FEDERAL reforms to neuter environmental activists could lock farmers out of court, plunge them into debt or force them to offer their accounts up for scrutiny if they want to challenge development approvals.
Landholders can challenge a range of development proposals under the EPBC Act, most likely involving mining and gas projects.
Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said farmers would not be impacted if the EPBC Act was amended and Environment Minister Greg Hunt agreed "with everything the federal government is doing".
Mr Hunt told parliament on August 20 that "contrary to the intentions of the Act, federal law is now being used to 'disrupt and delay' infrastructure".
The EPBC Act was designed to ensure sustainable development and protect the environment, he said.
"We now need to reinforce the purpose and intention of the EPBC Act, while preserving legitimate rights for farmers, landholders and other genuinely interested parties," Mr Hunt said.
The amendment would remove the Act's definition of an "aggrieved" party permitted to appeal decisions made under the EPBC Act.
Currently, anyone who's undertaken research or work to protect or conserve the environment in the two years prior to a decision can challenge.
However, the repeal would mean the definition of an "aggrieved" party reverts to that listed under the Administrative Decision Judicial Review Act - namely a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision.
Retired Family Court judge Ian Coleman SC said this change would have an "appalling impact... it'd just be so unfair to farmers".
To appeal a decision under the government's proposed amendments, farmers would first have to establish legal standing in the courts, using the Judicial Review Act definition of an aggrieved party.
Gathering proof and mounting a case is very costly, said Mr Coleman, who has returned to the Bar to work as a barrister representing landholders in resource industry matters.
"Farmers would incur individually the cost of both lawyers and experts to add some substance to their challenges and once you get experts involved, you cruise past $50,000 very quickly," he said.
"Financial considerations are likely to be the critical point," to prove your right to challenge EPBC decisions, Mr Coleman said.
"Unless you can prove your financial interests are directly affected then you would likely have no right to object to the decision.
"That would require a farmer to lay bare the whole lot of their financial affairs, which is then known to the mining or gas company or the gas producer.
"That information would be very, very handy if that company wants to acquire their property."
Mike Foley
Senior journalist for The Land.
Senior journalist for The Land.
