Former State environment minister Albert Jacob gave the green light to Cameco’s Yeelirrie mine proposal in January 2017, just 16 days before the pre-election caretaker mode began. Yeelirrie is 70km southwest of Wiluna in the Mid West region.Together with members of the Tjiwarl native title group, CCWA challenged the approval in the Supreme Court but lost, and have now taken their battle to the Court of Appeal. CCWA director Piers Verstegen said the previous government was desperate to lock-in a uranium project before it lost power, going against the advice of the Environmental Protection Authority, which was concerned about the impact of mining on subterranean fauna.
“Stygofauna might be a relatively obscure species. In fact, these particular species of stygofauna were not known to science until the proponent started exploring for uranium in that area,” Mr Verstegen said on Tuesday.
“But the legal precedent here has much broader implications.
“We’re certainly very keen to be upholding environmental laws … which were never intended to be used by a minister or a government to approve the extinction of species.”
The matter was heard on Tuesday and a decision will be handed down at a later date.
March 7, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, environment, legal, opposition to nuclear, uranium, Western Australia |
Leave a comment
Key points:
- Law firm AJ & Co promised to be Adani’s “trained attack dog”
- The firm launched bankruptcy proceedings against an Indigenous mine opponent
- Head of commercial litigation Alex Moriarty quit after a falling out over strategy
The draft copy of Adani’s new law firm’s aggressive strategy to bring the Carmichael mine to life is labelled “Taking the Gloves Off” and outlines a commercial proposal by AJ & Co to win a multi-million-dollar legal contract with the Indian mining giant.
In the document, the Brisbane firm promised to be Adani’s “trained attack dog”.
The strategy recommended bankrupting individuals who unsuccessfully challenge Adani in court, using lawsuits to pressure the Queensland Government and social media “bias” as a tool to discredit decisionmakers.
In a section called “Play the Man”, it recommended “where activists and commentators spread untruths, use the legal system to silence them”.
It also urged Adani to hire private investigators to target activists and work “with police and a criminal lawyer to ensure appropriate police action is taken against protesters”.
“Like a well-trained police dog, our litigations know when to sit and shake, and when it is time to bite,” the law firm promised. “To achieve its commercial goal, Adani needs to accept it is involved in a war.”
The AJ & Co plan pledged to “assess each battle as part of the overall war” and to “know when to negotiate and known when all out attack is required”.
An Adani spokeswoman said “we won’t apologise for pursuing our legal rights”.
“Like many organisations, we have a panel of law firms that service our business on a wide range of matters to ensure we are complying with Australia’s legal and regulatory frameworks,” the Adani spokeswoman said.
“We will not comment in detail on the legal firms we use, their marketing material and any matters where they may represent us or advice we may receive.”
Lawyer quit firm over strategy
The ABC can reveal AJ & Co’s former head of commercial litigation, Alex Moriarty, quit after an internal falling out over strategy in the wake of the proposal.
Mr Moriarty — who did not leak the planning document and now runs his own legal firm — also alleged he was assaulted by a colleague who confronted him over dealings with Adani, a complaint that Queensland police were investigating.
The ABC understands the alleged incident did not involve physical contact.
Mr Moriarty said he disavowed the “aggressive commentary” at the heart of the proposal, and that he believed it “tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute”.
“Such comments tend to damage the professional independence and integrity of the legal profession as a whole.”
The AJ & Co proposal suggested Adani “not settle for government departments dragging out decisions — use the legal system to pressure decisionmakers”.
It also argued that “social media is a tool to use against activists and decisionmakers”.
“Look for evidence of bias and use it to show the court system is being used for political activism,” the law firm wrote.
Since it was engaged by Adani, AJ & Co has pushed to bankrupt a cash-strapped Indigenous opponent of the mine, threatened legal action against a community legal service and an environmental group, and applied to access an ABC journalist’s expenses and documents.
Queensland Deputy Premier Jackie Trad told the ABC she believed it was “clear that their strategy has been activated … and we should be concerned”.
“We’ve seen the attacks on government — they clearly don’t like the role that the independent regulator [the Department of Environment and Science] is performing in terms of using science to make recommendations around final approval,” she said.
“I mean, seriously, what’s Adani going to do next? Are they going to start pressuring the CSIRO around the ground water management plan?
“And quite frankly, I am quite alarmed by some of the language used in the report like pursuing individuals so that they become bankrupt.
“I, like most Australians, don’t want to see us go down an Americanisation path of heavy litigation and corporate attack.”
Murrawah Johnson from the anti-Adani faction of the mine site’s traditional owners, the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J), told the ABC that in recent months “Adani’s strategy has definitely changed — it’s become more aggressive”.
On Adani’s behalf in December, AJ & Co launched bankruptcy proceedings against vocal W&J opponent Adrian Burragubba over unpaid legal costs.
