Adverse possession and Crown Leasehold in Queensland

The decision of Eckford v Stanbroke Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 48 ,although a decision refusing summary judgement raises a very important question of the ability to claim adverse possession of a pastoral lease issued in 1956 under the Land Act 1962 (Queensland).Division 5 of Part 6 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which guarantees registered freehold title expressly deals with the right of adverse possession however, there is no such provision in the present Land Act 1994 unlike s 170 of the Crown Lands Act 1989(NSW) which expressly precludes claims for adverse possession of specified non freehold land. There is no mention of adverse possession in any version of the Queensland Land Acts and only s 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 makes it clear that “the right, title or interest of the Crown” in or to any land is not affected by any adverse possessor.It is against the background that the Court considered the right of an adverse possessor to a Crown lease.

Dealing with unique interests in Crown Land : a Queensland perspective

Security of tenure is the cornerstone of the land management system in Australia. Freehold title is protected throug indefeasibility of title entrenched in legislation and protection of registrable interests in land is offered through the Statutory Assurance Fund. For those with interests pertaining to Crown Land no such protection is offered, although this position is not uniform across Australia. Notably those with Crown leasehold interests or a profit a prendre on Crown Land in Queensland are not protected through registration on the freehold land register and do not have the benefit of indefeasibility of title. The issue of management of interests pertaining to Crown Land has become increasingly relevant due to the complexities associated with balancing public interests including native title with more commercial interests in land generated through carbon sequestration, forestry and mining. This paper considers the framework for the management of Crown Land in Queensland and the adequacy of this framework for commercial interests that pertain to Crown Land.

State of Origin : Queensland Crown Leasehold - lessons from New South Wales

Throughout Australia freehold land interests are protected by statutory schemes which grant indefeasibility of title to registered interests. Queensland freehold land interests are protected by Torrens system established by the Land Title Act 1994. However, no such protection exists for Crown land interests. The extent of Queensland occupied under some form of Crown tenure, in excess of 70%, means that Queensland Crown land users are disadvantaged when compared to freehold land users. This article examines the role indefeasibility of title has in protecting interests in Crown land. A comparative analysis is undertaken between Queensland and New South Wales land management frameworks to determine whether interests in crown land are adequately protected in Queensland.

Assessing the long term viability of leasehold rural land in Queensland

Rural land holdings in a number of states in Australia can be freehold or leasehold. The actual type and tenure of the leasehold varies according to each state, but the underlying principles of ownership, transferability and farming and grazing rights are reasonably similar. There are rural areas that are all leasehold title such as the western lands in NSW, while rural land in some states and areas can be a mix of both freehold and lease hold rural property. Over the years many rural farming areas that were originally developed or granted as leasehold land have been converted to freehold title. In many instances the cost of purchasing perpetual leasehold property is similar to the equivalent freehold property despite the fact that an additional rental charge is applied to this form of ownership. Many of the current leasehold rural holdings are located in the more arid regions of the state and the prevailing agricultural farming system is either cattle or sheep grazing.

Research into crown rot and wilt diseases of strawberries in Queensland

Plant losses due to fungal diseases in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) can potentially cause total loss of production. Three fungal pathogens, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. fragariae, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and Macrophomina phaseolina, cause similar crown rot and wilt symptoms in strawberries in Queensland. Since the withdrawal of methyl bromide in 2005, no effective chemical control of any of the three pathogens has been available. This study aims at identifying sources of plant genetic resistance that can be used in the breeding program to develop resistant cultivars for use as part of an integrated disease management plan in commercial strawberry production. Results from glasshouse pathogenicity and screening trials on the three pathogens showed that when breeding for resistance against a pathogen, resistance to other pathogens also needs to be considered, e.g., cultivar 'Festival' is resistant to F. oxysporum f. sp. fragariae, but is highly susceptible to C. gloeosporioides. The cultivars 'Earlisweet', 'Kabarla' and 'Phenomenal', two seedling clones and four DAFF breeding lines were resistant to C. gloeosporioides. Cultivar 'Suncoast Delight' showed the most promising level of resistance to M. phaseolina. These cultivars, breeding lines and seedling selections have been made available for incorporation into the crossing program to support the Queensland strawberry breeding program.

A site selection process for environmental offsetting purposes in Queensland

A method of selecting land in any region of Queensland for offsetting purposes is devised, employing uniform standards. The procedure first requires that any core natural asset lands, Crown environmental lands, prime urban and agricultural lands, and highly contentious sites in the region be eliminated from consideration. Other land is then sought that is located between existing large reservations and the centre of greatest potential regional development/disturbance. Using the criteria of rehabilitation (rather than preservation) plus proximity to those officially defined Regional Ecosystems that are most threatened, adjacent sites that are described as ‘Cleared’ are identified in terms of agricultural land capability. Class IV lands – defined as those ‘which may be safely used for occasional cultivation with careful management’,2 ‘where it is favourably located for special usage’,3 and where it is ‘helpful to those who are interested in industry or regional planning or in reconstruction’4 – are examined for their appropriate area, for current tenure and for any conditions such as Mining Leases that may exist. The positive impacts from offsets on adjoining lands can then be designed to be significant; examples are also offered in respect of riparian areas and of Marine Parks. Criteria against which to measure performance for trading purposes include functional lift, with other case studies about this matter reported separately in this issue. The procedure takes no account of demand side economics (financial additionality), which requires commercial rather than environmental analysis.

