Former Linc Energy CEO applies for stay order
A FORMER Linc Energy executive had his stay application dismissed at the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland in Brisbane on March 15.
Linc Energy was partly responsible for one of Queensland’s worst environmental disasters during an experimental coal seam gas project on the Western Downs at Hopeland, 30km from Chinchilla, from 2007 to 2013.
Court documents reveal former Linc Energy founder Peter Bond filed for a stay (which means to stop certain requirements) of an Environmental Protection Order made against him.
The Environmental Protection Act states an EPO is a tool issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection “to a person or company to undertake specific actions within specific time frames to remedy a risk or prevent further harm”.
Since being placed on an Environmental Protection Order in 2017, Judge Muir said Mr Bond had twice unsuccessfully applied for a stay order on the EPO and also failed to co-operate with its terms.
The EPO required Mr Bond to “rehabilitate any land significantly disturbed by these activities” and “provide a bank guarantee to the value of $5.5m to the Department to secure compliance with the EPO”.
“(The Department of Environment and Science) issued a Direction Notice to the Department of Natural Resources Mines and Energy to carry out the works required under the EPO in place of (Mr Bond),” the document stated.
Court documents revealed the DNRME conducted some of the rehabilitation initially outlined in Mr Bond’s EPO work in December 2019 and completed the rest in February and March 2020.
JUDGMENT
Since the EPO had expired, Mr Bond’s senior counsel said a stay should be granted, because it would undermine Mr Bond’s plan to appeal the EPO, and hold him accountable to the above terms.
“The works have, essentially, been done,” his lawyer said.
“The need for the bank guarantee has disappeared and, as I’ve said more than once, that should mean that the department’s focus is first — ignoring the criminal proceedings that are to be heard later this year — is first on the EPO appeal.
“And if that is unsuccessful by Mr Bond, then they would turn their attention to prosecution for noncompliance with the EPO.”
Judge Muir rejected the submission and said, Mr Bond’s fear that DES would retaliate and force him to hand over the $5m, “or to pursue the complaint against the applicant for breaching the EPO, was baseless”.
“I find that the applicant has not satisfied me that a stay is necessary to secure the EPO Appeal.”