Chris Minns says activists should not get “overexcited” about a high court judgment that ruled the approval of a coalmine expansion in the New South Wales Hunter region was invalid.
The premier also said the government had no plans to change NSW laws or regulations in response to the decision and that doing so would risk “jettisoning” the environmental reputation of the state’s mining industry.
The nation’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that the approval of MACH Energy’s Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion in Muswellbrook was invalid.
A majority of the court found the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) failed to consider imposing conditions aimed at minimising all emissions generated by the coal when it was sold and burnt overseas to the “greatest extent practicable”.
“I don’t think everyone should overreact to the decision, and I also don’t think that activists considering court actions should get overexcited,” Minns told media on Thursday.
“It was a very narrow, technical decision about a consideration for the IPC.
“I understand that the [natural resources] minister Courtney Houssos has spoken to the CEO of the mine. They’re looking to continue an application through the IPC.”
The premier said the government did not have plans to change state regulation in response to the decision, adding that the state’s mining industry had a “world class reputation” for its safety and standards and as a “mining industry that takes into consideration environmental factors”.
“I don’t think we should just be jettisoning that reputation when we can have both a vibrant, growing mining industry while protecting the hard-fought reputation for the mining sector in Australia,” he said.
Elaine Johnson, the director of Johnson Legal, which represented Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (Dams Heg) in the court proceedings, said this was welcome.
“It’s the right decision from the government to respect the result and not to seek a kneejerk legislative response to such a significant decision from Australia’s highest court,” she said.
Minns also downplayed commentary that the decision could pose legal challenges for other coalmine expansions in the state, including the recent approval of the state’s biggest coal project, the Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) extension.
He said he believed the court’s “technical decision about a narrow aspect of the law” had already been dealt with through the government’s coal statement and the commission’s conditions for the HVO project.
“I don’t think it’ll be the end for both investment and expansion for mining in New South Wales,” he said. He believed the Mount Pleasant decision “can be remade in the IPC consistent with the HVO decision, which was made less than seven days ago”.
But NSW Greens climate spokesperson and environmental lawyer Sue Higginson said the court’s decision “upends the legal reality facing the Hunter Valley Operations project”. Following Wednesday’s high court ruling, Higginson said the project’s approval could face “significant legal difficulty”.
“Labor premier Chris Minns has either received bad advice or he’s in denial and is failing to reckon with the groundbreaking new paradigm imposed by the high court decision,” she said.
“Surprisingly, the premier is waving around his new coal policy, and in doing so has drawn attention to his own coal policy’s achilles heel.
“The coal policy explicitly rules out consideration of downstream emissions, the exact same emissions the high court have now said must be considered under law.”
Higginson said what was required in response to the judgment was “a genuine and thorough assessment of the actual impacts that will be caused by the burning of coal mined in NSW, no matter where that burning takes place”.
“The high court has found NSW planning authorities failed to consider the impacts of, and the mitigation options for, 98% of the Mount Pleasant coalmine’s emissions,” she said.
“In exactly the same circumstances, the Independent Planning Commission failed to assess 98% of the climate impacts of the Hunter Valley Operations coal development.”
Johnson said Wednesday’s decision was in line with a growing body of cases around the world.
“That body of caselaw is clearly stating that corporations and governments are responsible for emissions generated by their fossil fuel exports,” she said.
“The decision yesterday confirms that while the Paris Agreement provides a global accounting mechanism for emissions, it does not displace accountability for exported emissions, which lies with corporations and governments still seeking to expand fossil fuel production in 2026.
