite their exploration work if an area is found to warrant mining.
Exploration rights give you the right to explore using methods over & above fossickers/prospectors - not ownership or powers over the land.

On the same hand I know of people with grazing & other permits over Crown Land that don't have grazing stock on the land (or meet their conditions of the permit/land use) & use the land as their exclusive prospecting area, lock access gates & refuse access even though the permits don't give exclusive land use. They are the ones breaking the law. They think because they pay a pittance they can do what they like. I usually just let these things go & move on but it's starting to p155 me off. One block of Crown Land where 2 of my great grandfathers + my great great grandfather had leases on I can't even access because some turkey with a non exclusive grazing lease doesn't want to be disturbed to unlock the illegally locked gate.
These things need to STOP & compliance policing needs to take place against lease holders, permit holders etc. that also break the law! It works both ways.

I've read a heap of compulsory Exploration reports that have little more than a change of date on them to fulfill their reporting requirements for each sector. They do nothing or very little over large areas but want to exlude us doing a lawful activity on land we can otherwise access. Some think this is a fair & equitable system :lol: What a joke.
Don't get me started on trying to gain permission to access. 95% of companies don't even bother to reply let alone offer any feedback on access or reasons for not allowing. A high percentage of those that do reply are fairly blunt with a negative response with no cause shown as to why, even where they have no intention of carrying out active exploration. Those that bother to reply are a minority & those that give permission are even less.
At least in WA a 40E addresses a lot of these issues & a similar system would be the only fair way forward IMO.

I read somewhere that it's estimated only 3% of Mining tenements, Crown Land leases/permits etc. get checked annually for compliance to the terms of the lease/permit. More checks on these would let the cat amongst the pidgeons. Might be time to get the red tape pen pushers out of the office & checking these things out or for fossickers/prospectors to push back & report on non compliances of lease/permit holders more.
I'm getting past just moving on.
To many "paper" lease/permit holders in this country think they can exclude other lawful people from accessing land they don't own! Well sorry but that isn't right either!

P.s Simmo please don't take what I've written here as an attack on you personally. I respect you + what you blokes do as small scale operators & understand where you are coming from but I just don't think excluding us from EPM's is the solution to the issue. Just my opinion mate.

 

[Rockwall]

Legislation regarding EPM's in QLD, will change next year.
The dropping of blocks will change to 5 years/ 50%... to moratorium.

I suppose, it means that big companies, can lock up land for a bit longer?? 15 years??
But small miners get a bit more time to explore on small lots?...

The thing is, in this debate, Dale is correct, and so am I, as a small miner.... in ways!!
But the manner, in which this is portrayed and conducted is so wrong!!

The FACTS remain, that miners in the patch I operate in, have had machinery, parts, fuel, food, hoses, GOLD, you name it, stolen or tampered with..
This is why, thankfully, it has come to a head!!
Small miners have had enough of the pilfering of what we pay for!
This is why, it has been presented, to our representative body, the NQMA, to address.... and that they are. The trespassing and stealing has to stop.

Sure, there is an issue, between interested parties, that has been going on for a long time (years), and I hear, not particularily in this state??
That doesn't matter!!! Personalities dont matter!! The legislation matters, and hopefully, there is a change.

And it doesn't help us small guys like Brother Rob for example.. find a bit, post a video, come back 3 days later and the place is riddled???Come on??

It's a matter of legislation, I'm sure, we will see further movements in this regard in the future..
(Thats whilst I and others can afford the fee's to be classed a small scale miner....)

YES!! Lets get legislation into place, where you have to ask permission from the people that are paying!!!

Too many people, think its OK, to wander around and steal shite..... well its not!!!

How on earth is changing mining legislation regarding EPMs going to stop criminals? If you aren't prepared to protect your own property from a criminal minority by living at your mine/ lease why should a sledgehammer be taken to the rest of us and the communities that rely on the annual influx of detectorists? You seem to want special treatment over and above the rest of society who have to rely on law enforcement to protect their property. Home owners have to use security cameras etc to protect their properties in today's society, pastoralists have to do the same thing: why not miners? What you have said confirms what this topic has been about, you want total control over EPMs so you can wander about with a detector the same as a fossicker. I don't believe "exploration" under the act was intended to enable someone to lock up land for that purpose. Property owners, up until now, have tolerated no exploration activity on EPMs over their land as it hasnt prevented other access. If they lose the right to be able to have a pay for detect property then hopefully they will advise the department of that and more stringent enforcement of that will occur. I for one will be encouraging them to do that. Creating such a divide between us all will backfire on the smaller operators such as yourself. Yes, lets get legislation in place that is fair on all stakeholders, that imposes realistic fees for EPMs (if exclusivity is enacted) not the pittance it is now. 4 people with fossicking licences put more money up than the rent for a block plus the local economy benefits.
I have never trespassed on a lease and never will, I have never been near someone elses equipment and never will. When I go bush I live on the job, I worked too hard for my gear to leave it unattended. Yes, people such as myself also have gear stolen, there are scum everywhere.
Angry, yes I am at being lumped in with criminal scum.

