Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Tarkine National Coalition Inc v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) 214 FCR 233; [2013] FCA 694; BC201310979

Pays/Territoire
Australie
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jul 17, 2013
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Federal Court of Australia
Siège de la cour
Sydney
Juge
Marshall
Numéro de référence
(2013) 214 FCR 233
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Ressources minérales, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Résumé

This case gave authoritative precedent to the notion that Ministers exercising decision-making capacity must consider Approved Conservation Advice documents that relate to threatened species provided for by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (“EPBC”). Shree Minerals proposed to develop an iron ore mine in the Tarkine, a World Heritage Area of wilderness in Tasmania, Australia. Importantly, the Tarkine is a habitat of the threatened Tasmanian Devil. This proposal was approved by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The Tarkine National Coalition Inc (“TNC”) applied for the court to review the Minister’s decision for its impact on the Tasmanian Devil.

TNC successfully argued that the Minister had not sufficiently taken into account the ACA and this was mandatory for the approval to remain valid. Before making the decision, the Minister had not been briefed with the ACA. In expressing his reasons for his decision, he only made cursory and generic reference to “conservation advices” and “any relevant conservation advice” without dealing with the substance thereof. It was held that the terms of the provision were intended to invalidate ministerial decisions that did not take into account an ACA where it was proper to do so.

Failure to engage with the ACA was considered enough by the Court to declare the Minister’s decision invalid, without effect and to be set aside. The TNC tried a number of other grounds, but these were unsuccessful.

In practice this means that Government decision-makers are required to determine whether a proposed development would have an impact on a species considered endangered under the EPBC before approving it.

(Contribution:  Case provided by Friedrich Kuepper from the Queensland University of Technology)

Texte intégral
Tarkine National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability_AUSTLII.pdf
694.html