Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T22:03:41.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extended Standing — Enhanced Accountability? Judicial Review of Commonwealth Environmental Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Andrew Edgar
Andrew Edgar*
Affiliation:
Sydney Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 435 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Peter Cane, Helen Irving and Leighton McDonald for their comments on drafts of this article and to the anonymous referees for their comments. Thanks also to Jessica Radburn for research assistance. Of course, I am solely responsible for any errors and omissions. The research was funded by the University of Sydney, Legal Scholarship Support Fund.

References

1 Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 527 (Gibbs J). Technically there are separate tests for standing in Australian law for different remedies. However, it is also recognised that there is ‘broad agreement’ or, at least, a tendency towards ‘convergence’ between the different tests: Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v Secretary, Department of Transport (1986) 13 FCR 124, 132 (Gummow J); Mark, Aronson, Bruce, Dyer and Matthew, Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Lawbook Co, 4th ed, 2009) 745Google Scholar.

2 Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 247, 263 [39] (Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ).

3 Henry, Burmester, ‘Limitations on Federal Adjudication’ in Brian, Opeskin and Fiona, Wheeler (eds), The Australian Federal Judicial System (Melbourne University Press, 2000) 227, 228–9, 252Google Scholar; Peter, Cane, ‘Open Standing and the Role of Courts in a Democratic Society’ (1999) 20 Singapore Law Review 23, 29Google Scholar; Richard, B Stewart, ‘The Reformation of American Administrative Law’ (1975) 88 Harvard Law Review 1667, 1670Google Scholar.

4 See Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 90–1 [47]–[49] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 114–5 [116]–[119] (Kirby J); Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425, 431–2 [18]–[22] (Black CJ and Finkelstein J).

5 (1980) 146 CLR 493.

6 Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Resources (1989) 76 LGRA 200; North Coast Environment Council Inc v Minister for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492; Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc v Minister for Resources (1995) 55 FCR 516.

7 Empirical research into Australian standing cases has found that environmental groups are the type of public interest organisation whose standing is most often challenged in the cases: Roger, Douglas, ‘Uses of Standing Rules 1980–2006’ (2006) 14 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 22, 28Google Scholar.

8 Allan Hawke, Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Interim Report (June 2009).

9 Ibid 314 [20.34]–[20.37].

10 Richard, Mulgan, Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies (Palgrave McMillan, 2003) 22–3Google Scholar. See also Jerry, L Mashaw, ‘Accountability and Institutional Design: Some Thoughts on the Grammar of Governance’ in Michael, W Dowdle (ed), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 115, 117–8Google Scholar; Colin, Scott, ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’ (2000) 27 Journal of Law and Society 38, 41Google Scholar.

11 Note that judicial review is said to have a dual direction regarding the ‘to whom’ question as it requires the administrator to answer to a court but also to the individual or group who brings the proceedings: Mulgan, above n 10, 76.

12 (1980) 146 CLR 493.

13 Ibid 527 (Gibbs J). See also Mason J, 547.

14 Ibid 530–1. See also Stephen J, ‘genuinely held convictions upon a topic of public concern’ is insufficient for standing: at 539; Mason J, that ‘a mere belief or concern’ is not sufficient for standing: at 548.

15 Ibid 531.

16 It may be that the special interest restriction can be avoided by the group finding a plaintiff or co-plaintiff who will satisfy the special interest test because their financial interests are affected or they live near the particular development and have property interests affected by the decision: Michael, L Barker, ‘Standing to Sue in Public Interest Environmental Litigation: From ACF v Commonwealth to Tasmanian Conservation Trust v Minister for Resources’ (1996) 13 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 186, 196Google Scholar.

17 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 3(4).

18 Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 790–1.

19 These requirements follow extensions to standing by Commonwealth environmental legislation enacted prior to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth): Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cth) s 131; Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 (Cth) s 58A (inserted by Hazardous Waste (Regulation And Exports And Imports) Amendment Act 1996 (Cth)).

20 See, eg, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 123; Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) s 153; Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) s 252.

21 See, eg, Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Resources (1989) 76 LGRA 200, 205–6; North Coast Environment Council Inc v Minister for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492, 512–13; Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc v Minister for Resources (1995) 55 FCR 516, 552–3.

