‘Making it easier for the mines’: Is Queensland bending to big coal?

More than eight years since the Campbell Newman government weakened the rights of citizens to fight new mines, Queensland Labor – which repealed the laws once in power – is now set to commission a review into its subsequent laws.

The accompanying draft terms of reference, seen by the Brisbane Times, has sent a chill through the anti-coal movement.

The New Acland coal mine, near Oakey, in Queensland’s Darling Downs. Credit: New Hope Group

The document noted action in the Queensland Land Court – which has been used to hinder controversial coal mines owned by Clive Palmer, Adani and New Hope – caused long and expensive delays.

Further, the objection processes in the Mineral Resources Act were unique, it said. Broadly, it asked: Should there be change?

For environmental groups and their allies, the document has more than a whiff of the resources lobby.

“The way I read it, it’s about narrowing [objections] down and making it easier for the mines,” said environmental lawyer and academic Dr Chris McGrath. “And that’s what I take Labor as wanting to do.”

Importantly, he added that environmentalists’ concerns could prove premature, given the document was a draft and the review from the Queensland Law Reform Commission could turn up any number of recommendations.

Many, particularly those in regional areas whose communities were more likely to reap direct benefits from new mines, would welcome change.

Whatever side of the fight, Queenslanders would be right to be curious about the government’s ambitions.

In opposition, Labor was outraged when the Newman government narrowed who could take their grievances to the Land Court and under what circumstances.

In accordance with a 2015 election commitment, the then newly elected Palaszczuk government scrapped the laws before they had a chance to come into effect.

Queensland Resources Minister Scott Stewart (left) with Adani Australia boss Lucas Dow and federal LNP MP Keith Pitt in Townsville last year.

At the time, it believed the Land Court was doing a good job guarding against vexatious applications, and Labor’s laws “balanced the rights of would-be miners, landholders and the community”.

After almost eight years in power, is the government seeking mere efficiencies, or has it changed its tune?

“The terms of reference have not been finalised,” Resources Minister Scott Stewart said when asked directly about the Land Court’s future role.

“I encourage all stakeholders to continue to provide their feedback to the draft, and to participate in the consultation when the independent Queensland Law Reform Commission starts its review,” Stewart said.

The government, he added, “remained committed to environmental protections and opportunities for community participation”.

But it is this kind of frail language – i.e. “participation” – that has caused environmentalists “very major concerns”.

“A right to ‘have a say’ is a far inferior right to that which the community currently enjoys,” anti-fossil fuel lobby group Lock the Gate wrote in its submission to the government about the draft terms.

“Therefore, we believe these ToR [terms of reference] need to be amended to make specific reference to the fact that it is merit review rights that must be maintained.”

McGrath explained a merit review-style hearing allowed landholders to run a full case against mining applications and environmental authorities, using evidence and experts. The alternative – a judicial review – was “a very, very limited process”.

The existing laws made it possible for Indigenous groups to challenge Clive Palmer’s proposed Galilee coal mine, among others. This year, the Land Court recently visited the Bimblebox Nature Refuge, about 500 kilometres west of Rockhampton, to see the mine’s potential effects for itself.

The court also held “on country” sittings recently in the Torres Strait, whose traditional owners feared rising sea levels. Lock the Gate warned that such hearings, and legal action, could evaporate under weakened objection laws.

“We are very concerned to see that the ToR appear to open a doorway to reducing public participation by effectively including an alternative model of some sort of panel rather than access to the Land Court,” it said.

McGrath said the majority of mining lease applications and environmental authorities passed with little trouble. Generally, it was the large, potentially destructive and controversial mines that drew lengthy challenges, he said.

In the case of New Acland, McGrath said the court action launched by objectors, which ultimately failed, at least had the effect of imposing stronger environmental conditions on the mine’s operators.

A spokesman for the Queensland Resources Council said it was “looking at the issue”, but would not comment further.

The final terms of reference will be put to the Queensland Law Reform Commission, which will have until January 1, 2025, to deliver its final report.

It is a slow and complex burn, with the potential to rage white-hot.