Lade v Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2007] QLC 49

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lade v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 0049

PARTIES:

William A Lade
(appellant)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)

FILE NO:

AV2005/0515

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against valuation.

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT:

Mackay

MEMBER:

Mr RP Scott

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Valuation of Land Act 1944 – untenable constitutional argument.

APPEARANCES:

The appellant in person.

Ms C Liu, Senior Legal Officer, Natural Resources and Mines for the respondent.

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) the Chief Executive placed a value of $88,000 on land owned by the appellant as at a relevant date of 1 October 2004.  The appellant objected against that valuation and, being dissatisfied with the outcome, appealed to this Court contending for a valuation of $31,500.  It will be convenient for the purpose of these reasons if I set out the grounds of appeal in full:

   "I purchased this block of land from the Crown in 1979 with conditions and Reservations contained in and declared by the Land Act 1962-1979.

   This Fee-simple land was purchased from the Crown in 1979 with several conditions attached.

   The Mining Act 1968 – 1979
   The Petroleum Act 1923 – 1976
   All Gold and Minerals Mining Act 1968 – 1979
   (attached conditions)

   No where in these conditions did the Queensland Parliament reserve the right or option to re-value my Fee-simple free hold land or re-value the unimproved value of my land.

   I believe the valuator general for the Queensland Government is operating illegally valuating land, he or the Queensland Government have now legal rights to administer.  This is my land duly purchased from the Crown in 1979 and my Deed of Grant of Land clearly spells out what the crown reserved on my land and revaluation of unimproved value into the future was not a condition.  No where in the Land Act 1944 does the government reserve the right to re-value my land.  

   IN the Land Act 1944 it refers to the unimproved value of land.  This is the unimproved value of my land, not other land around this area or round my land. 

   My unimproved land was covered with scrub and trees back in 1979 so the true unimproved value of my land relates back to 1979 irrespective of what buyers are paying for a house on a block of land today.

   Under the Constitution the conditions and reservations contained in and declared by the Land Act 1962 - 1979 remain forever relating to my land.

   In the Queensland Constitution
   Chapter 6 LANDS (enclosed)

   (1)           The Constitution Act 1867 section 30 gives the Parliament Law Making Powers in relation to the waste land of The Crown in Queensland.

   (2)           The Constitution Act 1867 section 40 vests particular rights in relation to the waste lands of the Crown in Queensland in the Parliament.

   My land is Fee-simple which is freehold Land Not waste land of the Crown.

   The unimproved value of my land last year was $31,500.  I will have to abide with this but I will not except any new valuations.  I believe revaluations are illegal on the reasons I have given."

2. It will be appreciated that these grounds of appeal are essentially submissions of law which reduce to two contentions:  the first, valuations by the Chief Executive made pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act may not be lawfully carried out; and second, (and possibly as a consequence of the first contention) the value of the subject land in 1979 should remain unaltered. 

3. Mr Lade's first contention can be met quite simply.  The Queensland Parliament has by virtue of its constitutional powers enacted the Valuation of Land Act and subsequent amendments thereto and in that statute has authorised the Chief Executive (previously the Valuer-General) to carry out valuations, including the valuation of the subject land.  Section 13 of that Act provides:

   "13  Chief executive to make valuation

   The chief executive must decide the unimproved value of the land to be valued for the Acts under which local authorities are established."

4. Pursuant to s.37 of the Act the Chief Executive is required to "make annually a valuation of all land in an area" except in certain circumstances not presently relevant.  In accordance with that obligation the Chief Executive has caused the valuation of the subject land to be carried out as at the relevant date of 1 October 2004.  It would be clear on even the most casual observation that the valuation needs to be carried out as at the annual date in each case and that the maintenance of a value established in 1979 would not only be contrary to that proposition, but would render purposeless the carrying out of an annual valuation. 

5. Mr Lade appeared on his own behalf and gave evidence in the form of a 12 page statement which was admitted as Exhibit 2, although it might largely be described as submissions rather than evidence.