22 North Coast Environment Council Inc v Minister for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492, 512.

23 Peter, Cane, ‘Standing, Representation and the Environment’ in Ian, Loveland (ed), A Special Relationship?: American Influences on Public Law in the UK (Clarendon Press, 1995) 123, 132–3Google Scholar.

24 Ibid 133–40; Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 767–71.

25 See eg, Christopher, D Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? — Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450, 464–6Google Scholar; Booth v Bosworth [2000] FCA 1878, [5]; Sierra Club v Morton, 405 US 727, 744–5, 751–2 (1972) (Douglas J).

26 Australian Law Reform Commission, Standing in Public Interest Litigation, Report No 27 (1985) 123, 138–9.

27 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 26 November 1974, 4082 (Dr Cass).

28 Ibid.

29 Steven, Münchenberg, ‘Judicial Review and the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974’ (1994) 11 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 461, 462Google Scholar (footnote 7).

30 Ibid; R J, Fowler, ‘The Prospects of Judicial Review in Relation to Federal Environmental Impact Statement Legislation’ (1977) 11 Melbourne University Law Review 1Google Scholar; Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 546–7 (Stephen J).

31 Randwick City Council v Minister for the Environment (1999) 106 LGERA 47, 70–1 [73]–[76]. See also Margarula v Minister for Environment (1999) 92 FCR 35 for difficulties regarding the thresholds in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

32 Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, Parliament of Australia, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (1998) [11.36]–[11.41].

33 Ibid; ‘Labor Senator's Findings', ‘Minority Report of the Australian Democrats', ‘Report by the Australian Greens and The Greens (WA)'.

34 Commonwealth Government Parliament of Australia Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on Commonwealth Environment Powers Response to Recommendations (1999), 9.

35 The exceptions were cases brought by proponents (Phosphate Resources Ltd v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (No 2) (2008) 162 LGERA 154; Waratah Coal Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 173 FCR 557; Anzbrook Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2010) 237 FLR 187) and a challenge by individuals with property interests that were likely to be affected by a mine (Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 174 FCR 14, 54 [202]).

36 Humane Society International Inc v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2003) 126 FCR 205, 212 [27]; Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2003] FCA 1463, [23]; Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 167 FCR 463, 465 [2]; Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 174 FCR 14, 54 [203]; Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (2011) 179 LGERA 458, 462 [7].

37 Anvil Hill Project Watch Association Inc v Minister for Environment and Water Resources (2007) 159 LGERA 8, 10 [2]; Wilderness Society Inc v Turnbull (2008) 166 FCR 154, 177 [88]; Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 588 [2]–[3].

38 Paterson v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2004] FMCA 924.

39 See, eg, Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Whyalla Red Dust Action Group Inc (2006) 94 SASR 357; Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment and Conservation [2007] NSWSC 221. See also Matthew, Groves, ‘Should the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) Be Repealed?’ (2010) 34 Melbourne University Law Review 452, 471Google Scholar.

40 (1998) 194 CLR 247.

41 Ibid 263 [39].

42 Ibid.

43 I do not intend to examine in any detail the extent to which costs is a deterrent. However, it is important to note that there is a question as to whether costs should be a deterrent in public interest environmental litigation: see Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 173 LGERA 280, 287–9 [28]–[36].

44 See, eg, Allan Hawke, The Australian Environment Act: Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (October 2009) 264 [15.105].

45 Kirsty, Ruddock, ‘The Bowen Basin Coal Mines Case: Climate Law in the Federal Court’ in Tim, Bonyhady and Peter, Christoff (eds), Climate Law in Australia (The Federation Press, 2007) 173, 184–5Google Scholar; Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 588, [4]–[5].

46 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118, 140 [55] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); see also 131 [24] (French CJ and Gummow J).

47 Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 588, [12]–[14]; Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425, 431–3 [18]–[29] (Black CJ and Finkelstein J).

48 Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 247, 263 [39] (Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ). The High Court has also indicated that the ADJR Act threshold requirements may restrict particular applications even though the applicant has standing: Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99, 117 [44] (Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ).

