Key facts
- New Queensland legislation would require ministerial approval for mining project opponents to be heard in court.
- Only individuals owning property within 125km of a project would be eligible to object under the new laws.
- The bill aims to streamline mining approvals and speed up decision-making, according to Minister Dale Last.
- Current law allows automatic referral of mining project objections to the state's land court for independent consideration.
- The legislation gives the decision-maker discretion on whether to refer objections to the court.
- The New Acland coal mine expansion faced an 11-year legal battle, which the government cites as a reason for change.
Queenslanders’ right to object to mining projects, including coal, would be significantly curtailed under new legislation tabled by the state's minister for natural resources, Dale Last. The bill, introduced on Tuesday, would ban opponents from being heard in court without the minister’s approval and restrict eligibility to those who own property within a 125km radius of the project.
The Greens have labeled the move "corrupt," while the community action group Lock the Gate Alliance stated that the Queensland government is "tearing up democratic and environmental protections just to make life easier for mining companies."
Minister Last said the bill's purpose is "about streamlining approvals and making faster decisions." He added that "Activists based thousands of kilometres away and green groups funded by foreign overseas entities are no longer eligible to have a say," and that "Objections received from a person or group outside the 125km boundary whose interests would not be affected will no longer be accepted."
Queensland, which produces most of Australia’s coal and has the country's second-largest mining industry, is the most polluting state due to its reliance on coal for energy. Under current law, objections to mining projects are automatically referred to the state’s land court for independent consideration. The new legislation will grant the decision-maker discretion on whether to refer objections to the court. For mining leases, this decision-maker is the resources minister, and for environmental approvals, it is the director-general of the environment department.
Anthony Gough, acting director of Queensland Conservation Council, expressed concern that the minister could "pick and choose which community objections get heard in open court, and which mines get waved through without that scrutiny." He stated the bill "strips community members of their right to have their objection to damaging mining projects heard in court," noting that objections often aim to protect agricultural land, native habitat, or water resources, citing the cessation of sand mining on K’Gari [Fraser Island] as an example of the current process's effectiveness.
Last year, the government canceled a review of mining lease objection laws by the independent Queensland Law Reform Commission, weeks before its findings were due, and instead initiated a review by a cabinet sub-committee. Last told parliament that objections are "one of the biggest hindrances on project timelines and delays," and the government is "laser focused on improving approval timeframes." He referenced the "debacle of the long-running legal battle that the New Acland coal mine expansion experienced" as justification for the changes.
The Oakey Coal Action alliance, a group of local farmers involved in the 11-year legal battle against the New Acland mine, stated that the law changes were designed to prevent future legal victories and to stop objections to increased CO2 emissions. Lock the Gate Alliance national coordinator Ellen Roberts accused the government of "following Campbell Newman’s playbook to the letter," noting that the government had previously expanded objection rights for wind farms and passed legislation for compulsory land acquisition for coal mining.