On 10 January 2024 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] FCA 5.
In part the judgment read:
10 CONCLUSION
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1 On 31 March 2000, the first respondent, the Commonwealth, and the second respondent, the State of New South Wales (NSW or the State), entered into an intergovernmental agreement being the Regional Forest Agreement for North East New South Wales (Upper North East and Lower North East) (the NE RFA). The purpose of the NE RFA included establishing “the framework for the management of the forests of the Upper North East and Lower North East regions”: recital 1A of the NE RFA. The NE RFA provided that it was to remain in force for 20 years from 31 March 2000, unless terminated earlier or extended in accordance with its provisions: clause 6 of the NE RFA. Subsequently, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 (Cth) (RFA Act). A primary purpose of the RFA Act is to reinforce the certainty which the NE RFA and other RFAs between the Commonwealth and States were intended to provide for regional forestry management by “giv[ing] effect to certain obligations of the Commonwealth under Regional Forest Agreements”: s 3(a) of the RFA Act.
2 Shortly before the expiry of the 20 year period for the NE RFA, on 28 November 2019 the respondents executed the “Deed of variation in relation to the Regional Forest Agreement for the North East Region” (the Variation Deed). The Variation Deed stated that it “amend[ed] the Regional Forest Agreement on the terms and conditions contained in this deed”: Variation Deed, Preamble B. As described in further detail below, one effect of the Variation Deed was to extend the NE RFA at least by a further 20 years.
3 The applicant, North East Forest Alliance Incorporated, seeks a declaration pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that the NE RFA as amended by the Variation Deed (the Varied NE RFA) is not a “regional forest agreement” within the meaning of s 4 of the RFA Act. The consequence of so holding would not be that the Varied NE RFA is invalid, as the applicant accepts. Rather, the consequence relevantly would be that neither s 38 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) nor s 6(4) of the RFA Act would apply so as to exempt forestry operations undertaken in accordance with the Varied NE RFA from the approval processes under Part 3 of the EPBC Act.
4 In essence, the applicant contends that the Varied NE RFA is not an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act because, in amending the NE RFA, regard was not had to an “assessment” of “environmental values” and “principles of ecologically sustainable management” as required by paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA in s 4 of the RFA Act. This is because, in the applicant’s submission, of the failure in the materials before the Prime Minister, who executed the Variation Deed on behalf of the Commonwealth, to sufficiently evaluate those matters and to do so on the basis of reasonably contemporaneous information.
5 Those submissions are rejected for the reasons which I develop below. First, properly construed, there is no requirement that regard must be had to an assessment before an RFA is amended, including by extending its term, in order that the intergovernmental agreement continue to meet the definition of an RFA. That requirement applies only where the parties enter into an RFA. Secondly and in any event, there is no implicit requirement that an assessment must be sufficiently evaluative and reasonably contemporaneous in order to satisfy the condition in paragraph (a) of the RFA definition. Rather, the question is whether, objectively speaking, regard was had to assessments of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. Thirdly, applying that test, the evidence establishes that the materials before the Prime Minister, and in particular the “Assessment of matters pertaining to renewal of Regional Forest Agreements” (Assessment Report), addressed each of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. That being so and there being no issue that the Prime Minister had regard to the materials attached to the Prime Minister’s brief, the applicant has not established that the Varied NE RFA is no longer an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act, even if an assessment was required before the RFA was amended. It follows that the application for relief must be dismissed.
6 Finally, it is important to stress that the effect of an RFA is not to leave a regulatory void with respect to the forest regions covered by the NE RFA. Rather, as I explain below, an RFA provides an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC Act can be achieved by way of an intergovernmental agreement allocating responsibility to a State for regulation of environmental matters of national environmental significance within an agreed framework. As such, the question of whether or not to enter into or vary an intergovernmental agreement of this nature is essentially a political one, the merits of which are matters for the government parties, and not the Courts, to determine.
In essence the judgment was stating that legislation, rules and regulations governing New South Wales forestry agreements allow for the Commonwealth and the NSW governments to vary agreements as they see fit, regardless of contemporary environmental realities existing within public and private native forests which potentially place natural biodiversity and vulnerable/threatened wildlife species at risk through depletion of flora and fauna habitat or complete loss of habitat.
The judgment also noted that there are clauses within the North East Forest Agreement (NSRFA) which did not create legally binding obligations on either the state government or NSW Forestry Corporation. That there was no requirement that an RFA must impose legally enforceable obligations in order to constitute an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act. Indeed, that Commonwealth has the ability to pass legislation or subordinate legislation, which are inconsistent with the NE RFA.
These failures of policy and law meant there was no requirement for new comprehensive regional assessments to be undertaken before a variation deed was executed in relation to the NE RFA which covers the NSW North Coast region from South West Rocks to the NSW-Qld border.
The judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia clearly made no finding in relation to the environmental sustainability of logging operations. A fact that the Environmental Defenders Office noted in its response as solicitor for the appellants, North East Forest Alliance Inc.
This did not stop lobby group Forestry Australia quickly sending out a media release misleadingly trumpeting:
"Our Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) time and time again have proven to be a successful way of sustainably managing Australia’s forests for all their values, and the Federal Court has confirmed this today."