6. Those submissions, in summary, recite that when Mr Lade purchased the subject land on 18 October 1979 for $240 he became the owner of land in the same manner as the Crown had held the land before the issuance of a deed of grant to him took effect.  He says that as the Crown does not "rate itself for its own land as it is the owner of the land" he should be treated in the same manner.  He describes the Chief Executive as a "commonwealth public official"; and asks, rhetorically, how the Chief Executive can require the payment of rates to the State Treasury of Queensland given the nature of his ownership of the land.  Apart from the obvious fact that the Chief Executive is not a commonwealth public official; there is no requirement for rates to be paid to his office nor does the power exercised by him under the Valuation of Land Act by carrying annual valuations, amount in any way to a demand for payment of rates or for any other financial imposition.  His function is to carry out statutory valuations.  Other bodies or entities may impose any revenue or other requirements having regard to that valuation and in reliance on statutory powers other than those found in the Valuation of Land Act.

7. Mr Lade goes on to say that a member of the Land Court is a Commonwealth public official as defined in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) as a result of the application of s.109 of the Constitution of Australia.  I point out below that a Member of this Court is not a Commonwealth public official.  Section 109 provides that when a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail.  That is a provision which does not have general application but may be resorted to only where there are powers shared concurrently by the States and the Commonwealth under the Federal System.  Mr Lade's argument goes on to say that the Commonwealth Criminal Code has a bearing on the actions of  public service officials, which I assume is intended to include the Chief Executive and officers acting on his behalf.  It is unclear to me how the Criminal Code is said to impact upon the power of the Chief Executive to carry out valuations.  Indeed Mr Lade concedes that the Chief Executive may carry out a valuation however submits that any such valuation "is not binding over the real property".  Whether that expresses an acceptance of the Chief Executive's authority to carry out a valuation is not clear to me, but to the extent that the challenge is to the application of that valuation to some other revenue raising activity I offer no comment as no such matter has been raised by the appeal before me nor would the jurisdiction of this Court extend to a consideration of an application of that type. 

8. Mr Lade submits that this Court cannot hear this proceeding "because this Court is not vested with Federal jurisdiction".  It seems that this submission derives from his discussion of the Commonwealth Criminal Code but, be that as it may, it is quite clear to me that this Court is properly created by s.4 of the Land Court Act 2000, is presently constituted by a member properly appointed by commission of the Governor in Council and that this Court has, pursuant to s.5 of the Land Court Act, authority to exercise the jurisdiction to hear appeals under the Valuation of Land Act by virtue of s.63, to s.66 of that Act.

9. In his submissions Mr Lade referred to a number of authorities each emanating from the High Court and dealing with issues arising under the federal constitution. I do not intend descending into a consideration of each of those authorities whose application to Mr Lade's argument was not made clear. His inclusion of those in his submission evidences a lack of appreciation of the federal constitutional arrangements which exist within Australia. The same comment can be made of the various provisions from the Commonwealth constitution included in Mr Lade's statement.

10. For the benefit of Mr Lade I should refer to the decision of Chief Justice De Jersey in Burns v State of Queensland[1] in which an argument bearing a striking similarity to that advanced by Mr Lade is summarised

    "[4]Paragraphs one to eight cover a number of matters which, though disparate, come down to a challenge to the State’s legislative power to impose this requirement, or the Planning and Environment Court’s statutorily endowed jurisdiction to hear the appeal entertained by White DCJ. The paragraphs contend, for example, that upon Mrs Burns acquiring the land, “it became Commonwealth land, owed (sic) by a citizen of the Commonwealth”; that the Planning and Environment Court had no jurisdiction in respect of it; that the “Supreme Court exercising federal jurisdiction” alone possessed such jurisdiction; and that that jurisdiction ousted any authority of public servants and others, such as was exercised by the assessment manager."

    [1] [2004] QSC 434.

11. The learned Chief Justice went on at [5] to say :

    [5]These contentions are plainly untenable. Mrs Burns certainly has an indefeasible interest as registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land. But the sovereign law making power of the Queensland Parliament, considered recently in a somewhat similar factual context in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 QdR 600, amply embraced its imposing this requirement as a requirement as a prerequisite to her changing the complexion or presentation of her land in this way. In a different, though analogous way, the Parliament is clearly empowered to authorize planning schemes which restrict what the owners of estates in fee simple may lawfully do with their land. …"

12. Similarly to the reasoning the learned Chief Justice, I have concluded at [3] and [4] that the Chief Executive is authorised to make the valuation appealed against and at [8] that this Court, as presently constituted, has power to hear Mr Lade's appeal.  In that respect Mr Lade has not made out a case that the Chief Executive's valuation was fundamentally erroneous in fact or in law or principle.[2] 

    [2]            See Brisbane City Council v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 283 at 303.

13. The appeal is dismissed.

RP SCOTT

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT