Queensland mining objection laws face criticism over court access limits

The right of Queensland residents to object to mining projects, including coal operations, is set to be significantly restricted under new legislation. The proposed changes would prevent opponents from having their cases heard in court without the explicit approval of the relevant minister. Furthermore, eligibility to object would be limited to individuals or groups who own property within a 125 kilometre radius of the proposed project. Environmental advocates and community groups have condemned the move, describing it as a dismantling of democratic and environmental safeguards. They argue the legislation is designed primarily to facilitate easier operations for mining companies rather than to serve the public interest.

Dale Last, the state minister for natural resources, tabled the bill on Tuesday, asserting that the primary objective is to streamline the approval process and enable faster decision making. He stated that the current system allows activists based thousands of kilometres away and green groups funded by foreign entities to participate in the process, which he believes is inappropriate. Under the new rules, objections from persons or groups outside the specified 125 kilometre boundary, whose interests would not be directly affected, would no longer be accepted. The minister emphasised that the government is focused on improving approval timeframes, citing the long legal battle surrounding the New Acland coalmine expansion as an example of the delays that need to be addressed. He noted that the legal dispute against that mine lasted 11 years and reached the high court, illustrating the need for procedural change.

Currently, objections to mining projects are automatically referred to the state land court for independent consideration. The proposed legislation would alter this framework by granting the decision maker discretion over whether to refer an objection to the court. For mining leases, this decision maker is the resources minister, while for environmental approvals, it is the director general of the environment department. Anthony Gough, acting director of the Queensland Conservation Council, warned that this change would allow the minister of the day to select which community objections are heard in open court and which mines are approved without such scrutiny. He argued that the bill strips community members of their right to have objections to damaging mining projects heard in court, noting that the vast majority of objections are made by local groups and landholders to protect agricultural land, bushland, native habitat, or water resources. He pointed to the cessation of sand mining on World Heritage listed K’gari as a result of this previous process.

Critics have highlighted the government’s recent actions regarding legal reviews. Last year, the administration cancelled a months long review of the laws dealing with objections to mining leases by the independent Queensland Law Reform Commission, just weeks before its findings were due to be released. This was replaced by a review conducted by a cabinet subcommittee. Ellen Roberts, national coordinator of the Lock the Gate Alliance, stated that the government is following a playbook to make life easier for mining companies. A spokesperson for the Oakey Coal Action Alliance, a group of local farmers that litigated the New Acland case for 11 years, said the group had won its right to be heard at the high court. However, they noted that the government subsequently changed the laws to prevent them from winning again, arguing that the new legislation is designed to stop anyone who understands the climate crisis from objecting to increased carbon dioxide emissions. Queensland produces most of Australia’s coal and has the country’s second largest mining industry, behind Western Australia, and is the most polluting state due to its use of coal for energy.