Litigious greenies accuse New Hope of appeal 'hypocrisy'
GREEN groups who launched repeated challenges on mines across Queensland have cried foul over New Hope appealing a Land Court decision.
Industry and anti-mining groups have accused each other of hypocrisy for using courts to serve their own purposes but protesting when the other does the same.
The Queensland Land Court last month recommended the state government reject New Hope's proposed expansion of the New Acland mine. New Hope have challenged this decision in Brisbane Supreme Court.
On Thursday, anti-mining group Lock the Gate dubbed New Hope's challenge "extraordinary hypocrisy”.
Lock the Gate spokeswoman Carmel Flint said New Hope had been critical of green groups using court challenges, but it was now using the same tactics.
"New Hope have been complaining about uncertainty created by the legal process for 18 months, and demanding an urgent decision, but as soon as the Land Court recommendation went against them they backflipped, and are now trying to stop any decision being made,” she said.
"A decision is in the interests of everyone involved, and it is bizarre that New Hope have reversed their previous demands for an urgent decision and are now attempting to prevent a decision being made because they are worried they might not like the outcome.
But Queensland Resources Council chief Ian MacFarlane said while New Hope's legal action was legitimate, activists were "vexatious litigants”.
"Green activists will use whatever tools they believe they have to hold up resource projects,” he said.
"They have form in being hypocritical, after all, they use smartphones that contain 40 mined metals and minerals, they switch on their lights everyday which are powered by coal and gas, and they support renewables, which are made from mined metals and minerals including coal used to make steel.
"The green activists, many of who are foreign funded, are vexatious litigants, or repeat offenders. We know the reason for this is because it is a delaying tactic to hold up projects from proceeding. I don't believe that one appeal from a resource company qualifies as vexatious litigation.”
New Hope did not respond to a request for comment.