49 Burmester, above n 3, 252. See also Peter Cane, ‘The Function of Standing Rules in Administrative Law’ [1980] Public Law 303, 327–8; Carol, Harlow, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 1, 5Google Scholar.

50 Margaret, Allars, ‘Standing: The Role and Evolution of the Test’ (1991) 20 Federal Law Review 83, 96Google Scholar.

51 Andrew, Edgar, ‘Participation and Responsiveness in Merits Review of Polycentric Decisions: A Comparison of Development Assessment Appeals’ (2010) 27 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 36, 40–2Google Scholar; Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 274, 278–9 (Bowen CJ).

52 Enid, Campbell and Matthew, Groves, ‘Polycentricity in Administrative Decision-Making’ in Matthew, Groves (ed), Law and Government in Australia (The Federation Press, 2005) 213Google Scholar, 239; Jeff, A King, ‘The Justiciability of Resource Allocation’ (2007) 70 Modern Law Review 197Google Scholar.

53 Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257, 265 (Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ).

54 Croome v Tasmania (1997) 191 CLR 119, 132–3 (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ), 125–7 (Brennan CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

55 (2000) 200 CLR 591.

56 Ibid 603 [20] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J), 611 [44]–[45] (Gaudron J), 631 [104], 637 [120]–[122] (Gummow J), 659–60 [176]–[180] (Kirby J), 660 [183] (Hayne J), 670 [214] (Callinan J).

57 Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 743.

58 (2002) 209 CLR 597, 617 [57]. See also Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99, 128 [80], 130 [89] (Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ).

59 Ibid 617 [58]; cf McHugh J, 618 [64]–[65].

60 On broad and narrow approaches to the matter principle see Christos, Mantziaris and Leighton, McDonald, ‘Federal Judicial Review Jurisdiction after Griffith University v Tang’ (2006) 17 Public Law Review 22, 33–5Google Scholar.

61 The consultation provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 95(2)(c), 98(1)(c)(ii), 103(1)(c)(ii) refer to inviting ‘anyone’ to provide comments about the proposed action.

62 See Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 427; Mantziaris and McDonald, above n 60, 37; Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 582 (Mason J); Huddart Parker and Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330, 357 (Griffith CJ), 384 (Isaacs J).

63 Mark, Aronson, ‘Private Bodies, Public Power and Soft Law in the High Court’ (2007) 35 Federal Law Review 1, 17Google Scholar.

64 For the quotation of Bateman's Bay see the text corresponding to footnote 48 and for the quotation of the Bhardwaj case see the text corresponding to footnotes 58 and 59.

65 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, 354 [105] (Gummow and Crennan JJ); Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 591, 638 [127] (Kirby J). See also Hicks v Ruddock (2007) 156 FCR 574, 600 [93] (Tamberlin J).

66 See Mantziaris and McDonald, above n 60, 32–5.

67 Chris, Finn, ‘The Justiciability of Administrative Decisions: A Redundant Concept?’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 239Google Scholar.

68 Cane, above n 3, 29.

69 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 89–91 [45]–[49] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 113–15 [112]–[119], 122 [134] (Kirby J).

70 Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425, 431–2 [18]–[26].

71 Minister for Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc (2004) 139 FCR 24.

72 Phosphate Resources Ltd v Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts (No 2) (2008) 162 LGERA 154; Anzbrook Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2010) 237 FLR 187.

73 Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 174 FCR 14.

74 Hawke, above n 8, 314 [20.34].

75 Ibid 314 [20.35].

76 Peter, Cane, ‘Administrative Law as Regulation’ in Christine, Parker, Colin, Scott, Nicola, Lacey and John, Braithwaite (eds), Regulating Law (Oxford University Press, 2004) 207, 219Google Scholar; P P, Craig, Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Clarendon Press, 1990) 28–9Google Scholar; Stewart, above n 3, 1723; S M, Thio, Locus Standi and Judicial Review (Singapore University Press, 1971) 2–5Google Scholar.

77 Burmester, above n 3, 252; Peter, Cane and Leighton, McDonald, Principles of Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), 190Google Scholar; Cass, R Sunstein, ‘Standing and the Privatization of Public Law’ (1988) 88 Columbia Law Review 1432, 1469Google Scholar.

