Minister for the Environment & Heritage v Greentree (No 2) - [2004] FCA 741

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister for the Environment & Heritage v Greentree (No 2) [2004] FCA 741
ENVIRONMENT – Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (‘Ramsar Convention’) – clearing of designated wetland – whether purported designation by the Commonwealth of a wetland pursuant to Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention was effective for the purposes of s 17(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act’) – whether clearing of land was specifically authorised under State law – whether clearing of land had a ‘significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland’ within s 16(1) of the EPBC Act
Constitution s51(xxix)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 3, 16, 17, 17B, 43A, 52, 138, 326, 327, 333, 334, 335, 409, 475, 481, 482, 484, 519, 523, 524, 528
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4AA
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 3
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4, 5, 14, 24, 26, 54, 55, 57, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 76, 76A
Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) ss 7, 8, 9, 12
Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) ss 4, 6, 7, 14, 21, 22
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) s 4
Soil Conservation Act 1938 (NSW) s21AB
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl, done at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Richardson v Forestry Commission (1988) 164 CLR 261 cited
Queensland v Commonwealth (1989) 167 CLR 232 cited
Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines (1997) 187 CLR 297 cited
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 cited
Energy Resources of Aust Ltd v Commission of Taxation [2003] ATC 4024 cited
Evans v Friemann (1981) 35 ALR 428 cited
Seventh Mingcourt Pty Ltd v Lawrence (1996) 64 FCR 367 cited
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 cited
Commissioner of Taxation v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (Australia) Pty Ltd (2000) 201 CLR 520 cited
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 cited
Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 40 FCR 409 followed
Booth v Bosworth (2001) 114 FCR 39 followed
National Parks and Conservation Association v Babbitt 241 F3d 722 (9^th Cir. 2001) cited
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 cited
Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 cited
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500 cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 657 cited
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE v RONALD GREENTREE & ORS
N 914 of 2003
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
11 JUNE 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 914 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
APPLICANT

AND:

RONALD GREENTREE
FIRST RESPONDENT

MERRYWINEBONE PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

ADAM NORRIE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AMY MAREE GREENTREE
FIFTH RESPONDENT

KENNETH BRUCE HARRIS
SIXTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT HAROLD HARRIS
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

AUEN GRAIN PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 JUNE 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Within 14 days the Minister file and serve:
(a)short minutes of order consistent with these Reasons for Judgment, specifying the orders that should be made against Mr Greentree and Auen (other than the civil penalties that should be imposed) and providing for dismissal of the proceedings against the other respondents;
(b)written submissions in support of the short minutes of order;
(c)additional evidence (if any) on which the Minister intends to rely in support of the short minutes of order;
(d)any evidence on which the Minister intends to rely on the question of penalty;
(e)written submissions on penalty; and
(f)written submissions on costs.

2. Within a further 14 days the respondents file and serve:
(a)short minutes of order, consistent with these Reasons for Judgment, to the extent that the respondents dispute the short minutes of order filed and served by the Minister;
(b)written submissions in support of the respondents’ short minutes of order;
(c)additional evidence (if any) on which the respondents intend to rely in support of the respondents’ short minutes of order;
(d)any evidence on which Mr Greentree and Auen intend to rely on the question of penalty;
(e)written submissions on behalf of Mr Greentree and Auen on penalty; and
(f)written submissions on costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 914 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
APPLICANT

AND:

RONALD GREENTREE
FIRST RESPONDENT

MERRYWINEBONE PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

ADAM NORRIE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AMY MAREE GREENTREE
FIFTH RESPONDENT

KENNETH BRUCE HARRIS
SIXTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT HAROLD HARRIS
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

AUEN GRAIN PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

11 JUNE 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROCEEDINGS [1]

THE LEGISLATION [14]

THE RAMSAR CONVENTION [27]

Terms of the Convention [27]

Conferences of the Contracting Parties [31]

ISSUES [43]

THE RAMSAR GWYDIR WETLANDS [51]

COURSE OF EVENTS [66]

DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE [66]

ACTIONS RELATING TO THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE [88]

    THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES [109]

THE DESIGNATION ISSUE [109]

The Submissions [109]

       Reasoning [117]

    PRIOR AUTHORISATION [138]

Were the Respondents’ Actions Specifically Authorised Under State Law? [139]

Did the Respondents’ Actions Require Further Environmental Authorisation? [157]

Native Vegetation Act [157]

    Noxious Weeds Act [181]

THE QUESTION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT [188]

HAVE EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTRAVENED THE ACT? [202]

         Mr Greentree [205]

         Merrywinebone and Auen [209]

         Mr Norrie [216]

         The Proprietors [217]

CONCLUSION [220]
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Name or Designation Reference

AGD 66 Australian Geodetic Datum, adopted in 1966 [69]

AMG Australian Map Grid [69]

Auen Eighth respondent (Auen Grain Pty Ltd) [4]

declared Ramsar wetland A wetland designated by the Commonwealth under Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention [2]

DIPNR New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [91]

ECA Environmental Contingency Allocation [55]

EPA Act Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) [48]

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) [1]

Greentree Farming The partnership farming Windella, comprising (since 1 July 2002) Merrywinebone and Auen [4]

Kenneth Harris Sixth respondent (Kenneth Bruce Harris) [4]

Landholders The proprietors of four properties who were Parties to the MOU [67]

List List of Wetlands of International Importance [32]

Merrywinebone Third respondent (Merrywinebone Pty Ltd) [4]

Moree LEP Moree Plains Local Environmental Plan 1995 [49]

Minister The applicant (Minister for the Environment and Heritage) [1]

MOU Memorandum of Understanding for the Gingham & Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses, 2 February 1999 [67]

Mr Greentree First respondent (Ronald Greentree) [4]

Mr Norrie Fourth respondent (Adam Norrie) [5]

Ms Greentree Fifth respondent (Amy Maree Greentree) [4]

Native Vegetation Act Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) [49]

Noxious Weeds Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) [48]

NPWS New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service (now the Department of Environment and Conservation) [62]

Principal respondents Mr Greentree, Merrywinebone and Auen [8]

Proprietors Mr Greentree, Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris [4]

Ramsar Convention Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat done at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971 [2]

Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands Gwydir Wetlands: Gingham and Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses [2]

RIS Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands [39]

Robert Harris Seventh respondent (Robert Harold Harris) [4]

Soil Conservation Act Soil Conservation Act 1938 (NSW) [161]

Windella Ramsar site Windella component of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands [3]

