A judicial finding or opinion about the likelihood of consequential actions does not constitute 'information' about environmental impacts for the purposes of s 78(1)(a) of the EPBC Act. Persons seeking reconsideration of a controlled action decision must identify factual material (not judicial opinions) that is both 'new' and 'substantial'. Reasons for decision under s 13 of the ADJR Act need not explain why a particular submission was not addressed; the absence of reference to a matter is itself sufficient to indicate it was not considered or was regarded as irrelevant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 32 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 32 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.