What was the significance of the Tasmanian Dam Case?
Tasmanian Dam Case The Tasmanian Dam Case is the most famous and influential environmental law case in Australian history. It was also a landmark in Australian constitutional law. In it, the Commonwealth Government succeeded in stopping a large hydro-electric dam proposed to be constructed in South-West Tasmania.
What are some of the most important constitutional cases in Tasmania?
Perhaps the most significant constitutional case in the High Court concerning Tasmania has been the Tasmanian Dam Case. As we probably all remember, the High Court held in 1983 that the Commonwealth Government had the power to stop the Tasmanian Government from building the Gordon below Franklin Dam.
What was the significance of Commonwealth v Tasmania?
Commonwealth v Tasmania (popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) [1] 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.
What was the significance of the decision in the dam case?
In a 4:3 split decision the High Court largely upheld the validity of the Commonwealth laws, thereby preventing the dam proceeding. The decision had enormous significance for the extent of Commonwealth powers to make laws under the Australian Constitution, including its power to make laws to protect the environment.
See more
Where was the Tasmanian dam case?
South-West TasmaniaThe Tasmanian Dam Case is the most famous and influential environmental law case in Australian history. It was also a landmark in Australian constitutional law. In it, the Commonwealth Government succeeded in stopping a large hydro-electric dam proposed to be constructed in South-West Tasmania.
Who won the Tasmanian dam case?
Decision. A four to three majority of the seven members of the High Court held that the federal government had legitimately prevented construction of the dam, and that the World Heritage Act was authorised under the "external affairs" power.
What happened in the Tasmanian dam case?
Verdict. The 7 justices of the High Court split 4 to 3 to decide that the Australian Parliament did have the constitutional power to make the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. The law was valid and the Tasmanian Government needed to stop construction of the Franklin Dam.
Who was involved in the Tasmanian dam case?
As we probably all remember, the High Court held in 1983 that the Commonwealth Government had the power to stop the Tasmanian Government from building the Gordon below Franklin Dam. That decision was arrived at by a four-three majority (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ dissenting).
Why did the Tasmanian Government want the Franklin Dam?
This dam would generate cheap hydroelectricity and create new jobs in Tasmania, but it would also flood the nearby Franklin River and the wilderness area around it. Environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, lobbied the Tasmanian Government to protect the environment and stop the dam.
What does section 51 of the Australian Constitution State?
Section 51 of the Australian Constitution lists the areas in which the Australian Parliament can make laws. These national issues include foreign affairs, defence and Medicare. Areas not listed in section 51 are the responsibility of state governments.
Who wanted to dam the Franklin River?
the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric CommissionTasmanians were sharply divided over a 1978 proposal to dam the Franklin River and generate hydro-electricity. In 1978 the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission—with approval from the Tasmanian Government—announced plans to build a dam on the Franklin River to generate hydro-electricity.
Who saved the Franklin River?
In 1982 protesters and environmental activists worked with the Australian Government to stop the damming of the Franklin River. This action saved a key wilderness area in Tasmania and created a political precedent for the raising of environmental concerns in parliament.
Who stopped the damming of the Franklin River?
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) led by Bob Hawke took an anti-Franklin Dam stance, and the TWS ran a national 'Vote for the Franklin' campaign urging voters to support ALP candidates in marginal House of Representatives seats. One of the Hawke government's first actions was to pass regulations prohibiting the dam.
Who can change the Australian Constitution?
The Australian Constitution can only be altered by referendum. In a referendum, all Australians of voting age vote yes or no for the proposed changes. To succeed, a majority of voters nationwide and a majority of States (four out of six) must approve the changes.
What did Premier gray do in the Franklin Dam case?
The new Liberal Government under Premier Robin Gray supported the construction of a dam on the Franklin River and started the building process. It also asked the Australian Government to withdraw the heritage nomination.
Does Tasmania have high courts?
The Supreme Court of Tasmania is the highest State court in the Australian State of Tasmania. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is in the middle level, with both an appellate jurisdiction over lower courts, and decisions made by Court to be heard on appeal by the High Court of Australia.