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE PROCEEDINGS

This is an application for orders requiring the payment of pecuniary penalties and for other relief under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act’). The applicant (‘the Minister’) alleges that each of the seven remaining respondents has contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act by taking action that has, will have or is likely to have ‘a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland’.
Subject to certain exceptions, a ‘declared Ramsar wetland’ is a wetland or part of a wetland designated by the Commonwealth under Art 2 of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, done at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971 [1975] ATS 48 (the ‘Ramsar Convention’): EPBC Act, ss 17(1), 528. The Minister claims that four separate areas totalling 823 hectares, known as the ‘Gwydir Wetlands: Gingham and Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses’ (‘Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands’), were duly designated by the Commonwealth under Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention, for the purposes of s 17(1) of the EPBC Act, on or about 14 June 1999. The Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands are located about 80 kilometres west of Moree in the north-west of New South Wales.
The allegations concern one component of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands constituting an area of about 100 hectares, which was referred to in evidence as the Windella component of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands (the ‘Windella Ramsar site’). The Windella Ramsar site is wholly within the boundaries of a property known as ‘Windella’ which itself comprises about 2,000 hectares. The respondents are alleged to have damaged the Windella Ramsar site by clearing and ploughing it at some time between 27 June 2002 and 30 July 2003.
The fifth respondent (‘Ms Greentree’), the sixth respondent (‘Kenneth Harris’) and the seventh respondent (‘Robert Harris’), (collectively ‘the Proprietors’) became registered as the proprietors of Windella on 17 January 2002. At all material times, Windella has been farmed by a partnership known as ‘Greentree Farming’. Since 1 July 2002, the partners in Greentree Farming have been the third respondent (‘Merrywinebone’) (as to 49.9%) and the eighth respondent (‘Auen’) (as to 50.1%). Before that date, under a partnership agreement dated 5 January 1996, the partners were Merrywinebone (as to 49%), the first respondent (‘Mr Greentree’) (as to 25.5%) and Maree Greentree (as to 25.5%). Maree Greentree was originally a party to the proceedings, but she was removed as a respondent prior to the hearing.
At all material times, Greentree Farming has been managed and directed by Mr Greentree. Since about 10 May 2003, the fourth respondent (‘Mr Norrie’) has been the farming operations manager of Greentree Farming. Prior to that time the farming operations manager was Mr Andrew Jones (who is not a party to the proceedings, but gave evidence).
Auen was registered as a company on 21 June 2002. Its shareholders are Mr Greentree, who is the sole director, and Prime Grain Pty Ltd, of which Mr Greentree appears to be the sole shareholder. Mr Greentree has been the sole director of Auen since its incorporation and has been a director of Prime Grain Pty Ltd since 17 October 1989.
The directors of Merrywinebone are Robert Harris, Kenneth Harris and Bruce Maylon Harris. Robert Harris and Kenneth Harris are two of the Proprietors of Windella and are parties to the proceedings; Bruce Maylon Harris is not a party. The principal shareholder in Merrywinebone is Limthono Pty Ltd, the shares in which are held by the three directors of Merrywinebone. Limthono Pty Ltd’s principal activity is that of trustee company.
The Minister seeks an order for the payment of pecuniary penalties against
- Mr Greentree;
- Merrywinebone; and
- Auen.
For convenience, I refer to these three respondents collectively as the ‘Principal Respondents’.
The Minister seeks orders against all respondents restraining them from:
- engaging in land clearing, ploughing or cropping activities disturbing or affecting the soil inside and up to 40 metres outside the Windella Ramsar site;
- engaging in similar activities disturbing or affecting the soil within 40 metres ‘on either side of the entire length of the watercourse’ on Windella in and leading into the Windella Ramsar site; and
- engaging in any work designed to alter the flow regime of waters into and out of the Windella Ramsar site.
The Minister also seeks orders that the Principal Respondents undertake specified repair measures, such as fencing the perimeter of the Windella Ramsar site, installing a pipe and control gate in the stock and domestic channel at the western end of the site and plant certain trees. The orders sought would require the Principal Respondents to make all reasonable endeavours to procure the release of sufficient water to inundate the Windella Ramsar site with not less than 500 megalitres by way of initial inundation and not less than 200 megalitres in the following month.
The only orders (other than injunctive relief) sought against the Proprietors would require them to give all necessary consents for access to the Windella Ramsar site and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the Principal Respondents from further harming the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site.
On 31 July 2003, I made interlocutory restraining orders in terms similar to those now sought by the Minister against all current respondents other than Auen. I subsequently dismissed an application by those respondents to dissolve the restraining orders: Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Greentree [2003] FCA 857. These orders have accordingly remained in place pending the hearing. Neither party objected to my dealing with the application for final relief notwithstanding my involvement in the interlocutory proceedings.
It was common ground that I should first determine whether any of the respondents were liable to civil penalties and whether injunctive relief should be granted to the Minister. If I conclude that civil penalties should be imposed, the quantum of penalties will be addressed at a subsequent hearing.
THE LEGISLATION
The EPBC Act came into force on 16 July 2000, some thirteen months after the purported designation of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands. The objects of the Act include the following (s 3(1)):
‘(a)to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; and
(b)to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; and
(c)to promote the conservation of biodiversity; and
(d)to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples; and
(e)to assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities…’
Section 3(2) provides that in order to achieve its objectives, the EPBC Act:
‘(a)recognises an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in relation to the environment by focussing Commonwealth involvement on matters of national environmental significance and on Commonwealth actions and Commonwealth areas; and
(b)strengthens intergovernmental co-operation, and minimises duplication, through bilateral agreements; and
…
(e)enhances Australia’s capacity to ensure the conservation of its biodiversity by including provisions to:
(i)protect native species…;
…;
(iv)identify processes that threaten all levels of biodiversity and implement plans to address these processes; and
(f)includes provisions to enhance the protection, conservation and presentation of world heritage properties and the conservation and wise use of Ramsar wetlands of international importance…’
Division 1 of Part 3 of the EPBC Act is headed ‘Requirements relating to matters of national environmental significance’. Subdivision B (ss 16-17B) deals with ‘Wetlands of international importance’. Section 16 provides as follows:
‘(1)     A person must not take an action that:
(a)has or will have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland; or
(b)is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland.
Civil penalty:
(a)for an individual – 5,000 penalty units;
(b)for a body corporate – 50,000 penalty units.
(2)      Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if:
(a)…
(b)Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or
…
(3)      In this Act:
ecological character has the same meaning as in the Ramsar Convention.’
A penalty unit is defined by s 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to mean $110. It follows that the maximum civil penalty for breach of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act is $550,000 in the case of an individual and $5,590,000 in the case of a body corporate.
Section 17B of the EPBC Act makes it an offence to take action which results or will result in a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland. It appears that no criminal proceedings have been instituted against the respondents.
The heading to s 17 is ‘What is a declared Ramsar wetland?’ Section 17(1) answers that question as follows:
‘A wetland, or part of a wetland, designated by the Commonwealth under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under that Article is a declared Ramsar wetland as long as the wetland or part is not:
(a)excluded by the Commonwealth from the boundaries of a wetland in the List under that Article; or
(b)deleted by the Commonwealth from the List under that Article.’
The Ramsar Convention, for the purposes of s 17(1), means the text of the Convention as in force immediately before the commencement of the EPBC Act: s 528.
Section 17(2) of the EPBC Act provides that a wetland is also a declared Ramsar wetland if a declaration to that effect made by the Minister is in force. Section 17A empowers the Minister to make such a declaration if satisfied that the wetland is of international significance. No Ministerial declaration has been made in respect of the Gwydir Wetlands.
The word ‘wetland’ is given the same meaning as in the Ramsar Convention: s 528. As will be seen, Art 1(1) of the Ramsar Convention defines ‘wetlands’ for the purposes of the Convention in broad terms.
Section 326(1) of the EPBC Act provides that the Commonwealth may designate for inclusion in the List a wetland containing an area owned or occupied by another person only if the Minister is satisfied that the Commonwealth has used its best endeavours to reach agreement with the other person on the proposed designation of the wetland and management arrangements for the wetland. When the Commonwealth designates a wetland for inclusion in the List, it must give notice in the Gazette of this event as soon as practicable after it occurs: s 327(1).