 

[Dave79]

Yep, it's only gonna affect the law abiding people who try to do the right think. We have a similar situation in tassie where permission to prospect is required on exploration leases and after being ignored or refused for no good reason by a few leaseholders even the best of us start to lose respect for the regulations.

 

[boobook]

Rockwall...If my legal team issued a writ against you for perceived unlawful activity on my granted EPM you would be appearing in Court before a Judge. You would require much more than the opinion of a "project officer" to defend your case.
Like others, you have clearly not read or understood the Qld. Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Qld. Fossicking Act 1994

Consistently, I have been stating my case for protection of my Tenements (see MRA 1989- an EPM IS a Tenement) against unlawful activity, theft etc. Legislation is there to provide that protection through the Courts.
I pay for those Tenements and I should have the say as to who does what and where on them.

mbasko...why wont you identify the chapter/section/numbers from both MRA 1989 and Fossicking Act 1994 which justify your interpretation regarding permissible activity on an EPM? You claim to have some background in these matters.
This discussion is about Legislated Acts, pure and simple. Legislation controls everything we do and there is plenty I don't like but have to put up with.

It is very obvious that some hobby fossickers, detectorists believe that open slather should be allowed on any area other than a ML or MC (and even they are not sacrosanct from thieves and vandals)
There is very much an "us" and "them" attitude prevailing here instead of all looking to be on the same page. Hit the Corporations with 75 (25000Ha.) EP blocks, not the small miner with 1 or 2 (650Ha.).

In WA, APLA represents both the small miner and the prospector equally and the system works very well. Maybe Qld. requires something similar.
I am a long term APLA and NAPFA member.

 

[Rockwall]

Rockwall...If my legal team issued a writ against you for perceived unlawful activity on my granted EPM you would be appearing in Court before a Judge. You would require much more than the opinion of a "project officer" to defend your case.
Like others, you have clearly not read or understood the Qld. Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Qld. Fossicking Act 1994

Consistently, I have been stating my case for protection of my Tenements (see MRA 1989- an EPM IS a Tenement) against unlawful activity, theft etc. Legislation is there to provide that protection through the Courts.
I pay for those Tenements and I should have the say as to who does what and where on them.

mbasko...why wont you identify the chapter/section/numbers from both MRA 1989 and Fossicking Act 1994 which justify your interpretation regarding permissible activity on an EPM? You claim to have some background in these matters.
This discussion is about Legislated Acts, pure and simple. Legislation controls everything we do and there is plenty I don't like but have to put up with.

It is very obvious that some hobby fossickers, detectorists believe that open slather should be allowed on any area other than a ML or MC (and even they are not sacrosanct from thieves and vandals)
There is very much an "us" and "them" attitude prevailing here instead of all looking to be on the same page. Hit the Corporations with 75 (25000Ha.) EP blocks, not the small miner with 1 or 2 (650Ha.).

In WA, APLA represents both the small miner and the prospector equally and the system works very well. Maybe Qld. requires something similar.
I am a long term APLA and NAPFA member.

There is a name and contact information on the email above. If you are so sure of your position then please contact them and tell them they are wrong and to stop giving incorrect advice to people. You can then post their reply so we can all "see the light". Any transgression under the act would be prosecuted by the relevant department. Any civil action you may instigate would need support from that department. I know of a very recent instance where an EPM holder wanted the department to prosecute people detecting on hIs EPM. The department quite bluntly advised him he was wrong.
I have read and understood the act and have sought clarification from the department. According to them it is "open slather" on EPMs, apart from the requirements as stated. I have received that clarification direct from the department, maybe you should do the same.
I am not sure what legal training you have had but it appears you could do with a refresher course.
You are making it "them or us", not me.

