Federal Govt's Land Clearing Decision Faces Federal Court Challenge

The federal environment minister's decision to wave through plans to bulldoze almost 3,000 hectares of habitat, home to threatened species, will be challenged in the Federal Court.

An environmental organisation has filed a legal action against the federal environment minister over the decision not to assess plans to clear nearly 3,000 hectares of tropical savanna at a Northern Territory station.

Environmental Justice Australia lawyers, representing the Environment Centre NT, will argue that the minister failed to consider the full impacts of land clearing. The organisation claims that clearing the land will pose a risk of 'serious and irreversible harm' to threatened species.

The plans, submitted by Top End Pastoral Company, cover an area of 2,722 hectares at Claravale Station and Farm, about 270 kilometres south of Darwin. The area is home to a range of threatened species, including ghost bats, freshwater sawfish, Gouldian finches, and the red goshawk.

The minister's decision was made in February, after 'careful examination' by a delegate. However, the spokesperson for the federal environment department said that the proposal was 'unlikely to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters' and did not require further federal assessment.

The referral to Minister Watt was made by Top End Pastoral Company as the first landholder in the country to refer large-scale clearing plans for federal government assessment since the overhaul of Australia's environment laws in December.

Environmental Justice Australia senior lawyer, Nicola Silbert, believes that the minister's decision was unlawful. 'By refining the project design, the proponent has avoided clearing key areas of habitat and reduced potential impacts,' Silbert said.

The organisation is seeking a judicial review of the decision, arguing that the minister failed to consider the impacts of clearing on certain threatened species and failed to properly consider the precautionary principle.

'The minister has a power to reject a referral where it includes one component of a larger project,' Silbert said. 'But what's happened here is there's been clearing at Claravale in the past and there's also proposed clearing at Claravale in the future.'

The case has broader implications for Australia's nature laws and whether they are being properly applied. Environmental Justice Australia claims that there has been a lot of land clearing that has gone unchecked by the federal environmental laws.

'The minister has failed to properly assess the impacts of this project on threatened species and the environment,' Silbert said. 'We hope the Federal Court will find the minister's decision was unlawful, and it will need to be reassessed.'

The federal government has declined to comment further on the matter, citing that it is before the court.

The Environment Centre NT director, Kirsty Howey, hopes the Federal Court will find the minister's decision unlawful. 'We hope the Federal Court will find the decision was unlawful, and it will need to be reassessed,' Howey said.

Environmental Justice Australia claims that the case could set an important precedent for the application of Australia's nature laws. 'There's been a lot of land clearing that has gone unchecked by the federal environmental laws,' Silbert said.

A spokesperson for the federal government said they are 'aware that judicial review proceedings have commenced in the Federal Court of Australia relating to Claravale Development Project Stage 2.' However, they declined to comment further, citing that the matter is before the court.

The Federal Court will hear the case, which raises broader concerns about the application of Australia's nature laws. 'This case has significant implications for the application of our environmental laws,' Silbert said.

### 'Serious and Irreversible Harm'

'The clearing poses a risk of serious and irreversible harm to threatened species,' Nicola Silbert, Environmental Justice Australia senior lawyer.

Environmental Justice Australia claims that the minister's decision was based on flawed assumptions about the project's impacts. 'The minister has failed to properly assess the impacts of this project on threatened species and the environment,' Silbert said.

A prosecution against the station's owners was later settled out of court with the NT government.

### Past Controversies Claravale became the focus of intense scrutiny in 2023 following allegations of unlawful land clearing, prompting a federal investigation. A spokesperson for the federal environment department said that the proposal was 'unlikely to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters' and did not require further federal assessment.

The organisation will argue that the minister's decision was unlawful based on several grounds, including failing to consider the impacts of clearing on certain threatened species and failing to properly consider the precautionary principle.

Environmental Justice Australia claims that the case highlights the need for more stringent environmental laws. 'There has been a lack of transparency and accountability in the application of our environmental laws,' Silbert said.

The federal government's handling of the case has been criticised by environmental groups. 'The government's decision to clear 2,722 hectares of habitat at Claravale Station and Farm is a betrayal of our international obligations to protect the environment,' a spokesperson for the Australian Conservation Foundation said.

The case will set an important precedent for the application of Australia's nature laws. 'This case has significant implications for the application of our environmental laws,' Silbert said.

Environmental Justice Australia claims that the case could have far-reaching implications for the application of Australia's nature laws. 'This case highlights the need for more stringent environmental laws and greater transparency in the application of our environmental laws,' Silbert said.

The outcome of the case will be closely watched by environmental groups, who are pushing for more stringent environmental laws. 'We hope the Federal Court will find the minister's decision was unlawful, and it will need to be reassessed,' Howey said.