Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T17:02:13.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Federal Environment Protection Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

D. E. Fisher
D. E. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two investigative techniques introduced by the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 are the environmental impact statement and the public inquiry. The policy underlying the use of environmental impact statements was not fully achieved until administrative procedures were created under the Act in 1975. It is probably too early to assess the effectiveness of these procedures. This article is limited therefore to considering their legal nature and possible effect. Two principles emerge from this exercise: the procedures are almost entirely discretionary in nature and the policy of reducing judicial involvement to a minimum is likely to succeed. Protection of the environment is thus a matter for political decision.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 164 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hereinafter referred to as the “1974 Act”.

2 Environment Protection Act 1970, s.13(1), (Vic.); State Pollution Control Commission Act 1970, s. 11,(N.S.W.); State and Regional Planning and Development, Public Works Organisation and Environmental Control Act 1971-1974,ss. 32 and 33, (Qld); Environmental Protection Act 1971, ss. 29 and 57, (W.A.); Environmental Protection Council Act 1972, s. 14, (S.A.); Environment Protection Act 1973, s. 5, (Tas.). See also Chapman and Jones, “Environmental Control or Environment Protection: the need for a policy ministry designed to promote the environment principle” (1973) 4 Search 29, 30.

3 E.g.N.S.W. State Pollution Control Commission,Principles and Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment in New South Wales (1974); Westman, “Environmental Impact Statements-Boon or Burden?” (1973) 4 Search 465, 465.

4 For a discussion of the reasons why federal legislation rather than adminis“trative action was thought desirable see Higgs, “An Administrator's View of Environmental Law” in Attorney-General's Dept, Environmental Law: The Australian Governments Role (1915) (hereinafter referred to as “Environmental Law”) 16-19.

5 1974 Act, s. 6.

6 Id. s.8.

7 Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 approved by order of the Governor-General on 20 June 1975 and notified in the Gazette on 24 June 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “procedures”).

8 For a list of 55 federal and other environmental investigations see Spry, “The content of the EIS” in Australian Conservation Foundation, The EIS Technique (1975)(hereinafter referred to as “The EIS Technique”) 28 and 29.

9 Department of the Environment and Conservation, An Evaluation of the Dartmouth Project (1914) (hereinafter referred to as the “Dartmouth Report”).

10 Dartmouth Report para.1.8.See also the Schedule to the River Murray Waters (Dartmouth Reservoir) Act 1971 (S.A.).

11 Dartmouth Report para.1.12.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Dartmouth Report para. 1.8.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, Environmental Impact of Freeways: The Impact of State Highway 23 on Blackbutt Reserve, Newcastle, New South Wales: A Case Study (1974) (hereinafter referred to as the “Blackbutt Report”).

18 Blackbutt Report ii.

19 Ibid.

20 Blackbutt Report 4, para. 8.

21 Id. 3, para. 5.

22 Id. 4, para. 6.

23 Id. 4, para. 7. The federal government's involvement in a matter otherwise within the competence of the State was based upon the Road Grants Act 1974 (Cth).

24 Department of Environment, Annual Report for period July 1974 to June 1975 (1975) (hereinafter referred to as the “Annual Report”) 6.

25 Ibid. (the Molonglo Parkway and Redcliff inquiries).

26 This was explicitly stated in relation to the Blackbutt inquiry: see the Blackbutt Report 32, para. 119 where reference was made to the political nature of the final decision.

27 Department of the Environment and Conservation, Molonglo Parkway Proposal: A Report on the Public Inquiry into its Environmental Impact (1973) (hereinafter referred to as the “Molonglo Parkway Report”).

28 Molonglo Parkway Report 13.

29 Redclifj Environmental Inquiry Report (1975) (hereinafter referred to as the “Redcliff Report”) 3. See generally Clark, “Redcliff and Beyond: The Commonwealth Government and Environmental Planning” (1975) 5 Adelaide Law Review 165.

30 Molonglo Parkway Report 1; Redcliff Report 2.

31 Molonglo Parkway Report 3.

32 Redclifj Report 2.

33 The scope of the inquiry would be regulated by its official terms of reference, a matter within the discretion of the appointing Minister.