78 Allars, above n 50, 93–5; Cane, above n 49, 305–7; Christos, Mantziaris, ‘The Federal Division of Public Interest Suits by an Attorney-General’ (2004) 25 Adelaide Law Review 211, 216–17Google Scholar; Sunstein, above n 77, 1434.

79 Aidan, Ricketts and Nicole, Rogers, ‘Third Party Rights in NSW Environmental Legislation: the Backlash’ (1999) 16 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 157, 158Google Scholar; Stewart, above n 3, 1723, 1723–4; Sunstein, above n 77, 1435–6.

80 These models are based primarily on those developed in Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 186–7. They have also been influenced by Stewart, above n 3, and Paul, Craig, Administrative Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 6th ed, 2008) 3Google Scholar and by statutory interpretation ‘backgrounds’ in J M, Evans, H N, Janisch and David, J Mullan, Administrative Law: Cases, Text, and Materials (Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd, 4th ed, 1995) 685Google Scholar.

81 The history is more complex than this generalisation suggests. There is debate about whether the enforcement model has an equally strong historical claim: see Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 781; Cass, R Sunstein, ‘What's Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries”, and Article III’ (1992) 91 Michigan Law Review 163Google Scholar; Ann, Woolhandler and Caleb, Nelson, ‘Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?’ (2004) 102 Michigan Law Review 689Google Scholar.

82 See, eg, Frank Brennan, National Human Rights Consultation Report (September 2009) 366; Cane, above n 49, 327; Finn, above n 67, 249; Michael, Taggart, ‘“Australian Exceptionalism” in Judicial Review’ (2008) 36 Federal Law Review 1, 13Google Scholar; H W R, Wade and C F, Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 9th ed, 2004) 5Google Scholar.

83 Harlow, above n 49, 5.

84 Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 169; Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 50–1; SirAnthony, Mason, ‘Mike Taggart and Australian Exceptionalism’ in David, Dyzenhaus, Murray, Hunt and Grant, Huscroft (eds), A Simple Common Lawyer: Essays in Honour of Michael Taggart (Hart Publishing, 2009) 179, 180Google Scholar.

85 See, eg, Harlow, above n 49, 5; Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425, 428 [2]; Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 173 LGERA 280, 287 [24].

86 See Chris, McGrath, ‘Flying Foxes, Dams and Whales: Using Federal Environmental Laws in the Public Interest’ (2008) 25 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 324, 356Google Scholar; Brian, J Preston, ‘The Role of Public Interest Environmental Litigation’ (2006) 23 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 337Google Scholar; Joseph, L Sax, Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action (Alfred A Knopf, 1971)Google Scholar.

87 Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 186–7.

88 Australian Law Reform Commission, Beyond the Doorkeeper: Standing to Sue for Public Remedies, Report No 78 (1996) [5.24]–[5.25]; Elizabeth, C Fisher and Jeremy, Kirk, ‘Still Standing: An Argument for Open Standing in Australia and England’ (1997) 71 The Australian Law Journal 370, 383Google Scholar.

89 Australian Law Reform Commission (1985), above n 26, 138; Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 187.

90 Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 187–8.

91 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 88, [4.32]. See also Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, 644 (Lord Diplock).

92 Australian Law Reform Commission (1985), above n 26, 81.

93 Australian Law Reform Commission (1996), above n 88, [2.30].

94 The primary Australian case that is thought to reflect the participation model is United States Tobacco Company v Minister for Consumer Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 520 in which the Federal Court recognised that participation in administrative proceedings could support standing in judicial review proceedings. Although this looks like it would support standing for environmental groups who participate in environmental decision-making processes, there is authority against it (Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 531–2; North Coast Environment Council Inc v Minister for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492, 512).

95 Stewart, above n 3, 1670.

96 Stewart, above n 3, 1748–52, 1756–60.

97 Robin Creyke and John McMillan, ‘Judicial Review Outcomes — An Empirical Study’ (2004) 11 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 82, 96.

98 See, eg, Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 415–18; John, McMillan, ‘Judicial Restraint and Activism in Administrative Law’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 335Google Scholar, 355–65.

99 (1985) 159 CLR 550.

100 (1990) 170 CLR 596.

101 (1986) 162 CLR 24.

