The Claim
“Illegally gave approval to an environmentally damaging mine. They then criticised those who pointed out the crime, and tried to change the law so that environmentalists cannot take legal action against illegal mines.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Adani Carmichael Mine Approval
The claim refers to Environment Minister Greg Hunt's approval of Adani's $16.5 billion Carmichael coal mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin. The mine was originally approved in July 2014 [1].
On August 5, 2015, the Federal Court set aside (overturned) this approval following a legal challenge by the Mackay Conservation Group [2]. The court found that Minister Hunt had failed to properly consider conservation advice regarding two threatened species—the yakka skink and the ornamental snake—as required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) [2][3].
The court decision was made by consent, meaning the Minister and Adani conceded the error rather than fighting the case [3]. The Environment Department characterized this as a "technical matter" involving how advice was presented to the Minister [2].
Re-Approval and Criticism of Environmental Groups
Following the court decision, Minister Hunt re-approved the mine on October 15, 2015, stating it came with "36 of the strictest environmental conditions imposed in Australia" [1][4].
Minister Hunt publicly criticized environmental groups for the legal challenge. According to the Australian Financial Review, Hunt "slammed environmental groups for abusing the legal system to delay big mining projects" and stated he was "still committed to closing the loopholes in the approval process" [3]. This criticism occurred after the court found the approval had procedural errors.
Proposed Law Changes
On August 18, 2015—just two weeks after the court decision—Attorney-General George Brandis announced plans to amend the EPBC Act to repeal Section 487, which provides environmental groups with standing to challenge environmental approvals in court [5][6].
Section 487 allows individuals and organizations that have engaged in environmental protection activities for at least two years to have standing (legal right) to challenge approvals without needing to prove direct personal impact [5]. Brandis argued this provision provided a "red carpet for radical activists wanting to use aggressive litigation tactics to disrupt and sabotage important projects" [5].
Missing Context
Administrative vs. "Illegal" Characterization
The claim frames the approval as "illegal," but the court decision was based on a procedural failure to properly consider conservation advice—not on substantive findings of corruption or criminal wrongdoing [2][3]. The Environment Department described it as a "technical, administrative matter" concerning how departmental advice was presented to the Minister [2].
The court did not find that the mine approval was substantively wrong or that environmental conditions were inadequate. In fact, the department noted the approval "did include appropriate conditions to manage the species protection" and that reconsidering the decision "does not require revisiting the entire approval process" [2].
The Minister Re-Approved the Mine
Missing from the claim is that after the court decision, Minister Hunt re-approved the same mine just two months later (October 15, 2015) with additional conditions [1][4]. This demonstrates the court process functioned as intended—identifying procedural flaws and requiring their correction rather than permanently blocking the project.
Bipartisan Support for the Project
The claim omits that the Adani project had support from both sides of politics. Queensland's Labor Mines Minister Anthony Lynham expressed disappointment at the delay and called on the federal government to "sort this out as quickly as possible" [2]. Prime Minister Tony Abbott had previously declared the project a "poverty-busting miracle for India's poor" [2].
Section 487's Purpose
The claim doesn't explain that Section 487 of the EPBC Act was specifically designed to allow environmental groups to act on behalf of affected communities—a form of "representative standing" that enables organizations like the Mackay Conservation Group to challenge approvals affecting matters of national environmental significance [5].
Source Credibility Assessment
New Matilda
The original source, New Matilda, is an independent Australian news and analysis website founded in 2004 [7]. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, New Matilda is rated as Left-wing (left-biased) [7]. The site describes itself as "independent journalism" covering "Australian and international politics, media and culture" [7].
Assessment: New Matilda has a clear left-wing editorial perspective and should be read with awareness of this bias. While the article's core facts about the court decision and proposed law changes are accurate, the framing uses loaded language ("bungles," "vigilante litigation") that reflects partisan positioning. For balanced analysis, left-leaning sources like New Matilda should be cross-referenced with mainstream outlets (ABC, SMH, AFR) and official sources.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor Have Similar Issues?
Search conducted: "Labor government coal mine approvals environmental legal challenges"
Finding: Labor governments also approved major coal mining projects and faced environmental legal challenges:
The Keating Government (1991-1996) and subsequent Howard Government developed the EPBC Act framework that governs environmental approvals. Section 487, which Brandis sought to repeal, was part of the original EPBC Act passed under the Howard Government in 1999 [5].
