Coal mine court battle shifts focus
WHO’S who when making rules about big mines is something a judge might ponder after a complex hearing into a coal firm’s embattled $900m expansion plan.
New Acland Coal wants a review after Land Court Member Paul Smith last May recommended rejecting its Oakey Stage 3 expansion.
NAC took its case to Brisbane Supreme Court.
Earlier this week the hearing featured popular culture references, including to comedy classic The Castle.
Yesterday discussion largely focused on constitutional law and the powers of land court members.
On one side is New Acland Coal.
On the other, Oakey Coal Action Alliance, and the Department of Environment and Science – formerly the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.
The department is involved because it is the “statutory party” or decision-maker in this case.
Yesterday, OCAA’s barrister Saul Holt QC addressed what he called an inaccurate complaint from New Acland.
“NAC says the member was wrong to consider intergenerational equity separately from the economic analysis. If that’s what the member had done (NAC) might have been correct.”
In his decision, Mr Smith cited concerns about groundwater modelling at the Darling Downs expansion site.
Mr Smith also said the proposal would have breached principles of intergenerational equity.
That concept relates to stewardship, or fairness between generations.
Later on Thursday, the department discussed definitions of an ecosystem.
“Underground water is a natural and physical resource,” its barrister Ken Barlow QC said. “It is part of the ecosystem.”
The hearing before Justice
Helen Bowskill is expected to finish today. -NewsRegional