State Development and Public Works Organisation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Introduced: 15/7/2015By: Hon Dr A Lynham MPStatus: PASSED

This summary was generated by AI and has not yet been reviewed by a human.

Plain English Summary

Overview

This bill restores the right of community members to formally object to mining projects' environmental authorities, even when the Coordinator-General has already set the conditions. It also clarifies that Land Court judges, registrars, lawyers and witnesses have full legal immunity when handling mining objection matters, fixing uncertainty caused by a recent Supreme Court decision.

Who it affects

Communities living near proposed mines regain the right to formally object to environmental approvals, while mining companies face the reinstated prospect of Land Court objections. Land Court members and participants get legal certainty about their protections.

Key changes

Repeals section 47D of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, restoring community rights to object to environmental authorities for Coordinator-General assessed mines
Extends Land Court members' and participants' legal immunity to cover 'administrative' functions like mining lease recommendations, not just judicial work
Applies the new immunity protections retrospectively so past Land Court work is covered
Expands the Land Court's rule-making power to cover administrative functions and creates a one-year temporary regulation-making power for transition

How this affects you

Environment

•You can once again formally object to a mining project's environmental approval, even when the Coordinator-General has already set the conditionsClause 5Omits section 47D of the SDPWO Act, reinstating the previous objection rights available to submitters on an environmental authority application.
•The Land Court can still recommend additional or amended environmental conditions on mining projects, provided they don't conflict with Coordinator-General conditionsClause 5The Land Court will be able to recommend additional conditions, or recommend that additional conditions added by the administering authority under the EP Act be amended.
•Community groups like Lock the Gate, the Environmental Defenders Office and farming organisations regain a legal pathway to challenge mining approvalsExplanatory Notes - ConsultationThe Department of Natural Resources and Mines met with stakeholders including Lock the Gate, the Environmental Defenders Office, AgForce Queensland and the Queensland Farmers Federation on the changes.

Justice & Rights

•Land Court judges and registrars are protected from legal liability whether they are doing judicial work or administrative tasks like making mining lease recommendationsClause 9Amends section 35 to ensure privileges, protection and immunity for Land Court members extend to the exercise of all judicial powers and administrative functions.
•Lawyers, agents and witnesses appearing before the Land Court get the same immunity as if they were in the Supreme CourtClause 9The extension of the existing privileges, protection and immunity also applies to judicial registrars, a lawyer or agent appearing, or a witness attending before the court.
•These legal protections apply retrospectively to past Land Court work, resolving uncertainty from the BHP Mitsui Coal court decisionClause 10 (new s 96)Section 35 as amended applies to the exercise or performance of a judicial power or administrative function before commencement as if performed after commencement.
•A one-year temporary regulation power lets the government quickly adapt Land Court rules to mining and cultural heritage referral matters while permanent fixes are draftedClause 10 (new s 97)A transitional regulation may provide that provisions of the Act apply to Land Court functions under various statutes, and expires one year after commencement.

Bill Story

The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.

▸Introduced15 July 2015View Hansard

Vote on a motion

Vote on whether to declare the State Development and Public Works Organisation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 an urgent bill, bypassing committee referral to enable passage within the current sitting week. The LNP opposed the urgency, arguing it circumvented proper committee scrutiny.

Defeated42 ayes – 44 noes2015-07-15

The motion was rejected.

A formal vote on whether to accept a proposal — this could be the bill itself, an amendment, or another motion.

▸Show individual votes

Ayes (42)

Barton(Liberal National Party)

Bates(Liberal National Party)

Bennett(Liberal National Party)

Bleijie(Liberal National Party)

Boothman(Liberal National Party)

Costigan(North Queensland First)

Cramp(Liberal National Party)

Crandon(Liberal National Party)

Cripps(Liberal National Party)

Davis(Liberal National Party)

Dickson(One Nation Party)

Elmes(Liberal National Party)

Emerson(Liberal National Party)

Frecklington(Liberal National Party)

Hart(Liberal National Party)

Katter(Katter's Australian Party)

Knuth(Katter's Australian Party)

Krause(Liberal National Party)

Langbroek(Liberal National Party)

Last(Liberal National Party)

Leahy(Liberal National Party)

Mander(Liberal National Party)

McArdle(Liberal National Party)

McEachan(Liberal National Party)

McVeigh(Liberal National Party)

Millar(Liberal National Party)

Minnikin(Liberal National Party)

Molhoek(Liberal National Party)

Nicholls(Liberal National Party)

Perrett(Liberal National Party)

