The Applicant submits that it is relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to admit further evidence or material under section 46(2)(b) of the NTCAT Act that, at the time the public comment process was held, the Minister's reasons for approving the EMP were not, and could not have been, known at the time the Applicant's submissions on the Draft EMP were made.

The Applicant could not have known whether the Minister's Notice of Approval and Statement of Reasons would contain material errors until after the decision was made and an expert or experts could review it. The Applicant's expert evidence assists in the resolution of the material issues in the EMP, such as whether planned activities pose a risk to the surrounding environment and communities, whether drilling fluids are persistent and bioaccumulative, whether hydraulic fracturing can interact with groundwater, whether environmental risks from chemical mixtures were appropriately assessed, whether the spill scenarios were appropriately assessed, and whether groundwater monitoring was undertaken appropriately. The Applicant's expert evidence assists the Tribunal in determining whether the Minister could have been reasonably satisfied that the EMP met the statutory requirements (as referred to in the Applicant's Outline of Grounds) and determining what now is the correct or preferable decision.

The Applicant acknowledges that the Minister sought, and was provided with, advice from the EPA NT before deciding to approve the EMP. The Applicant submits, however, that the EPA NT advice "does not on its face engage at all with Prof Currell's criticism of the EMP's approach to inter-aquifer connectivity - a fundamental issue".[15]
In addition to section 46(2)(b) of the NTCAT Act, the Applicant submits that the general provisions dealing with the conduct of Tribunal proceedings must also be considered by the Tribunal in its review jurisdiction. In particular, the principles

for conducting proceedings in section 53 must be considered, as must the requirement that the Tribunal inform itself for a proceeding stipulated in section 55. 3. In the specific circumstances of this case, the Applicant also submits that section 20 of the Environment Protection Act 2019 must be considered when deciding whether to admit further evidence or material. That section provides that "[d]ecisions should be based on the best available evidence in the circumstances that is relevant and reliable". 4. Finally, the Applicant submits that consideration of the further expert evidence proffered by the Applicant promotes the best principles of public administration (section 10(a) of the NTCAT Act) "given that the impugned decision maker is a Minister of the Crown",[16] and that the Applicant's standing as the peak non-profit community organisation pursuing public interest litigation promotes access to justice by the public as required by section 10(b) of the NTCAT Act.

Tamboran's submissions re consideration on review of further evidence or material

Tamboran submits that the expert evidence sought to be admitted by the Applicant is not relevant new evidence, and its receipt by the Tribunal would change the nature of the decision or question that was before the Minister. It acknowledges that the Tribunal's review of the Minister's decision to approve the EMP will require the Tribunal to consider, inter alia, the public comments and submissions made about the EMP in the public consultation period established by section 8B of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations 2016. It submits, however, that review proceedings are not "intended to involve the parties preparing and filing further rounds of extensive expert evidence regarding the potential risks of fracking etc".[17] Tamboran submits that such matters have been extensively investigated in The Scientific Inquiry Into Hydraulic Fracking in the Northern Territory, Final Report, April 2018, generally referred to as the 'Pepper Inquiry'. Further, in this proceeding, the matters raised in the Applicant's Second Further Amended Initiating Application have already been specifically considered and advised upon by the NT EPA.
Tamboran submits that, for the Tribunal to admit extensive further expert evidence a year after the review proceedings were commenced would be contrary to the objective of the Tribunal stipulated in section 10(d) of the NTCAT Act to:

ensure that proceedings are processed and resolved as quickly as possible while achieving a just outcome, including by resolving disputes through high-quality processes and the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution procedures where appropriate.

Tamboran maintains that the admission of the further expert evidence proffered by the Applicant, which would require Tamboran to file extensive expert evidence in rebuttal, is inconsistent with relevant underlying statutory framework in regulations 8B, 9, 10 and 11 of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations 2016, and the overriding object of the Petroleum Act 1984 of actively encouraging petroleum exploration and fracking.

Consideration re admission of further evidence or material

The High Court decision in Frugtniet establishes clearly that the Tribunal, in conducting the review of the Minister's decision to approve the EMP, is subject to the same general constraints as the Minister. In conducting the review, the Tribunal must "ordinarily approach its task as though it were performing the relevant function of the original decision-maker in accordance with the law as it applied to the decision-maker at the time of the original decision".[18]
The law as it applied to the Minister included the requirement to publish the EMP within 14 days of its receipt.[19] Further, the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations 2016, regulation 8B(1), established a time limit of "no later than 28 days after the date of its publication" for interested persons to submit written comments on the EMP. Finally, pursuant to regulation 11(1), the "Minister must make a decision under subregulation (2) as soon as practicable, but no later than 90 days, after an interest holder submits an environment management plan for approval".
While the Minister had the statutory power under regulation 10(1) of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations 2016, to require further information from Tamboran about any matter required under such regulations to be included in the EMP, the Minister had no power to extend the 28 day public consultation period, or to allow members of the public to submit written comments on the EMP outside of the statutorily mandated consultation period.
When considering whether to approve the EMP, the Minister was required to adhere to rigid statutory timeframes. To use the language from Shi quoted above, the Minister's decision contained a temporal element.[20] To allow the admission of additional expert evidence outside of the statutory framework governing the receipt of public comment and the making of the Minister's decision would require the Tribunal to ignore the circumstances of the particular case. Specifically, it would require the Tribunal to ignore the law as it applied to the Minister at the time the decision to approve the EMP was made.[21]
The expert reports sought to be adduced into evidence by the Applicant are not relevant to the question before the Tribunal in the review proceeding. The Tribunal is required to determine the correct or preferrable decision in accordance with the law as it applied to the Minister at the time the EMP was approved. Contrary to the Applicant's submissions, the expert evidence does not assist the Tribunal in determining whether the Minister could have been reasonably satisfied that the EMP met the statutory requirements.
It is also clear from what has been stated above that the Minister did not

'choose' a brief public consultation period over the summer holidays. Once Tamboran submitted the EMP for approval, both the time available to the Minister

to publish the plan and the time available to interested persons to submit written comments on the EMP were stipulated in the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations 2016. The Applicant's submission that the Minister had any say in the timing or length of the public consultation period ignores the statutory scheme governing the EMP approval process.

