World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983

Last updated

World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act relating to the protection and conservation of certain property, and for related purposes
Royal assent 22 May 1983
Commenced22 May 1983
Introduced by Barry Cohen
Status: Repealed

The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, [1] was an Act of the Parliament of Australia which provided for certain protections for World Heritage listed places.

Contents

The validity of the Act was considered by the High Court of Australia in Commonwealth v Tasmania , also known as the Tasmanian Dams case. That case found several provisions of the Act to be invalid, but most of its major provisions were held to be valid.

The Act was repealed in 1999, and replaced by parts of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .

History

The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill was introduced on 21 April 1983, by the then Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, Barry Cohen. [2]

The Tasmanian Dams case (1983) revolved around the validity of the Act. The High Court of Australia was asked separate questions about the validity of:

  1. sections 6 and 9,
  2. sections 7 and 10,
  3. sections 8 and 11, and
  4. section 17. [3]

On the first part of question, the court held that s 6(1), (2)(b) and (3) were valid, but that it was not necessary to determine the validity of the other subsections. [3] It held that s 9(1)(h) was valid, but that the remaining subsections of s 9(1) and (2) were invalid. [3] On the second part of the question, the court found that s 7 was valid, and that s 10(1) and (4) were valid (the other parts of s 10 being unnecessary to consider). [3] On the third part of the question, the court held both s 8 and s 11 invalid. [3] It held that it was not necessary to answer the fourth part. [3]

The Act was repealed in 1999 by Schedule 6 of the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999, as part of the reforms that saw the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , which replaced several prior pieces of environmental legislation. [4] It ceased to have effect on 16 July 2000. [1]

Provisions

The core of the legislation provided for a system of proclamations: sections 9, 10 and 11 set out certain acts which were unlawful if done with respect to properties or sites to which the sections applied, and sections 6, 7 and 8 respectively allowed the Governor-General of Australia to make proclamations declaring that those sections applied to certain eligible properties or sites. The three pairs of sections were set up to make use of three different powers available under the Constitution of Australia: the external affairs power, the corporations power and the race power.

Section 6 concerned sites of natural or cultural heritage value. It allowed proclamations to be made with respect to World Heritage nominated sites, sites which Australia was otherwise obliged to protect under international law, sites that were otherwise a matter of international concern, or sites "part of the heritage distinctive of the Australian nation". [5] These overlapping provisions were designed to touch on different aspects of the external affairs power in the Constitution of Australia, and the last of these was designed to touch on the implied nationhood power. [6]

If the Governor-General were satisfied that a property falling under the above definitions "is being or is likely to be damaged or destroyed" then they could make a proclamation with respect to that property. [5] Once a proclamation was made under section 6, certain acts were prohibited by section 9, including carrying out excavation works, exploratory drilling, constructing "a building or other substantial structure" and felling any trees on the site. [7]

Section 7 was far broader than section 6; it allowed the Governor-General to make proclamations with respect to "any identified property [that] is being or is likely to be damaged or destroyed". [8] However section 10, which set out the consequences of a proclamation under section 7, was narrow in its application; while it covered the same types of acts as section 9, it only made those acts unlawful if performed by certain corporations, namely foreign or trading corporations (that is, those corporations subject to the corporations power in the Constitution). [9] Section 10(4) went further, and specifically made those same acts unlawful if done by such a corporation "for the purposes of its trading activities". [6] [9]

Section 8 allowed proclamations to be made with respect to sites of significance to Indigenous Australians, if either the sites themselves, or any artefacts or relics on them, were or were likely to be damaged or destroyed. [10] Section 11 covered the same acts as described in sections 9 and 10, and rendered them unlawful if done with respect to properties subject to proclamations under section 8. [11]

Once proclamations were made, they had to be tabled before both houses of the Parliament of Australia in accordance with the procedures set out in section 15. [12] Proclamations could be revoked by the Governor-General once the threat of damage or destruction had passed. [13]