34 Cf. the British experience. See infra 170-171.

35 Thorold, “Environmental Impact Analysis: The first five years of the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S.A.” (1975) 1 Earth Law Journal 355, 355.

36 But their applicability is to some extent discretionary: see infra 169.

37 S. 102(2)(c).

38 Baldwin, “Environmental Impact Statements: New Legal Techniques for Environmental Protection” (1975) 1 Earth Law Journal 15, 16 and 18.

39 Thorold, op. cit. 361. Cf. the limited use of the Dartmouth Report discussed supra 165.

40 Recognised also in the Blackbutt Report: supra 166.

41 Thorold, op. cit. 362.

42 Id. 366.

43 Baldwin, op.cit. 17-18.

44 S. 102(2) (c).

45 Baldwin, op.cit. 19.

46 Thorold, op.cit. 362.

47 Baldwin, op.cit. 17.

48 For Canada, see McCallum, “Environmental Impact Procedures: A critique of the Canadian proposal” (1975) 1 Earth Law Journal 275.

49 See particularly Planning Inquiry Practice (Papers from a conference organised by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (London, 1974) (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Inquiry Practice”). See also Heap, An Outline of Planning Law (6th ed., 1973) and Bigham, The Law and Administration relating to the Protection of the Environment (1973).

50 E.g. Local Government Act 1972, s. 250 (Eng.).

51 Control of Pollution Act 1974, s. 96 (U.K.). For a general discussion of the contribution of planning to environmental control, see Walker, “Development Control from a Conservation Viewpoint” [1973] Journal of Planning and Environment Law. 571; Williams, “The role of the local planning authority in regard to waste and pollution” [1975] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 14; Wood, “Powers and responsibilities of local planning authorities in controlling pollution” [1975] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 635.

52 Seee.g. Denman, “Voluntary Response and Environmental Control” [1973] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 346.

53 Town and Country Planning Act 1971, s. 29(1) (Eng.). The words “material consideration” now appear to be interpreted widely: see e.g. Stringer v. Minister for Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1281, 1294-1295 per Cooke J. and J. Murphy & Son Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1W.L.R. 560, 564-566 per Ackner J.

54 Id. s. 7(3) and (4).

55 Id. s.11 (3).

56 In the context either of the making of development plans or of general development control.

57 E.g. buildings of special architectural or historic interest (Town and County Planning Act 1971, s. 55 (Eng.)), tree preservation (id. s. 60), control of advertisements (id. s. 63), waste land (id. s. 65), conservation areas (id.s. 277 and s. 8 of the Town and County Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 (Eng.)).

58 E.g. Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913 (U.K.), Ancient Monuments Act 1931 (U.K.), National Parks and Access to the Country-side Act 1949 (U.K.), Countryside Act 1968 (Eng.), New Towns Act 1965 (Eng.).

59 On public participation at inquiries see Heap, op.cit. 214-219; Bigham, op.cit. 13-16.

60 Allan, “The Inspector's Criteria” in Planning Inquiry Practice 3, 4.

61 Ibid.

62 Under the Town and County Planning Act 1971, s. 281(2) (Eng.).

63 Town and County Planning Act 1971, s. 36(4) (Eng.).

64 Id. s.35(1).

65 Id.s. 48. See also Heap, op. cit. ch. 21.

66 Of which there are innumerable examples.

67 E.g. Maplin Development Act 1973 (Eng.), especially ss. 7 and 9.

68 Which has happened at least once at a major inquiry in recent years:e.g.the planning inquiry into oil-related developments at Drumbuie in North-west Scotland. (N.b. the planning code in force in Scotland is similar to that in England. It is however contained in different legislation to which no separate reference has been necessary in this analysis.) See [1974] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 2 and 310 and more generally [1975] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 313 and 636.

69 See Garner, “Land Use Control in America” [1973] Journal of Planning and Environment Law 135.

70 Supra 168-169.

71 See e.g. Hogg, “Tieing the EIS into the planning process” in The EIS Technique 46; Cass, “The federal government's EIS proposals”, ibid. 13; Coffey, “Key procedures affecting the use of the EIS technique”, ibid. 36, 37; Higgs, op. cit. 16, 19.

