On the rich agricultural land of the Darling Downs is the tiny town of Acland. Acland is, quite simply, the town that will not die.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
The Land Court last week decided in favour of a small group of residents from the district and against mining behemoth, New Acland Coal, who wanted to expand their open cut mine to encroach closer to the town. That would mean gobbling up some of Qld’s most productive farmland, and impairing the underground water which is the lifeblood of farmers throughout the area.
Instead, the court gave one of the most stinging rebukes given to a mining company. As someone who works with mining companies to help them develop projects, it is patently obvious that this is one of the biggest fails the industry has seen.
At the heart of the case were two issues: could the company's assurances about making good impacts to the groundwater be relied upon, and could digging up some of our best agricultural land ever meet the statutory test of inter-generational equity?
The court heard that some 20,000 ha of farmland would have its groundwater resources impaired for maybe 100 or more years. NAC's view was that the impacts were limited, and the mine should go ahead. However NAC's case fell into a bigger hole than their open cut pit when their key groundwater witness gave evidence against them. As the Presiding Member said in the judgment: "I can say with absolute certainty that never before in my experience on the bench have I heard an expert witness called by one party give evidence so telling against that party."
The mining company's fallback position was that the farmers should cop it sweet, and rely on the company's undertakings to "make good" any impairment to the water supplies. The court rejected this, pointing out the company may well cease to exist before the effects ever ceased, which would make the undertakings pretty much worthless.
And then there was the issue of intergenerational-equity. This is not just grazing land, but some of Queensland's best cropping country, land that is an invaluable asset for our state. As a general principle this is land that should not be open cut mined. However NAC planned to leave a water filled void the size of over 900 football fields, and rip up the topsoil of another 1800 football fields beyond that.
The Plant family has been farming in the are since the 1850s. The latest generations are represented by Sid and Merilyn Plant, and their daughter Tanya. Tanya hopes the land will one day be farmed by her daughters.
As Sid Plant said to me: "This some of the best softwood scrub soil in Queensland. Scraping off about 100 mm of topsoil, and laying it back on top of the rock that comes out of the pit, means it will never be the same again."
Scraping off about 100 mm of topsoil, and laying it back on top of the rock that comes out of the.eans it will never be the same again
- Sid Plant
The court agreed, and said the company's plans failed the test of inter-generational equity because the land could not be passed on in anywhere near its current condition.
New Acland Coal now hopes that the politicians will ignore the evidence in the case, and approve the mine against the court's recommendation. They shouldn't.
There is scant point in the Parliament passing laws about environmental standards if politicians ignore those standards to approve a mine which fails those tests.
Last year Labor amended the Water Act which would make it easier for mining companies to impair groundwater in the course of their mining activities. The LNP sided with farmers and opposed those changes. How either side of politics could now approve a mine which failed even those requirements is beyond belief. Certainly the LNP could not do so, and I don't believe Labor could either.
Then there is the issue of investment certainty. This has been the longest hearing in the 120 year history of Queensland's Land Court. In the words of the Court, the amount of material considered could only be described as immense.
For any politician to ignore that evidence does nothing for investment certainty. In fact it would undermine certain, because it would give the impression that the rules of the game can be ignored. That in turn would destroy transparency, and eviscerate the community's respect for the mining industry generally.
The Plant family and their neighbours are some of the most stalwart people I know. Their victory deserves to be respected.
- Bill O'Chee, Fairfax commentator
This story first appeared on the Brisbane Times.
