I think it’s disgraceful,
said Geoffrey Watson SC, a director at the Centre for Public Integrity, reacting to a New South Wales government plan to introduce special legislation allowing increased coal production at the Mount Pleasant mine in the Hunter Valley. The High Court ruled earlier in October 2026 that the mine’s approval was invalid, but Premier Chris Minns announced on Monday that lawmakers would intervene to protect 400 jobs before Christmas.
Legal Critics Slam Government Intervention
Legal experts and anti-corruption campaigners condemned the New South Wales government’s decision to bypass the judiciary. Watson argued that the move overrides a decision of the High Court after a fair hearing, stating it runs contrary to the separation of powers. Anthony Whealy, a former supreme court judge and fellow director at the Centre for Public Integrity, called the intervention generally reprehensible
and warned that a major foreign company had made representations to the Minns government.
Whealy added that the legislative fix completely ignored significant rulings from both the NSW Court of Appeal and the High Court. According to his assessment, the intervention also effectively obliterated the prospect of resolving the mining venture’s legal challenges in the Land and Environment Court.
Greens and Community Groups Question Job Figures
The New South Wales Greens challenged the government’s core justification that the legislation was urgently required to save local jobs. Greens MP Sue Higginson stated that the decision showed coal mining giants were writing the government’s laws.
Tony Lonergan and Wendy Wales of the Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (Dams Heg), who spearheaded the case against the planned expansion, argued that the operators believed planning and the government was going to back them. Retired science teacher Wendy Wales noted that Hunter communities now find themselves encircled by mines.
Planning department investigates MACH Energy production limits
Correspondence between the New South Wales Department of Planning and Johnson Legal revealed that the community group had raised concerns regarding whether MACH Energy commenced expansion works and exceeded production limits while the matter remained before the courts. On 14 August, the planning department confirmed an investigation into the mine’s operations was underway.
Resources Minister Courtney Houssos maintained that the government is allowing the High Court’s decision to play out. Meanwhile, MACH Energy stated that it had obtained legal advice confirming its 2022 planning consent remained valid throughout the High Court proceedings, allowing the company to take on additional workers and maintain higher production rates.
Why the High Court ruled against Mount Pleasant mine?
Why did the High Court rule against the Mount Pleasant mine?
The Independent Planning Commission fell short of placing maximum possible conditions regarding scope 3 emissions—the emissions produced when the coal is burned abroad—according to the October ruling handed down by the High Court.
What specific production limits does the new legislation authorize?
Premier Chris Minns announced that the upcoming legislation will allow MACH Energy to increase coal production at the Muswellbrook site by 32% to 16.5 million tonnes per year until 2032, forcing the company to maintain its 826 permanent and contracted workers in their jobs.
What requirements are tied to the new coal mine legislation?
The proposed state legislation mandates that the enterprise maintain workforce levels and restrict Scope 3 emissions according to Independent Planning Commission guidelines, which consequently restricts sales exclusively to nations that are signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Related reading