New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has downplayed the significance of a recent High Court ruling that invalidated the approval of a coal mine expansion in the Hunter region, urging caution against hasty reactions from environmental activists. The judgment, handed down on Wednesday, found that the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) erred by not fully considering conditions aimed at reducing all emissions associated with the Mount Pleasant coalmine expansion in Muswellbrook, including those produced once the coal is exported and burned overseas.

Minns emphasized that the court’s decision was a narrow and technical interpretation of the IPC’s responsibilities and said the government has no intention of altering existing laws or regulations as a result. He warned against undermining the established environmental standards of the state’s mining industry, which he described as having a “world class reputation” for safety and environmental stewardship. The premier also noted that the government was working with MACH Energy, the mine’s operator, to resume the application process with the IPC.

Addressing concerns about the ruling’s implications for other projects, Minns rejected claims that it would hinder the development of future coal mine expansions, including the recently approved Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) extension. He pointed to the state’s coal policy and the IPC’s conditions on the HVO project, which require coal exports only to countries adhering to the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, as measures that address the court’s concerns. According to Minns, the Mount Pleasant expansion could be reconsidered in a manner consistent with the HVO approval, which was finalized less than a week prior.

However, the ruling has sparked criticism from environmental advocates and legal experts who argue the decision represents a significant shift in the legal landscape governing fossil fuel projects in New South Wales. Sue Higginson, the NSW Greens climate spokesperson and an environmental lawyer, said the decision challenges the legal foundation of the HVO project’s approval. She accused Premier Minns of ignoring the broader implications of the ruling, which requires authorities to assess the environmental impact of emissions generated overseas from coal extracted in the state.

Higginson highlighted that the government’s coal policy explicitly excludes consideration of downstream emissions, a position the High Court has now deemed insufficient under the law. She called for a comprehensive evaluation of the full climate impacts resulting from burning NSW-mined coal, regardless of where the combustion occurs.

Elaine Johnson, director of Johnson Legal which represented the Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (Dams Heg) in the case, welcomed the government’s stance against a legislative backlash following the ruling. Johnson described the judgment as part of a growing global jurisprudence holding governments and corporations accountable for emissions linked to fossil fuel exports, noting that while international frameworks like the Paris Agreement establish global targets, they do not exempt domestic regulators from responsibility for these emissions.

The High Court ruling marks a notable development in environmental law in Australia, placing new scrutiny on how emissions are accounted for in the approval processes of fossil fuel projects and reinforcing the need for regulatory bodies to consider the full environmental consequences of mining activities.