 

[mbasko]

I already have boobook post #57
https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=526523#p526523

"1) A licensee must not fossick
(b) on land to which a mining claim or mining lease applies without the claim or lease holders written permission;"

In the MRA 1989 mining claim & mining lease are both clearly defined seperately in the Act dictionary & then relevant sections of the Act!!!
There is nothing there about EPM's or tenements in general. It's very clearly stated exactly what type of tenements require permission.

All you keep stating are definitions from the Act but these mean little as they are not defined in any sections or statements from the Act in regards to access. I have shown the relevant section twice now in very easy to read & understand fashion.

It is clear that it is you who doesn't understand the Qld Acts & even with department clarification you still think you know better than those who administer them.

It's very plain that Fossicking or Prospecting within the relevant Acts on EPM's is not unlawful in Qld. Your writ would be a waste of time & your money. Fossicking & Prospecting on an EPM is a lawful activity where other access requirements are met. FULL STOP.
Just because you pay a piddly token rent doesn't give you the right to decide who can access land you don't own or manage or decide who can do what lawful activity on such land! It gives you the right to explore that land using methods over & above what a fossicker/prospector can - nothing more, nothing less.
The rules are there, like them or not, for any size EPM not just the big boys.

You constant insinuations that people participating in this thread or hobby prospectors in general are the cause of WA issues with Eastern staters, theives, don't know the rules etc. is frankly just lazy argument with no basis or credibility. In fact I find it's downright out of line & offensive to all of us! And you've made it an us & them (or you) argument, nobody else.

 

[sand surfer]

I am with you mbasko, i don't break the rules and i find it offensive to,maybe boobook should read what is written in the act for EPM,s instead of putting there own word's in it ,and if they think that a rule change is going to stop the thieving and damage to property then they are in dream land,rules and reg's did not stop people from coming on my farm and stealing about $3000.00 of gear a year (batteries,irrigation fittings,fuel)

 

[Rockwall]

 

[BigWave]

Whilst I would like EPMs to remain open to our law abiding prospecting and fossicking community, I can clearly see how the rule change will likely reduce (not stop) theft.
A thief would not be allowed onto an EPM to case the place (in the guise of prospecting/fossicking), and if caught, would have no defence to being on the land, let alone anywhere near his/her target haul.
This would presumably also protect Leases adjacent to EPMs, where would-be thieves could not even get near Leases?
As usual, the damn crooks may again ruin it for us all.
Is this too simplistic?

 

[Rockwall]

Whilst I would like EPMs to remain open to our law abiding prospecting and fossicking community, I can clearly see how the rule change will likely reduce (not stop) theft.
A thief would not be allowed onto an EPM to case the place (in the guise of prospecting/fossicking), and if caught, would have no defence to being on the land, let alone anywhere near his/her target haul.
This would presumably also protect Leases adjacent to EPMs, where would-be thieves could not even get near Leases?
As usual, the damn crooks may again ruin it for us all.
Is this too simplistic?

Do you really think changing the rules on EPM's will discourage crooks operating? If only it was that easy to stop crime. That isn't the main reason. I wonder if it is unattended leases that suffer the most crime? I can't imagine supervised equipment being targetted, unless of course it progresses to armed holdup.

 

[sand surfer]

maybe rockwall,with the rule change and a fee change (increase to $1000.00 per sub block)will keep the crooks out of the EPM's,i might need a lie down rockwall ,i think i just drifted into fantasy land :lol: . i am on the same page rockwall (unattended leases are probably copping the flack ),i think there is more to the rule change,s than what is being let out of the bag :Y:

 

[Rockwall]

maybe rockwall,with the rule change and a fee change (increase to $1000.00 per sub block)will keep the crooks out of the EPM's,i might need a lie down rockwall ,i think i just drifted into fantasy land :lol: . i am on the same page rockwall (unattended leases are probably copping the flack ),i think there is more to the rule change,s than what is being let out of the bag :Y:

There is no doubt about that..
Theoretically a lease could be within or next to an EPM where the holder allows anyone to enter. Might be a crook that has the EPM????

 

[Simmo]

Rockwall, you are not permitted to live on a ML.

If you are a law abiding Fossicker, I don't see the proposed changes as much of a problem?
Ask and receive permission from the land holder and EPM holder, simple?
All 3 parties know where they stand and can all be held accountable.

If you get caught on a lease or MLA, you lose that right to apply for permission perhaps???

