State of Queensland & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia

The State of Queensland and the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia, in his capacity as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, were the parties before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of a proclamation made under section 6(3) of an Act, which empowered the prescription of acts in relation to certain property. The first question posed to the Court was whether the inclusion of property on the World Heritage list alone justified such a proclamation.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether a proclamation under section 6(3) could be validly made solely by reason of property being included on the World Heritage list. Secondly, assuming a negative answer to the first question, the Court needed to ascertain the correct criteria for determining the validity of such a proclamation. The plaintiff's submissions were that the first question should be answered in the negative, and that the relevant inquiry for the second question was whether the property constituted natural or cultural heritage, or if its protection was necessary for such heritage. An alternative submission was that the inquiry should focus on whether the property could be reasonably considered to be natural or cultural heritage.

The Court's reasoning, as presented by counsel, relied on established law from the *Tasmanian Dam case*. This precedent held that a proclamation under section 6(3) could only be justified under the external affairs power by reference to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Consequently, such a proclamation must conform to the Convention and carry its provisions into effect. While acknowledging that the scope of the Convention might extend beyond merely performing obligations or securing benefits, it was submitted that the scope must remain confined to the Convention's subject matter, which, except for identification and interim protection, was limited to property defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.