The respondents contend that s 16(1) of the EPBC Act does not apply to their actions because of what I shall describe as the exclusion in s 16(2)(b). It will be recalled that s 16(2)(b) provides that s 16(1) does not apply to an action if Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9. Section 43A of the EPBC Act is in Div 6 of Part 4. It provides as follows:
‘(1)A person may take an action described in a provision of Part 3 without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of the provision if:
(a)the action consists of a use of land…and
(b)the action was specifically authorised under a law of…a State…before the commencement of this Act; and
(c)immediately before the commencement of this Act, no further environmental authorisation was necessary to allow the action to be taken lawfully.’
Section 43A(2) defines ‘environmental authorisation’ to mean, relevantly:
‘an authorisation under a law of…a State…that has either or both of the following objects (whether express or implied):
(a)to protect the environment;
(b)to promote the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.’
The term ‘action’, which is used in both ss 16 and 43A of the EPBC Act, is defined in s 523 to include:
‘(a)     a project; and
(b)     a development; and
(c)     an undertaking; and
(d)     an activity or series of activities; and
(e)an alteration of any of the things mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d).’
Section 524(2), however, provides that:
‘A decision by a government body to grant a governmental authorisation (however described) for another person to take an action is not an action.’
The expression ‘government body’ is defined to include a State, but does not mention a State agency or a body established under State law: s 524(1).
Section 481(1) of the EPBC Act provides that the Minister may apply on behalf of the Commonwealth to the Federal Court for an order that a person contravening a civil penalty provision pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty. Section 16(1) is a civil penalty provision: see s 482.
Section 475 of the EPBC Act empowers the Court to grant injunctions. It relevantly provides as follows:
‘(1)If a person has engaged, engages or proposes to engage in conduct consisting of an act or omission that constitutes an offence or other contravention of this Act or the regulations:
(a)the Minister; or
(b)…
(c)…
may apply to the Federal Court for an injunction.
(2)If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting an offence or other contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Court may grant an injunction restraining the person from engaging in the conduct.
(3)If the court grants an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct and in the Court’s opinion it is desirable to do so, the Court may make an order requiring the person to do something (including repair or mitigate damage to the environment).
(4)If a person has refused or failed, or is refusing or failing, or is proposing to refuse or fail to do an act, and the refusal or failure did, does or would constitute an offence or other contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Court may grant an injunction requiring the person to do the act.’
THE RAMSAR CONVENTION
Terms of the Convention
The Ramsar Convention was done at Ramsar, Iran, on 2 February 1971. It was signed by Australia on 8 May 1974 and entered into force on 21 December 1975: Art 10(1). The terms of the Ramsar Convention reproduced below are those in force immediately before the date of commencement of the EPBC Act: see Australian Treaty Series 1975, No 48 ([1975] ATS 48).
The recital and the key provisions of the Ramsar Convention are as follows:
‘THE CONTRACTING PARTIES,
RECOGNIZING the interdependence of man and his environment;
CONSIDERING the fundamental ecological functions of wetlands as regulators of water regimes and as habitats supporting a characteristic flora and fauna, especially waterfowl;
BEING CONVINCED that wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, cultural, scientific and recreational value, the loss of which would be irreparable;
DESIRING to stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands now and in the future;
RECOGNIZING that waterfowl in their seasonal migrations may transcend frontiers and so should be regarded as an international resource;
BEING CONFIDENT that the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna can be ensured by combining far-sighted national policies with co-ordinated international action;
HAVE AGREED as follows:
ARTICLE 1
1.For the purpose of this Convention wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.
2.For the purpose of this Convention waterfowl are birds ecologically dependent on wetlands.
ARTICLE 2
1.Each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance, hereinafter referred to as “the List” which is maintained by the bureau established under Article 8. The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map and they may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands, especially where these have importance as waterfowl habitat.
2.Wetlands should be selected for the List on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. In the first instance wetlands of international importance to waterfowl at any season should be included.
3.The inclusion of a wetland in the List does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the Contracting Party in whose territory the wetland is situated.
4.Each Contracting Party shall designate at least one wetland to be included in the List when signing this Convention or when depositing its instrument of ratification or accession, as provided in Article 9.
5.Any Contracting Party shall have the right to add to the List further wetlands situated within its territory, to extend the boundaries of those wetlands already included by it in the List, or, because of its urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included by it in the List and shall, at the earliest possible time, inform the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties specified in Article 8 of the any such changes.
6.Each Contracting Party shall consider its international responsibilities for the conservation, management and wise use of migratory stocks of waterfowl, both when designating entries for the List and when exercising its right to change entries in the List relating to wetlands within its territory.
ARTICLE 3
1.The Contracting Parties shall formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of the wetlands included in the List, and as far as possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory.
2.Each Contracting Party shall arrange to be informed at the earliest possible time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory and included in the List has changed, is changing or is likely to change as the result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference. Information on such changes shall be passed without delay to the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties specified in Article 8.’ (Emphasis added.)
Article 6 of the Ramsar Convention provides for a Conference of the Contracting Parties to review and promote implementation of the Convention. The bureau provided for in Art 8 is to convene ordinary meetings of the Conference, which must now take place at intervals of not more than three years (Art 6(1)).
Article 8 of the Ramsar Convention provides for the performance of ‘continuing bureau duties’. The duties of the bureau include the following (Art 8(2)):
‘(b)to maintain the List of Wetlands of International Importance and to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any additions, extensions, deletions or restrictions concerning wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2;
(c)to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any changes in the ecological character of wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 3;
(d)to forward notification of any alterations to the List, or changes in character of wetlands included therein, to all Contracting Parties and to arrange for these matters to be discussed at the next Conference.’
Conferences of the Contracting Parties
As has been noted, s 16(3) of the EPBC Act gives the expression ‘ecological character’ the same meaning as in the Ramsar Convention. The Ramsar Convention does not define the expression. However, at the 7^th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (San Jose, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999) the Contracting Parties adopted the following definitions of ‘ecological character’ and ‘change in ecological character’ (Resolution VII.10 in Wetland Risk Assessment):
‘Ecological character is the sum of the biological, physical, and chemical components of the wetland ecosystem, and their interactions, which maintain the wetland and its products, functions, and attributes.
Change in ecological character is the impairment or imbalance in any biological, physical, or chemical components of the wetland ecosystem, or in their interactions, which maintain the wetland and its products, functions and attributes.’
It will be recalled that Art 2(1) of the Ramsar Convention states that the boundaries of each wetland designated for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance (‘List’) ‘shall be precisely described and also delineated on a map’. Meetings of the Contracting Parties, held in accordance with Art 6 of the Ramsar Convention, have addressed the procedures that should be followed by Contracting Parties at the time of making initial designation of wetlands or when making subsequent designations.
At the 4^th Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties (Montreux, Switzerland, 27 June – 4 July 1990), the Contracting Parties recommended that any Contracting Party that had not, when signing the Ramsar Convention or when depositing its instrument of ratification, provided the Depositary with a precise description and map of the boundaries of the wetlands designated for inclusion in the List, provide such documentation to the Bureau as early as possible thereafter (Resolution 4.5 on Accession Requirements). The Contracting Parties also recommended (Recommendation 4.7: Mechanisms for Improved Application of the Ramsar Convention) that the data sheet developed for the description of Ramsar sites (the text of which was appended as Annex 2A to the Recommendation)
‘be used by the Contracting Parties and the Bureau in presenting information for the Ramsar database, and as appropriate in other contexts’.
The information sheet forming part of Annex 2A, set out 32 items, including:
‘1.       Country
…
5.       Name of wetland
6.       Date of Ramsar designation
7.       Geographical coordinates
8.       General location (nearest large town)
9.       Area (in hectares)
…
13.      Physical features
-     geology and geomorphology
-     origins (natural or man-made)
-     hydrology…
-     water quality…
-     catchment area
-     downstream area…
-     climate
14.      Ecological features (main habitats and vegetation types)
…
21.      Hydrological and biophysical values…
…
23.      Noteworthy fauna
24.      Noteworthy flora
…
31.      Reasons for inclusion (reference to criteria)
32.      Outline map of site (to be appended).’
The information sheet was accompanied by an ‘Explanatory Note and Guidelines’. This stated that ‘[a]n information sheet should be completed for each Ramsar wetland’. The Explanatory Note recognised that ‘[i]n some cases, insufficient information may be available for entries to be made under all sections of the data sheet’. However, compilers were urged to fill out as many sections as possible ‘and in any event to make some entry under [a number of sections, including 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, 23]’. The document set out notes relating to each section of the information sheet. Those concerning items 7 and 32 were as follows:
‘7.Geographical coordinates: the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude; Greenwich) of the approximate centre of the wetland, expressed in degrees and minutes. If the site consists of two or more discrete entities, the coordinates of the centres of each of these entities should be given.
[32.]Outline map of site: append an outline map of the wetland. Whenever possible, maps should include geographical coordinates, a compass bearing, scale, date, administrative boundaries, the boundary of the Ramsar site, some topographical information, notable hydrological features, the distribution of the main wetland habitat types, main roads and other notable features. The map should be as detailed and up to date as possible; 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 should be regarded as the minimum acceptable scale for most sites.’
At the 5^th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Kushiro, Japan, 9-16 June 1993), the Conference requested that
‘in addition to a map showing definitive site boundaries, a completed Ramsar datasheet be submitted to the Convention Bureau upon designation of a wetland for the List, and that particular attention be given to completing sections 16-17 (conservation measures), 21-24 (functions and values) and 31 (criteria for inclusion).’
(Resolution 5.3: Procedure for Initial Designation of Sites for the List of Wetlands of International Importance.)
The 6^th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, (Brisbane, Australia, 19-27 March 1996) ‘urge[d]’ (Resolution VI.13: Submission of Information on Sites Designated for the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance):
‘7.       …Contracting Parties to give priority to providing the Bureau by 31 December 1997 with maps and completed Information Sheets on Ramsar Wetlands for all sites designated for the Ramsar List, and to revise the data provided at least every six years (i.e. every second Meeting of the Conference) for monitoring purposes…’
Resolution VI.16 (Accession Procedures) recorded that the Conference:
‘5.       DECIDES that, notwithstanding the provisions of Resolution 4.5, the boundaries of each listed wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map by States at the time of signing the Convention without reservation as to ratification, ratifying, or acceding to the Convention;
6.        FURTHER DECIDES that the boundaries of each additional site, designated subsequently by States for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map;
7.        INVITES Contracting Parties to provide, at the time of designation of a wetland for the List, a completed Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands, giving particular attention to the subjects mentioned in Resolution 5.3; and
8.        REITERATES the invitation to States and Contracting Parties contained in Resolution 5.3 to enter, in case of doubt, into informal consultations with the Bureau and its technical advisors.’
The 6^th Meeting approved a ‘Strategic Plan 1997-2002’ (Resolution VI.14). The Strategic Plan specified a number of ‘General Objectives’. General Objective 5 was ‘to ensure the conservation of all sites concluded in the [List]’. Under this heading, the Strategic Plan stated a number of ‘Operational Objectives’. Operational Objective 5.3 was as follows:
‘Operational Objective 5.3:
To obtain regularly updated information on wetlands of international importance, in accordance with the approved standard format.
Action 5.3.1 Ensure that the maps and descriptions of Ramsar sites submitted to the Ramsar Database by the Contracting Parties at the time of designation are complete, in the approved standard format of the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands, and provide sufficient detail to be used for management planning and monitoring of ecological character. [CPs, Bureau, Wetlands International]
Action 5.3.2 Ensure that missing or incomplete data sheets and/or maps of listed sites are submitted as a matter of priority and in the shortest possible time, as a means to enhance the relevance and use of the Ramsar Database. [CPs]
Action 5.3.3 Ensure that data sheets on Ramsar Sites are regularly updated, at least for every second meting of the COP, so that they can be used for reviewing the achievements of the Convention, for future strategic planning, for promotional purposes, and for site, regional and thematic analysis (Resolution VI.13). [CPs, STRP, Bureau, Wetlands International]’
A note to the General Objectives states that the body or bodies responsible for carrying out each Action is indicated in square brackets. ‘Bureau’ means the Ramsar Convention Bureau, ‘STRP’ means the Scientific and Technical Review Panel, while ‘Wetlands International’ is an ‘international partner Organisation’. The initials ‘CPs’ are not explained but presumably refer to ‘Contracting Parties’.
As recorded in a document entitled ‘Measures Taken for Improving Data on Ramsar Sites’ (29 June 1997), the Ramsar Convention’s STRP and Bureau examined the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (‘RIS’) originally approved by Recommendation 4.7. The outcome was as follows:
‘The text of the RIS has not been changed, but a new presentation has been adopted with the aim of making it easier to use. The presentation of the Guidelines which accompany the RIS has also been reviewed and improved.’
The amended RIS retained item 7 (Geographical ordinates) but renumbered it as item 4. The note to the new item 4 was in substance the same as the note to the previous item 7. Item 32 (Outline map of site) was renumbered item 10. The note to item 10 was revised from its previous form to read as follows:
‘Outline map of site: The most detailed and up-to-date map of the wetland available should be appended to the Information Sheet. Indicate whether or not a map accompanies the Information Sheet by ticking the appropriate yes or no box.
The “ideal” Ramsar site will clearly show the boundaries of the Ramsar site, scale, latitude, longitude and compass bearing, administrative boundaries (e.g., province, district, etc.), and display topographical information, the distribution of the main wetland habitat types and notable hydrological features. It will also show major landmarks (towns, roads, etc.). Indications of land use activities are especially useful.
…
The optimum scale for a map depends on the actual area of the site depicted. Generally the map should have a 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 scale for areas up to 10,000 ha; 1:100,000 scale for large areas up to 100,000 ha; 1:250,000 for areas exceeding 100,000 ha. In simplest terms, the site should be depicted in some detail…’ (Emphasis in original.)
The 7^th Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties (San Jose, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999), recited some of the history to which I have referred and recorded (Resolution VII.12) that the Conference expressed deep concern:
‘14. …that there remain a number of Ramsar sites for which an official description has not been provided or updated, or has not been provided in one of the three official working languages of the Convention, and/or for which a suitable map has not been submitted…’
The Conference called upon a number of named Contracting Parties to submit site descriptions concerning to the Ramsar Information Sheet and ‘as a matter of the highest priority’ to provide suitable maps where none had been submitted. Australia was not among the Contracting Parties so named.

