Chapman, T.L. & Ors v The Hon. Tickner, R. & Ors [1995] FCA 46

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION ) No. SG 57 of 1994 THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN and ANDREW LINCOLN CHAPMAN Applicants - and - THE HONOURABLE ROBERT TICKNER, MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS First Respondent - and - CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS Second Respondent - and - ISABELLA ALICE NORVILL and DOUGLAS MILERA Third Respondents - AND - No. SG 78 of 1994 GRAHAM FRANCIS BARTON and GARY STEPHEN KNOTT Applicants - and - THE HONOURABLE ROBERT TICKNER, MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIGHT ISLANDER AFFAIRS First Respondent - and - CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS Second Respondent - and - ISABELLA ALICE NORVILL and DOUGLAS MILERA Third Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CORAM: O'LOUGHLIN J. 15 FEBRUARY 1995

On 22 July 1994, the applicants in action No. SG 57 of 1994, Thomas Lincoln Chapman, his wife, Wendy Jennifer Chapman and their son Andrew Lincoln Chapman ("the Chapmans") instituted proceedings in this court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the "ADJR Act") seeking the judicial review of certain decisions of the first named respondent, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Affairs ("the Minister"). Companies controlled by the Chapmans had intended to build a bridge at Goolwa in the State of South Australia which would have connected the mainland to Hindmarsh Island. However the Minister had utilised his powers, first under s9 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) ("the Commonwealth Heritage Act") and later under s10 of that Act in such a way as to prevent construction of the bridge for a period of twenty five years. The Minister was satisfied that the approaches to the bridge and the bridge site was a significant Aboriginal area and that it was under threat of injury or desecration as a consequence of the intended construction of the bridge. The several decisions that were made by the Minister in the utilisation of his statutory powers were among those that were sought to be reviewed in these proceedings.