Under the Rudd/Gillard Labor Governments (2007-2013), multiple coal mining approvals proceeded. For example, the Labor government approved the Maules Creek coal mine in 2012, which later faced similar legal challenges from environmental groups [8].
The Tarkine case (2013), cited in the Mackay Conservation Group legal challenge, occurred under the Gillard/Rudd Labor Government and involved similar procedural environmental approval issues [9].
Comparison of Responses to Legal Challenges
The Coalition's proposed repeal of Section 487 was an attempt to reduce environmental groups' legal standing. Labor governments generally operated within the existing EPBC Act framework without attempting to restrict third-party standing, though they too faced criticism from environmental groups for approving controversial projects [8].
The key difference: The Coalition actively sought to change the law to prevent similar challenges, whereas Labor governments did not pursue such legislative changes despite approving comparable mining projects.
Balanced Perspective
The Government's Position
Minister Hunt and Attorney-General Brandis framed their response as protecting Australian jobs and preventing "vigilante litigation" from disrupting major economic projects [3][5]. The government argued that Section 487 allowed well-funded environmental groups to use legal processes to delay projects regardless of merit [5].
The re-approval of the mine with 36 environmental conditions—including a $1 million research program for threatened species and groundwater management plans—suggests the government attempted to address environmental concerns while allowing the project to proceed [1][4].
Environmental Groups' Position
The Mackay Conservation Group and other environmental organizations argued that legal challenges are a necessary check on government decision-making, particularly for projects with significant environmental impacts [2][5]. The successful challenge demonstrated that the approval process had genuine procedural flaws that needed correction.
Expert Assessment
Academic experts noted that removing Section 487 would be "contrary to the express recommendations of two former Australian Law Reform Commission proposals" and would take environmental law "all the way back to its 1974 predecessor" [5]. The proposed change was described as inconsistent with "the altered landscape that we find ourselves in today—where resource conflicts, heightened environmental risks, climate change, and technological advancements such as fracking pose enormous threats to the environment" [5].
The Broader Pattern
This incident reflects a common tension in Australian environmental policy: major resource projects often have bipartisan support for economic reasons while facing opposition from environmental groups. Both Coalition and Labor governments have approved controversial mining projects; the key difference here was the Coalition's attempt to restrict legal avenues for challenging such approvals.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts are accurate: (1) the Federal Court did set aside the Adani mine approval due to procedural failures, (2) Minister Hunt criticized environmental groups for using legal challenges, and (3) Attorney-General Brandis proposed repealing Section 487 of the EPBC Act to limit environmental groups' standing to challenge approvals.
However, the claim contains misleading framing:
"Illegally gave approval" overstates the issue. The court found a procedural failure to properly consider conservation advice—a technical administrative matter—not criminal illegality or substantive corruption. The Minister and department conceded the error by consent.
"Tried to change the law" suggests an completed action, but the proposed amendment to repeal Section 487 was announced but not ultimately passed into law at that time. (Note: Similar amendments were later proposed and debated but faced significant opposition.)
The claim omits that the mine was re-approved two months later with additional conditions, and that the procedural flaw was corrected through the proper legal process.
The verdict reflects accurate core facts with exaggerated and incomplete framing that presents a more damning picture than the full circumstances warrant.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts are accurate: (1) the Federal Court did set aside the Adani mine approval due to procedural failures, (2) Minister Hunt criticized environmental groups for using legal challenges, and (3) Attorney-General Brandis proposed repealing Section 487 of the EPBC Act to limit environmental groups' standing to challenge approvals.
However, the claim contains misleading framing:
"Illegally gave approval" overstates the issue. The court found a procedural failure to properly consider conservation advice—a technical administrative matter—not criminal illegality or substantive corruption. The Minister and department conceded the error by consent.
"Tried to change the law" suggests an completed action, but the proposed amendment to repeal Section 487 was announced but not ultimately passed into law at that time. (Note: Similar amendments were later proposed and debated but faced significant opposition.)
The claim omits that the mine was re-approved two months later with additional conditions, and that the procedural flaw was corrected through the proper legal process.
The verdict reflects accurate core facts with exaggerated and incomplete framing that presents a more damning picture than the full circumstances warrant.
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.