The Queensland Supreme Court has overturned a Land Court decision to remove a 100-metre Indigenous heritage protection zone for a gold mining project in Cape York, after finding that the traditional owners had been denied a fair hearing and that the department’s joint submission was at odds with its earlier position, which the judge described as “surprising”.
The protection zone had prohibited activity within 100 metres of significant cultural sites at the Alice River gold project, about 300 kilometres north-west of Cairns.
The mining company Broken Hill Gold Limited (formerly Pacgold) twice applied to have the exclusion zone removed. Both applications were rejected by the department after opposition from the Olkola People's native title trustee, the Ut-Alkar Aboriginal Corporation.
In late 2025 the company appealed to the Land Court. Then in March, nearly eight weeks before the hearing, the department did an about-turn, making joint submissions with the mining company to the Land Court that the exclusion zone should be lifted. The Land Court upheld the appeal and scrapped the protection zone.
Justice Henry wrote that Ut-Alkar had never been notified of the proceedings before it sought judicial review. In his judgment last week, he found the department's joint submission was “at odds” with its earlier position. He noted the department had previously argued that lifting the exclusion zone had the potential for an “adverse impact” on cultural sites and that possible limits on the Olkola's human rights “outweighed the potential benefit” to the mining company.
But in the joint submission, the department argued there was "no evidence … an 'exclusion zone' — be it 100m or another size — is anything other than an arbitrary restriction". Justice Henry called this submission "surprising" given the department's chief executive had made the condition that the regulation falls under.
Another "controversial submission" by both parties was that the exclusion zone "adds nothing to existing protections". Justice Henry disagreed, finding the zone gave "an unqualified, concrete geographical protection" unlike any other under state or federal regulation.
Justice Henry also found Ut-Alkar had been denied a "reasonable opportunity to be heard", and that there was a "realistic possibility" of a different decision being made if they had been. He set aside the Land Court orders and returned the matter to the Land Court.
The mining company's sustainability manager is Shane Goodwin, a former Queensland Young Liberals president who holds 1.352 million shares in Broken Hill Gold. The ABC does not suggest Mr Goodwin or the minister has acted in any way inappropriately. Mr Goodwin said he has no current roles with the LNP or Liberal Party. The mining company said Mr Goodwin's "other activities" were unrelated to its applications for the exclusion zone to be removed and the applications were dealt with through established processes.
Mr Goodwin confirmed he spoke to Environment Minister Andrew Powell's office about the company's intention to seek amendment to the environmental authorities. He said the minister's office told him it would be a matter for the department through the ordinary regulatory process, and the department had gone on to refuse those applications. He also met with the minister on March 18, 2025, the same day the company made an application to remove the protection zone, but said this was a meeting "with representatives across the resources sector" and the amendment applications were not discussed.
The mining company said it accepted the court's findings but stood by its position that the exclusion zone was unnecessary to protect Indigenous heritage. “The proposed amendment was not intended to remove or diminish cultural heritage protections … the company's work programs are designed to protect cultural heritage,” it said in a statement. The company said it had no legal requirement to notify the traditional owners but had understood the department was engaging with the Native Title Party.
A spokesperson for the department said it would be inappropriate to comment because the matter was before the courts.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness when decisions affect Indigenous cultural heritage and native title rights.
- The case raises questions about the revolving door between government, politics and resource companies, with a former LNP activist holding shares and a key role at the mining company.
- The decision returns the matter to the Land Court, potentially reinstating the 100-metre buffer zone that had protected significant cultural sites.
Background
The Alice River gold project is an undeveloped mine in Far North Queensland, about 300 km north-west of Cairns. The Olkola People hold native title over the area, and the 100-metre exclusion zone around significant cultural sites was imposed by the state environment department as a condition of the mining company's environmental authority. The company had twice sought to remove the zone without success before appealing to the Land Court.
Key Perspectives
Queensland environment department: Initially argued that removing the zone could have an adverse impact on cultural sites and that limiting the Olkola's human rights outweighed any benefit to the company. Later reversed position, arguing in joint submissions that the zone was arbitrary and added nothing to existing protections.
