The conflict of this issue of dam has celebrated background and is in any event set out in the judgment

The background of the case-;
The conflict of this issue of dam has celebrated background and is in any event set out in the judgment. There was a head –on collision between state policy of economic development  and federal policy of environmental protection.
Under liberal premier robin gray, Tasmania authorized the construction of a dam hydro-Electric commission (the HEC) for generating electricity at minimized cost as well as to provide economic growth. A labor government was elected on 5March1983, after seven years of liberal government at the federal level.
There was an obvious commitment to stop the Gordon below Franklin scheme and to preserve the southwestern area.
Nevertheless the Hawke government’s politics of consensus.
However this case and dipute was difficult to manage and the new government actively acted in front of parliament had sat, to issue regulations under”S 69”of the
National parks and wildlife conservation ACT 1975(CTH).
Previously there was legislation as concerned to labor government “section69” authorized regulations to give effect to particular international agreements, which also included “UNESCO” convention for the protection for the “world cultural as well as natural heritage”
Further more, to restrict the acts such as well as buildings of roads without the approval of the Minister, these regulations prohibited the construction of dam in that area.
The high court, compeletly rejected an agreement that the power in “S69”authorized
Regulations specifically in relation to parks reserves established under the act. The significant issue was that”S69”could constitutionally authorize to stop the project of
Construction of dam.
When parliament assembled, the government introduced legislation to supplement the national parks regulations. This was just well as concerned to common wealth because the regulations were finally held to be invalid.The legislation was the “world heritage properties conservations act1983(cth)” , in which the  operation is recapitulated in the head note and set out completely in the judgment of ckief justice.
This legislation prohibited the same clearing, excavation and building activities over a larger area without of the consent of the minister.
Along with the exception of property by which the compensation provisions in the regulations we superseded
However, the world heritage act did not directly prohibit dam construction but this
Was done by regulation, pursuant to provisions in the act which prohibited listed activities  as well as “any prescribed act”
This was form the common wealth’s point of view again because the substantive prohibitions in the  Act were consequently held either to be invalid, or for applying in a way which Tasmania may have been able by the HEC restructuring or otherwise construction of dam by a body other than a trading co-operation, to circumvent.
More ever, (those substantive restrictions and the national parks regulations)
Finally fell, not for back of power, but as a result of  short comings which were capable of being corrected
(Though may be with some political embarrassment)
By legislative amendent.
The literal importance of the decision lies in the wide view of the extent of commonwealth power taken by a large number of the justice of high court.,,