72 See e.g. McMichael, “Tieing the EIS into the decision-making process” in The EIS Technique 50.

73 Local Government Act 1919, s.342G (3) (o) and (p) (N.S.W.); Town and County Planning Act 1961, s. 9(2) (a) (Vic.) and Third Sched. paras. 8, SA and 8B. See also Fogg, Australian Town Planning Law (1974) 400.

74 See Fogg, op.cit. 169-173.

75 See Sawer, “Conservation and the Law” in Costin and Frith (eds), Conservation (1974) 268-273.

76 Infra 174.

77 1974 Acts. 5(1) and ins. 3 the definition of “authority of Australia”.

78 1974 Acts. 5(1).

79 This is probably also true of the United States Act of 1969: see Ruckelshaus, “Environmental Protection in the United States: The State of the Art” in Environmental Law 5, 9. This would also be a point of criticism for those who have advocated the enactment of the “environment principle”: see Chapman and Jones, op. cit. 29 and Peres, “Ecology, Conservation and Policy” (1970) 1 Search 147,150 and 151.

80 See Higgs, op. cit. 21; Cass, op. cit. 14.

81 Infra 182-185.

82 1974 Acts. 6(1).

83 Id. s. 6(2)(b). Infra 190-191.

84 Id. s. 8(a).

85 Id. s. 8(b).

86 Id. s. 11(1). Public inquiries are relatively new even in the Australian planning context: see Fogg, op. cit. 147-152.

87 See Kelly, “Commonwealth Legislation relating to Environmental Impact Statements” (1976) 50 A.L.J. 498. The 1974 Act has been stated to be constitutional but the constitutional validity of a particular environmental investigation will depend as much upon the legal source of the decision to be made as upon the Act itself: Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth 0/ Australia(1976) 50 A.L.J.R. 570.

88 Clark, (1975) op. cit. 169 where it is stated thats. 5 of the 1974 Act “creates neither rights nor duties”. Cf. Kelly, op. cit. 509.

89 Briefly, to provide a flexible administrative scheme for investigating the environmental implications of any relevant proposal and to reduce judicial involvement to a minimum.

90 Ruckelshaus, op. cit. 5, 9.

91 Id. 8 and 9.

92 Higgs, op. cit. 18.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid. See also Westman, op. cit. 467.

95 SeeEnvironmental Law 87.

96 Kelly, op.cit. 499 suggested that in the absence of such a provision as section 5of the 1974 Act an administrator could not properly take environmental considerations into account “unless such consideration were legally relevant to the object and purpose for which the function or power was created”. This is no doubt true but much depends upon the notion of relevance. See supra 169 If on planning considerations in the British context and infra 183-184 on a more general approach.

97 Which is a possible approach either for the legislature to direct or for the administrators of the legislation to adopt, provided always that the legislation may bear the meaning given to it by the administrators. See e.g.Tarrant v. State Electricity Commission of Victoria [1974] Victorian Planning Appeal Decisions 187 decided under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic.).

98 Ruckelshaus, op.cit. 7.

99 Such a balance seems to underlie the federal government's policy, despite the comment by Cass, op. cit. 13 that environmental factors should be considered “first, not last”. In any event that comment is inconsistent with another on the same page that environmental factors should be considered “equally with financial, engineering and other technical considerations”.

1 It must be conceded that other systems are possible, perhaps preferable. But this system has been deemed appropriate for the current Australian legal context. See e.g. Clark, “Conservation and Government: Towards an Understanding of Roles” (1974) 5 Search 241.

2 1974 Acts. 6(2)(b).

3 Procedures para. 3.1.1.

4 1974 Act s. 11(1); procedures paras. 7.1. and 7.2.

5 1974 Acts. 8(b); procedures para. 9.5.

6 1974 Acts. 5(1)(d).

