North Coast Environment Council v Minister for Resources PDF

Preview

Summary

North Coast Environment Council v Minister for Resources...

Description

North Coast Environment Council v Minister for Resources – (1994) 36 ALD 30 Parties: Applicant: North Coast Environment Council Respondent: Minister for Resources

Case Citation: (1994) 36 ALD 30

Court: Federal Court of Australia

Judges: Sackeville J

Summary of Key Facts: NCEC (non-profit association) represented 44 enviornmental organisations. NC had no (employed) staff, and received a small government grant and larger grants for specific projects, regularly made submissions to governmental bodies on environmental matters including forestry issues. NC played consistent role in opposing renewal of export licences for woochips on ground there was no proper EIS under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth). Minister for Resources granted a licence pursuant to Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations 1986 (Cth), allowing company to export. Applicant request respondent to give statement of reasons. Respondent said no, that they were not an aggrieved person.

Issues for consideration by the Court: 

Were they aggrieved to give them standing?

Decision: 

When looking at issues of entitlement to reasons and standing to seek judicial review, focus should be on who can represent the public interest most effectively and faithfull rather than upon any benefit which might accrue to applicant.







In determining standing, court should take into account the nature of applicant’s concern with and relationship to subject matter of the action, that there must be an affection or threatened affection of applicant’s interests. Shouldn’t rely on a rigid line regarding standing, should examine circumstances of an individual case. Test of “person aggrieved” under the AD(JR) Act requires an applicant to demonstrate a “special interest” in the subject matter of the action and a mere intellectual or emotional concern is not enough. The expression “person aggrieved” does not extend to a person who has no greater grievance than he or she would suffer as an ordinary member of the public. Applicant was entitled to statement of reasons because it: o Was the peak environmental organisation in North Coast region – reason for this below o Had been recognised by the Cth since 1977 as significant and responsible environmental organisation, receiving regular financial grants o Had been recognised by government of NSW as a body that should represent environmental concerns on advisory committees o Had conducted projects and conferences on matters of environmental concern o Had made submissions on forestry management issues and funded a study on old growth forests o Had capacity to represent effectively, in a forensic sense, the interests it sought to promote.

Reasons for decision 





North Coast's rules provide that its prime aim and object is to promote the cause of conservation throughout the ``defined area'’ or elsewhere as may be determined from time to time. It was not in dispute that the defined area included the areas from which Sawmillers was to obtain woodchips to be exported pursuant to the licence granted by the minister. North Coast's objects include the following o To work for the better conservation of the physical environment of the defined area, its landscape, its flora and fauna, its waters and foreshores and coasts, to work for the maintenance and improvement of its human amenities, and the wise use of its natural resources, and to engage in any and all conservation, environmental, ecological or planning activities and in such ways as the Council may decide. o To represent generally the views of such bodies as may be engaged in any aspect of the conservation of the defined area; to foster optimum liaison between such bodies in the inter-change of information and views; and in particular to support as requested, the conservation activities of its member organisations. o To act as spokesperson and to make representations and submissions to any person, organisation, public authority or instrumentality on such conservation matters as apply generally to the defined area or to other areas excepting that in any matter of prime concern to a member body and specifically affecting only the local area covered by that member body the agreement of that member body must be gained before such council actions are taken. Reason it is peak organisation:

North Coast is governed by a committee of 10 councillors elected by delegates of the member groups. The member organisations must agree to the objectives of the council. In this sense, and having regard to North Coast's role as spokesperson on conservation matters, it is aptly described as the peak environmental organisation for Northern NSW.  Its own literature describes North Coast as “the regional umbrella organisation for community conservation and environmental groups on the North Coast of NSW” o “First, North Coast is the peak environmental organisation in the North Coast region of NSW, having 44 environmental groups as members. Its activities relate to the areas affected by the operations generating the woodchips that are the subject of the export licence granted to Sawmillers” It was relevant that the association does a lot of environmentaly focused activiites: o North Coast representatives participate in workshops and conferences including, o North Coast has made submissions to a variety of governmental bodies on environmental matters, including forestry issues. It was relevant that the association had already done work in the area regarding woodchipping. NC’s submissions: o The authorities recognise that applicants have standing to enforce a public right or duty if they have ``a special interest in the subject matter of the action'’ o Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27 ; 36 ALR 425, supports the proposition that a non-material interest in the preservation of land can suffice to establish a special interest in the subject matter of action. What is required is an analysis of the importance of the applicant's concern with the particular subject matter and the closeness of the applicant's relationship to that subject matter: Onus v Alcoa, In ACF v Cth, similar facts: It was alleged in the statement of claim that the ACF had 6500 members; that it had made submissions to governments and public authorities in respect of environmental matters; and that it had received annual grants from the Commonwealth for its purposes: o the action was not brought by the foundation to assert a private right. It is brought to prevent what is alleged to be a public wrong. So it failed though. The term ``person aggrieved'’ is not to be given a narrow meaning. It covers a person who can show a grievance which will be suffered as a result of the decision, beyond that which he or she has as an ordinary member of the public: Tooheys Ltd v Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs o



 







o...