A further revision of the RIS was approved at the 8^th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Valencia, Spain, 18-26 November 2002) by Resolution VIII.13: ‘Enhancing the Information on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites)’. The revised (and again renumbered) RIS contains a more detailed ‘Explanatory Note and Guidelines’. Annexure III to that document sets out ‘Additional guidelines for the provision of maps and other spatial data for Ramsar Sites’. Annexure III includes the following paragraphs:
‘1. The provision of a suitable map or maps is a requirement under Article 2.1 of the Convention – it is fundamental to the process of designating a Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site), and is an essential part of the information supplied in the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS). Clear mapped information about the site is also vital for its management.
…
3. Maps provided by a Contracting Party on designation of a Ramsar site should, as far as possible, and as high priority attributes:
i)be prepared to professional cartographic standards…;
ii)show the Ramsar Site in its natural or modified environment and should be within the scale ranges specified below, depending upon the size of the site;
iii)clearly show the boundary of the Ramsar site, and distinguish this from any existing or proposed buffer zones;
…
v)include a key or legend that clearly identifies the boundary and each other category of feature shown on the map and relevant to the designation of the site; and
vi)show the map’s scale, an indication of geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude), an indication of compass bearing (north arrow) and, if possible, information on the map’s projection…’
ISSUES
The respondents did not dispute the following facts:
(i)On 7 September 2002, Ms Francesca Andreoni, New South Wales Campaign Manager for the Wilderness Society, made an observation flight over Windella, in the course of which she observed that
·dredging of the Gingham channel (referred to at [61] below) had occurred within the Windella Ramsar site; and
·spoil had been piled on the northern side of the channel.
(ii)On 15 October 2002, a ground inspection revealed that approximately 20 per cent of the Windella Ramsar site in the north-eastern portion had been cleared of all ground cover and that the Gingham channel had been dredged and spoil stacked on the northern side of the channel.
(iii)On 13 December 2002, Mr Greentree, at a landholder meeting at the Mungindi Returned Servicemen’s League (‘RSL’) Club asserted that he had ‘notified [the Minister] that the [Windella Ramsar site] no longer exists on Windella’.
(iv)In February 2003, Mr Greentree instructed Mr Andrew Jones, the then farming operations manager of Greentree Farming, to clear and plough Windella in preparation for a seedbed. Most of the remaining uncleared and unploughed land on the Windella Ramsar site was cleared of ground cover and ploughed in late February or March 2003 in order to prepare a seedbed.
(v)On 30 July 2003, a ground inspection revealed that the entire Windella Ramsar site had been cleared of all ground cover and ploughed.
(vi)On 16 August 2003, a further ground inspection revealed that the Windella Ramsar site had been sown with wheat.
(vii)The clearing, ploughing and sowing carried out on the Windella Ramsar site on dates between 27 June 2002 and 16 August 2003 had an impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site.
Notwithstanding these concessions, the respondents challenged the sufficiency of the Minister’s evidence to establish that the Principal Respondents, or any of them, had contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act and were therefore liable to pay pecuniary penalties pursuant to s 481 of the EPBC Act. In particular, the Principal Respondents disputed that any of their actions had had or was likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site.
The respondents also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that they, or any of them, had engaged in conduct or were proposing to engage in conduct constituting a contravention of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act, so as to enliven the Court’s power to grant a prohibitory injunction pursuant to s 475(2) or make additional orders pursuant to s 475(3) of the EPBC Act.
The respondents also advanced what might be described as two affirmative defences to the Minister’s claim. These, so it was argued, took them out of the reach of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act even if the Minister was otherwise able to show a contravention of that sub-section.
First, the respondents submitted that the Windella Ramsar site had never been ‘designated by the Commonwealth under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention’ within the meaning of s 17(1) of the EPBC Act. This was so, they argued, because the purported designation neither described precisely the boundaries of the relevant wetland, nor delimited it on a map, as required by Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention. At no time had the Commonwealth remedied this deficiency, with the consequence that the affected landholders could not ascertain the boundaries of the Ramsar sites on their land. Thus the Windella Ramsar site was not a ‘declared Ramsar wetland’ as defined in s 17(1) of the EPBC Act. It followed that the respondents could not have contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act, since their actions did not affect a ‘declared Ramsar wetland’.
Secondly, the respondents submitted that s 16(1) of the EPBC Act did not apply to their conduct by reason of s 16(2)(b). The contention involved the following steps:
(i)s 16(2)(b) provides that s 16(1) does not apply to an action if Part 4 of the EBPC Act lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9;
(ii)s 43A(1) (which is in Part 4) permits a person to take an action described in a provision in Part 3 (which includes s 16) without an approval under Part 9, if the action ‘was specifically authorised under a law of…a State’ before the commencement of the EBPC Act and immediately before the commencement no further ‘environmental authorisation’ was necessary to enable the action to be taken lawfully;
(iii)the respondents’ actions in clearing the Windella Ramsar site were specifically authorised under
·the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (‘EPA Act’), and
·the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) (‘Noxious Weeds Act’);
each of which was a law of the State of New South Wales enacted before the EBPC Act; and
(iv)no further environmental authorisation was necessary immediately before the commencement of the EBPC Act to allow the actions to be taken lawfully under those State laws.
The claim that the respondents’ actions in clearing the Windella Ramsar site were specifically authorised under the EPA Act rested on the terms of the Moree Plains Local Environmental Plan 1995 (‘Moree LEP’) made under the EPA Act. Under the Moree LEP, the property Windella was zoned ‘General Rural Zone No 1(a)’. The Moree LEP provided that such land could be developed, without development consent, for the purpose of agriculture. It was argued that since the clearing and cultivation of land and slashing of vegetation, the Moree LEP specifically authorised the clearing of the Windella Ramsar site at the time the EPBC Act came into force. No further environmental authorisation was required because (so it was said) the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) (the ‘Native Vegetation Act’), which restricted the rights of landowners to clear native vegetation, did not apply to the clearing of the Windella Ramsar site. The Native Vegetation Act was inapplicable because, on the evidence, the ground cover on the site was dominated by lippia, an exotic plant, and any trees were dead.
In the alternative, the respondents relied on the obligation imposed by s 12 of the Noxious Weeds Act on the occupier of land (including the proprietors) to control noxious weeds, as required by the control category specified in relation to the weeds concerned. Since lippia had been declared to be a noxious weed for the purposes of the Noxious Weeds Act, the respondents were under a duty to remove it from the Windella Ramsar site. This amounted to a specific authorisation to clear the site without the need for any further environmental authorisation.
THE RAMSAR GWYDIR WETLANDS
According to Mr McCosker, a botanist whose evidence I found generally to be helpful, the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands are located on an inland terminal delta in the Darling Riverine Plains in Northern New South Wales. They are a component of a regional network of wetlands which include the Macquarie Marshes and the Narran Lakes and contain some of the largest stands of water couch / spike rush meadows and marsh club-rush marshlands in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands, including the Windella Ramsar site are not consistently wet, but experience prolonged dry periods. They play an important part in the biological and ecological functioning of the Murray-Darling Basin. Mr McCosker explained the regional importance of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands as follows:
‘Major wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin rarely flood simultaneously as their catchments fall in different climatic zones. Waterbirds are highly mobile and they move between wetlands according to prevailing conditions. They maximise their foraging and breeding opportunities by migrating to wetland areas that provide the most favourable conditions. The regional importance of the Gwydir Wetlands as migratory bird breeding habitat was evident in early 1996, when vast numbers of birds inhabited the Gwydir wetlands and only small breeding events occurred elsewhere in the Murray Darling Basin such as at Narran Lakes and the Macquarie Marshes Ramsar wetlands.’
A good description of the Gwydir wetlands in what Mr McCosker said was the ‘general locality’ of Windella was given in a 1921 document. The Gwydir wetlands were then described as follows:
‘The Watercourse is that portion of the Gwydir River which ends as a defined river channel, and spreads itself roughly fan-shaped over surrounding plains. The Gwydir rises in the New England tableland, about 200 miles from the town of Moree, in N.W. New South Wales. At Moree it is a fine stream, but 9 miles below Moree the channel narrows, and practically disappears, and in flood-time huge volumes of water spread all over the surrounding plains through swamps and shallow watercourses. The average depth of these waters is 1 foot, and the rate of flow is slow, as the fall is about 8 feet in a mile. The whole area contains many timbers, in addition to the huge beds of ‘sags’, a kind of bulrush, and large belts of Wilga.’
There have been significant changes both to the landscape and the hydrology of the Gwydir wetlands over time. Prior to European settlement, the land was heavily wooded, notably with coolabah and belah trees. For over a century, much of the land has been cleared, at least to some extent, for grazing and pasture.
The Copeton Dam, which was constructed in the 1970s, is located in the upper catchment area, some 230 kilometres east of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands. Water is stored in the Copeton Dam for controlled release for irrigation purposes, although an allocation, known as an Environmental Contingency Allocation (‘ECA’), may be released for environmental purposes. Dr Bacon said that the effect of the Copeton Dam by 2001 had been to shrink the area of natural wetland by some 70 per cent. He acknowledged that the construction of the dam has had a major impact on the ecology of the Gwydir wetlands and the evidence clearly supports that conclusion.
It also appears that channels and bore drains constructed over the last thirty years have diverted water away from the Gingham and Lower Gwydir watercourses for irrigated cropping purposes. This has reduced the volume of water received by the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands, including the Windella Ramsar site, in recent years because of the demands of local irrigators. During dry times, the Windella Ramsar site receives most of its water via the Gingham channel which runs through the site in an east-west direction.
Mr McCosker’s evidence showed that studies interpreting satellite imagery between 1973 and 1985, before the effects of the diversion of water for irrigation had become apparent, identified 220,000 hectares of wetlands and floodplain woodlands in the Gwydir Valley floodplain. He adopted the following description of the wetlands as they were before the Copeton Dam was constructed:
‘Eighty two per cent of this area was dominated by coolabah (Eucalyptus coolabah) woodland, with the remainder being concentrated within the Gingham and Lower Gwydir Watercourses. Here, flat overland grades allow shallow extensive flooding over approximately 20,000 ha of wetland dominated by water couch (Paspalum distichum), rushes (known locally as “sags”) (Bulboschoenus fluviatilis and Typha domingensis), sedges (Juncus aridicola) in association with various other aquatic plants including river buttercup (Ranunculus inundatus), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), spike-rushes (Eleocharis spp.) and water milfoils (Myriophyllum varifolium). This wetland is probably the largest stand of water couch and Bulboschoenus fluviatilis in New South Wales.’
In 1994, Mr McCosker himself mapped wetlands in the Gingham Watercourse from aerial photographs taken in 1985. The study covered some 13,600 hectares of the Gwydir wetlands. Mr McCosker described the area as follows:
‘The watercourse comprises swamps and channels that were subject to regular inundation prior to the completion of Copeton Dam in the early 1980s. There is a general absence of live coolabah trees on this land, however, extensive areas of dead coolabah trees remain. Although some of them bear scars as a result of ringbarking, the majority are thought to have died from prolonged inundation during the 1950s. Before river regulation vegetation predominantly comprised water couch and ribbed spike-rush (Eleocharis plana) meadows. River cooba occur as isolated trees or occasionally in clumps, with lignum forming a shrub layer in some areas. Extensive areas are void of any trees or shrubs. Coolabah occurs on the slightly higher watercourse periphery.
The water couch and ribbed spike-rush meadows appear to have contracted substantially in recent years, presumably as a result of a reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding. In the east flooding has diminished principally because of continuing streambank and streambed erosion in the constructed stock and domestic water channel. Consequently, small to moderate freshes do not leave the channel and flow overland, as they did in the past. The western watercourse has experienced a reduction in flooding due to insufficient water entering the system to reach the western end. As a consequence of channel erosion in the east and reduced volumes of water entering the watercourse over recent years, the former wetland has diminished to a comparatively small core area in the central section.
Lippia has spread extensively throughout this land system, with only the frequently inundated central area remaining relatively unaffected. Land subject to irregular and short duration flooding appears to be most severely affected.’
Lippia is an exotic allelopathic plant – that is, it exudes a toxin that suppresses the growth of other plants.
There is an issue as to the adequacy of the documentation supplied by the Minister to the Ramsar Convention Bureau at the time of the purported designation of the Windella Ramsar site. Leaving that issue to one side for the present, the location of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands is shown on the map reproduced below, which was attached to the RIS for the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands forwarded by the Minister to the Ramsar Convention Bureau on 2 June 1999 and received by the Bureau on 14 June 1999.
According to Mr McCosker, the four Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands sites are representative components of the entire Gwydir wetlands system. The site on the property ‘Old Dromana’ is located on the Lower Gwydir Watercourse. The other three sites, namely Goddard’s Lease, Crinolyn and Windella, are located on the Gingham Watercourse. As already noted, the four discrete areas total about 823 hectares. The Windella Ramsar site is some 20 kilometres from the two most easterly sites (Goddard’s Lease and Old Dromana).
The Gingham channel is a stock and domestic channel, some 50 kilometres in length, which was apparently constructed in the early 1980s. Water flows through the Gingham channel from east to west. Some of the water released from the Copeton Dam ultimately flows through the Gingham channel. For the first 180 kilometres or so, water released from the dam flows along the main river channel before being diverted into the Gingham channel west of Moree. The Gingham channel is not, however, the only channel providing water for stock and domestic purposes to landholders in the Gwydir Valley floodplain.
Ms McDonald, a Scientific Coordinator in the Department of Environment and Heritage with qualifications in applied remote sensing, prepared coloured maps of the Windella Ramsar site and the surrounding areas using aerial photographs and satellite images. Ms McDonald overlaid some of the images so obtained with data defining the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site derived from information supplied by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (‘NPWS’) (now part of the Department of Environment and Conservation). She also overlaid some of the images with cadastral information showing the boundaries of Windella (including internal lot boundaries) and neighbouring properties.
Senior counsel for the Minister, Mr Fagan SC, relied on these photographs to demonstrate that between the two dates, clearing of the land, including the removal of native trees, had taken place. For present purposes their significance lies in the overlays which show the relationship between the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site (as determined by Ms McDonald) and the cadastral boundaries.
Appendix A reproduces two of these images. The first is the product of an aerial photograph taken on 6 October 2002, a time of drought. The second is derived from an aerial photograph taken on 14 September 2003. As noted, the overlays in each case show the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site and the cadastral boundaries. The parallel lines apparently reflect the fact that strips of land were withheld from land grants for possible use as roads.
It will be seen that the western boundary of the Windella Ramsar site does not coincide with the western boundary of Windella itself. Rather, the western boundary of the site is to the east of the western boundary of Windella and at an angle to it. The photograph shows clearly the course of the Gingham channel through the Windella Ramsar site, the water in the channel flowing from east to west and continuing in a generally westerly direction after it leaves the site. A dam is located within the Windella Ramsar site, to the northwest of the more easterly bend in the Gingham channel.
COURSE OF EVENTS
DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE
The contention that the Minister had not designated the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands (and the Windella Ramsar site in particular) ‘under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention’ for the purposes of s 17(1) of the EPBC Act did not emerge as an issue until well after the hearing had commenced. Doubtless for this reason, the evidence relating to the designation process was presented less systematically than otherwise might have been the case. However, the evidence turned out to be largely uncontroversial, although there was a dispute as to whether what was done satisfied the requirements of s 17(1) of the EPBC Act.

