Aug 19, 2015

Call in the Green Army! Threat of ‘green lawfare’ takes down … wait … only two projects?

Is "green lawfare" really destroying our economy and way of life? Er ...

Josh Taylor — Journalist

Josh Taylor


The government's rush to pass a law to prevent environmental groups from challenging mining projects in the court seems to be centred around just one case -- Adani's Carmichael Mine -- and is despite the fact that there is no evidence that mining companies are under attack by "green lawfare". Attorney-General George Brandis announced yesterday the government would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to remove a provision that allows third parties to launch court action relating to the act's environmental impact approval process. Brandis said the provision was "a red carpet for radical activists who have a political, but not a legal interest, in a development to use aggressive litigation tactics to disrupt and sabotage important projects". Appearing on ABC's 7.30 last night, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane evaded questions on how many projects had been delayed or stopped by the legislation.
Leigh Sales: You’ve said project after project and that they are taking it to a whole new level. I did ask how many project approvals because I think it’s important for people listening to try to have some sort of factual sense to back up what you’re saying. So how many project approvals has it delayed? Macfarlane: Well, this is the first case in Queensland where there is a clear and deliberate pattern … Sales: … But I mean overall, because you said project after project? Macfarlane: Well, we’re seeing projects in NSW held up in environment courts for six and eight years. They are out of our jurisdiction. The issues relating to the EPBC Act in this specific case are in our jurisdiction and we are going to address it. So we have a common sense approach to environmental permitting in Australia. We have the highest level of environmental permitting in the world, we need to make sure the system works, and isn’t plagued by those environmentalists who don’t want to see any economic development in Australia.
The provision in the law, enacted in July 2000 by the then-Howard government, has been used 33 times in the last 15 years, according to an analysis by The Australia Institute. This is out of 5500 projects referred to the minister under the environmental impact assessment provision, with 1500 requiring formal assessment and approval. Of the 33 court cases, proceedings by third parties only related to 22 projects, meaning just 0.4% of all projects referred to the minister under the legislation were affected. The Australian Institute found that of the 33 actions, four were discontinued or resolved, six were successful in obtaining a judgment or orders in their favour. The institute said in just two of these cases did the third party achieve its desired outcome. Crikey asked Macfarlane's office if he disputed The Australia Institute's findings. We were directed to Environment Minister Greg Hunt's office and did not receive a response by deadline. The latest "successful" case listed by the institute was the Mackay Conservation Group's case against the government over the Carmichael coal project planned by Adani in Queensland. This court overturned Hunt's approval of the project because it found that the Environment Department had failed to adequately assess the impact of the project on the yakka skink and the ornamental snake (The Daily Telegraph was so incensed by these creatures it shamed them with photoshopped hard hats).

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “Call in the Green Army! Threat of ‘green lawfare’ takes down … wait … only two projects?

  1. klewso

    “Legislation by a government – to cover it’s own inept mess”?
    [Ever watched a cat cover it’s shit – this government obviously has, and it’s learned from it.]

  2. John Newton

    As Keith Cousins said this morning on Radio National, it’s not lawfare but fair law

  3. leon knight

    Love that last sentence – well done Mr Husic.
    Echos of Di Natale on Q&A “none of the Abbott cabinet got there on merit….”

  4. MJPC

    I hope they bring their shovels.
    It is good to see that some things remain the same, such as the Daily Telegraph’s puerile subservience to the carbon lobby.
    The government has all the usual suspects pushing this barrow; on AM this morning Eric Abetz was showing his ignorance…I note he was suspiciously quiet on the SMS sackings of the Sydney waterside workers.
    This is a test for the Labour party not to be cowed by these bullies; they could start by this government throwing the car workers on the dole queues.

  5. zut alors

    How refreshing to see ornamental snakes rather than cabinet ministers wearing hard hats. Not the same species but doubtless of the same genus.

  6. Norman Hanscombe

    Apparently by what passes in Crikey Land as ‘logic’, one can’t have valid reasons for passing ANY Law which doesn’t immediately apply to whatever number of cases Crikey Land deems ‘sufficient’.
    That’s perhaps not novel for Crikey Land, but it’s still amusingly quaint isn’t it.
    John, all’s fair in the eyes of most people providing it fits their prejudices; but Justice require somewhat higher standards than that.

  7. bruce prior

    I think you may be exaggerating the jobs created…”the project’s value is closer to $7.8 billion, and it is estimated it will create just 1464 jobs per year”… I think you may find that the 1464 is “over the life of the project” NOT “per year”. Unless of course you know that the project will generate 14,640 FTEs over 10 years of the project. The manner of your quote will delight the COALition!!!

  8. klewso

    Brandis is actually “Brand X”?

    “Legislation by a government – to cover it’s own inept mess”?

    [Ever watched a cat cover it’s “dump” – this government obviously has. Who said they couldn’t learn?]

  9. Wayne Cusick

    Norman, what Cikey are pointing out, using the Australia Institute’s analysis, is that the current law has had an insignificant impact on mining development.

    The fact of the matter is that the environmental approval by Greg Hunt, the Environment Minister, failed to properly assess all the environmental impacts.

    The fault lays with Greg Hunt – not the law.

  10. Norman Hanscombe

    Wayne, leaving aside the question of how competent Crikey Land is in presenting an argument with brevity and clarity, whatever the current Laws’ impacts are, Governments need to be constantly reassessing the impact of Laws, rather than waiting for problems to occur. If, as you assert, “The fact of the matter is that the environmental approval by Greg Hunt, the Environment Minister, failed to properly assess all the environmental impacts”, then it would be more productive for Crikey Land to be suggesting what they believe needs to be done; but that’s far more of a challenge than simply hurling attacks.
    Even if, as you say, “The fault lays (sic) with Greg Hunt – not the law”, that still doesn’t imply Crikey’s tactics are the best course to follow.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details