Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc. v. Minister for Resources & Anor [1994] FCA 945

JUDGMENT No. wmnadet Seal wc tin

NOT_ FOR DISTRIBUTION

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY - No NG 536 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION

suey BETWEEN: [y" A ON TASMANIAN CONSERVATION TRUST INCORPORATED RECEIVED Applicant -7 DEC 1994 AND: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ANOR

REOTRY Respondent ~~ CORAM: SACKVILLE J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Mr Basten has sought to tender a document, referred to as attachment A, which appears at pages 332 to 337 of the Bundle. It also is designated as appendix 3. Appendix 3 is referred to in, or at least is attached to, a document which in turn is attached to a minute prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy. The minute is in

evidence and appears at pages 310 to 312 of the Bundle.

Mr Basten has pointed out that there is already material in

evidence that summarises at least some of the conclusions that

-2- are expressed in appendix 3. That summary appears ina document described as attachment B which is set out at pages 320 to 324 of the Bundle. At page 321 xeference is made to a November 1993 analysis of proposed operations in 1994 in National Estate places in Tasmania. The document that is referred to is appendix 3.

The document is a report, unsigned and dated 4 November 1993,

headed "Proposed Woodchip Exports for National Estate Places in

Tasmanian Crown Forests for 1994". The purpose of the report is said to be in accordance with s.30 of the Australjan Heritage

Commission Act 1975, as directed by the Minister, to examine proposals by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission to conduct forestry operations during 1994 in certain Crown forests that are also within places on the interim list or the register of the

National Estate.

It is said that pulpwood from these operations is intended to be utilised to produce woodchips for export under licences proposed for North Broken Hill Limited and Boral Limited. In fact, other evidence shows that those licences were granted to North Broken Hill Limited and Boral Limited in December 1993. On the material available to me, I do not think that appendix 3, which examines the impact on National Estate places of a licence or licences to be granted to North Broken Hill Limited and Boral Limited some seven months before the relevant proposal was considered in the present case, I do not consider that that can be relevant to the issue to which the evidence is said to go. That issue is whether the proposal by the second respondent is one that will affect the