Tasmanian Dam Case - Lecture Notes

Introduction

Presenter: Renato Costa, Aussie Law
Topic: Tasmanian Dam Case (1983)
Significance: One of the most significant High Court cases in Australia over the last 50 years.
Legal Aspects Involved: Environmental, international, and constitutional law.
Key Constitutional Powers Discussed:
- Corporations power (Section 51(xx))
- External affairs power (Section 51(xxix))

Proposal: Tasmania's hydroelectric commission proposed building a dam on the Gordon River, requiring flooding the Franklin River.
Issue: The area was part of a national park due to the international treaty - Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Challenge: Tasmanian government challenged the validity of the World Heritage Act.

Is Section 51(xx) or Section 51(xxix) a valid constitutional head of power for enacting the World Heritage Act?
Is the 1983 World Heritage, Properties, and Conservation Act of the Commonwealth valid?

Outcome: Commonwealth Government had the authority to stop the dam construction.
Decision: Narrow 4-3 majority decision focused on external affairs power.

Argument: Whether the Hydro Commission was a "trading corporation."
Decision: Majority viewed the commission's activities (electricity production and sale) as trading activities, thus a constitutional corporation.
Context: Decision predates the Work Choices Case, showing evolving interpretation of Section 51(xx).

Question: Can Commonwealth legislate using external affairs power?
Commonwealth's Position: Based on Australia's signatory status to the World Heritage Convention 1972.
Tasmanian Argument: Construction of the dam was a state matter, not covered by the treaty.
Majority Decision: Upheld the Commonwealth's right to enact legislation related to international treaties, even if loosely related.
- Justices Mason, Murphy, Brennan, and Deane upheld the Act.
- Proportionality test used by Justices Brennan and Deane.

Justices: Chief Justice Gibbs, Justices Wilson, and Dawson
Argument: External affairs power should relate to international nature or concern.
Chief Justice Gibbs: Federal balance limits the scope of external affairs power.

Repercussions: Economic, social, and legal impacts; highly politicized case.
Court's Position: Focused on legal questions, not desirability or merits of the dam construction.

Final Remarks: The case showcases the role of the High Court in interpreting constitutional powers and the broader implications on federal-state relations and international obligations.