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 environment to a significant extent. There are simply too many -3- gaps in the chain of reasoning that would need to be filled in before the relevance of a report of this kind could be discerned in terms of the issue that [I have identified. It is perfectly true that at pages 320 to 321, reference is made to the document. That material will carry such weight as it may fairly be thought to convey, but the mere fact that it is referred to does not, it seems to me, serve to establish the proposition or make more likely the proposition that the proposal by Gunns itself would be likely to affect the environment to a significant extent. Accordingly I reject the tender of the material at pages 332 to 337 that I have designated as appendix 3. I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Sackville. ! po. Associate: / . d€ Fe—+ ad Dated: 7 December, 1994 Heard: 17 November, 1994 Place: Sydney Decision: 17 November, 1994 Appearances: Mr Basten QC and Mr Williams instructed by the Environmental Defender's Office appeared for the applicant. Mr Heydon QC and Mr Comans instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor appeared for the first respondent. Mr Hale instructed by Dunhill, Madden and Butler, solicitors, appeared for the second respondent.