Hancock Coal Pty Ltd v Kelly & Ors and Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (No. 4)

Hancock Coal Pty Ltd sought a mining lease and environmental authority for a coal mining project, which was opposed by several parties. The Queensland Land Court was tasked with determining the objections raised against the grant of the mining lease and the environmental authority. Key legal issues included the application of statutory criteria in considering the grant of the mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the scope of objections under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the precautionary principle, and the interplay between the two acts. The court also had to consider the requirement for a water licence under the Water Act 2000 and the limits on challenging the Coordinator-General’s conditions under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.

The court examined the statutory criteria under the Mineral Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act, highlighting the importance of the precautionary principle and ecologically sustainable development. It found that objections to the mining lease and environmental authority could be heard concurrently under the relevant acts. The court noted that while the Coordinator-General's determination of a "significant project" was not subject to challenge, the objections raised under the acts could be considered. The court also addressed water-related concerns, stating that these would be determined in the context of the Water Act licence application. On climate change, the court held that the Mineral Resources Act did not permit consideration of downstream indirect environmental impacts, following the decision in Xstrata. Economic and ecological aspects were also considered, with the court emphasising the need for a balanced approach to ecologically sustainable development.

The court issued alternative recommendations for the mining lease and environmental authority, considering the objections and statutory criteria. It recommended either the rejection of the mining lease or its approval subject to obtaining water licences to address concerns under the precautionary principle. Similarly, the court recommended either the refusal of the environmental authority or its approval subject to specific conditions, including obtaining water licences and additional monitoring points for water levels. The court concluded that its role in making recommendations to the Minister was administrative, not judicial, and that its hearing was not a mere formality.

The court's final orders included alternative recommendations for both the mining lease and environmental authority. It granted the power to make these recommendations and noted the possibility of an appeal to the Land Appeal Court. The recommendations were designed to address the objections raised and ensure compliance with statutory criteria and the precautionary principle.