5 take outs from Acland

HANDS up who’s read the New Acland Coal Land Court Judgement? There’s many people passionate about whether the proposed expanded coal mine Acland Stage 3 should go ahead or not, but I wonder how many have read Land Court Member Paul Smith’s 459 page judgement?

It is remarkable in so many ways. It is the longest hearing in the 120 year history of the Qld Land Court. It had close to 100 hearing days with almost 2000 exhibits containing 10s of thousands of pages of material. There were in excess of 2000 pages of submissions.

As a non-legal person it took some wading through but once you skim the legal gobbledegook it makes for fascinating reading.

Despite a hurried tone – the process and final judgement to my untrained mind seems to be very thorough. Each witness is analysed for their credibility. (Declaration – I appeared as a lay witness for the objectors in the case). The evidence of expert witnesses is set out in tables in the judgement demonstrating points of agreement and points of difference.

So here are my five take outs from the judgement.

1) It’s not about jobs or the economy. The member accepts that the proposed expansion will bring a number of jobs to the area, maintain the current workforce and be of economic benefit to the region, the state and the nation.

2) It’s not about climate change. The member accepted the argument that if Stage 3 was not to proceed, the same customers would probably get lower quality coal from somewhere else and through the burning of this coal thereby increase carbon emissions.

3) It’s not about community. The member accepted that there is a level of division and fracturing in the community between those who wanted the expansion and those who didn’t. In his opinion whether the mine went ahead or not this division would remain for some time. The negative social impact is not grounds enough to refuse approval.

4) It is about ground water. Both sets of expert opinion given in the hearing agreed that the revised plan would have an impact on underground aquifers. The member found that there as a real possibility of local landholders suffering a loss or depletion of groundwater supplies. He also stated, “I am also convinced that the potential for that loss or interference with water continues at least hundreds of years into the future, if not indefinitely.” The Land Court Member rightly pointed out that it is very difficult to see how a mining company who has a possible 25 year future in a district can ensure delivery of “make good” provisions which may be required 200 years into the future.

5) It is all about Intergenerational equity. The principle of inter-generational equity means that our generation does all that it can to ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for future generations.

I presume it is this principle that helped bring about the state government policy of protecting Strategic Cropping Land, and this also was a factor when the LNP government said No to a previous Stage 3 proposal.

Some of the objectors to the Acland Stage 3 proposal can trace their family ties to the district back to 1848.

Others have up to five generations of living in the district and working on the land. This decision by the Land Court states that it cannot be confident that future generations will be able to live and work in the same district in the way that they have for previous generations.

As Member Smith states, if the principle of intergenerational equity is a part of the law of the state then there must be occasions on which it will be applied and risk to future generations be minimised or removed.

And here’s the thing. This is coal we are talking about, not a crop of potatoes that will go off if we leave them in the ground too long.

The judgement points out that there may perhaps be a time in the future where there is technology available to extract the coal without damaging local groundwater supplies. Maybe energy might be produced with coal with no effect on the planet. And who knows the black stuff might increase in value in the meantime.

People are right to ask that the Minister responsible draw on all of his wisdom in dealing with the recommendations of the Land Court. To reject the rigour and depth of the analysis undertaken cannot be done lightly. This is a decision that may have an impact for generations to come.