Boral Bricks Pty Ltd & Dunlop & Ors, Re [2003] QLRT 93

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Boral Bricks Pty Ltd & M. Dunlop & Ors [2003] QLRT 93 PARTIES: Boral Bricks Pty Ltd (Applicant) & M. Dunlop & Ors (Objectors) FILE NOS: AML00015/2002 ENO00023/2002 PROCEEDING: Application to determine effect of consent order DELIVERED ON: 12 September 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 12 September 2003 PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: Determination made that there are now no extant environmental objections (at [8]) CATCHWORDS: APPLICATION FOR MINING LEASE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY – ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS – CONSENT ORDER THAT ISSUES RESOLVED – Whether objectors required to formally withdraw objections Environmental Protection Act 1994, s. 218 Mineral Resources Act 1989 Western Australia v Ward (2002) 76 ALJR 1098, applied Project Blue Sky Inc and Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: Ms Z. Farmer, for Boral Bricks Pty Ltd (Applicant) AGENTS: Ms L. Mount, Mr D. Mount, Mr P. Head and Mr A. Christie, for various objectors Dr I. Wilson, for the Environmental Protection Agency -- 1 of 3 -- Background [1] In this application for a mining lease and environmental authority, an issue has emerged as to the meaning of an order that I made by consent (the consent order) on 23 June 2003. The consent order was in the following terms: “1. As to the objections lodged by all objectors except Mr David Mount, by consent, all issues raised in the objections, except the issue of hours of operation of trucks on public roads (if this issue is in fact raised in the objections) are resolved.” [2] The objections concerned were lodged under both the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). For present purposes, only the environmental objections are relevant. There were some 66 objections. [3] Dr Wilson, who appeared for the Environmental Protection Agency, submitted that despite the consent order, the environmental objections were still “effectively live” and thus had to be the subject of an objections decision hearing unless they were formally withdrawn under s. 218 of the EP Act. That section reads as follows: “218 Amendment or withdrawal of objection (1) If the administering authority has accepted an objection, the entity who made the objection may, by written notice in the approved form— (a) within the objection period, amend or replace the objection; or (b) at any time before the objections decision is made, withdraw the objection. (2) However, a notice may be given only as follows— (a) before the objection period ends—by giving it to the authority; (b) after the objection period ends—by filing it with the tribunal and giving the authority a copy.” [4] Ms Farmer for the Applicant submitted that the consent order was determinative and that formal objection withdrawals were not required because those objections had been dealt with by the consent order. The objectors’ representatives did not dispute that. I was also told that the parties’ agreement which led to the consent order included some conditions. It was not submitted that those conditions (whatever they were) somehow affected the force and effect of the consent order. [5] The operative word in the consent order is “resolved”. In that context, “resolved” means dealt with or settled (that is, terminated by mutual consent of the parties).1 [6] I do not take s. 218 as purporting to say that the only way that an environmental objection can be withdrawn is by complying with the procedure set out. For example, it would be nonsensical in my view for the tribunal to be required to convene an objections decision hearing of the environmental objections in circumstances where (as here) those objections had previously been terminated by mutual consent as recorded in the consent order, but not formally withdrawn. Yet on Dr Wilson’s submission, that hearing would have to be held. One cannot ignore the consequences of a particular reading of a statute.2 1 The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd ed (1999), pp 1811, 1943; The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), vol 2, p. 2564. 2 Western Australia v Ward (2002) 76 ALJR 1098, 1277 [850]; Project Blue Sky Inc and Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 384. -- 2 of 3 -- [7] I am satisfied that the effect of paragraph 1 of the consent order has disposed of any extant issues concerning the environmental objections. I do not consider that it is necessary for those objectors who had previously lodged environmental objections to now be required to formally withdraw them under s. 218 of the EP Act. That would impose a burden on people who had no further legal interest in this matter. I am not satisfied that the s. 218 procedure is the only way that an environmental objection can be terminated. [8] Accordingly we will now proceed on the basis that all environmental objections have been dealt with and that there are now no extant environmental objections. -- 3 of 3 --