Environmental management and wildlife in Queensland : a review of Queensland mammal species designated as scarce

From 19 authoritative lists with 164 entries of ‘endangered’ Australian mammal species, 39 species have been reported as extinct. When examined in the light of field conditions, the 18 of these species thought to be from Queensland consist of (a) species described from fragmentary museum material collected in the earliest days of exploration, (b) populations inferred to exist in Queensland by extrapolation from distribution records in neighbouring States or countries, (c) inhabitants of remote and harsh locations where search effort is extraordinarily difficult (especially in circumstances of drought or flooding). and/or (d) individuals that are clearly transitory or peripheral in distribution. ‘Rediscovery’ of such scarce species - a not infrequent occurrence - is nowadays attracting increasing attention. Management in respect of any scarce wildlife in Queensland presently derives from such official lists. The analyses here indicate that this method of prioritizing action needs review. This is especially so because action then tends to be centred on species chosen out of the lists for populist reasons and that mostly addresses Crown lands. There is reason to believe that the preferred management may lie private lands where casual observation has provided for rediscovery and where management is most desirable and practicable.

Tree growth relationships and silvicultural tools to assist stand management in private native spotted gum dominant forests in Queensland and northern New South Wales.

Spotted gum dominant forests occur from Cooktown in northern Queensland (Qld) to Orbost in Victoria (Boland et al. 2006) and these forests are commercially very important with spotted gum the most commonly harvested hardwood timber in Qld and one of the most important in New South Wales (NSW). Spotted gum has a wide range of end uses from solid wood products through to power transmission poles and generally has excellent sawing and timber qualities (Hopewell 2004). The private native forest resource in southern Qld and northern NSW is a critical component of the hardwood timber industry (Anon 2005, Timber Qld 2006) and currently half or more of the native forest timber resource harvested in northern NSW and Qld is sourced from private land. However, in many cases productivity on private lands is well below what could be achieved with appropriate silvicultural management. This project provides silvicultural management tools to assist extension staff, land owners and managers in the south east Qld and north eastern NSW regions. The intent was that this would lead to improvement of the productivity of the private estate through implementation of appropriate management. The other intention of this project was to implement a number of silvicultural experiments and demonstration sites to provide data on growth rates of managed and unmanaged forests so that landholders can make informed decisions on the future management of their forests. To assist forest managers and improve the ability to predict forest productivity in the private resource, the project has developed: • A set of spotted gum specific silvicultural guidelines for timber production on private land that cover both silvicultural treatment and harvesting. The guidelines were developed for extension officers and property owners. • A simple decision support tool, referred to as the spotted gum productivity assessment tool (SPAT), that allows an estimation of: 1. Tree growth productivity on specific sites. Estimation is based on the analysis of site and growth data collected from a large number of yield and experimental plots on Crown land across a wide range of spotted gum forest types. Growth algorithms were developed using tree growth and site data and the algorithms were used to formulate basic economic predictors. 2. Pasture development under a range of tree stockings and the expected livestock carrying capacity at nominated tree stockings for a particular area. 3. Above-ground tree biomass and carbon stored in trees. •A series of experiments in spotted gum forests on private lands across the study area to quantify growth and to provide measures of the effect of silvicultural thinning and different agro-forestry regimes. The adoption and use of these tools by farm forestry extension officers and private land holders in both field operations and in training exercises will, over time, improve the commercial management of spotted gum forests for both timber and grazing. Future measurement of the experimental sites at ages five, 10 and 15 years will provide longer term data on the effects of various stocking rates and thinning regimes and facilitate modification and improvement of these silvicultural prescriptions.

Identity and pathogenicity of Fusarium spp. Isolated from wheat fields in Queensland and northern New South Wales

To establish the identity of Fusarium species associated with head blight (FHB) and crown rot (CR) of wheat, samples were collected from wheat paddocks with different cropping history in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales during 2001. CR was more widespread but FHB was only evident in northern NSW and often occurred with CR in the same paddock. Twenty different Fusarium spp. were identified from monoconidial isolates originating from different plant parts by using morphology and species-specific PCR assays. Fusarium pseudograminearum constituted 48% of all isolates and was more frequently obtained from the crown, whereas Fusarium graminearum made up 28% of all isolates and came mostly from the head. All 17 Fusarium species tested caused FHB and all 10 tested caused CR in plant infection assays, with significant (P < 0.001) difference in aggressiveness among species and among isolates within species for both diseases. Overall, isolates from stubble and crown were more aggressive for CR, whereas isolates from the flag leaf node were more aggressive for FHB. Isolates that were highly aggressive in causing CR were those originating from paddocks with wheat following wheat, whereas those from fields with wheat following maize or sorghum were highly aggressive for FHB. Although 20% of isolates caused severe to highly severe FHB and CR, there was no significant (P < 0.32) correlation between aggressiveness for FHB and CR. Given the ability of F. graminearum to colonise crowns in the field and to cause severe CR in bioassays, it is unclear why this pathogen is not more widely distributed in Australia.