Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 2) [2012] FCA 403

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 2) [2012] FCA 403 Citation: Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 2) [2012] FCA 403

Parties: KEVIN BUZZACOTT v MINISTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, BHP BILLITON OLYMPIC DAM CORPORATION PTY LTD and STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

File number: SAD 39 of 2012

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 20 April 2012

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – s 5 of Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("ADJR Act") and s 39B of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – decision by first respondent to approve with conditions the Olympic Dam Expansion under ss 130(1) and 133 of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act") – where conditions imposed said to leave much of proposed action to be defined by plans and studies not yet undertaken – whether result of approval uncertain and exercise of power improper, pursuant to s 5 of ADJR Act. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether failure to take into account relevant consideration – whether failure to consider impact on environment due to aboveground storage of radioactive mine tailings – where environmental impact statement indicated material radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years – where reasons of first respondent referred to a period of ten thousand years – whether first respondent failed to consider radioactive period after ten thousand years – s 5 ADJR Act, ss 130(1), 133, 136(1)(a) of EPBC Act. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether failure to take into account relevant consideration – whether impact on environment outside Australia due to export of uranium a relevant consideration for purposes of s 136(1)(a) of EPBC Act – whether term "environment" includes the environment outside Australia for purposes of s 21 of EPBC Act. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether failure to take into account relevant consideration – extraction of water from Great Artesian Basin and conditions relating thereto – whether failure to take into account conditions imposed or likely to be imposed under a law of a State, as required by s 134(4)(a) of EPBC Act – where existing State conditions concerned original Olympic Dam development – whether existing State conditions a relevant consideration for purposes of approval of proposed action – where existing State conditions amended by statute nine days after decision of first respondent – whether phrase "likely to be imposed under a law of the State" refers to an existing law of the State at time of the decision, for purposes of 134(4)(a). Held: The application must be dismissed.