In this article, Saxon Davidson contextualises and disseminates the findings of the IPA’s research on net zero
The ruling of the Federal Court forcing the activist Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) to pay Santos’ legal costs due to its conduct in the Barossa Gas Project matter is a positive development for Australia’s future economic growth.
As a green activist law firm, the EDO use our legal system to challenge mining and agricultural industries in court, all while receiving funding from governments across the nation to do so.
The EDO is forecast to receive up to $15m from the federal government alone by 2030, a reversal of the former government’s policy.
While the Federal Court ruling sends a clear message to green activists who use baseless claims to delay vital job creating, nation-building projects; the EDO’s extreme activism will continue as long as legal loopholes exist and taxpayer funding remains available to them.
In the Barossa Gas Project matter, the EDO represented elders of the Tiwi Islands in their case against Santos.
It argued that the pipeline for the project would have interfered with Indigenous cultural heritage.
These arguments were savaged in court by Justice Natalie Charlesworth.
Although the ruling to pay $9m in legal costs is imposing, and no small figure for an organisation that has less than that amount in cash on hand, it still does not prevent other ideologues from using the same legal frameworks.
Even when such baseless lawfare fails, it serves its purpose to delay projects and run up costs, therefore undermining a project’s viability.
The other policies enabling the green lawfare industry need to be addressed
The process is the punishment, and the punishment serves the ideological goals of activists such as the EDO.
Presently, a “person aggrieved” can challenge ministerial decisions on major projects under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1975 if they are a person “whose interests are adversely affected by a decision”.
However, section 487 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 extends the meaning of “persons aggrieved” to include organisations or associations which are engaged in activities “for the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment”.
Previous analysis of section 487 by the Institute of Public Affairs found between 2000 to 2020, projects with a combined economic value of at least $65bn were targeted for disruption and cancellation by way of third-party activist litigation.
There is no doubt this section of the EPBC Act should be repealed.
But while this would be a step in the right direction, the other policies enabling the green lawfare industry need to be addressed.
These opportunities allow green groups to co-opt, and in the EDO’s case distort, cultural heritage concerns in order to achieve their ideological goals, as was done with the Barossa Gas Project.
This has only been amplified with the EDO announcing the introduction of a new First Nations Country and Cultural Heritage Program.
That the activists at the EDO feel comfortable enough to introduce a program like this after they had been found to distort evidence in court shows just how shameless they are in their approach to achieving their goals.
This type of action was again seen with the blocking of the McPhillamys Gold Project in Central West New South Wales by federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek. The EDO (again) acted on behalf of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. However, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, which has authority to advise on matters relating to country under the state’s laws, was critical of the decision and stated that the cultural heritage claims made were “unsubstantiated”.
Senator Jacinta Price, the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, has been scathing in her assessment of the EDO and the exploitation of cultural heritage claims by green groups.
Fortunately, the Northern Territory government has shown leadership in cutting funding to the EDO.
It is the responsibility of all state and federal governments to follow this lead.
Governments also need to reassure taxpayers that they will not bail it out and allow it to go bankrupt if need be. How can any other government in Australia look their constituents in the eye if they choose to use taxpayers’ money to bail out an organisation committed to destroying their jobs?
