Land Court recommends mine expansion not be approved because of inadequate GHG emission mitigation measures
What you need to know
- In Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5, the Land Court recommended the Minister not approve an application for a mining lease related to the extension of a Central Bowen Basin coal mine unless and until the applicants show "real and significant progress" towards mitigating GHG emissions.
- The Court also held that the mine's increased GHG emissions would engage, and limit, the right to life and right to protection of children under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that those limitations could only be justified on a fuller evidentiary record showing credible mitigation.
What you need to do
- Be aware that climate change remains a relevant consideration in Land Court cases concerning objections to mining lease applications and any Queensland project expected to increase GHG emissions will likely engage the right to life and the right to protection of children under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
- However, where an application includes credible and evidenced measures that limit impacts on those engaged rights, and those limitations are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable, the limitations may not be a bar to approval.
Third parties object to extension of Central Bowen Basin mine
Sungela Pty Ltd and Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd (the miners) applied for a new mining lease to extend mining operations at the Ensham thermal coal mine in the Central Bowen Basin for a further 20 years.
Several parties, including Lock the Gate Alliance, lodged objections to the grant of the mining lease. Their objections covered a range of issues, including surface and groundwater impacts and effects on endangered and threatened species. President Stilgoe OAM found those environmental concerns, on the evidence before the Court, were not sufficient to justify refusal. The central issues were instead the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, climate change and human rights.
All objectors elected to be non-active objectors and did not file submissions with the Court.
GHG emissions and climate change
The objectors argued that approving the extension of mining operations would be inconsistent with the Queensland Government's transition to renewable energy and its emission reduction targets.
The Court received submissions that the relevant environmental authority required the development of a GHG emissions reduction plan and that the miners intended to implement various measures to limit emissions. The Court emphasised, however, that no emissions reduction plan was provided to the Court, nor evidence of what, if any, of the identified measures had been implemented.
Against that background, the Court considered it could not recommend approval because the evidence necessary to support a recommendation for grant was not before it. The Court recommended that approval not be granted unless and until the miners demonstrate real and significant progress towards mitigating their GHG emissions.
Relevance of the Human Rights Act in mining lease applications
As confirmed in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, the Court acts in an administrative capacity when performing functions conferred by Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) and Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act). As a public entity, under section 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court's decision must be compatible with human rights and give proper consideration to any human rights relevant to the decision.
The objections included contentions that multiple rights would be limited beyond what is reasonable or demonstrably justifiable, including the rights to recognition and equality before the law, life, property, privacy, a child's right to protection, and the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The miners submitted that only property rights and the right to privacy were engaged. The Court disagreed and was not satisfied that these rights were engaged by the application.
The Court accepted that the causal link between the new mining lease and potential human rights breaches was more tenuous in this case than in Waratah, mainly because the objectors did not lead evidence on the issue. However, the Court confirmed that the absence of evidence from objectors is not, of itself, a basis to disregard possible human rights impacts.
The Court also rejected the miners' submission that any balance between potential human rights limitations and the project had already been addressed by the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation when issuing the related environmental authority under the EP Act. Notwithstanding that the Department is also a public entity and must act compatibly with human rights, the Court found that while it is "theoretically possible" that the Department's application of the EP Act's objects necessarily involved consideration of human rights, the environmental authority decision did not "cover the field" for any potential human rights breaches. The Court found that unless and until the Department expressly articulates that it has considered human rights, the Court was to proceed on the basis that it had not.
Consistent with Waratah, the Court concluded that the right to life and the right to protection of children are engaged and would be limited by the GHG emissions from the proposed mine extension. Whether those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable depended, to some extent, on the applicant's GHG mitigation strategies, evidence of which was found by the Court to be lacking.
Decision
Applying Waratah, the Court found the mining lease was economically sound and acceptable in terms of specific environmental impacts (flora, fauna, and water). However, whether it met broader environmental and social acceptability remained unresolved. Ultimately, the Court recommended against approval, but indicated that with further substantiated and explained GHG mitigation measures, the Court's concerns about wider environmental and social impacts of the expansion could be allayed.
The mining lease application was granted by the Minister in February 2026, which may indicate that the Court’s concerns were addressed subsequent to the Court’s decision.
Key takeaways
This decision confirms that climate change remains a relevant, and often central, consideration in Land Court cases concerning objections to mining-related applications. It also reinforces that any project expected to increase GHG emissions, perhaps no matter how modest the increase, will engage the right to life and the protection of children under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Nevertheless, where an application includes credible and evidenced measures that limit impacts on those engaged rights, and those limitations are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable, the limitations may not be a bar to approval.
Other authors: Lydia O'Neill, Lawyer.
Want to know more?
- Queensland Land Court developments in 2024, 25 February 2025 includes a discussion of the Waratah Coal decision and the application of the Human Rights Act coal mining approvals
- Human rights in the resources space, 15 December 2023 discusses two 2023 Land Court decisions applying the Human Rights Act when considering mining activities
- Refusing mining approvals on human rights grounds – the Queensland Land Court and the Human Rights Act 2019, 25 July 2023 discusses the Waratah Coal decision
