OCT–DEC 2017 AusTRAlIAN QuARTeRlY 11BATTLERS wIn whEn ThE LAw IS fAIRIt is within the Minister’s discretion to ignore the
recommendation that Stage 3 not go ahead and,
thereby, overturn the carefully considered judgement
of the neutral umpire.objection rights, the Queensland land
Court upheld the concerns of local
objectors and recommended rejection
of the New Acland Stage 3 mining
project on the Darling Downs.
In New Acland
Coal Pty Ltd v
Ashman & Ors
(No. 4) [2017] QlC
24,^4 the land
Court agreed with
dozens of locals
who, together with
Mr Beutel, objected
to the expansion
of the mine on the
grounds of risks to
groundwater and
prime agricultural
land, along with
unacceptable
levels of noise and
dust.
The hearing was by far the longest
in the 120-year-history of the land
Court, with 99 days of hearings and
evidence from 28 expert witnesses. The
result of this was that the proposal was
subjected to unprecedented scrutiny.
Perhaps most telling was the finding
that the principle of intergenerational
equity would be offended, ‘with the
potential for groundwater impacts to
adversely affect landholders near the
mine for hundreds of years to come’.
During the hearing, the applicant
miner and their lobbyists trotted out
the now tired line that it was battling
‘green lawfare’^5 and ‘activists’^6.
The Court tackled that assertion
head-on, stating concern about the
impact of mining on groundwater
essential for
carrying on
agriculture
did not make
objectors
‘anti-coal/anti-
development
activists’.
Instead, the
Court charac-
terised them
as ‘landholders
holding real
concerns for
their ability to
continue their
agricultural
pursuits on
their properties’.
The crucial issue now for those fami-
lies who have won a momentous victory
in the land Court, in their battle to
protect farming land for future genera-
tions, is whether Minister lynham will
respect the
recommenda-
tion of the
land Court.
It is within
the Minister’s
discretion to
ignore therecommendation that Stage 3 not
go ahead and, thereby, overturn the
carefully considered judgement of the
neutral umpire.
Minister lynham will have to weigh
the continuation of generations of
agricultural jobs against the fate of the
workers at the mine that may have,
perhaps, gained a dozen more years
employment from the expansion. The
Minister might take some note of the
land Court decision, which acknowl-
edged the import of this factor and
went on to say that the ‘underlying
cause for any such job losses falls
squarely at the feet’ of New Acland Coal.
If Minister lynham were now to
render the decision of the land Court
nugatory, it would create a dangerous
precedent. It would further diminish
the ability of the individual to stand
up against projects which could have
impacts for many generations to come.
It would trample on labor’s own
heritage built by its decision to restore
objection rights. It would reveal
labor’s democratic virtues as insincere
symbolism. It would have no place in
any pool room. AQaUtHOrs:
Stephen keim SC is a prominent Brisbane barrister and The Weekend
Australian’s Australian of the Year 2007. He specialises in administrative
law, environmental and planning law and appeals.
Alex Mckean is a sunshine Coast barrister. Alex studied at QuT and
was awarded a Bachelor of laws with Honours and a Bachelor of Arts,
majoring in human rights and ethics.The lNP, in opposition,
continued to run a
line that objection
rights would enable
‘anti-everything groups
to frustrate’ economic
development.