Draft approvals to bulldoze almost 2,000 hectares of Queensland native forest have been tossed out by the federal court, which ruled the federal government acted unlawfully by applying only minimal scrutiny.

The decision leaves plans to clear Kingvale station, in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, in limbo.

However, the federal government could act within weeks to remake the decision – rectifying what it claims was a “technical legal error” – and approve the proposal.

Environmental groups have called on the environment minister, Melissa Price, to instead subject the plan to log Kingvale to a more rigorous environmental assessment.

A day after the federal court decision, the Australian Conservation Foundation released documents obtained under freedom of information that showed federal Queensland MPs lobbied departmental officials about the clearing proposal during the botched assessment process.

Ian Macdonald, Barry O’Sullivan, Matt Canavan and Warren Entsch met with the then environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, and a senior environment department official to discuss Kingvale.

The ACF Nature campaigner Andrew Picone said the organisation had deep concerns about the politicisation of federal environmental approvals.

“It appears the federal government’s decisions about the assessment and approval of land-clearing at Kingvale have been more about politics than science,” Picone said.

“While the department advised that the proposed clearing would likely have a significant impact on nine threatened species and reduce water quality running off onto the Great Barrier Reef, the federal government ultimately applied the least rigorous form of assessment then issued a draft approval for the land-clearing.”

The court ruled on Monday that the reasons given for the draft approval, issued by the department, failed to demonstrate the proposal had satisfied all relevant environmental criteria.

Wilderness Society national nature campaigner Jessica Panegyres said bulldozing forest at Kingvale could accelerate run-off of sediment and nutrients into the Great Barrier Reef catchment.

“Even the proponents concede there is a range of endangered species on the land they propose to bulldoze,” Pangyres said. “It’s pretty disgraceful that in the context of threats to the Great Barrier Reef and threatened species, the government would think it’s OK to apply the least rigorous form of assessment to this proposal.

“The minister should reject this destructive proposal. If she won’t do that outright, given the potential impacts on the reef and threatened species, this should be subject to the most rigorous assessment process, which is a full environmental impact assessment.”

Picone said the case highlighted that Australia’s environmental laws were too weak to protect the natural environment.



“Since the current regime took effect 17 years ago, threatened species habitat the size of Tasmania has been destroyed by bulldozing and logging,” he said.



“Australia needs new environment laws that genuinely protect our threatened species and an independent national environment protection authority to make approval decisions free of undue influence.”