Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage [2008] FCA 903

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage [2008] FCA 903

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for approval of "controlled action" under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) – whether assessment of proposal was properly made under a Bilateral Agreement between Commonwealth and Northern Territory when Bilateral Agreement came into force after decision of Minister for Environment and Heritage that proposal was controlled action – whether assessment of proposal should have been made under Pt 8 of EPBC Act – held: assessment of proposal properly made under Bilateral Agreement

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – assessment of proposal to redevelop mine which required approval of Minister for Environment and Heritage under EPBC Act – proposal assessed under Bilateral Agreement between Commonwealth and Northern Territory – assessment report to Minister expressed concerns about environmental impacts of proposal upon freshwater sawfish and migratory bird species – whether report "assessment report" under EPBC Act – whether it did not contain sufficient information for Minister to decide whether or not to approve proposal – where report adequately presented material in environmental impact statement, public comments, and proponent's response to public comments – whether Minister sought further information from proponent – held: report was a valid assessment report for Minister's consideration

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – decision of Minister for Environment and Heritage to approve proposal constituted a controlled action under EPBC Act – Minister failed to take into account conditions imposed by Northern Territory upon its approval to mine redevelopment comprising proposal – Minister imposed conditions upon approval consistent with conditions imposed by Northern Territory in respect of potential environmental impacts – whether Minister's decision invalid – held: Minister's decision valid as consideration of Northern Territory conditions could not have made a material difference to Minister's decision, and EPBC Act requiring Minister to take into account conditions imposed by Northern Territory did not provide that the failure to do so necessarily led to invalidity of decision