The Applicant seeks the production from both the Minister and the Minister for Mining and Energy, of a copy of the WOMP for the Project. The evidence before the Tribunal established that:
- 34.1. the WOMP was not a document that the Minister received, considered or approved as part of the EMP approval process. The only document the Minister was required to receive, consider and review is the WOMP Certification, "which confirmed that the WOMP was assessed against the relevant parts of the Code of Practice: Onshore Petroleum Activities in the Northern Territory and met the relevant requirements";[22]
- 34.2. the Minister did receive, consider and review the WOMP Certification, which is included in the evidence filed in the review proceedings;
- 34.3. the WOMP is not a document to which the public, including the Applicant, has access under the EMP approval process.
To warrant the exercise of the Tribunal's power to require a person to produce evidentiary material under section 89(2) of the NTCAT Act, "the documents sought must have at least some apparent potential relevance to the matters in issue"[23] in the Tribunal proceedings. The review proceedings concern the Minister's decision to approve the EMP, not the decision of another minister to approve the WOMP under a different statutory approval process.
Any issues arising from the WOMP Certification, or the Minister's receipt and review of such document, are properly before the Tribunal in the review proceedings. The WOMP itself has no apparent potential relevance to the matters in issue in the review proceedings and need not be produced.

It follows from what has been stated above that the two Evidence Summons filed by the Applicant should be dismissed. In addition, the Applicant's Ordinary Application to admit further evidence in the review proceedings should also be dismissed.
The Tribunal makes no order as to costs. These are interlocutory matters and

the question of costs, if any, is a matter for determination at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings.

The Form 4 Application for Evidence Summons directed to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water Security for the production of the Well Operations Management Plan for the Shenandoah Exploration and Appraisal Program EP98 and EP117 is dismissed.
The Form 4 Application for Evidence Summons directed to the Proper Officer of the Department of Mining and Energy Security for the production of the Well Operations Management Plan for the Shenandoah Exploration and Appraisal Program EP98 and EP117 is dismissed.
The Form 3 Ordinary Application to admit an Unattested Declaration of Professor Matthew Currell dated 31 March 2025, and an Unattested Declaration of Professor Grant Hose dated 31 March 2025, is dismissed.
By no later than 4:00pm on 25 July 2025, the parties are to provide the NTCAT registry with and electronic copy of agreed timetabling orders for the filing of written submissions in the substantive proceeding.

[1] Advice of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security dated 10 May 2024, p 21.

[2] Advice of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security dated 10 May 2024, p 15.

[3] Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security, Approval notice and statement of reasons dated 23 May 2024, 8.

[5] Nulite Pty Ltd v Northern Territory Liquor Commission, Director of Liquor Licensing [2023] NTCAT 20, [37].

[6] Kasper v Psychology Board of Australia [No 2] [2015] NTCAT 179, [16]; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, [140]-[142].

[7] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, [140]-[142].

[11] TEHG Property Pty Ltd v Northern Territory Liquor Commission [2024] NTCAT 3, [21]; Nulite Pty Ltd v Northern Territory Liquor Commission, Director of Liquor Licensing [2023] NTCAT 20, [39].

[13] Applicant's Submissions: Further Evidence and Summonses filed on 4 June 2025, [32].

[14] Applicant's Submissions: Further Evidence and Summonses filed on 4 June 2025, [33]. (Emphasis in original)

[15] Applicant's Submissions: Further Evidence and Summonses filed on 4 June 2025, [37].

[16] Applicant's Submissions: Further Evidence and Summonses filed on 4 June 2025, [40(d)].

[17] Second Respondent's Submissions Regarding Applicant's Evidence Application and Two Summons Applications filed on 18 June 2025, [11].

[18] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250, [14]. [Emphasis ours]

[20] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, [143].

[21] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250, [15].

[22] First Respondent's Submissions on an Application to Adduce Further Evidence and Two Summons Applications filed on 25 June 2025, [36].

[23] Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101; [2003] ATPR 41-956, [8] (FCA).

Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014

(Environment) Regulations 2016

Territory Environment Protection Authority Act 2012

Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

(Environment) Regulations 2016

Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014

Territory Environment Protection Authority Act 2012

Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT) v Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security; Tamboran B2 Pty Ltd [2025] NTCAT 8 (15 July 2025)

The Tribunal's review of the Minister's decision to approve the EMP falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.[4] Such review is not a hearing de novo[5] nor is the Applicant required to identify errors made by the Minister in approving the EMP.[6] The Tribunal reviews the decision of the Minister on its merits[7] with the objective of producing the "correct or preferable decision".[8]
In Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) at [140] discussed the meaning of the term 'correct or preferable decision' in the context of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('AAT Act'), which applies equally to the use of that term in 46(1) of the NTCAT Act.

The nature of administrative merits review was considered by the High Court of Australia in the context of the AAT Act in Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250. At [14], Kiefel CJ, Keane and Nettle JJ noted:

Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT) v Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security; Tamboran B2 Pty Ltd [2025] NTCAT 8

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (39 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (12)

Cases Cited (5)

Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT) v Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security; Tamboran B2 Pty Ltd [2025] NTCAT 8 (15 July 2025)