“My uncle Adrian has been public enemy number one for Adani,” Ms Johnson said.
“Going after him, I think, has been their plan all along — to essentially stamp out our resistance to the coal mine going ahead on our country.”
A day after the ABC revealed Adani was under investigation for alleged unlawful site works, AJ & Co wrote to Queensland’s Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).
EDO chief executive Jo Bragg, who commented in the ABC story, said the letter was “clearly designed to intimidate us”, although she declined to elaborate.
“It appears Adani has built an entire, well-funded strategy around hiring lawyers to bully community groups into silence,” she said.
AJ & Co later applied under federal Freedom of Information laws to access ABC journalist Mark Willacy’s expenses, and documents relating to the story.
In November, AJ & Co demanded environmental campaigners Market Forces abandon a trip to South Korea with W&J opponents to lobby banks not to invest in Adani.
Market Forces executive director Julien Vincent said the law firm accused the campaigners of injurious falsehood, unlawful conspiracy to cause economic loss to Adani and threatened legal action.
“It was pretty aggressive,” Mr Vincent said.
“It came across with a tone that had little substance to back up the allegations it made, and was quite threatening in the steps that would be taken if we didn’t comply with everything they wanted.”
A barrister for Market Forces told AJ & Co its allegations were “doomed to fail” and no more was heard from the firm.
Mr Vincent said Adani’s mine was “a massive public issue … and it is entirely reasonable for people to speak up and voice their concerns”.
An AJ & Co spokesman said “we don’t discuss matters which may relate to clients”.
February 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, climate change - global warming, legal, politics, Queensland |
Leave a comment
Landmark Rocky Hill ruling could pave the way for more courts to choose climate over coal, ABC, The Conversation By Justine Bell-James, 12 Feb 19, On Friday, Chief Judge Brian Preston of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court handed down a landmark judgementconfirming a decision to refuse a new open-cut coal mine near Gloucester in the Hunter Valley.
The proposed Rocky Hill mine’s contribution to climate change was one of the key reasons cited for refusing the application.
The decision has prompted celebration among environmentalists, for whom climate-based litigation has long been an uphill battle.
Defeating a mining proposal on climate grounds involves clearing several high hurdles.
Generally speaking, the court must be convinced not only that the proposed mine would contribute to climate change, but also that this issue is relevant under the applicable law.
To do this, a litigant needs to convince a court of a few key things, which include that:
- the proponent is responsible for the ultimate burning of the coal, even if it is burned by a third party, and
- this will result in increased greenhouse emissions, which in turn contributes to climate change.
In his judgement, Judge Preston took a broad view and readily connected these causal dots, ruling that:
The project’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the global total of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The global total of GHG concentrations will affect the climate system and cause climate change impacts. The project’s cumulative GHG emissions are therefore likely to contribute to the future changes to the climate system and the impacts of climate change.
Other courts (such as in Queensland, where the proposed Adani coalmine has successfully cleared various legal hurdles) have tended to take a narrower approach to statutory interpretation, with climate change just one of numerous relevant factors under consideration.
In contrast, Judge Preston found climate change to be one of the more important factors to consider under NSW legislation.
To rule against a coalmine on climate grounds, the court also needs to resist the “market substitution” argument — the suggestion that if the proponent does not mine and sell coal, someone else will.
This argument has become a common “defence” in climate litigation, and indeed was advanced by Gloucester Resources in the Rocky Hill case.
Judge Preston rejected the argument, describing it as “flawed”. He noted that there is no certainty that overseas mines will substitute for the Rocky Hill coalmine.
Given increasing global momentum to tackle climate change, he noted that other countries may well follow this lead in rejecting future coalmine proposals.
He also stated that:
An environmental impact does not become acceptable because a hypothetical and uncertain alternative development might also cause the same unacceptable environmental impact……..
This decision potentially opens up a new chapter in Australia’s climate litigation history.
Judge Preston’s ruling nimbly vaults over hurdles that have confounded Australian courts in the past — most notably, the application of the market substitution defence.
It is hard to predict whether his decision will indeed have wider ramifications.
Certainly the tide is turning internationally — coal use is declining, many nations have set ambitious climate goals under the Paris Agreement, and high-level overseas courts are making bold decisions in climate cases.
As Judge Preston concluded:
An open-cut coal mine in this part of the Gloucester valley would be in the wrong place at the wrong time … the GHG emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emissions.
Indeed, it is high time for a progressive approach to climate cases too.
Hopefully this landmark judgement will signal the turning of the tides in Australian courts as well.
Justine Bell-James is a senior lecturer at The University of Queensland. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/rocky-hill-ruling-more-courts-choose-climate-over-coal/10802930
February 14, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, legal, New South Wales |
Leave a comment
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Yvette D’Ath today announced the appointment of barrister Nathan Jarro as a District Court Judge in Brisbane.