On 2 February 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding for the Gingham and Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses (the ‘MOU’) was signed by a number of parties, including the Commonwealth, New South Wales and the then proprietors of the four affected properties (‘the Landholders’). The then proprietor of Windella, Mr S Murphy, his wife and daughter were among the signatories. The MOU was expressed not to be a binding contract, but the parties were said to have signed in the expectation that the principles stated in the document would be honoured. The MOU recorded the parties understanding that Ramsar listing ‘should be considered to be in perpetuity’. The MOU also stated that any of the Landholders could withdraw from it if they were adversely affected by management decisions and the dispute resolution procedure failed. Presumably the MOU was intended to satisfy the requirements of s 326(1) of the EPBC Act.
The MOU noted that the Gingham and Lower Gwydir Watercourses met the criteria for inclusion in the Ramsar list and that the value of the wetlands had been detailed in an attached RIS [Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands]. The Landholders were said to be the custodians of the wetlands for future generations. However, the MOU provided for all decisions regarding management of the wetlands to be made with the full understanding and support of the Landholders. The attached RIS included a copy of the maps reproduced above at [59] and below at [74].
On 17 March 1999, Ms Hampton of NPWS forwarded to Mr Bowen, also of the NPWS, a document prepared by Ms Savage of the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Ms Savage, who appears to have been based in Moree, identified GPS (global positioning satellite) points for three corners of the proposed Windella Ramsar site. The points were identified as Australian Map Grid (‘AMG’) co-ordinates, using as a reference point the Australian Geodetic Datum adopted in 1966 (‘AGD 66’). There was no evidence as to how Ms Savage came to select these co-ordinates as the corners of the proposed Windella Ramsar site.
The fourth corner of the site was identified by Ms Savage as ‘south west corner – boundary portion 8’ (that is, the south west corner of lot 8 in DP 750444, being part of Windella). Ms Hampton also provided a map, described as ‘Mr Murphy’s map’, which had the boundaries of the proposed Windella Ramsar site endorsed by hand. I infer that this map was prepared by Mr Murphy, one of the parties to the MOU. The handwritten part of the map placed the western boundary of the proposed Windella Ramsar site along part of Windella’s western boundary.
On the same day, Ms Hampton sent Mr Bowen a memorandum suggesting the preparation of three maps for the proposed sites. One was to be at a scale between 1:80,000 and 1:100,000 showing each of the four ‘properties’ in relation to each other and the wetland and drainage system. The other maps were to be at a smaller scale and were to show more detail of the properties. The memorandum continued as follows:
‘An “ideal” Ramsar site map will need to include the four properties to be listed clearly showing the boundaries of each. Other features to include are scale, latitude, longitude, compass bearing, basic topographic and hydrological features (drainage, rivers, permanent water), landmarks (roads, direction and distance to Moree township if possible).’
Mr Bowen used the coordinates he had been given to ‘draw’ the boundaries of the proposed Windella Ramsar site (and the other three proposed sites) onto a digitised topographic map of New South Wales. Since Mr Bowen did not have coordinates for the fourth point, and did not have cadastral informal available in digital form, he was forced to estimate the location of the fourth point. He did this in consultation with Ms Hampton, but acknowledged in cross-examination that they had made a ‘guess estimate’ based on Mr Murphy’s map. With the four co-ordinates now selected, Mr Bowen entered them into the computer, relying on the software to ‘join the dots’. He followed a similar procedure for the other three proposed Ramsar sites.
Having stored this information electronically, Mr Bowen had the ability to select other material from files of data to ‘overlay’ onto the map containing the proposed sites. Hard copy versions including the overlaid material could be printed out. In fact Mr Bowen printed out three coloured versions of the map: the first showing all four sites; the second showing the proposed sites on Windella and Crinolyn; and the third showing the proposed sites on Goddard’s Lease and Old Dromana. Each version included some basic topographic information, such as roads and watercourses, and displayed AMG co-ordinates on the axes of the map.
A copy of the first of these maps has already been reproduced ([59]) above). A copy of the second, which simply reproduces a portion of the first but on a different scale is set out below.
There are clear differences between the proposed Windella Ramsar site depicted by hand on Mr Murphy’s map and the shape of the site depicted on the map printed out by Mr Bowen. As he acknowledged, the latter has a more or less perpendicular western boundary, while the hand-drawn map has an angled western boundary. The hand-drawn eastern boundary of the site on Mr Murphy’s map is slightly angled, while on Mr Bowen’s map it is sharply angled. The northern and southern boundaries of the site in Mr Bowen’s map are elongated when compared with the hand drawn version. Mr Bowen’s evidence did not explain fully the reasons for these differences, although he suggested that there can be differences between the AMG projections system and a system which uses latitude and longitude. However, the differences would seem attributable, at least in large measure, to Mr Bowen’s guess as to the location of the fourth corner.
Mr Bowen was asked in cross-examination whether additional information could have been incorporated into the map that he produced:
‘MR LITTLEMORE: Had you wanted to, you could have produced not the very simple plan you have produced, but a piece of paper showing all relevant topographic information, shire boundaries, main roads, water bodies, rivers, fence lines, you could have put that all onto the document, couldn’t you, had you wanted to?---If the information, well, not all that information was available to me to put on there.
You don’t know that. You hadn’t asked or it?---I hadn’t asked for it in that specific case.
No, and nobody gave you any guidance as to what was required, did they for a Ramsar map?---No, they didn’t.
Had you been told, a Ramsar map is required to have latitude and longitude, topographical information, statements as to main habitat types, shire boundaries, state boundaries, local government areas, roads, water courses and other features. There would have been no problem with you getting that information and accumulating it into one form of map, would there?---No.’
Mr Bowen provided a coloured printout of each of the three maps to Ms Hampton. By a letter dated 31 March 1999, the Director-General of the NPWS forwarded to the Secretary of Environment Australia (as the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage was then known) a completed RIS for the Gwydir Wetlands, to which was attached the three maps printed out by Mr Bowen. Mr Bowen retained a coloured printout of each of the three maps on the NPWS’s files.
As I have explained, the form of the RIS originally recommended at the 4^th Conference of Contracting Parties (Montreux, Switzerland, 1990), was amended in 1997. The RIS as amended was accompanied by an ‘Explanatory Note and Guidelines’. The RIS provided for the following items of particular relevance to this case:
‘4. Geographical coordinates
…
10. Map of site included? Please tick yes⁬ -or- no⁬.
(Please refer to the Explanatory Note and Guidelines document for information regarding desirable map traits).’
The explanatory notes for these items have been reproduced earlier (see [35] (item 7 was later renumbered as item 4, and item 32 renumbered 10), [40] and [42]).
The RIS completed by the NPWS and forwarded on 31 March 1999 to the Secretary of Environment Australia followed the form approved by the Bureau. Item 4 gave geographical co-ordinates for each of the four nominated sites. In the case of the Windella Ramsar site, the co-ordinates given were ‘Lat 29° 12’ 10” Long 149° 05’ 40”.’ These co-ordinates were presumably intended to define a point at the approximate centre of the site, as suggested in the explanatory notes. The ‘yes’ box in item 10 was ticked.
Under the heading ‘12. Justification of the criteria selected [to support the nomination]’, the RIS included the following:
‘Representative or unique wetlands:
Although parts of the wetland have been substantially modified due to river regulation, the Gwydir Wetlands remain a particularly good example of an inland terminal delta in both the Darling Riverine Plains bioregion and the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin. It plays a substantial part in the biological and ecological functioning of the Murray-Darling Basin, as the major wetlands in the Basin are rarely inundated simultaneously, and therefore not always suitable for bird breeding at the same time. The Ramsar listed areas are important components of the entire Gwydir wetland system.
General criteria based on plants and birds:
The wetland supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, endangered and vulnerable species, including magpie geese (breeding), and brolga. It supports a number of common species at the edge of their range including black-necked stork (jabiru), and jacana. The wetland is of value for maintaining genetic and ecological diversity because there are few of these inland wetlands left, and they are declining. It is of special habitat value particularly as breeding and feeding habitat for large numbers of colonial waterbirds.’
The RIS also included the following sections:
‘16. Ecological features: (main habitats and vegetation types)
Prior to river regulation, there were around 220,000 hectares of ephemeral and floodplain wetlands on the Gwydir Valley floodplain. Eighty two per cent of this area is dominated by coolabah (Eucalyptus coolabah) woodland. Here seasonal, extensive flooding occurs over approximately 20,000 ha of wetland dominated by aquatic plants…
Vegetation communities are predominantly determined by the frequency and duration of flooding. Variation of vegetation associations with soil types have also been observed. Three identifiable vegetation groups exist: those on high red solodic ridges subject to infrequent flooding for example bimble box (Eucalyptus poplunea) and white cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla) communities; those on heavy clay soils in areas subject to periodic inundation for example coolabah … and belah (Casuarina cristate) communities; and those on heavy clay soils in channels or depressions subject to frequent inundation for example water couch (Paspalum distichum), ribbed spike rush (Eleocharis plana), marsh club rush (Bolboschoenus fluviatilis) and Juncus species…
17. Noteworthy flora: (indicating, e.g., which species/communities are unique, rare, endangered or biogeographically important, etc)
This wetland is probably the largest stand of water couch…and marsh club-rush…in New South Wales…
Other specific flora include ribbed spike-rush…tall spike-rush (Eleocharis sphacelata), tussock rush (Juncus aridicola) and cumbungi (Typha sp.), in association with various other aquatic plants including swamp buttercup (Ranunculus undosus), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), swamp lily (Ottelia ovalifolia), starfruit (Damasonium minus), numerous sedges (Cyperus sp.) and water milfoils (Myriophyllum sp.)…’
On 2 June 1999, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage wrote to the Secretary-General of the Ramsar Convention Bureau requesting that a number of sites, including the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands, be added to the List. The letter, which was received by the Bureau on 14 June 1999, enclosed a hard copy of the RIS for each of the nominated sites. The RIS for the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands transmitted to the Bureau was unaltered from the document prepared by the NPWS. However, according to Mr Hooy, a Senior Departmental officer, the Department would have checked the RIS with a view to ensuring that it complied with the guidelines and explanatory notes proposed for the purposes of the Ramsar Convention. It was common ground that the maps accompanying the Minister’s letter were black and white copies of the coloured maps printed out by Mr Bowen in March 1999 and forwarded to the Department.
It should be noted that the maps:
- show the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site, in the sense that the quadrilateral-shaped area of the site is drawn on the maps in accordance with an identified scale;
- do not show latitude and longitude readings and do not provide co-ordinates for the four corners of the site;
- show the AMG co-ordinates on the axes;
- show some waterbodies in the vicinity of the Windella Ramsar site;
- do not show the boundaries of Windella itself.
On 12 October 1999 and 19 October 1999, an officer of NPWS emailed to Environment Australia an electronic file of the information ‘drawn’ by Mr Bowen on the digitised topographical map. That file contained only the boundaries of the site, plotted against the background of the AMG co-ordinates. With these data, Environment Australia would be able to add additional topographical information.
Ms McDonald gave evidence that the Department’s database included a map showing the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site. She said that she had compared what was stored on the Department’s data base with the electronic file that had been transmitted in October 1999. To do that Ms McDonald ‘translated’ the data recorded in that file to obtain correct latitude and longitude co-ordinates. She demonstrated this procedure in the witness box. Using the procedure, Ms McDonald was able to identify the co-ordinates the four corners of the Windella Ramsar site as follows:
Northwest      Lat      29˚ 12’ 1” S
  Long    149˚ 5’ 25” E
Southwest      Lat      29˚ 12’ 17” S
  Long    149˚ 5’ 25” E
Northeast       Lat      29˚ 12’ 1” S
  Long    149˚ 6’ 31” E
Southeast       Lat      29˚ 12’ 23” S
  Long    149˚ 6’ 27” E
Ms McDonald said that one second difference in a coordinate, either for longitude or latitude, equates to about five metres on the ground. I accept Ms McDonald’s evidence. I also accept that the procedures she described were carried out correctly and that the results are reliable.
Mr Hooy gave evidence that the maps of the Windella Ramsar site were available on the Department’s website and thus could be accessed by members of the public. The website contains a general disclaimer to the effect that the Commonwealth does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any of the material on the website.
The Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands were duly included in the List and have remained on the List.
ACTIONS RELATING TO THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE
In this chronology I set out my findings as to the events that took place on or in relation to the Windella Ramsar site. I have included the facts not disputed by the respondents (see [43] above) where appropriate.
On 6 December 2001, Mr Murphy entered a contract to sell Windella to the Proprietors (Kenneth Harris, Robert Harris and Ms Greentree). A copy of the MOU was annexed to the contract of sale, including the map of the area. The transfer to the Proprietors was registered on 17 January 2002. The Proprietors hold Windella as tenants in common, with Ms Greentree having a one half share and Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris each having a one quarter share.
On 28 March 2002, an officer of Environment Australia (apparently the name used by the Department of Environment and Heritage) wrote to Ms Greentree and ‘Mr Bruce Harris’ (presumably Kenneth Bruce Harris), advising them that the Gwydir Wetlands had been declared under the Ramsar Convention in June 1999. The letter set out attributes of the Gwydir Wetlands, including what was said to be one of the largest stands of water couch and marsh club-rush remaining in New South Wales. The letter attached a copy of the MOU and included an offer to advise whether the EPBC Act might apply if any improvements or changes in land use were contemplated.
On 19 June 2002, Mr Graham, a Vegetation Management Officer with the New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (‘DIPNR’), made a site inspection of the Windella Ramsar site. While there was cross-examination directed to showing that Mr Graham may not have actually been on the site, I am satisfied that he was.
During his inspection, Mr Graham observed that some groundcover on the site had been burnt and that soil in and near the Gingham channel had been disturbed. Otherwise he saw little evidence of disturbance within the site. In about July or August 2002, work was done to de-silt the Gingham channel and to remove cumbungi. The work was done with an excavator, which scooped up silt, cumbungi and other weeds and placed it on the side of the channel. I infer that this work was done at Mr Greentree’s direction. Later Mr Jones, on Mr Greentree’s instructions, dispersed the silt windrow along the channel using a road grader.
On 7 September 2002, Ms Andreoni made an observation flight over the Windella Ramsar site and was involved in the taking of aerial photographs of the site at that time. The photographs taken on 7 September 2002, when viewed in conjunction with the aerial photographs showing the boundaries of the Windella Ramsar site as determined by Ms McDonald, indicate that at that time there were a number of live trees on the site. The evidence does not enable the number to be precisely determined, but an aerial photograph taken on 6 October 2002, on which the site boundaries were superimposed, suggests that there were then about fifteen to twenty reasonably mature trees on the site. As already noted, Ms Andreoni observed that dredging of the Gingham channel had occurred within the Windella Ramsar site and spoil had been placed on the northern side of the channel.
On 30 September 2002, Environment Australia sent separate letters, in similar terms, to Mr Greentree, Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris concerning vegetation clearing activities allegedly undertaken on Windella and other properties. The letter advised that Environment Australia was investigating whether there had been any contravention of the EPBC Act and indicated that Environment Australia wished to carry out a site inspection. The letter recommended that any future activities on these properties that might impact on matters of national environmental significance be referred to Environment Australia.
On 11 October 2002, solicitors for Mr Greentree and Prime Grain refused consent to the proposed site inspection. This prompted a response on 15 October 2002 to the effect that a monitoring warrant had been obtained pursuant to s 409 of the EPBC Act authorising entry to the premises by Ms Jeanette Schwarz, an investigations officer with Environment Australia.
On 15 October 2002, pursuant to that warrant, Ms Schwarz conducted an inspection of Windella, in company with several persons, including Dr Peter Bacon, a scientist with expertise in wetlands and Mr Graham. All three gave evidence at the trial. The respondents admitted that the ground inspection revealed that approximately 20 per cent of the Windella Ramsar site in the north-eastern portion had been cleared of all ground cover and that the Gingham channel had been dredged and spoil stacked on the northern side of the channel.
Mr Graham, who visited the Windella Ramsar site on 15 October 2002, said that he observed coolabah and belah (or casuarina) trees. Dr Bacon identified Eucalyptus coolabah (coolabah) trees near the Windella Ramsar site and Mr McCosker’s evidence shows that woodland dominated the Gwydir Valley floodplain before the effects of the Copeton Dam and diversion of water for irrigation had become apparent. Mr McCosker also gave evidence that in 1998, when he last visited the Windella Ramsar site, there were live coolabah trees, as well as dead trees, lignum, cumbungi and other vegetation, which provided a habitat for rare and migratory bird species. The RIS covering the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands records that the vegetation on heavy clay soils in areas subject to heavy inundation includes coolabah and belah (Casuarina cristate) communities. In this state of the evidence I infer that virtually all the live trees on the Windella Ramsar site in September/October 2002 were coolabah, but that there were also some casuarina. It is common ground that coolabah and casuarina are indigenous to this country.

