All the updates you need from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Mackay Conservation Group’s legal proceedings against Whitehaven Coal’s proposed Winchester South coal mine.
What you need to know about Whitehaven’s proposed coal mine
Whitehaven Coal wants to build Australia’s biggest coal mine in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, a proposal that would generate at least 583 million tonnes of climate pollution and destroy at least 2,000 hectares of threatened species habitat.
All the coal from this mine will be exported. It won’t power a single Australian household, office or factory, and it won’t be used to make steel or anything else here at home.
Yet our communities and businesses will bear the brunt of the climate impacts – no matter where on earth the coal is burnt. Worse health impacts, heatwaves, fires and floods.
ACF and the Mackay Conservation Group are at the Queensland Land Court for the next two months to argue that the mine should not go ahead.
We’ll be keeping you across all the key updates from the case, right here. Bookmark this page!
"If it goes ahead as planned, over its lifetime Whitehaven’s Winchester South mine would produce more climate pollution than every source in Australia does in a year.”
– Adam Beeson, legal counsel ACF.
Friday 5 December: final hearings
The final hearings in our Winchester South coal case (with our friends at Mackay Conservation Group - MCG), just wrapped up in the Queensland Land Court on 5 December. We’ll be back in Court early next year to find out what the Court decides.
Whitehaven argued that climate change is irrelevant to the decision
We know coal is one of the single largest sources of emissions, and a major contributor to climate pollution. Yet staggeringly, Whitehaven argued that climate change is irrelevant to the Court’s decision and played down the climate impact of the mine.
This coal mine would be a climate catastrophe, responsible for more pollution over its lifetime than our entire country generates in a year. To put it in perspective, the pollution this mine will generate is equivalent to 233 million cars on the road for a year.
ACF and MCG’s legal team brought the science
ACF’s legal team started where all discussions about climate change should start - with the climate science. Our lawyers pointed out that the best way to sequester carbon is to leave coal in the ground where it belongs.
The expert evidence on climate change impacts was summarised, and it was sobering:
• Bushfires increasing in intensity and frequency
• Tropical cyclones becoming more severe
• Rising marine heatwaves
• Increasing ocean acidification and sea level rise
• Negative impacts on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
• Extensive coral bleaching events and loss of temperate kelp forests
• Increased rates of species extinction.
We pointed out that Winchester coal would only have a market in a world with 4 degrees of warming
Our lawyers explained to the Court that only in a world subject to catastrophic climate change, where demand for coal will exceed supply, will there be demand for Winchester South coal.
Recently released research from Climate Resource shows that global action to achieve national climate targets will drive rapid declines in global coal demand. Their analysis of coal demand in Australia’s key markets indicates that by 2035, thermal coal exports could fall by 64% or more, and metallurgical coal exports could drop by 28% or more. It’s clear that Australia needs to be phasing out coal, not approving new coal mines.
We warned the Court about Whitehaven’s concerning history of breaches
Our legal team also warned the Court about Whitehaven’s shocking regulatory compliance history. Whitehaven have committed a suite of breaches over the years and been prosecuted and convicted for a number of offences in NSW. This is not a company Queensland should be trusting to take on a major project with serious risks to the environment.
We also warned that Australia risks breaching international law and fundamental human rights if the mine is approved
Our legal team raised the landmark International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on States Obligations in Respect of Climate Change published earlier this year. They warned that approving the project in its current form would create a real risk of Australia committing an internationally wrongful act. Our lawyers also emphasised that approving the mine would infringe on our fundamental human right to a clean and healthy environment, which they argued is indispensable to the enjoyment of all other human rights under Queensland’s human rights legislation.
We concluded with a plea to protect future generations
We finished our submissions with a quote from President Kingham of the Queensland Land Court in the recent Waratah Coal case, who explained that the principle of intergenerational equity places “responsibility with today’s decision makers to make wise choices for future generations”. Young people in Australia will face the most extreme effects of climate change in the future, and we have a duty to do everything we can now to reduce emissions from dirty fossil fuels like coal. That starts by not approving new coal mines during a climate crisis.
We’re back in court early next year for the decision
We expect a decision to be handed down in the first half of next year. If we win – Whitehaven could appeal – if we lose – ACF/MCG could appeal. Once the appeal process concludes - the Qld Minister for Resources and Chief Executive of the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation make the final decision. If they approve the mine, it’s over to the Federal Government to decide whether it will approve yet another fossil fuel project or finally, and at long last, start the transition away from exporting fossil fuels. When we export coal we import climate damage.
Friday 29 August: Evidence from various sources
Today was a packed day of evidence across several issues.