Exceptions

Section 12 provided certain statutory exceptions to the prohibitions in sections 9, 10 and 11, to do with acts permitted under management plans in other federal environment legislation, and acts permitted under state or territory law. [14]

Sections 9, 10 and 11 each provided that acts normally prohibited by those sections would not be unlawful if done with the permission of the relevant Minister (then titled the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment); section 13 set out the procedures to be followed by the Minister in granting such consent. [15] Section 18 allowed the power to grant consent to be delegated. [16]

Enforcement

Section 14 granted jurisdiction to both the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia to grant injunctions restraining acts unlawful under sections 9, 10 or 11; such injunctions could be applied for by the Attorney-General of Australia, or by any "interested person" (which was defined in subsections 3 through to 5 of section 14). [17]

Compensation

Section 17 provided for a compensation scheme, in the event that any proclamation should amount to an acquisition of property within the meaning of section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution. [18]

Related Research Articles

The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

Billiatt Conservation Park, formerly the Billiatt National Park, is a protected area in the Australian state of South Australia located in the locality of Sandalwood about 200 kilometres (120 mi) east of the state capital of Adelaide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether in population counts for constitutional purposes to include all Indigenous Australians. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

A double dissolution is a procedure permitted under the Australian Constitution to resolve deadlocks in the bicameral Parliament of Australia between the House of Representatives and the Senate. A double dissolution is the only circumstance in which the entire Senate can be dissolved.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 51(xxxi)</span> Section of the Constitution of Australia

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd</i>

Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd, also known as the Concrete Pipes Case, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the scope of the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution. This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the Commonwealth has had at least the ability to regulate the trading activities of trading corporations, thus opening the way for an expansion in Commonwealth power.

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales, was a Privy Council decision that affirmed the High Court of Australia's decision in Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth, promoting the theory of "individual rights" to ensure freedom of interstate trade and commerce. The case dealt primarily with Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<i>Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth, also known as the Communist Party Case, was a legal case in the High Court of Australia in 1951 in which the court declared the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 unconstitutional and invalid as being beyond the power of the Parliament. Notable Australian academic George Winterton described the case as "undoubtedly one of the High Court's most important decisions."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</span> Environmental law in Australia

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that provides a framework for protection of the Australian environment, including its biodiversity and its natural and culturally significant places. Enacted on 17 July 2000, it established a range of processes to help protect and promote the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities, and preserve significant places from decline. The Act is as of June 2020 administered by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Lists of threatened species are drawn up under the Act, and these lists, the primary reference to threatened species in Australia, are available online through the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Circuit Court of Australia</span> Australian justice court

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Service, was an Australian court with jurisdiction over matters broadly relating to family law and child support, administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, migration, privacy and trade practices.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which seeks to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with reasons to follow later.

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Commonwealth</i>

Telstra Corporation Limited v. The Commonwealth was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 March 2008.

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

<i>Roche v Kronheimer</i>

Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.

<i>Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead</i> Australian constitutional law case

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court, however, divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in 1920, Huddart, Parker was not formally overruled by the High Court until Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971).

<i>SS Kalibia v Wilson</i>

SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.

References

  1. 1 2 "World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983". ComLaw. Attorney-General's Department. Retrieved 2 September 2008.
  2. ↑ Barry Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (21 April 1983). "World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. p. 46..
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams case) [1983] HCA 21 , (1983) 158 CLR 1(1 July 1983), High Court.
  4. ↑ Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999 (Cth) Schedule 6.
  5. 1 2 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 6
  6. 1 2 Blackshield, Tony; Williams, George (2006). Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (4th ed). Leichhardt, New South Wales: The Federation Press. ISBN   1-86287-586-3.
  7. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 9
  8. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 7
  9. 1 2 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 10
  10. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 8
  11. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 11
  12. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 15
  13. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 16
  14. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 12
  15. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 13
  16. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 18
  17. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 14
  18. ↑ World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) s 17
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.