Powell(Liberal National Party)

Rickuss(Liberal National Party)

Robinson(Liberal National Party)

Rowan(Liberal National Party)

Seeney(Liberal National Party)

Simpson(Liberal National Party)

Smith(Liberal National Party)

Sorensen(Liberal National Party)

Springborg(Liberal National Party)

Stevens(Liberal National Party)

Stuckey(Liberal National Party)

Walker(Liberal National Party)

Watts(Liberal National Party)

Weir(Liberal National Party)

Noes (44)

Bailey(Australian Labor Party)

Boyd(Australian Labor Party)

Brown(Australian Labor Party)

Butcher(Australian Labor Party)

Byrne(Australian Labor Party)

Crawford(Australian Labor Party)

Dick(Australian Labor Party)

Donaldson(Australian Labor Party)

D’Ath(Australian Labor Party)

Enoch(Australian Labor Party)

Farmer(Australian Labor Party)

Fentiman(Australian Labor Party)

Furner(Australian Labor Party)

Gilbert(Australian Labor Party)

Gordon(Independent)

Grace(Australian Labor Party)

Harper(Australian Labor Party)

Hinchliffe(Australian Labor Party)

Howard(Australian Labor Party)

Jones(Australian Labor Party)

Kelly(Australian Labor Party)

King(Australian Labor Party)

Lauga(Australian Labor Party)

Linard(Australian Labor Party)

Lynham(Australian Labor Party)

Madden(Australian Labor Party)

Miles(Australian Labor Party)

Miller(Australian Labor Party)

O’Rourke

Palaszczuk(Australian Labor Party)

Pearce(Australian Labor Party)

Pease(Australian Labor Party)

Pegg(Australian Labor Party)

Pitt(Australian Labor Party)

Power(Australian Labor Party)

Pyne(Independent)

Russo(Australian Labor Party)

Ryan(Australian Labor Party)

Saunders(Australian Labor Party)

Stewart(Australian Labor Party)

Trad(Australian Labor Party)

Whiting(Australian Labor Party)

Williams(Independent)

de Brenni(Australian Labor Party)

First Reading15 July 2015View Hansard

Committee15 July 2015View Hansard

Referred to proper portfolio Committee

▸Second Reading17 July 2015View Hansard

10.31 amMr CRIPPSOpposes

Opposed the bill's repeal of section 47D, arguing it merely restores a bureaucratic paperwork process since the Land Court never had jurisdiction to hear objections to Coordinator-General conditions on environmental authorities, citing two Land Court decisions and an EDO submission as evidence.

“This House should not support the provisions in this bill that relate to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act.”— 2015-07-17View Hansard

11.03 amMr PEARCESupports

Strongly supported the bill as restoring democratic objection rights for landholders and communities affected by mining, drawing on his personal experience in mining communities and arguing farmers must have the right to challenge mining decisions.

“I will stand here every day and fight for people's rights. I have done my little job for this country.”— 2015-07-17View Hansard

11.24 amMr SEENEYOpposes

Opposed the bill as another green payback bill that enables anti-mining groups to delay projects, arguing the Regional Planning Interests Act already provides comprehensive stakeholder input opportunities at the beginning of the process rather than futile court objections at the end.

“This is just about delaying the process. It is not about making the outcome better.”— 2015-07-17View Hansard

11.42 amMr WALKERMixed

Supported the Land Court immunity provisions as fair and reasonable after consulting the Bar Association and Law Society, but opposed the repeal of section 47D relating to mining objection rights.

“I am satisfied, as is the opposition, that those provisions in the bill that do adequately protect members of the Land Court are required and the opposition will not be opposing those provisions.”— 2015-07-17View Hansard

11.44 amHon. AJ LYNHAMSupports

As Minister for State Development, defended the bill as fulfilling an election commitment to restore community objection rights for mining projects, arguing the Land Court plays a legitimate and important role in recommending conditions on environmental authorities and that the opposition was trivialising its role.

“Removing the rights of people to object to projects is no way to foster economic development in this state and to foster good sovereign risk in this state as well.”— 2015-07-17View Hansard

▸In Detail17 July 2015View Hansard

▸1 clause vote (all passed)

Vote on clause 5

Vote on whether to retain clause 5, which repeals section 47D of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 to restore community objection rights to environmental authorities for Coordinator-General assessed mining projects. ALP and crossbenchers voted to keep it; LNP voted against.

Passed46 ayes – 42 noes2015-07-17

The clause was kept in the bill.

A vote on whether a specific clause should remain in the bill as written.