Legal Research
Cases
Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

Link copied

Case Copied 14 April 1976 40 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.

MURPHYORES INCORPORATED PTY. LTD. v. THE COMMONWEALTH

(1976) 136 CLR 1

14 April 1976

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Powers of Commonwealth Parliament—Trade and commerce with other countries—Law prohibiting exportation of specified materials without Minister's approval—Power of Minister—Decision—Matters considered—Effect of extraction of materials upon environment—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (i.) Customs Act 1901-1973 (Cth), s. 112*—Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-1975 (Cth), ss. 5,8,9, 11—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations, reg. 9. * Section 112 of the Customs Act 1901-1973 (Cth) provides: "(1) The Governor-General may, by regulation, prohibit the exportation of goods from Australia. (2) The power conferred by the last preceding sub-section may be exercised—(a) by prohibiting the exportation of goods absolutely; (b) by prohibiting the exportation of goods to a specified place; or (c) by prohibiting the exportation of goods unless prescribed conditions are complied with ... "

Decisions

1976, April 14.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this matter by my brother Stephen. I am in agreement with him in his conclusions and generally in his reasoning. (at p6)

2. In my opinion, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-1975 is a valid law of the Commonwealth. Its operation is confined to requiring Australian authorities as defined to take into account the effect upon the environment of Commonwealth proposals, works and decisions. Provision is made for the authorities to be assisted by proper information as to the impact or possible impact of such proposals, works and decisions. The act is, in my opinion, well within the competence of the Parliament. (at p6)

3. I cannot find any ground upon which to restrain a decision of a Minister, made bona fide, not to lift the prohibition upon export of goods, of which the export is prohibited by the Customs Act, 1901-1973 or by regulations made thereunder. I am clearly of opinion that a decision not to lift the prohibition upon the export of a mineral is not invalidated by the fact that the Minister in making it had regard to the effect that the mining or processing of the mineral had or may have upon the environment. (at p6)

4. I agree that the demurrer should be allowed and the action dismissed. (at p6)

Mc TIERNAN J. Murphyores Incorporated and Dillingham Constructions Pty. Ltd., the plaintiffs, are the holders of mining leases on Fraser Island, granted and issued by the Governor of Queensland acting by and with the advice of his Executive Council under the provisions of the Mining Act 1968 (Q.), as amended. Their intention is to export from Australia certain concentrates processed from the minerals mined by them on Fraser Island. To be able to export these concentrates the plaintiffs needed the written permission of the Minister of State for Minerals and Energy since reg. 9 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1976] HCA 20
Decision Date: 14 April 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought a writ of prohibition against the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondent) to prevent the respondent from proceeding with a proposed inquiry into the applicant's mining operations. The applicant contended that the inquiry, initiated under the *Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974* (Cth), was beyond the constitutional power of the Commonwealth. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth Parliament had the constitutional authority to enact legislation that would permit the executive government to inquire into and potentially regulate the environmental impact of mining operations conducted by a private company within a State, where those operations were not demonstrably linked to a Commonwealth head of power. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the *Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974* (Cth) validly extended to the subject matter of the proposed inquiry.

The majority of the Court held that the Commonwealth lacked the constitutional power to enact the *Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974* (Cth) in so far as it purported to authorise the executive government to inquire into the environmental impact of mining operations within a State, absent a sufficient nexus to a head of Commonwealth legislative power. The Court reasoned that the Act, as applied to the applicant's activities, sought to regulate matters falling within the residual legislative powers of the States. The Court distinguished between the Commonwealth's power to legislate with respect to its own territories or instrumentalities, and its power to regulate private activities within the States that did not engage a specific Commonwealth head of power.

The Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent from proceeding with the proposed inquiry.

Orders