Drew and Minister for Communications and the Arts

Case

[1995] AATA 194

15 August 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Drew and Minister for Communications and the Arts [2016] AATA 601 [1995] AATA 194 15 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Drew, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Communications and the Arts to refuse an export permit for a painting titled "Snack Bar." The dispute concerned whether the grant of the permit would significantly diminish Australia's cultural heritage. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the painting "Snack Bar," by artist Herbert Badham, was of such importance to Australia that its export would significantly diminish Australia's cultural heritage. This involved assessing the artistic and historical significance of both the artist and the specific work, considering expert opinions and evidence presented by the parties.

The Tribunal considered expert opinions on Herbert Badham's standing in Australian art history, noting that while he was an important painter, experts diverged on the extent of his significance. The Tribunal applied the principle that the legislation concerning cultural heritage objects is concerned with long-term issues. It reasoned that once a heritage object leaves the country, its value is potentially lost to Australians permanently, whereas its continued presence within Australia ensures its potential availability for public and heritage purposes.

The Tribunal concluded that, by reason of its combined historic and artistic value, the painting "Snack Bar" was of such importance to Australia that its loss would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to refuse the export permit.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Standing

  • Statutory Construction

  • Expert Evidence

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0