Being that you have done the right thing and followed the process, surely you would make more of an effort to do the right thing?

I see what you are saying Sand Surfer, my leases are on the R16, no detecting allowed at all in this area, unless on a ML with permission.
we still lose gear too, and there are detectorists all over the place, doing the wrong thing.

If the proposed changes come into effect then without the correct paperwork in place, they can be told to leave or face legal issues.
No grey area's, you just cant be there without permission.

 

[Rockwall]

Rockwall, you are not permitted to live on a ML.

If you are a law abiding Fossicker, I don't see the proposed changes as much of a problem?
Ask and receive permission from the land holder and EPM holder, simple?
All 3 parties know where they stand and can all be held accountable.

If you get caught on a lease or MLA, you lose that right to apply for permission perhaps???

Being that you have done the right thing and followed the process, surely you would make more of an effort to do the right thing?

I see what you are saying Sand Surfer, my leases are on the R16, no detecting allowed at all in this area, unless on a ML with permission.
we still lose gear too, and there are detectorists all over the place, doing the wrong thing.

If the proposed changes come into effect then without the correct paperwork in place, they can be told to leave or face legal issues.
No grey area's, you just cant be there without permission.

Still not going to stop crooks, perhaps other miners are helping themselves to help sustain their operation?

I have seen MLs with accomodation many times. How do they get away with that?

No doubt you do the right thing by others but I wonder how many other EPM holders would grant any permission to others? If the WA 40e system is copied with permit holders not being in a position to blanket ban everyone then that would be acceptable to all, I assume?
I guess I and others started to get our backs up because we kept getting told we couldn't read and/or couldn't understand what we read. Not to mention the insinuation appeared to be that all people who wave a detector around are crooks. :Y:

 

[Rockwall]

I guess that would mean changing the whole fossicking system in Qld to a permanent miners right and paying for "40e" permits, not both.

 

[Simmo]

I think that is what was said at the start mate, 'a system similar to WA'.....

My camp lease has a wonderfull 'accomodation' shed on it, flushing toilet, hot and cold running water and shower, TV and NBN internet, very comfortable to come home to after work.
But I can't live there permanently, legally.

 

[Rockwall]

I think that is what was said at the start mate, 'a system similar to WA'.....

My camp lease has a wonderfull 'accomodation' shed on it, flushing toilet, hot and cold running water and shower, TV and NBN internet, very comfortable to come home to after work.
But I can't live there permanently, legally.

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/4105/1576651961_pb140072resize.jpg

Looks good to me. How often do you put on a spread like that? Do I need permission to partake?
Yes, it started off like that but as I said the tone changed when the current rules were "discussed".

 

[Simmo]

I think that is what was said at the start mate, 'a system similar to WA'.....

My camp lease has a wonderfull 'accomodation' shed on it, flushing toilet, hot and cold running water and shower, TV and NBN internet, very comfortable to come home to after work.
But I can't live there permanently, legally.

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/4105/1576651961_pb140072resize.jpg

Looks good to me. How often do you put on a spread like that? Do I need permission to partake?
Yes, it started off like that but as I said the tone changed when the current rules were "discussed".

Nah not often mate, more often that not, you would be driving to the working mine with the sun in your eyes, and come home with the sun in your eyes!!
That was the Solar Eclipse. 10,000+ people on Maitland Downs, but just us on our camp lease for perfect viewing.
Not sure that French Champagne at 0600 agreed with me too well!!! :8 layful:

 

[Rockwall]

I think that is what was said at the start mate, 'a system similar to WA'.....

My camp lease has a wonderfull 'accomodation' shed on it, flushing toilet, hot and cold running water and shower, TV and NBN internet, very comfortable to come home to after work.
But I can't live there permanently, legally.

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/4105/1576651961_pb140072resize.jpg

Looks good to me. How often do you put on a spread like that? Do I need permission to partake?
Yes, it started off like that but as I said the tone changed when the current rules were "discussed".

Nah not often mate, more often that not, you would be driving to the working mine with the sun in your eyes, and come home with the sun in your eyes!!
That was the Solar Eclipse. 10,000+ people on Maitland Downs, but just us on our camp lease for perfect viewing.
Not sure that French Champagne at 0600 agreed with me too well!!! :8 layful:

0600? Ex service?

 

[Rockwall]

67 - 72, Leeuwin, Diamantina, Cerberus, Sydney, Penguin & Derwent before a "mutual separation". Bit before your time I would say!