Broken Hill Gold Limited: Says the exclusion zone was unnecessary to protect Indigenous heritage and that its work programs are designed to protect cultural heritage. It accepted the court's finding that the traditional owners were denied a hearing but maintains its application was handled through proper processes.
Ut-Alkar Aboriginal Corporation (Olkola People): Successfully argued that it was denied natural justice because it was never notified of the Land Court proceedings and only learned of them by chance. The Supreme Court agreed, finding a realistic possibility of a different outcome had it been heard.
What to Watch
- The Land Court will now re-hear the mining company's appeal against the exclusion zone, with the traditional owners entitled to participate this time.
- The Supreme Court judgment noted the department's reversal was "surprising" and may prompt further scrutiny of how the decision to change position was made.
- The public record of Shane Goodwin's ties to the LNP, including donations and campaign work, may attract further political and media attention.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe court set aside the Land Court orders removing the heritage zone, following a Queensland government U-turn.Just In: “In March this year, nearly eight weeks before the matter could be heard, the department did an about-turn, making joint submissions with the mining company to the Land Court to lift the exclusion zone requirements. ... He ruled the orders be set aside, and the matter be returned to the Land Court.”
- SupportedThe Supreme Court found Ut-Alkar was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard.Just In: “Justice Henry also found Ut-Alkar had been denied a "reasonable opportunity to be heard", and that there was a "realistic possibility" of a different decision being made if they had been.”
- SupportedThe department’s joint submission was at odds with its earlier position.Just In: “In his ruling, Justice James Henry found the environment department's submission was "at odds" with its earlier position.”
- SupportedJustice Henry described the department’s joint submission as “surprising”.Just In: “Justice Henry said this submission was "surprising" given the environment department's chief executive made the condition that the regulation falls under.”
- SupportedThe department’s joint submission said there was “no evidence … an 'exclusion zone' — be it 100m or another size — is anything other than an arbitrary restriction”.Just In: “But in the environment department's joint submission, it argued that there was "no evidence … an 'exclusion zone' — be it 100m or another size — is anything other than an arbitrary restriction".”
- SupportedBoth parties submitted that the exclusion zone “adds nothing to existing protections”.Just In: “Another "controversial submission" by both parties was that the exclusion zone "adds nothing to existing protections", he noted.”
- SupportedJustice Henry found the zone gave “an unqualified, concrete geographical protection” unlike any other under state or federal regulation.Just In: “Justice Henry found the exclusion zone in fact gave "an unqualified, concrete geographical protection" unlike any other under state or federal regulation.”
- SupportedJustice Henry found a “realistic possibility” of a different decision if Ut-Alkar had been heard.Just In: “Justice Henry also found Ut-Alkar had been denied a "reasonable opportunity to be heard", and that there was a "realistic possibility" of a different decision being made if they had been.”
- SupportedThe zone prohibited activity within 100 metres of significant cultural sites at the Alice River project, about 300 kilometres north-west of Cairns.Just In: “The zone had prohibited activity within 100 metres of significant cultural sites at the Alice River gold project about 300 kilometres north-west of Cairns.”
- SupportedThe department rejected the company’s two applications after opposition from Ut-Alkar.Just In: “Both the mining company's applications were rejected by the department after opposition by Olkola People's native title trustee the Ut-Alkar Aboriginal Corporation.”
- SupportedThe company said it had no legal requirement to notify traditional owners but understood the department was engaging with the Native Title Party.Just In: “In a statement, it said it had no legal requirement to notify the traditional owners but had understood the department "was engaging with the Native Title Party, and that this engagement was continuing".”
- SupportedThe company said: “The proposed amendment was not intended to remove or diminish cultural heritage protections … the company's work programs are designed to protect cultural heritage”.Just In: “"The proposed amendment was not intended to remove or diminish cultural heritage protections … the company's work programs are designed to protect cultural heritage," it said.”