Nettheim, Garth --- "Perron and the Northern Territory Planning Authority v Central Land Council (Administrative law - natural justice - whether applicant for rezoning of land should be given an opportunity to respond to objections to the application)" [1985] AboriginalLawB 42; (1985) 1(14) Aboriginal Law Bulletin ?

• Perron And The Northern Territory Planning Authority V Central Land Council
• Administrative Law-Natural Justice-Whether Applicant For Rezoning Of Land Should Be Given An Opportunity To Respond To Objections To The Application.

---

Perron and the Northern Territory Planning Authority v Central Land Council

Administrative law - natural justice - whether applicant for rezoning of land should be given an opportunity to respond to objections to the application.

Perron and the Northern Territory Planning Authority v Central Land Council

Federal Court of Australia, Northern Territory, General Division, (Toohey, McGregor and Wilcox JJ.) Darwin

10 May, 1985

Casenote by Garth Nettheim

The Central Land Council in 1984 negotiated to purchase the lease of a block of land in Alice Springs so as to concentrate its activities under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth.) in one place-it currently operated from three separate premises in the town. The land required rezoning for the purpose, and the purchase contract was subject to rezoning.

The CLC lodged an application with the Planning Authority and was given an opportunity to make verbal submissions in support of the application. The Authority then advertised the CLC proposal in the form of a draft planning instrument and invited submissions. Thirty to forty objections were received and the objectors were given an opportunity to be heard in support of their objections.

The CLC sought an opportunity to be heard in response to the objections, but the Authority refused on the basis of its usual practice of merely hearing first from the applicant and then from any objectors. CLC also wrote to the Minister (Perron) seeking an opportunity 'to respond to any matters arising from the recommendation of the Authority or the objections to our application'. No such opportunity was given. The Minister rejected the application.

The CLC on 7 December 1984, was successful in an application to the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory Supreme Court to quash the Authority's recommendation and the Minister's determination on the ground that the failure to allow the CLC to respond to the objections amounted to a denial of natural justice.

On appeal, the Full Federal Court of Australia (Toohey and Wilcox JJ; Mcgregor J. dissenting) upheld Forster CJ's decision. The judgments entailed extensive consideration of cases about natural justice. The main point of divergence in the Federal Court was whether to require an opportunity to respond to objections would make the Authority's procedures excessively complex and burdensome.

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

D. Thompson and M. Lees instructed by J. B. O'Rourke appeared for the appellants.

C. R. McDonald and B. G. Donald instructed by B. G. Donald appeared fot the respondent.