INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some other cases of public interest, North J has prepared this brief statement to accompany the reasons for judgment, delivered today. It must, of course, be emphasised that the only authoritative pronouncement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the principal conclusions reached by the Court, but is necessarily incomplete.

STATEMENT

1. Blue Wedges Inc challenged the decision of the Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) to approve the Port Phillip Bay channel deepening project, and sought orders that the decision be set aside.

2. The Minister had to consider the impact of the project on protected matters, namely, on certain threatened species, on some wetlands of international importance and on certain Commonwealth land. He also had to consider the social impact of the project.

3. The Act required him to take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development such as the integration of long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations.

4. Blue Wedges Inc contended that the Minister failed to take these principles into account when considering the protected matters and when considering the social impact of the project.

5. Blue Wedges Inc also argued that the Minister was bound to take into account a number of relevant matters and that he had failed to do so. Those matters were the impact of maintenance dredging, the impact of oil or chemical spills, and the impact of the removal and disposal of toxic sediment in the north of Port Phillip Bay.

6. Blue Wedges Inc also alleged that the Minister had failed to follow a procedure required by the Act, in that, he failed to consider whether to inform the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, and the Minister for Climate Change of his proposed decision to approve the project. Alternatively, if he did consider that matter, then his conclusion not to inform those Ministers was so unreasonable that a reasonable Minister could not have made that decision.

7. The Court was called upon to determine the arguments referred to in the previous paragraphs. The arguments related to the requirements imposed on the Minister by the Act concerning his process of decision making.

8. There are people in our community who hold very strong views opposing the project. Our law gives them the right to challenge the decision of a Minister of State before an independent judge. We should never lose sight of the value of this right given by our system of law to members of our community.

9. It is not the function of the Court to make a judgment as to whether the channel deepening project is a good thing or a bad thing or whether it is harmful to the environment or not. State and Federal laws provide for a very elaborate process of assessment of those matters. The law then requires the Minister to evaluate the benefits and detriments of the proposal.

10. The Court has a limited function. It can only consider challenges to the process by which the Minister made his decision and determine whether the Minister acted in accordance with the law.

11. In this case I have determined that Blue Wedges Inc has not established that the Minister failed to act in accordance with the requirements of the law.

12. For the reasons set out in the written judgment the application will be dismissed.

Melbourne, 28 March 2008

This judgment is available in full text on the internet at the following address: www.fedcourt.gov.au

Top