National body does not accept Coalition assurances that farmers would be able to challenge government approval of major projects

The National Farmers’ Federation has added its voice to the chorus of opposition to the government’s so-called “lawfare” amendments, rejecting the Coalition’s claims that farmers would not be caught by the new restrictions on who can take court cases to test government approval of major projects.



Tony Abbott announced the changes after the federal court overturned approval for Adani’s proposed $16bn Carmichael coal mine in Queensland because the environment minister, Greg Hunt, had not properly considered its impact on two endangered species – delaying the project for a few weeks. The government said the changes were necessary to stop green “vigilantists” from undertaking “economic sabotage” or “lawfare”.

Green 'lawfare': voters feel Coalition is trying to silence environment groups Read more

The government insisted the amendments to section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act would only prevent legal challenges by green groups, without restricting those by farmers who were directly affected by a project.

But in a decision that is likely to make it even harder for the amendments to pass the Senate, the farmers’ federation (NFF) confirmed its opposition to them on Friday.

“The NFF ... cannot support the proposed amendment to remove s487 from the EPBC Act due to the risk of denying farming groups and individual farmers the right to appeal against government decisions that they believe are going to adversely affect farming communities or individual operations,” it said in a submission to a Senate committee looking at the changes.

“Having to meet a more complex test of standing ... would also lead to increased legal costs associated with the need to first resolve the question of standing, before the substantive issues in a dispute can be resolved.

“Limiting the test of legal standing to landholders who are subject to immediate impacts is also not sufficient as the effects of some major projects can be felt beyond the immediate vicinity of neighbouring farms, which implies that broader standing is warranted.”

A poll by Lonergan Research this week also suggested voters were not buying the argument that the changes were needed stop green “sabotage” of job-creating projects; 62% believed the Coalition was simply trying to silence conservationists to promote mining interests.

The final position of the NFF could be crucial to the future of the amendments, which require support from six of the eight of the Senate crossbenchers after being opposed by Labor and the Greens.

Farmers are planning legal challenges to the Shenhua Watermark coalmine on the New South Wales Liverpool plains.

The radio broadcaster Alan Jones, a fervent opponent of that mine, is fronting a new advertising campaign against the changes, saying the laws “put at risk not just our environment but our very democracy”.

“I may live nowhere near the Liverpool plains or the Great Barrier Reef, but I sure as hell am concerned that they are protected,” Jones says in the ad. “The latest move by the Abbott government puts at risk not just our environment but our very democracy. It is quite simply unbelievable.

“This legislative restriction is divisive, it isolates us. It means we are not allowed to care.”