Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 2)

In the case of Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 2), the Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc sought judicial review of the Minister for the Environment and Water's decision to confirm, rather than revoke, a controlled action decision under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The Council alleged that the Minister had misdirected herself, engaged in impermissible probability reasoning, misunderstood or failed to apply the precautionary principle, and that her findings were affected by irrationality, involved illogic or were insupportable. The case involved an application by Narrabri Coal Operations Pty Ltd to extend an underground coal mining operation at Narrabri in New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the Minister had the discretion to weigh and assess the applicant’s material and submissions, particularly in light of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on matters of national environmental significance (MNES). The court had to determine if the Minister's decision was legally sound and if she was required to consider the anthropogenic effects of climate change in a specific manner as argued by the applicant.

The court concluded that none of the grounds for review were substantiated. It found that the Minister was legally entitled to weigh and assess the applicant's material and submissions, taking into account the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on MNES. The court held that the Minister was not obligated to reason in the manner suggested by the applicant and that the applicant's arguments, although grounded in extensive scientific material, were matters for Parliament to consider if they believed the Minister’s powers needed to be altered. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court also made orders regarding the applications for costs, stipulating that any applications for costs must be made in writing, limited to no more than three pages, filed and served within ten business days of the making of these orders. Any responding submissions were to be similarly limited and filed within ten business days thereafter. Subject to any further orders, the court determined that costs applications would be decided on the papers.