Who stopped the damming of the Franklin River?
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) led by Bob Hawke took an anti-Franklin Dam stance, and the TWS ran a national 'Vote for the Franklin' campaign urging voters to support ALP candidates in marginal House of Representatives seats. One of the Hawke government's first actions was to pass regulations prohibiting the dam.
What did Premier gray do in the Franklin Dam case?
The new Liberal Government under Premier Robin Gray supported the construction of a dam on the Franklin River and started the building process. It also asked the Australian Government to withdraw the heritage nomination.
What happened in the Franklin Dam case?
The decision was split 4:3. The Court found that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) was supported by the external affairs power in part, and that the Commonwealth was able to list the Franklin dam area as a world heritage site.
Who wanted to dam the Franklin River?
the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric CommissionTasmanians were sharply divided over a 1978 proposal to dam the Franklin River and generate hydro-electricity. In 1978 the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission—with approval from the Tasmanian Government—announced plans to build a dam on the Franklin River to generate hydro-electricity.
What was the significance of the Tasmanian Dam case?
The Court’s decision had enormous implications for the constitutional and political relationship between the Commonwealth and State governments. The decision paved the way for increased opportunities for the federal government to regulate in areas once the domain of the State governments, and added further constitutional significance to the Commonwealth government’s engagement at the international level. The impact of these dimensions of the case has been most prominent for environmental policy and in the protection of human rights in Australia.
What was the significance of the decision of the Commonwealth?
The decision paved the way for increased opportunities for the federal government to regulate in areas once the domain of the State governments, and added further constitutional significance to the Commonwealth government’s engagement at the international level.
What is the significance of the Tasmanian Dam case?
On 28 June 2013, 30 years after the decision was handed down, the Melbourne Law School hosted a symposium ‘ Turning Points: Remembering Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 ’, to commemorate and reflect on the significance of the Tasmanian Dam case for Australian society , the environment and Australian law . The private symposium was convened by Dr Ann Genovese (Melbourne Law School). It brought together significant figures involved in the case, academic lawyers, historians and environmental activists, and the papers presented will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Griffith Law Review. For more on the Turning Points symposium, see here.
When was the Commonwealth v Tasmania symposium?
The ‘ Turning Points: Remembering Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 ’ symposium was convened by Dr Ann Genovese on 28 June 2013 at Melbourne Law School. It was co-hosted by the Institute for International Law and the Humanities (IILAH), the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies (CCCS), and the Centre for Resources Energy and Environmental Law (CREEL). It is the second in a series of two symposia in the Turning Points series, building on last year’s symposium ‘ Turning Points: Remembering Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 16 ’.
What was the first case in which the High Court of Australia released a media statement explaining the Court’s role in?
The Tasmanian Dam case was the first case in which the High Court of Australia released a media statement explaining the Court’s role in adjudicating the dispute (see here ).
What are the questions of Gordon below Franklin Dam?
The questions concern the validity of certain Commonwealth Acts, regulations and proclamations which have been brought into being for the immediate purpose of preventing the construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. They are strictly legal questions. The Court is in no way concerned with the question whether it is desirable or undesirable, either on the whole or from any particular point of view, that the construction of the dam should proceed. The assessment of the possible advantages and disadvantages of constructing the dam, and the balancing of the one against the other, are not matters for the Court, and the Court’s judgment does not reflect any view of the merits of the dispute.
When was Damian Martin's portrait of Anthony Mason?
Damian Martin, ‘Portrait of Sir Anthony Mason’ (11 October 2005) displayed with the kind permission of the National Library of Australia, nla.int-nl39509-dmc2.
What was the first media release on a case?
The High Court’s first media release on a case. Much was soon written on the case as a turning point in clarifying constitutional questions. Another important but often overlooked turning point is in the Court’s relations with the public at large. The Tasmanian Dam case was the first case in which the High Court of Australia released ...
When was the Tasmanian Dam case?