102 Stewart, above n 3, 1670.

103 If the action requires approval, there are six possible assessment processes ranging from assessment on information already provided by the proponent to an inquiry.

104 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(f).

105 I have included ‘breach of statutory procedures’ under ‘process grounds’ rather than ‘legality'. This follows Cane and McDonald above n 77, 147–8 and the initial classification of the grounds of review into three categories by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 411.

106 Creyke and McMillan, above n 97, 96–7.

107 Minister for Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc (2004) 139 FCR 24.

108 Phosphate Resources Ltd v Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts (No 2) (2008) 162 LGERA 154, 208–9 [173]; Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 174 FCR 14, 26–32 [32]–[74].

109 Anzbrook Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2010) 237 FLR 187, 195 [54].

110 Fisher and Kirk, above n 88, 374.

111 Anvil Hill Project Watch Association Inc v Minister for Environment and Water Resources (2008) 166 FCR 54, 60 [25]-[26].

112 Administrative Review Council, ‘The Scope of Judicial Review’ (Report No 47, April 2006) 22–5.

113 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 584–5 (Mason J); Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39–40 (Mason J); Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 283, 455.

114 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(a)–(b).

115 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 389 [92]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO (2009) 238 CLR 627, 640 [36].

116 Wilderness Society Inc v Turnbull, Minister for Environment and Water Resources (2007) 158 LGERA 134, 151 [77] (failure to publish a notice in compliance with regulations); Waratah Coal Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 173 FCR 557, 566 [26], 571 [43] (failure to comply with a time limit in the Act).

117 (2007) 166 FCR 154.

118 Ibid 167 [55].

119 Ibid 173 [73], 178 [88].

120 Ibid 175 [80] (Branson and Finn JJ); 178 [94] (Tamberlin J).

121 Ibid 175 [82] (Branson and Finn JJ). See also Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 472.

122 Ibid 175 [82] (Branson and Finn JJ).

123 Ibid 175 [82] (Branson and Finn JJ).

124 Ibid 177 [86] (Branson and Finn JJ).

125 Ibid 177-8 [88] (Branson and Finn JJ).

126 Ibid.

127 See G J, Craven, ‘Legislative Action by Subordinate Authorities and the Requirement of a Fair Hearing’ (1988) 16 Melbourne University Law Review 569, 583–4, 593Google Scholar.

128 See, eg, Botany Bay City Council v Minister of State for Transport and Regional Development (1996) 66 FCR 537, 568; Rivers SOS Inc v Minister for Planning (2009) 178 LGERA 347, 385 [162]. See also Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99, 118 [45] (Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ).

129 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 87, 95, 98, 103, 131A.

130 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 131AA.

131 Campbell and Groves, above n 52, 233–4. See also SirAnthony, Mason, ‘Procedural Fairness: Its Development and Continuing Role of Legitimate Expectation’ (2005) 12 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 103, 105Google Scholar.

132 Interestingly, the Wilderness Society lodged a submission to the Hawke Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) arguing that consultation periods included in the Act should be increased since the Federal Court had determined that environmental groups have no right to procedural fairness: Hawke, above n 8, 314 [20.36].

133 Aronson, Dyer, Groves, n 1, 281.

134 Cane and McDonald, above n 77, 149.

135 Fourteen of the 16 cases.

136 Creyke and McMillan, above n 97, 96–7. See also Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 281–2.

137 Hawke, above n 8, 314 [20.34].

138 Aronson, Dyer and Groves, above n 1, 288.

139 (1986) 162 CLR 24, 41.

140 Stewart, above n 3, 1758 (emphasis added).

141 Gerry, Bates, Environmental Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 7th ed, 2010), 199Google Scholar.

142 See Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2009) 165 LGERA 203, 217 [29]; Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 102 ALD 558, 595 [180]; Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 167 FCR 463, 479 [92], 492 [124]; Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage (2006) 232 ALR 510, 521 [53].

143 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 3A.

144 Ibid ss 3, 3A, 136.

145 Ibid s 136(2)(a).

146 Ibid s 391.

147 Ibid.

148 Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2009) 165 LGERA 203, 217 [29]; Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 102 ALD 558, 595 [180]; Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 167 FCR 463, 479 [92], 492 [124]; Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage (2006) 232 ALR 510, 521 [53].

