Environmental law

Environmental law, is beautiful. It makes no sense, it's a gorgeous paradox.

In Australia I can find an example to fit any argument for and against. It's a Debaters yearly prostate milking (Debaters dont have sex but they still need to stay healthy).

The council was breathing down my father's neck regarding his propety, many indiciduals in the mid north coast with anything above 5 acres can probably relate. Those guys LUST for land. So.... I decided to borrow the environmental law handbook from the library by Peter Williams, it's large enough to kill a small child. Let's see if it has anything interesting to say, I'll be sharing my thoughts while I read it.

Hypothesis: the idea that the council can simply force seizures and then subdivisions/divisions is absurd. On the other hand, gentrification and foreign investors make new home ownership impossible for Australians.

Question: how much case law can I find protecting the little guy? Can I find much case law defending the investors cough parasites cough.

Important to know: Released in late 2008, A New Biodiversity Strategy for NSW: A Discussion Paper served as a blueprint for overhauling how the state approached environmental conservation. Prepared jointly by the state's environmental and primary industries departments, the paper acknowledged that traditional conservation methods (like simply creating isolated National Parks) were no longer sufficient to halt biodiversity decline, especially given the looming threat of climate change.

In Cameron V Lake Macquarie City Council 2000 , it was held that conduct contrary to a tree preservation order made by the council required consent because it was controlled by an EPI.

They deliberately seized significantly more land than the road actually required. Their plan was to take this surplus land, subdivide it into new lots, and sell it off at a profit to fund the road project.

The High Court ruled this was entirely illegal. Yay for the little guy, common L for the council (what a surprise). Councils cannot use compulsory acquisition powers as a real estate side-hustle to offset their costs. But they sure like trying the more I read this book. When land is seized, the fight almost always shifts from if they can take it, to what they are going to pay for it. Today, this is governed by the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, which forces the government to use an independent Valuer-General rather than their own internal math. They have to pay "Market Value" plus "Disturbance" (moving costs, legal fees) and sometimes "Solatium" (compensation for the non-financial emotional distress of being forced out). Even with those protections, property owners frequently have to drag authorities to the Land and Environment Court to force a fair payout.

• note: the concept of work or carrying out of work is still being debated and is changing through case law.

Under EPA act s1.4 demolish of a temporary structure is not development. Given that our aboriginal people were semi-nomadic isn't this law a bit 'terra nullius'. Similar logic to 'if there are no farms here, no one lives here.

To investigate: I should find more case law involving westfarmers (woolworths rydges ect.), seem like they have lots of legal battles regarding their land usage. Seems like they're buying lots of real estate.

• fun fact: half of nsw is crown land (crown management act 2016 last identifiable source).

Clearing of native vegetation for agriculture = LLS act and land management (native vegetation code 2018).

More on farming- the minister can make low interest loans. Conditions related to land use can be attached to the loan.

Good to know a farmer with thousands of houses worth of land can get their own special loans...

Seems like the challenge with evaluating land is how we place value on ecosystems -> we have a reliance on market based approach... we're trying to manage ecological integrity?

International law helps a bit with the above, we have the biodiversity convention and CITES.

Big trouble for clearing Koala habitat didnt seem to stop the coaltion when Plath v Fish happened back in 2010. (let's have a bit of a look, I like this case).

The Core Issue: Can an environmental consultant be held criminally responsible if a developer bulldozes protected habitat based on their incomplete advice?

The Answer: Yes.

What Happened?

Mr. Fish was an environmental consultant working for a company called Orogen Pty Ltd. They were hired by a developer to provide advice on what vegetation could be lawfully cleared on a specific property.

Mr. Fish and Orogen investigated and knew that the land contained the habitat of a threatened species: the Koala.

However, when they provided their report to the developer, they only gave narrow advice regarding what could be cleared under specific vegetation laws. Crucially, they failed to warn the developer that damaging the koala habitat was strictly unlawful under Section 118D(1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW).

Relying on this incomplete advice, the developer went ahead and cleared the land, severely damaging the koala habitat.

The Ruling

The prosecutor (Plath, representing the Department of Environment) didn't just go after the developer—they prosecuted the consultants.

The NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) found Mr. Fish and Orogen Pty Ltd guilty of causing damage to the habitat of a threatened species, knowing that the land was habitat of that kind. The court ruled that by providing advice that green-lit the clearing while omitting the vital information about the koalas, the consultants directly facilitated the environmental crime.

The Penalties

The judge handed down some highly creative "restorative" sentences. The consultants were ordered to:

1. Pay Fines & Costs: They were fined a total of $15,000 and ordered to pay the prosecutor's legal costs.
2. Community Service (Ecological): They were ordered to carry out parts of a local Koala mapping project for free.
3. Public Shaming: In a brutal professional blow, they were subjected to a "publication order." They were forced to publicly report their prosecution and conviction in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Newsletter of the Ecological Consultants Association of NSW.

The Big Takeaway:

Plath v Fish destroyed the "I'm just an advisor answering a specific question" defense. It established that environmental professionals have a strict legal duty to provide holistic, complete advice. If a consultant knows about an environmental constraint (like threatened species) and stays silent, causing a client to unknowingly commit an environmental offense, the consultant is going down with them.