7 See also infra 182.

8 Supra 173-175.

9 The remainder of this analysis is concerned with this point.

10 Clark, (1975) op. cit. 171.

11 Supra 174.

12 Object, purpose, policy, principle, for example.

13 Para. 2 of the procedures reflects s. 6(2)(a) of the Act; para. 3, s. 6(2) (b); paras. 4 and 5, s. 6(2) (c); para. 6, s. 6(2) (d); para. 7, s. 6(2)(e); para. 8,s. 6(2)(f); para. 9, s. 6(2)(g); para. 11, s. 6(2)(h).

14 Normally the delegated legislation is merely dependent upon the legislation, not vice versa.

15 Clark, (1975) op. cit. 170-171.

16 Supra 115.

17 Infra 178-179.

18 I.e. those between the first and last stages.

19 I.e. the person designated under the procedures to be responsible for the implementation of the procedures. See procedures paras. 1.2.1. and 1.3. and the definition of “the proponent” in para. 1.1.

20 Procedures para. 2.1.

21 Which is itself subject to regulation. It is not however part of the progression of decision required to be taken. See further infra 181.

22 Procedures paras. 6.2.1. to 6.2.4. See also infra 181.

23 Procedures para. 8.1.

24 Id. para. 9.1.

25 Id. para. 9.3.

26 E.g. procedures paras. 1.3., 2.1., 3.2.1., 3.2.2., 4.2., 6.4., 8.1., 8.2.

27 E.g. procedures paras. 3.1.1., 3.1.2., 3.1.3., 3.2.3., 3.4., 4.3., 6.2.3., 6,2.4., 7.2.,9.3., 9.5., 11.3.2.

28 Procedures paras. 1.2.1. and 2.1.

29 Id. para. 1.3.

30 Id. para. 1.1. definition of “proposed action”.

31 Supra 173.

32 1974 Acts. 5(1).

33 Ibid. See also the definition thereof in s. 3.

34 E.g. as in the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry: see First Report by the Commission of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry (1976) (hereinafter referred to as the “Fraser Island Report”) 1.

35 1974 Acts. 5(1) and (2).

36 I.e. it is different from the decision whether an environmental impact statement is necessary: procedures para. 3.1.1.

37 Procedures para. 9.1.

38 Id. para. 9.3.

39 Id. para. 9.5. and 1974 Act s. 8(b).

40 Infra 184 where this apparently conflicting comment is analysed.

41 E.g. procedures paras. 3.4., 7.4.

42 Procedures para. 1.1. definition of “the Minister”.

43 Id. definition of “action Minister”.

44 Supra 178.

45 Procedures paras. 1.2.1. and 1.2.2.

46 Not necessarily, of course, because each and every Minister is involved in giving effect to the duty to take into account the environmental implications assessed by these procedures: procedures para. 9.5. and 1974 Acts. 8(b).

47 E.g. procedures paras. 6.4. and 8.1.(a)(i).

48 Procedures para. 4.2.

49 Id. para. 6.2.2.

50 Id. paras. 3.3., 4.4. and 11.2.

51 Id. para. 7.1.

52 Id. para. 6.4.

53 1974 Act s. 8(a).

54 Procedures para. 6.2.1.

55 Id. paras. 6.2.2. to 6.2.4.

56 Id. para. 6.2.4.

57 1974 Acts. 11; procedures paras. 7.1. and 7.2.

58 1974 Acts. 11(1).

59 Id. s. 14( 1).

60 Id. ss. 15 and 16.

6l I.e. a legally enforceable right.

62 1974 Acts. 14(6) (a).

63 Higgs, op. cit. 20. See also Watson, “The Public Inquiry” in The EIS Technique 43.

64 Procedures para. 6.3.1.

65 1974 Act s. 13.

66 Procedures para. 8.2.

67 Id. para. 11.5. except where it would be contrary to the public interest.

68 Supra 173.

69 See generally Taylor, “Rights of Standing in Environmental Matters” in Environmental Law 46

70 Procedures paras. 1.2.2., 3.1.3., 6.2.1., 11.3.2.

71 Id. paras. 3.1.2., 3.2.3., 4.1., 6.2.4., 8.1., 11.3.1.

72 The word “discretion” is generally used in its original sense as involving a choice between two or more possible lines of decision.

73 Ss. 5 and 8.

74 1974 Acts. 5(1).