149 Hawke, above n 44, 233 [13.29]–[13.30].

150 (2008) 167 FCR 463.

151 Ibid 476 [52].

152 Ibid 479–80 [72]–[74].

153 Ibid 480 [75]. The applicant's argument was made more complex by its reference to ESD principles being applicable to social impacts. North J concluded that the ESD principles apply to environmental impacts only: (2008) 167 FCR 463, 480–81 [77].

154 Ibid 481 [78].

155 (2008) 102 ALD 558. This case was reversed on appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court. However, the aspect of the case discussed here was not dealt with by the Full Court: (2008) 174 FCR 14, 18 [2].

156 Ibid 596 [182]–[184].

157 Ibid 596 [182], [184]–[187].

158 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 391(2).

159 (2009) 165 LGERA 203. Note that the issues relating to the precautionary principle were not pressed in an unsuccessful appeal of this case to the Full Court of the Federal Court: Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2009) 178 FCR 385, 397 [46].

160 (2009) 165 LGERA 203, 218 [29], 220 [39].

161 Ibid 218 [29].

162 Ibid.

163 Ibid 219 [37].

164 Ibid 220 [40].

165 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 136(1).

166 (2009) 165 LGERA 203, 219 [36].

167 Ibid 220 [38].

168 Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292; [1987] FCA 457, [25]–[26], [43] (Gummow J).

169 Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451, 462 (Black CJ).

170 Zhang v Canterbury City Council (2001) 51 NSWLR 589, 602–3 [71]–[77] (Spigelman CJ).

171 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Anthonypillai (2001) 106 FCR 426, 442 [65]; Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163, 186 (Spigelman CJ); McMillan, above n 98, 361–5.

172 McMillan, above n 98, 363. See also references to these principles in recent decisions of the Full Court of the Federal Court: Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (2011) 180 LGERA 99, 112 [44]; Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 192 FCR 173, 193 [75] (Flick J); Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248, 270–271 [57]–[62].

173 (2010) 243 CLR 164, 175 [29]. At least in the context of a tribunal's consideration of evidence given by an applicant.

174 Ibid 176 [30], quoting Basten JA in Swift v SAS Trustee Corporation [2010] NSWCA 182, [45].

175 Ibid 176-7 [33]–[34].

176 The Full Court of the Federal Court treated the High Court's decision in SZJSS in this way in Reece v Webber (2011) 192 FCR 254, 277–8 [67]–[70].

177 See, eg, Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 102 ALD 558; Anvil Hill Project Watch Association Inc v Minister for Environment and Water Resources (2008) 166 FCR 54; Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc v Minister for the Environment and Heritage (2006) 232 ALR 510.

178 See, eg, Lawyers for Forests v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2009) 165 LGERA 203; Wilderness Society Inc v Turnbull (2007) 166 FCR 154.

179 Minister for Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc (2004) 139 FCR 24.

180 Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 167 FCR 463.

181 Lon Fuller, ‘The Forms and Limits of Adjudication’ (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review 353, 397.

182 (1987) 15 FCR 274, 278–9.

183 Bates, above n 141, 215 (emphasis in original); Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 173 LGERA 280, 287 [23].

184 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 41 (Mason J); Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 85 ALJR 306, 313 [32]–[34].

185 Stewart, above n 3, 1757.

186 Section 515(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) provides that the Minister may delegate any of his or her powers and functions under the Act. It seems that, while stage one decisions may be delegated to an official, the final decision made at stage three is not. All of the cases relating to challenges to stage three decisions involved decisions made by the Minister rather than a delegate.

187 See South Australia v O'Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378, 411 (Brennan J); Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 42 (Mason CJ).

188 See, eg, Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 173 LGERA 280, 286–7 [21]–[27], 289 [36]; Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Resources (1989) 76 LGRA 200, 205–6.

189 Of course, a possible solution is to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) to allow for merits appeals for one or more of the decisions made in the assessment process as recommended by the Hawke Review: Hawke, above n 44, 259 [15.61]. The recommendation and the reasoning that led to it are significant and interesting but their examination is beyond the scope of this article.