Mr Littlemore submitted that, in order to determine whether any actions of the respondents have had a significant impact on the Windella Ramsar site, it is necessary to establish a base line. He argued that it was necessary to take into account that
·the greatest impact on the ecology of the site has been the Copeton Dam, the construction of which has resulted (as Dr Bacon accepted) in the drying out of about 70 per cent of the regional wetlands;
·the Windella Ramsar site comprises less than 0.1 per cent of the Gwydir Wetlands and includes a man-made obstruction, in the form of the Gingham channel, to the maintenance of natural wetlands;
·as Dr Bacon acknowledged, the Gingham channel has a role in supplying water to wetlands along its route, including the Windella Ramsar site and that the water supplied by the channel contributes to the characteristics of the site as a ‘core wetland’;
·the Windella Ramsar site, like other wetlands, was part of a dynamic eco-system and the impact of the clearing and ploughing could not be assessed properly until the effects of the latest inundation had been evaluated.
Taking into account these matters, so he contended, no finding should be made that any action of the respondents had had a significant impact on the ecological character of the site.
It must be said that the evidence of the impact of the activities carried out on the Windella Ramsar site was not as clear or systematic as might have been expected. In part this was because, on the applicant’s case, the respondents’ activities were allegedly conducted over a substantial period of time, namely the thirteen month period between June 2002 and July 2003. The evidence did not always distinguish between activities carried out on the site at different times. However, other factors also contributed to the state of the evidence.
Mr McCosker, who had considerable knowledge of the Windella Ramsar site and of the Gwydir wetlands generally, visited the site only once after 1998, on 16 August 2003. He therefore could not give direct evidence of the condition of the site shortly before the clearing, ploughing and sowing took place in February and March 2003. On the other hand, Dr Bacon, an expert in wetlands management, visited the site only once, on 15 October 2002. His evidence as to the consequences of clearing and cultivation of the site was given without the benefit of an inspection after the virtually complete clearing and sowing of the site had taken place in the first quarter of 2003. Indeed, Dr Bacon’s evidence was mainly directed to demonstrating that the activities that had occurred on the site prior to 15 October 2002 had a substantial impact on its ecological character.
The position is made somewhat more complex by gaps in the evidence. In particular, the evidence fell short of establishing that the clearing and burning that were evident during the inspection in October 2002 had been carried out by the respondents (or some of them) between 27 June 2002 (the date identified in the pleadings) and the date of the inspection. The evidence as to when the activities occurred was vague and equivocal. Clearly enough, some ploughing and clearing took place on the eastern part of the site at some time before 23 September 2002. But I cannot find to the requisite standard that the ploughing and clearing occurred, as the Minister alleges, between 27 June 2002 and September or October 2002. Nor is there evidence that would enable me to find that the respondents or any of them were responsible for the burning that occurred on the Windella Ramsar site on and shortly before 15 October 2002.
It follows that the applicant cannot establish that any of the respondents have contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act unless the evidence shows that the clearing, ploughing and sowing carried out on the site in February and March 2003 had a significant impact on the ecological character of the site immediately before those activities took place. I accept that Mr Littlemore’s submission that it is necessary to have a ‘base line’ in order to assess the impact of those activities on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site. That is, it is necessary to determine whether, immediately before the activities took place, the biological, physical and chemical components of the site gave it significance as an element of the Gwydir wetland eco-system. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the evidence must include a comprehensive and precise description of the ecological character of the site at a particular date (although, doubtless, that would have been helpful). Even without such a description, the evidence may be sufficient to enable the requisite assessment of the significance of the site and the impact of actions on its attributes as a wetland to be made.
Although the evidence in the present case was incomplete in some respects, it established that by October 2002 only approximately 20 percent of the Windella Ramsar site, or its eastern boundary, had been cleared. More generally, the habitat value of the site had been diminished by the division of waters following the construction of the Copeton Dam, although the effects of the diversion of waters had become apparent well before the designation of the Windella Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention. The value of the site as a habitat had also been diminished to some extent by fire, the spread of lippia and the dredging of the Gingham channel. Even so, as I have already found, Dr Bacon’s evidence demonstrated that native wetland plants were present on the site, even though not in such profusion as surveys in the 1990s had indicated. I have also found that in October 2002 coolabah and casuarina trees were present, albeit in reduced numbers. Furthermore, as Mr McCosker explained, dead trees and, in particular, fallen logs provided a habitat critical to many species of birds. In addition, the uncleared and unploughed portion of the site retained the ability, in times of inundation (natural or man-made), to regenerate relatively quickly and thus to increase the amount of habitat available for fauna such as magpie geese, herons, storks and waders. In summary, while the Windella Ramsar site had lost some of the attributes of a pristine wetland, it retained important attributes, including the potential to regenerate relatively swiftly. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site had changed materially between October 2002 and February 2003, when clearing, ploughing and sowing of the remainder of the site commenced.
Once it is accepted that the Windella Ramsar site retained attributes as a wetland immediately before the actions of February and March 2003 took place, the conclusion seems to me inevitable that those activities had a significant impact on the ecological character of the site. The simple fact is that the entire site, other than a narrow strip on either side of the Gingham channel and the area already cleared, was cleared and ploughed and later sown with wheat. In essence, as Mr McCosker agreed in cross-examination, the site has been ‘sterilised’. Perhaps the sterilisation was not complete since, as Mr McCosker accepted, even in its cleared state an inundation of the site would allow a range of native wetland plants to re-establish themselves over time, at least if they did not have to compete with crops. But by the time the interlocutory injunction was granted, the Windella Ramsar site was not recognisable as an area of wetland with native vegetation and fauna.
Mr McCosker identified three criteria that should be taken into account in assessing whether human action had an impact on a wetland area. First, it would be necessary to consider whether the actions affected or changed the natural flooding regime. A second factor is the effect of the actions on the fauna using the wetland, in particular the removal of habitat such as plants and other vegetation, trees (dead or alive) and logs. The third factor is the effect of the actions on food resources for fauna, such as loss of vegetation or nutrients. This includes the ability of the store of seeds within the soil to restore and regenerate the wetland in times of inundation.
In my view, Mr McCosker fairly applied these criteria in his report, even though he did not have the advantage of inspecting the site shortly before the clearing and cultivation that took place in February and March 2003. Mr McCosker said this:
‘The loss of vegetation from the Windella Ramsar wetland has affected the lifecycle of these plants in that they are no longer present within the Ramsar wetland. Native wetland plants must re-establish from seed and compete with exotic weeds in accordance with prevailing environmental conditions. The loss of vegetation from the site has furthermore affected habitat for fauna, particularly those species such as opportunistic waterbirds, who may have fed and bred within the Windella Ramsar wetland in the time that the wetland has been cleared, ploughed and planted with wheat, for example black necked stork and brolga. The loss of plants and habitat within the Ramsar wetland represents a net loss within the wider Gwydir wetlands, which has seriously affected the habitat or lifecycle of native species dependent upon the Windella Ramsar wetland. This is consistent with the third criteria point identified under the significance guidelines.
Cropping and continued cultivation of the wetland is likely to further reduce the ability of the wetland to recover by depleting the reserve of plant propagules stored in the soil seed bank. The removal of perennial vegetation by ploughing is also likely to provide more favourable conditions for the establishment of weeks such as lippia, burrs, thistles and roly-poly.
…
Continued cropping in the wetland is likely to further alter the ecological character of the wetland by disrupting normal nutrient cycling processes in the soil. Harvesting of wheat will result in transporting nutrients out of the wetland in the form of grain. The natural nutrient cycling processes will be disrupted by destruction of the native vegetation. Native wetland vegetation grows vigorously during times of inundation and decays during dry phases. The decayed organic matter provides a flush of nutrients for renewed plant and invertebrate growth following re-flooding, which forms the basis of the food chain for larger animals, including frogs, fish and water birds.
Under a cropping regime, plant growth only occurs during dry phases. Planted crops such as wheat will die under anaerobic (de-oxygenated) conditions that are created in the soil by prolonged inundation. This, in turn, will deprive invertebrate and larger fauna of the abundant food sources that are normally available in a flooded wetland supporting native vegetation. On this basis, it is likely that significant impacts resulting from the loss plants, habitat and food resources will limit, inhibit and/or impair interaction between the physical, chemical and biological components of the Ramsar wetland. These impacts will continue and the opportunity for the wetland to re-establish itself will become increasingly difficult if cropping continues within the wetland.’
HAVE EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTRAVENED THE ACT?
The Minister seeks pecuniary penalties against Mr Greentree, Merrywinebone and Auen. Such penalties can be imposed under s 16(1) of the EPBC Act only if a person takes an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site. The actions in this case were the clearing and ploughing and subsequent sowing of wheat on the Windella Ramsar site: see EPBC Act, s 523. The clearing and ploughing took place in February and March 2003. The sowing of wheat took place later, but before August 2003.
I have already found that the actions had a significant impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site. So far as the imposition of penalties is concerned, the question is whether Mr Greentree, Merrywinebone or Auen took the actions on the Windella Ramsar site to which I have referred, thereby contravening s 16(1) of the EPBC Act.
The Minister also seeks injunctive relief against all respondents. The Court has power, on the application of the Minister, to grant an inunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct if that person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting a contravention of the EPBC Act: s 475(1), (2). Thus no injunctive relief can be granted against a person unless that person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in such conduct.
Mr Greentree
I am satisfied that Mr Greentree took the actions to which I have referred. Mr Greentree is and has been since June 2002 a shareholder and the sole director of Auen, which has a 50.1 per cent share of the Greentree Farming partnership. The other shareholder in Auen is Prime Grain Pty Ltd, of which Mr Greentree is also a director and the sole shareholder. Since 1 July 2002, Mr Greentree has managed and directed the operations of Greentree Farming on behalf of Merrywinebone and Auen.
In February 2003, Mr Greentree instructed Mr Jones, the then farming operations manager of Greentree Farming to clear and plough an area of land on Windella, including the Windella Ramsar site, in preparation for a seedbed. He took this course, in part at least, because he regarded himself as no longer bound by the MOU. It is clear that Mr Jones carried out Mr Greentree’s instructions. I infer that Mr Greentree also gave instructions to sow wheat on the Windella Ramsar site and that these instructions were duly carried out.
In my opinion, the expression ‘take an action’ in s 16(1) of the EPBC Act covers but is not limited to the case of a person who physically undertakes the relevant conduct. It extends to a person who gives instructions from a position of authority to an employee that the employee carried out the particular action. Mr Littlemore did not contend otherwise. It follows that Mr Greentree has contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act and is liable to the imposition of a penalty. It also follows that he has engaged in conduct consisting of a contravention of the EPBC Act for the purposes of s 475(1). Accordingly, the Court has powers, subject to any discretionary considerations, to grant an injunction restraining Mr Greentree from engaging in such conduct in the future (s 475(2)).
No reliance was placed by the Minister on s 484 of the EPBC Act which, among other things, prohibits a person from being knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention of a civil penalty provision. In view of the conclusion I have reached, it is not necessary to consider the possible application of that provision to Mr Greentree.
Merrywinebone and Auen
The Minister submitted that Merrywinebone and Auen contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act because they carried out the relevant actions through the agency of Mr Greentree and Mr Jones. This agency was said to have arisen because Merrywinebone and Auen conducted farming operations on Windella in partnership.
I do not think that the fact that Merrywinebone and Auen carried on business in partnership through Mr Greentree as the manager is enough, of itself, to establish that each of them took the relevant actions on the Windella Ramsar site. I was not taken to any agreement or arrangement, whether in the form of a partnership agreement or otherwise, that authorised Mr Greentree to clear and plough the Ramsar Windella site in a manner that constituted or might have constituted a contravention of the EPBC Act. Nor is there evidence that shows that Mr Greentree sought the approval of either company to the actions he proposed to take on the Windella Ramsar site.
So far as Merrywinebone is concerned, there is no evidence that its directors (Kenneth Harris, Robert Harris and Bruce Maylon Harris) were informed of the proposed actions in the Windella Ramsar site, nor that they endorsed them, whether before or after the event. Mr Fagan invited me to infer that the directors of Merrywinebone must have known and approved of the clearing and cultivation activities on the Windella Ramsar site. In the absence of some affirmative evidence pointing to such knowledge or approval, I cannot be satisfied that the directors, or any of them, knew or approved of what was done on the site. The evidence is entirely consistent with Mr Greentree having acted on his own initiative, without informing or seeking the approval of Merrywinebone or its directors.
I therefore cannot be satisfied that Merrywinebone took the actions which I have found constituted a contravention of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act. Nor can I be satisfied that Merrywinebone proposes to engage in conduct consisting of an act that constitutes a contravention of the EPBC Act, within s 475(1) of the EPBC Act. There is no material on which such a finding could properly be based.
Auen’s position is, however, different from that of Merrywinebone. Mr Greentree is the controlling mind of Auen. He is the sole director and the only shareholder except for Prime Grain Pty Ltd which he also controls. Auen has the majority interest in the Greentree Farming partnership, which farms Windella. Mr Greentree’s actions were carried out in order to advance Auen’s interests as a partner in Greentree Farming.
On the principle articulated in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 at 170-171, per Lord Reid, the actions taken by Mr Greentree were also those of Auen: see Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121, at 127, per Mason CJ, Wilson and Toohey JJ. Therefore Auen, like Mr Greentree, took actions which had a significant impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site, in contravention of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act. It follows that Auen has engaged in conduct consisting of a contravention of the EPBC Act. Thus the precondition to s 475(1) of the EPBC Act has been satisfied and the Minister may seek injunctive relief against Auen.
Another way of addressing Auen’s position is to do so from the perspective of the construction of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act: Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 657, at 726 [342], per Heerey and Sackville JJ. Where the sole director and, in effect, the sole shareholder of a company takes action in the interests of the company and those actions have a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland, the company itself takes the action for the purposes of s 16(1) of the EPBC Act. To hold otherwise, in my opinion, would frustrate the objectives of the legislation.
Mr Norrie
Mr Norrie has been the farming operations manager of Greentree Farming since about 10 May 2003. Mr Fagan conceded that there was only the slenderest evidence from which any inference could be drawn of his involvement, past or prospective, in any contravention of the EPBC Act. That concession was amply justified by the state of the evidence. There is no basis on which I could find that Mr Norrie has engaged or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting a contravention of the EPBC Act.
The Proprietors
Ms Greentree, Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris have been the registered proprietors of Windella since 17 January 2002. There was no evidence that any of the Proprietors lived on Windella or indeed visited the property. Nor was there evidence that any of the Proprietors knew or approved of the actions taken by Mr Greentree on the Windella Ramsar site. As I have explained, this conclusion is unaffected by the fact that Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris were also directors of Merrywinebone, one of the partners in Greentree Farming.