Thirty years after the High Court sat in Brisbane to hand down its decision in Commonwealth v Tasmania on 1 July 1983 , Melbourne Law School hosted a symposium to commemorate and reflect on the significance of the Tasmanian Dam case. Research Fellow Martin Clark (LLB (Hons) 2012) reflects on the commemoration of its impact on Australia's society, environment and law.
What was the significance of the Tasmanian Dam case?
Central among these was the proper interpretation of the external affairs power of the Commonwealth Parliament; s 51 (xxix). What 'external affairs' precisely meant for Parliament's power to legislate in relation to international agreements to which Australia was a party remained unclear and controversial in the early decades of the Court's operation. In holding 4:3 that the external affairs power did support the federal law used to declare the Franklin–Gordon River part of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, the High Court clarified some — but by no means all — of the enduring uncertainties about the power's scope.
What is the symposium on Commonwealth v Tasmania?
The symposium, which was entitled Turning Points: Remembering Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, brought together significant figures involved in the case, as well as practitioners, judges, academics and activists, to present and discuss papers that grappled with a broad range of questions about the case's significance, its legacy and the process of memorialising case law and political events in Australian history.
When did the Franklin Dam end?
For Dr Bob Brown, the Wilderness Society's campaign to stop the Franklin Dam began with a rafting trip down the river in 1975 and ended in the High Court in 1983.
What was the immediate effect of the decision to stop construction of the Franklin Dam and the destruction of the river system?
To the critics of the Court's decision at the time, the only thing likely to be destroyed was the federal system and the rights of the States. Today those fears seem exaggerated, but their presence at the time reminds us of the divisive bitterness surrounding the debate over the Franklin Dam.
Who had the power to stop the Tasmanian government from building the Gordon below Franklin Dam?
As we probably all remember, the High Court held in 1983 that the Commonwealth Government had the power to stop the Tasmanian Government from building the Gordon below Franklin Dam. That decision was arrived at by a four-three majority (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ dissenting).
When was the last time the High Court visited Tasmania?
Ever since 1904, the High Court has been coming to Hobart to hear Tasmanian cases. Its last visit was in 2006, but it will be back in the new year to hear two Tasmanian appeals. One concerns a dispute as to whether fish farms in Macquarie Harbour are liable for council rates. The other concerns the scope of the duties that a solicitor owes when he or she makes a will for a client – not the solicitor’s duty to the client, but the solicitor’s duty to the intended beneficiary, in a situation where a disinherited family member took the executor to court and ended up with about a third of the estate, in circumstances where that outcome could have been avoided by means of a manoeuvre that the solicitor had not suggested.
What size crayfish are allowed in Tasmania?
In Tasmania, the minimum permitted size was 11cm for male crayfish and 10.5cm for female crayfish. But in South Australia, which unsurprisingly had modern ideas about gender equality, the minimum size for both male and female crayfish was 98.55mm. The crayfish found by the inspector were big enough for South Australia, but not big enough for Tasmania. The company that operated the crayfish farm was prosecuted, together with its operations manager. A magistrate dismissed the charge, relying on s 92 of the Constitution. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania. That appeal was removed into the High Court. It seems that the judges of the High Court had been waiting for an opportunity to rewrite the law in relation to s 92, and this case provided it. The fisheries officer who had signed the complaint in the Hobart Court of Petty Sessions was represented by three counsel, including the Solicitor-General for Tasmania and an eminent Sydney QC. The Solicitors-General for the Commonwealth and each of the five mainland States all made submissions about the meaning of s 92, each arguing that the charge should not have been dismissed. It was an interesting experience for Peter Cranswick QC and Steven Chopping, who represented the Tasmania company and its operations manager. In a joint judgment, the seven judges of the High Court held that the Tasmania regulations were compatible with s 92. More significantly, the Court abandoned previous approaches to s 92 and adopted a new one. State legislation will now be regarded as incompatible with s 92 only if it is discriminatory against interstate trade and commerce in a protectionist sense: Cole v Whitfield (above) at 407.
What did the Tasmanian homosexuals sue?
Two Tasmanian homosexual men sued the State in the High Court, seeking declarations that the provisions in our Criminal Code relating to male homosexual activity were inconsistent with the provision in the Commonwealth legislation that was based on the ICCPR.
