Nov 19, 2015

Coalition senators back miners over majority, in pushing for environmental law repeal

Yes, most submissions to the inquiry said the law should stand. And yes, there have only been two successful cases brought under the law. But the Mining Council did not like it, you see, so ...

Josh Taylor — Journalist

Josh Taylor


Senator Linda Reynolds

Coalition senators on a committee investigating the government's planned repeal of laws allowing environmental groups to mount legal challenges against ministerial approval of development projects has backed the views of the minority of submissions endorsing the repeal. As Crikey reported earlier this month, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is still planning to forge ahead with changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The amendment currently sitting in the Senate is designed to prevent anyone not directly affected by a major project from having legal standing to challenge the ministerial approval of the project. It is specifically targeted at "green lawfare" -- to use the words of Attorney-General George Brandis -- by groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, which this week brought another challenge to the approval of the Carmichael coal mine to the Federal Court. But in the 15 years since the provision was put in to allow environmental groups to have standing in such cases, only two such challenges under the EPBC Act have been successful. The Environment and Communications Committee in the Senate, which recently replaced all of its Coalition members because the old ones were all moved into the Turnbull cabinet, reported back on the legislation yesterday, and lo and behold, the three Coalition senators backed the government's legislation in the face of significant opposition in submissions to the inquiry. The three senators -- Linda Reynolds and Chris Back both from the mining state of Western Australia, and Victorian Michael Ronaldson -- quoted from just four submissions in support of repealing the legislation: the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, and Ports Australia. The Business Council of Australia claimed that while, to date, cases that had been brought against project were not necessarily "vexatious", the current definition could allow vexatious claims in the future. Minerals Council of Australia claimed, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that environment groups challenging projects in court were a "campaign of economic sabotage", stating that delays brought about by legal action could add costs of $46 million per month to major mining projects. The three senators noted that there were "many" submissions against changing the legislation, citing limited evidence that there had been vexatious or frivolous litigation -- 0.4% of the 5500 projects referred to the Department of Environment had ever been subject to a legal challenge. The report admitted there had only been three court cases, out of 37 challenges, where a decision had been overturned. Nevertheless, the three Coalition senators stated they backed the repeal of the legislation because reviews of the decision were still be possible through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Judiciary Act. This view was not supported by the Labor or Greens senators on the committee, who stated that the entire basis of the repeal was in response to an "administrative error" made by the government in the process of the first -- now overturned -- approval of the Adani Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. Labor senators stated that using the ADJR Act and the Judiciary Act to review decisions would lead to lengthier delays, and more costs. Labor senators also criticised how the committee was run, noting there were four hearings scheduled, given there were 291 submissions, but after postponing the first hearing and agreeing to report back in February 2016, the government used its numbers to bring forward the reporting date to yesterday, before any hearings could take place. The Greens said the legislation was a test for Turnbull:
"The decision for the Prime Minister is: will he continue the ideological attacks of the Abbott government, or will he listen to the voices of ordinary Australians defending their precious environment?"
Now that the committee has reported back, the debate on the legislation in the Senate could commence as soon as next week.

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

6 thoughts on “Coalition senators back miners over majority, in pushing for environmental law repeal

  1. klewso

    I suppose the real test will come when they have to say “Bruce came brandishing bubbling bottles of Bovril” without their “sponsors” moving their lips, or whilst they’re drinking a glass of water?

  2. bushby jane

    This is the real Turnbull.

  3. klewso

    How many members in these BCA, MCA, SACME* and PA unions?
    [(*”SACME”? What a ripper?)]

  4. CML

    Right-on, bushby jane!
    As I have said on a previous thread today, Turdball is a first class hypocrite.
    Nothing will change under the Turd, because he still leads the same ‘government’ as Abbott.
    I am having trouble accepting the number of Oz voters (according to the polls) who are just plain stu+id!!

  5. Norman Hanscombe

    It’s disappointing that Posters upon whom Governments have wasted so much money trying to educate them still can’t understand that the number of comments made on any piece of legislation means nothing when the quality of those majorities is poor.
    Much the same might be said about the majority of Posters to capitalist media entities such as Crikey.

  6. AR

    Jane – you beat me to it.
    As for gNormless, the last sentence of #5 being the perfect example.
    And what does ‘the quality of those majorities is poor.’ even mean?

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