Nathan Jarro will be the state’s first Indigenous judge.
“This is an important appointment for Queensland justice” Mrs D’Ath said.
“Nathan Jarro brings significant litigation experience to the role as a barrister. He initially practised in family and criminal law but has later focused on insurance, administrative, commercial and property law.”
He has held the role of Deputy Public Interest Monitor since 2011.
“He’s also adept at alternative dispute resolution techniques as a long-standing tribunal member for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Mental Health Review Tribunal,” Mrs D’Ath said.
“And he has a strong history of involvement in his community, as a current Board Director for the Queensland Theatre company, chair of the QUT Indigenous Education and Employment Consultative Committee, and former Board Director of the National Indigenous Television LTD (NITV).”
Mr Jarro received his Bachelor of Laws from QUT in 1999 and, after working as a solicitor in private practice, came to the Bar in 2004.
He has been one of Queensland’s most senior practising Indigenous lawyers, identifying as Ghangulu on his father’s side, with connections to Bidjara on his mother’s side.
He takes up his new position on Monday March 26.
February 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, legal, Queensland |
Leave a comment
“Full Bench Federal Court Appeal against ‘rent a crowd’ ILUA to proceed, 28 Jan 19
UN demands Australia explain why Adani’s project has not been suspended over rights concerns
Bankruptcy threat to W&J leader to be resisted nationally and internationally”
“W&J Traditional Owner and lead spokesperson Adrian Burragubba said: “Adani is attempting to invade, occupy and plunder our land, contravening our human rights and denying us our property, under the cover of a bogus land use agreement. Their rent-a-crowd ILUA is not supported by the legitimate W&J Traditional Owners from the Carmichael Belyando native title claim area.
“We have made sure our Federal Court appeal can proceed because we are determined to prove that Adani does not have our consent for its mine, and to ensure it is never allowed to destroy our country and our future.
“Our people have survived 230 years since the start of colonisation in this continent, and we can survive this onslaught from Adani. We are determined to defend our country from destruction”, he said.
The confirmation of the appeal comes as the UN CERD has intervened under its early warning and urgent action provisions to demand Australia answer concerns about breaches of the W&J People’s internationally protected rights. The UN expressed concern over the ‘Adani amendments’ to the Native Title Act in 2017, as well as alleged breaches of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the failure to obtain the genuine “free, prior and informed consent” of the relevant Traditional Owners.
Ms Linda Bobongie, Chairperson of the W&J Council said: “We have called on the UN CERD to highlight our plight and to bring pressure onto the Australian and Queensland Governments to prevent these threats from Adani to our people and to our traditional lands and waters.
“The legal system is being used as a weapon against us because we have chosen to stand up to defend our lands and waters, and our rights. Discriminatory legislation, such as the Native Title Act, and punishing costs, are allowed to override our rights and leave us open to ruthless suppression by an increasingly desperate and farcical Adani”, she said.
Ms Bobongie, is writing on behalf of the Council to Mr. Michel Forst, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, and Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, over ongoing abuses in relation to the Carmichael project and Adani’s recent move to bankrupt W&J leader, Mr Adrian Burragubba.
Ms Bobongie said: “We are requesting interventions from the UN Rapporteurs, and we will be calling on social justice groups and our hundreds of thousands of supporters around Australia to back our demands.
“We ask the Queensland Government to provide protection from bankruptcy to Mr Burragubba and the other appellants. We demand Adani cease its harassment and undermining of Mr. Burragubba and cease its bankruptcy proceeding. And we call on the Commonwealth Government and Opposition to ensure that access to equal justice to defend our rights is not undermined by punitive cost orders and the kind of aggressive corporate conduct Adani is allowed to engage in.
“Australia’s legal system does not recognise that human rights defenders, such as Mr Burragubba, are acting in the public interest and we are therefore subject to potentially crippling costs. This is a recognised problem with serious consequences.
“UN Rapporteur Tauli-Corpuz has reported that ‘a global crisis is unfolding. The rapid expansion of development projects on indigenous lands without their consent is driving a drastic increase in violence and legal harassment against Indigenous Peoples… The root of this global crisis is systematic racism and the failure of governments to recognize and respect indigenous land rights’”, she said.
Mr Burragubba concluded: “Adani will not stop us by trying to silence our voice with their awful bankruptcy tactic, which is intended to intimidate us. They will not succeed. They cannot have our lands, our heritage and our children’s futures, which are worth far more than they could ever compensate us from their ill-conceived mine.” … “wanganjagalingou.com.au/traditional-owners-continue-to-resist-adanis-invasion/
January 27, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, legal |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 