75 E.g. procedures paras. 2.2., 3.1.2., 4.1. but cf. para. 11.3.1.

76 See generally Kelly, op. cit.

77 In the sense that the matter is not e.g. “in the opinion of the Minister”, “as the Minister sees fit” or “as the Minister thinks appropriate”.

78 See Ellyard, “Environmental Protection: Government Response to a Complex Issue” in Dempsey (ed.) The Politics of Finding Out: Environmental Problems in Australia (1974) 239, 239-241.

79 1974 Acts. 3.

80 I.e. to retain ultimate political responsibility for the decision and the decision-making process. There are, of course, other, perhaps stronger, reasons justifying a flexible approach: supra 174.

81 11974 Acts. 5(1).

82 Id. s. 8.

83 Ibid.

84 1974 Act s. 8(a).

85 Id s.8(b).

86 Many statutory administrative codes are liable to this type of analysis, to a greater or, more likely, lesser extent.

87 Which dealt with housing, planning and compulsory purchase issues.

88 Hanks v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 Q.B. 999,1020.

89 Murphyores Inc. Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia (1976) 50 A.L.J.R. 570 (hereinafter referred to as the “Murphyores case”).

90 Id. 573 and 574 per Stephen J. and 577-579 per Mason J.

91 Fraser Island Report l.

92 Murphyores Inc. Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia (1976) 50 A.L.J.R. 570, 575 per Mason J.

93 See Kelly, op. cit. 511-512 and infra 242 ff.

94 Murphyores Inc. Pty Ltd v. ,Commonwealth of Australia (1976) 50 A.L.J.R. 570, 572 per Barwick C.J., 572 per McTiernan J., 573 per Gibbs J., 575 per Stephen J., 579 per Mason J., 580 per Murphy J. and 580 per Jacobs J. by implication.

95 Id. 579 per Mason J.

96 Ibid.

97 Id. 575 per Stephen J.

98 But Gibbs J. emphasised the validity of the Inquiry as part of the process rather than the relevance of the environmental considerations: id. 573.

99 Ibid.

1 Supra 174-175.

2 Supra 164 n. 2.

3 Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia v, Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd (1914) 17 C.L.R. 644.

4 Id. 355.

5 Lockwood v. The Commonwealth (1954) 90 C.L.R. 177, 182 per Fullagar J.

6 These difficulties may not apply to inquiries held by federal Parliamentary committees: R. v. Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 C.L.R. 157.

7 Procedures para. 3.1.1.

8 Id. para. 4.1.

9 Id. para. 11.4.

10 Id. para. 2.1.

11 Ibid. supported by para. 2.3.

12 Supra 183.

13 Procedures para. 3.1.1.

14 Id. para. 3.1.1.(a).

15 Id. para. 3.1.1.(b).

16 Except for the principles contained in paras. 1.2.2. and 11.3.2.

17 E.g. the series of cases dealing with rent fixing and related procedures: Jeffrey v. Burmeister [1946] V.L.R. 363, 366 and 367 per Herring C.J. and Gavan Duffy J., 370 per Martin J.; De Iacovo v. Lacanale (No. 3) [1958] V.L.R. 628, 630 and 631 per Lowe and O'Bryan JJ., 638 per Sholl J.; Beresford v. Ward [1961] V.R. 632, 634 and 636 per Adam J.; Rathborne v. Abel [1964] N.S.W.R. 604, 607 per Herron C.J., Ferguson and Nagle JJ.; Jolin Investments Pty Ltd v. Farrer {1975]V.R. 716, 718 per Harris J.

18 Cf. some of the definitions in the Environment Protection Act 1970, s. 4(1) (Vic.).

19 See also Spry, op. cit. 22 and 23.

20 Supra 167.

21 On assessment and evaluation, see Cullen, “Techniques for evaluating environmental impacts” in The EIS Technique 30.

22 Procedures para. 4.1.(i).

23 The power of exemption in para. 11.4.

24 Ibid.

25 Procedures para. 11.3.2.

26 Id. para. 11.4.

27 Id. para. 11.3.2.

28 1.e. procedures para. 11.3.1.(a)(i) to (iv).