NSW government drafts law to allow Upper Hunter mine to increase output

Mount Pleasant mine legislation to allow increased output weeks away In short: The NSW Labor government will introduce legislation to the state's parliament aiming to shore up 400 jobs at an Upper Hunter coal mine. The legislation, if passed, will allow MACH Energy to operate its Mount Pleasant mine with its current workforce and output until 2032. The High Court earlier this month ruled planning authorities must consider global fossil fuel impacts in mine extension decisions, effectively halting a proposed extension by MACH. The NSW government will introduce a law to allow a Hunter Valley coal mine to keep operating at a higher output, despite a High Court ruling that invalidated the mine's expansion approval. NSW Premier Chris Minns argued the legislation, to be introduced in the coming weeks, would authorise MACH Energy to increase annual coal production at its Mount Pleasant mine from 12.5 million to 16.5 million tonnes until 2032. Mr Minns said the proposed allowance was "consistent with the current workforce profile and current coal extraction on the site". "It's become apparent that there are 400 jobs on the line that will go before Christmas without this intervention," he said. If the plan passes, the deal will see MACH Energy enter a "jobs guarantee" to shore up the 400 direct jobs until 2032. It comes after the High Court found the NSW Independent Planning Commission (IPC) failed to consider the project's downstream emissions, invalidating approvals for a 22-year extension slated by MACH. Emissions rules The Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (DAMSHEG) successfully appealed the IPC's 2022 approval of an extension, arguing the commission failed to consider Scope 3 emissions. Subsequent appeals from MACH Energy, including in the High Court earlier this month, were dismissed, effectively thwarting the company's hope to extract a total of 444 million tonnes of coal from the site by 2048. Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions stemming from outside the initial production or extraction phase, and are largely not produced by the company itself. It includes coal that is sold overseas, and then burned, creating emissions elsewhere. The group has called for the premier to release more details on the proposed bill announced today. "We have never wanted anyone in the Hunter to lose their livelihood," DAMSHEG president Wendy Wales said in a statement. "A law written for one company, days after the High Court ruled against that company, is an inappropriate use of the NSW legislative process. "The laws should reflect a balance where the overall welfare of citizens and environment is paramount and industry serves the needs of all citizens." Mr Minns said the legislation included a requirement that MACH Energy would need to adhere to Scope 3 limiting rules, and only sell to countries that were signatories to the Paris Agreement. Future decisions Mr Minns stressed the proposed legislation was not a "full approval for the mine". "They'll continue their applications through the Land and Environment Court for the full scope of their original application, which was granted by the Independent Planning and Assessment Commission in 2022," he said. "This is, in effect, a partial approval to keep pace with the current workforce that's on the ground in that community." Greens spokesperson for climate change, Sue Higginson, said in a statement the premier had taken the coal company's side. "Minns's new law is explicitly to allow more coal to be mined and exported, contrary to the High Court's decision," she said. "This is significant overreach by Premier Minns and NSW Labor, writing special laws to protect specific projects sets a dangerous precedent. "Nobody and no coal company should be above the law of the land and receive such special treatment." When asked by a journalist if the proposed legislation set a precedent for government interventions in controversial mine approval cases, Mr Minns rejected that, and said Mount Pleasant was in a "unique" position. "One of the decisions we could have made is to say, 'Really sorry, it has to close, you'll have to wait for the Land and Environment Court to make a decision about that mine, and in the intervening period, those workers will have to step down'," he said. "But if in the end the mine is approved, as many believe it will be, because the High Court decision was quite narrow and technical, then it would be a huge waste to say goodbye to those jobs and opportunities and workers. "I'm not pretending this is perfect. I accept it's a difficult decision, and I did agonise over it, but I just think this is the only way of protecting jobs."