What is non constitutional case?
Non Constitutional Cases. Constitutional cases, whilst very important, form only a small part of the work of the High Court. Most of the High Court’s work in relation to Tasmania involves appeals from either the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania or the Court of Criminal Appeal.
What was the prohibition of importation of vegetables into Victoria?
That Act authorised the prohibition of the importation into Victoria of any vegetable which was, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, likely to introduce any disease into Victoria. Tasmania applied to the High Court for a declaration ...
What is the role of the High Court of Australia?
It serves the role of a national constitutional court, dealing with cases about the Australian Constitution. Another important role is for it deal with appeals from other Australian courts as the highest court in the country – the ultimate court of appeal. In the 19 th century, each of the six Australian colonies had a Supreme Court, and there were rights of appeal from single-judge decisions to a Full Court, and from decisions of each Supreme Court to the Privy Council in London, which was effectively the ultimate court of appeal of the British Empire. The Constitution did not abolish rights of appeal to the Privy Council, which continued until the 1970s, but in effect inserted the High Court in a new position above the State courts, as they had become, and below the Privy Council. It was against that background that the then Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way, commented that the High Court was “no more needed than a fifth wheel to a coach”.
Which party supported the Tasmanian dam?
The Tasmanian Liberal Government supported this dam . in 1982 however the Federal Liberal party which was later the Labour Government did not. The Government then passed the World Heritage Properties & Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) what is . known as the World Heritage Act to prevent the dam from being created.
When was the Commonwealth v Tasmania case?
Intro: The decision in Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21 (also known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) . was given BY THE High Court in Brisbane, on 1 July 1983. The decision which was given is a landmark. in environment law and the Australian Constitution.
What did the Tasmanian government argue about the World Heritage Act?
In brief, the Tasmanian Government argued that the World Heritage Act could not be passed under . the corporations power (section 51(xx)) or the external affairs power (section 51 (xix)) of the . Constitution. It was also argued that the commonwealth had deprived Tasmania of property through .
What was the issue in question in the World Heritage Act?
Held a slight majority, it was held the High Court that the Commonwealth had legitimately prevented the construction of the dam. The World Heritage ct was authorised under the external power.
Overview
Commonwealth v Tasmania (popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) 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 Gord…
Background to the case
In 1978, the Hydro-Electric Commission, then a body owned by the Tasmanian government, proposed the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River, below its confluence with the Franklin River, in Tasmania's rugged south-west region. The dam would have flooded the Franklin River. In June 1981 the Labor state government created the Wild Rivers National Park in an attempt to protect the river. The boundaries would have allowed the construction of another da…
Case
The case revolved around several major constitutional issues, the most important being the constitutional validity of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (or World Heritage Act). The division of powers between the Australian federal government and the individual state governments are defined mainly by section 51 of the Australian constitution. The federal government had taken a range of actions, which they claimed were authorised under specific su…
Decision
A four to three majority of the seven members of the High Court held that the federal government had legitimately prevented construction of the dam, and that the World Heritage Act was authorised under the "external affairs" power. Although other parts of the Act were invalid, the provision banning the construction of dams was valid.
Consequences
The case ended the HEC's plans to construct more hydro-electric dams in Tasmania.
The legal debate over the extent of the "external affairs" power continued for a decade in a series of cases in the High Court in which the wide view of the external affairs power prevailed. It is now firmly established that under section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution the Australian Government has the power to enact legislation that is reasonably capable of being considered a…
Definition of Aboriginality
The case was later referred to in other cases regarding the definition of Aboriginality (Aboriginal Australian identity). Commonwealth v Tasmania had defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander as "a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives". The ruling was a three-part definition comprising descent, self-identification and community identific…
See also
• Australian constitutional law
• Franklin Dam controversy
• 1981 Tasmanian power referendum
Bibliography
• Commonwealth v Tasmania – Full text of the decision in the High Court of Australia.
• Australian Constitution – Full text.
• World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983 (Cth) – Full text.
• UNESCO – the World Heritage Centre