The epithets used against environment groups have been extraordinary after a judge of the Federal Court set aside Environment Minister Greg Hunt's approval of the Adani thermal coal mine.
Words like 'vigilante litigation' and 'sabotage' have been flung around by the Coalition government as if it were the Mackay Conservation Group — not the Minister's office — who had failed to exercise due diligence.
The reality is that approval for the mine has merely been stayed. It is worth noting that the orders were made with consent of the litigating parties. The vehement reaction to the setback therefore raises perplexing questions. How can it be that taking recourse under the law makes vigilantes of activists? How can any law be found defective when it worked as it should?
It is a conundrum that has become pattern under the Abbott Government: things that aren't broken need fixing. Perhaps legislation has always been an instrument for ideological agendas, but the compulsion and ease with which the Coalition has taken to the law to restrict scrutiny doesn't bode well for us.
The rule of law rests on limiting power, on containing official discretion. The Attorney-General George Brandis' statement regarding the intent to repeal section 487(2) of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is worth reading in full in order to get a sense of what it might mean for this principle to be degraded.
His reference to 'a red carpet for radical activists' is misleading, given that the overall rate of environmental approval is 96.2 per cent. Since EPCB was enacted under the Howard government in 2000, only three projects out of 276 in the resources industry were knocked back.
Moreover, the variety of stakeholders opposed to or distanced from mining developments in the Galilee Basin belies the tree-hugging caricature that the Coalition imagines to be its arch-enemy. Earlier this year, 11 international banks ruled out funding for projects in the area. This was followed by an open letter from nine leading Australian scientists urging other companies to do the same or withdraw. Are these financiers and professors also conducting sabotage?
Wangan, Jagalingou, Juru and Birri traditional owners have challenged the Adani lease. Grassroots groups like Reef Defenders — a mix of local business owners, farmers, students, professionals and retirees — have also taken action. The degree of hostility that has met this cross-section of the Australian community is odd. Are their interests not legitimate? What else could be at stake?
It can't just be about jobs. As a job-creation policy, the Adani mine seems inefficient. It will create an annual average of 1,464 jobs according to its own witness in a Queensland Land Court case, which means that over $11M is spent to generate each job. If the pit-to-port rail line were factored in, it would purportedly add 2,400 new jobs at an estimated cost of $450M for the Queensland government. The seasonally adjusted national unemployment figure stands at 800,700.
It can't be about economics. Queensland Treasury advice provided to the previous Newman government cited grave concerns regarding Adani's high levels of debt, unclear corporate structure and use of offshore entities. Official notes describe the company as a 'risk', 'unlikely to stack up on a conventional project finance assessment', 'highly susceptible to cost shocks', with its Galilee Basin venture a heavily geared 'Indian power market play' that does not have much investment support. Such assessments do not help make the case that the mine will ultimately benefit the Australian economy.
It can't be about poor Indians, either. The Prime Minister has framed coal imports as some sort of benevolent outreach to millions of households in India without electricity. Yet the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) calculates the cost of producing electricity in India using coal from the Galilee Basin to be twice the current average wholesale cost of electricity. Most rural households couldn't afford it even if they were put on the grid.
Moreover, IEEFA contends that India won't need Australian coal beyond 2020. Indian energy policy is focusing on tripling domestic coal production to phase out imports in the next few years, as well as doubling renewable energy capacity by 2022. The operating life of the Adani mine is approximately 90 years.
The global mood is in fact shifting away from fossil fuels. China, whose demand for Australian coal has dropped, is the leading investor in renewable energy. New Zealand has committed to 90 per cent of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2025. European countries like Denmark are already generating more power from renewables than national electricity demand.
In the final analysis, is it possible that in nailing our future to coal, disregarding public sentiment and the advice of its own experts while continuing to protect mining interests and shrink renewable energy investment, the words 'vigilante' and 'sabotage' might more readily apply to our government?
Fatima Measham is a Eureka Street consulting editor. She tweets @foomeister .