A major coal mine has been rejected under national environment laws for the first time in history this week, but the federal government insists a precedent has not been set.
Key points:
- A environmental law expert says that while it is a significant decision, it follows the law
- The federal government is reviewing another 18 major coal and gas projects
- It comes amid plans to overhaul national environmental laws
Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek announced on Wednesday that Clive Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project had been blocked, citing environmental concerns about its threat to the Great Barrier Reef and freshwater creek habitats.
If approved, it would have resulted in the construction of two open-cut pits north of Rockhampton and the extraction of up to 10 million tonnes of coal annually.
The federal government’s special envoy for the Great Barrier Reef and Labor senator Nita Green said the decision to reject the mine did not mean 18 other major coal and gas project proposals under review would be denied.
“I don’t think you can read much into it,” she said.
“In regard to future decisions at the moment, the minister is required to follow the law, and it’s the same law that was in place under the former government.”
Queensland University of Technology Environmental Law professor Amanda Kennedy said the rejection did not set a precedent from a legal standpoint.
“It’s undoubtedly a significant decision, but it hardly comes as a surprise,” she said.
“Through the various steps of review, it was considered at multiple stages to not be appropriate to proceed, but that in itself doesn’t automatically mean that all coal and gas projects under review by the federal government will automatically be rejected.
“Under the legislation, as it stands at the moment, every project is considered on its merits.”
Mr Palmer and the Queensland Resources Council have been contacted for comment.
Decision a surprise for MP
LNP Member for Capricornia Michelle Landry said that while she understood why the decision was made, it still came as a surprise.
“I’m just very concerned that now that they’ve started this, that they’re going to knock others on the head,” she said.
“We’ve already seen some of the Greens senators saying, ‘This is the start of it’.”
But Ms Green refuted those fears.
“This is a decision about the location and the direct impact on the reef,” she said.
“We [the Labor Party] don’t have a policy, unlike the Greens, about shutting down coal mining.
“We are pro-coal mining, we are pro-resources in Queensland, [but] what we want to make sure of is that we do reduce our emissions, and we’ve got separate legislation in the parliament around reducing emissions.”
Changes on the way
Professor Kennedy said the decision came at a time when environmental laws were on the cusp of big changes.
Under the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act [EPBC], if a project is anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment, it requires approval from the federal environment minister.
There are several triggers for a project to fall under the EPBC Act, including any proposals that involve world heritage properties, wetlands of international importance, or places with threatened species.
Following a review of that Act in 2020, however, the federal government last year confirmed plans to completely overhaul its environmental laws.
“What we have heard around the new legislation is that there’s going to be a new set of national standards, which will dictate environmental outcomes,” Professor Kennedy said.
She says it sets an idea that “any decisions around development will need to improve the environment, not just merely limit damage”.
“So it will be interesting to see whether that does really shift the paradigm in terms of how we consider these developments moving forward,” Professor Kennedy said.