Mr Fagan acknowledged that the evidence did not establish that the Proprietors (or any of them) authorised the ‘incursions’ into the Windella Ramsar site. But he submitted that there was a basis for inferring that the Proprietors had an ongoing arrangement for the cultivation of wheat on Windella. This, so he argued, was sufficient to justify the grant of an injunction to restrain them from permitting cultivation of the Windella Ramsar site.
This submission pays insufficient attention to the language of s 475(1) and (2) of the EPBC Act. An injunction can issue against a Proprietor only if he or she has engaged or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting a contravention of the EPBC Act. There is nothing to support such a finding. It is quite possible to cultivate wheat on Windella without any ‘incursion’ into the Windella Ramsar site. There is no basis for granting injunctive relief against any of the Proprietors.
CONCLUSION
I have found that Mr Greentree and Auen have contravened s 16(1) of the EPBC Act by taking action on the Windella Ramsar site that has had a significant impact on the ecological character of the site. Each is liable to a civil penalty imposed under ss 16 and 481 of the EPBC Act. The Minister has also established a basis for the grant of injunctive relief pursuant to s 475(2) of the EPBC Act against Ms Greentree and Auen, subject to discretionary considerations. Whether the relief should include remediation orders pursuant to s 475(3) is a matter that should be the subject of further submissions.
The claim for relief against the other respondents (the Proprietors and Mr Norrie) fails. The proceedings as against them should be dismissed.
I shall direct that:
1. Within 14 days the Minister file and serve:
(a)short minutes of order consistent with these reasons for judgment, specifying the orders that should be made against Mr Greentree and Auen (other than the civil penalties that should be imposed) and providing for dismissal of the proceedings against the other respondents;
(b)written submissions in support of the short minutes of order;
(c)additional evidence (if any) on which the Minister intends to rely in support of the short minutes of order;
(d)any evidence on which the Minister intends to rely on the question of penalty;
(e)written submissions on penalty; and
(f)written submissions on costs.
2. Within a further 14 days, the respondents file and serve:
(a)short minutes of order, consistent with these reasons for judgment, to the extent that the respondents dispute the short minutes of order filed and served by the Minister;
(b)written submissions in support of the respondents’ short minutes of order;
(c)additional evidence (if any) on which the respondents intend to rely in support of the respondents’ short minutes of order;
(d)any evidence on which Mr Greentree and Auen intend to rely on the question of penalty;
(e)written submissions on behalf of Mr Greentree and Auen on penalty; and
(f)written submissions on costs.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty-two (222) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.
Associate:
Dated: 11 June 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: DJ Fagan SC with C O’Donnell

Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Respondent: SM Littlemore QC with PM Lane

Solicitor for the Respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal

Date of Hearing: 9-12 December 2003, 10 February 2004

Date of Judgment: 11 June 2004
APPENDIX A

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 914 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE APPLICANT
AND:	RONALD GREENTREE FIRST RESPONDENT MERRYWINEBONE PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT ADAM NORRIE FOURTH RESPONDENT AMY MAREE GREENTREE FIFTH RESPONDENT KENNETH BRUCE HARRIS SIXTH RESPONDENT ROBERT HAROLD HARRIS SEVENTH RESPONDENT AUEN GRAIN PTY LTD EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE PROCEEDINGS	[1]
THE LEGISLATION	[14]
*THE RAMSAR CONVENTION*	[27]
Terms of the Convention	[27]
Conferences of the Contracting Parties	[31]
ISSUES	[43]
THE RAMSAR GWYDIR WETLANDS	[51]
COURSE OF EVENTS	[66]
*DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE*	[66]
*ACTIONS RELATING TO THE WINDELLA RAMSAR SITE*	[88]
*THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES*	[109]
*THE DESIGNATION ISSUE*	[109]
The Submissions	[109]
Reasoning	[117]
*PRIOR AUTHORISATION*	[138]
Were the Respondents’ Actions Specifically Authorised Under State Law?	[139]
Did the Respondents’ Actions Require Further Environmental Authorisation?	[157]
*Native Vegetation Act*	[157]
*Noxious Weeds Act*	[181]
THE QUESTION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT	[188]
HAVE EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTRAVENED THE ACT?	[202]
Mr Greentree	[205]
Merrywinebone and Auen	[209]
Mr Norrie	[216]
The Proprietors	[217]
CONCLUSION	[220]

Abbreviation	Full Name or Designation	Reference
AGD 66	Australian Geodetic Datum, adopted in 1966	[69]
AMG	Australian Map Grid	[69]
Auen	Eighth respondent (Auen Grain Pty Ltd)	[4]
declared Ramsar wetland	A wetland designated by the Commonwealth under Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention	[2]
DIPNR	New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources	[91]
ECA	Environmental Contingency Allocation	[55]
EPA Act	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)	[48]
EPBC Act	Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)	[1]
Greentree Farming	The partnership farming Windella, comprising (since 1 July 2002) Merrywinebone and Auen	[4]
Kenneth Harris	Sixth respondent (Kenneth Bruce Harris)	[4]
Landholders	The proprietors of four properties who were Parties to the MOU	[67]
List	List of Wetlands of International Importance	[32]
Merrywinebone	Third respondent (Merrywinebone Pty Ltd)	[4]
Moree LEP	Moree Plains Local Environmental Plan 1995	[49]
Minister	The applicant (Minister for the Environment and Heritage)	[1]
MOU	Memorandum of Understanding for the Gingham & Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses, 2 February 1999	[67]
Mr Greentree	First respondent (Ronald Greentree)	[4]
Mr Norrie	Fourth respondent (Adam Norrie)	[5]
Ms Greentree	Fifth respondent (Amy Maree Greentree)	[4]
Native Vegetation Act	Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW)	[49]
Noxious Weeds Act	Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW)	[48]
NPWS	New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service (now the Department of Environment and Conservation)	[62]
Principal respondents	Mr Greentree, Merrywinebone and Auen	[8]
Proprietors	Mr Greentree, Kenneth Harris and Robert Harris	[4]
Ramsar Convention	Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat done at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971	[2]
Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands	Gwydir Wetlands: Gingham and Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses	[2]
RIS	Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands	[39]
Robert Harris	Seventh respondent (Robert Harold Harris)	[4]
Soil Conservation Act	Soil Conservation Act 1938 (NSW)	[161]
Windella Ramsar site	Windella component of the Ramsar Gwydir Wetlands	[3]

Counsel for the Applicant:	DJ Fagan SC with C O’Donnell
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent:	SM Littlemore QC with PM Lane
Solicitor for the Respondent:	PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal
Date of Hearing:	9-12 December 2003, 10 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	11 June 2004