Chris Loveday was cross-examined by Whitehaven’s barrister. He is the Department’s witness (not ACF/MCG or Whitehaven’s). Mr Loveday is the Director of Technical Assessment Services within the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Industry. Mr Loveday issued the draft environmental authority.
He was asked by Whitehaven about Queensland’s role in assessing projects which also require Federal approval and how that assessment is done for water and air quality matters. Mr Loveday wasn’t asked any further questions about how he had considered the climate impacts of the project.
Then the Court heard from Mr Anthony Coleman – an actuary with 48 years of experience – to give evidence about likely costs to the State of Queensland as a result of climate change. ACF/MCG engaged Mr Coleman to give evidence. Mr Coleman estimated in his report that the cost of climate change in Queensland between 2025 to 2100 if new coal mines are allowed to be built is at least $8.5 billion per year, and possibly much higher.
Lastly, Dr Andrew Daniel (Whitehaven’s flora expert) returned to give evidence about the proposed and possible offsets for cleared vegetation. ACF’s barrister, Kasey McAuliffe-Lake, cross-examined Dr Daniel on whether the offsets even for ‘stage 1’ of the mine included all of the threatened ecosystems which Whitehaven proposed to clear. Dr Daniel accepted that they would not.
Thursday 28 August
Today Dr Setu Pelz gave evidence about climate scenarios. He explained how climate scenarios are put together and how to read them. He also presented evidence that there was no scenario in which climate change is kept under 1.5 degrees where the market for coal continues to grow.
Wednesday 27 August: evidence from Director of Technical Assessment Services within the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Industry
Today Mr Christopher Loveday gave evidence. Mr Loveday is Director of Technical Assessment Services within the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Industry.
Mr Loveday’s evidence included that he is delegated the power of the chief executive of the administering authority to decide applications for environmental authorities for mining activities under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
An Environmental Authority is required for the Winchester mine to proceed.
Mr Loveday approved the granting of an Environmental Authority for Winchester South on 7 February 2024. That approval is being contested (in effect) by ACF/MCG in the Queensland Land Court. However, the Court is not deciding if Mr Loveday’s decision was sound – rather the Court will decide whether to recommend the mine should proceed (or not) based on all the evidence presented.
Mr Loveday explained there is not threshold or benchmark upon which to consider the climate change consequences of his project. He told the Court that overseas emissions from this mine did not need to be considered as they were outside jurisdiction.
Wednesday 20 August: Whitehaven’s flora expert
Whitehaven’s flora expert Dr Andrew Daniel gave evidence today.
As with all Whitehaven’s experts Dr Daniel (or his company) prepared the EIS material. Dr Daniel has flagged a further 23 ha of grassland that should be protected - that was not identified in the EIS.
In a very interesting exchange, his evidence was that areas of the site that have been grazed could readily return to native vegetation but would not be possible if the mining occurs.
Lawyer: When you talk about a revegetated buffer, what does that entail?
Dr Daniel: …it would just entail not grazing or slashing the area … allow the brigalow to regrow.
Lawyer: So it’s not terribly onerous?
Dr Daniel: No.
Lawyer: You can’t recreate an entire regional ecosystem easily from scratch, can you?
Dr Daniel: It is quite unlikely that you can return the regional ecosystem in its full structure and floristics on a post-mine landscape where the soils have been removed, have been scraped up, stockpiled…
…but generally, you don’t get the development of shrub and ground layers in the same respect as you would in an undisturbed soil profile. And – and that’s the key to it, is those soils take thousands of years to produce that kind of profile.
Lawyer: Should I take that to mean, that the recovery of the regional ecosystem from grazing is much easier?
Dr Daniel: Yes.
18 August 2025: Evidence from climate scientist Professor Nathan Bindoff
Today ACF and MCG’s designated expert in climate science – Professor Nathan Bindoff gave evidence. Whitehaven did not call an expert on climate change to give evidence.
Professor Bindoff was asked some questions by ACF and MCG’s barrister. Professor Bindoff told the Court he has participated in the preparation of the three most recent UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Assessment Reports.
Professor Bindoff was cross-examined by Whitehaven’s barrister for 3.5 hours. He was not challenged on his expertise or any of the foundational aspects of climate science. He was not challenged on the evidence that the mine will increase global temperatures.
Whitehaven’s questions focussed on how the Professor calculated the global temperature increase the mine will cause. It then turned to lots of questions about the scale of that.
- Professor Bindoff accepted there are multiple ways to calculate temperature increase.
- Professor Bindoff accepted the temperature increase that will be caused by Winchester South is small.
The Professor was asked lots of questions about the size of the temperature increase. Later in this lengthy process he pointed out that it would not have certain impacts “by itself”. Clearly referring to the fact that climate change is occurring due to cumulative emissions.
In one interesting exchange Whitehaven’s barrister exposed the key problem with new coal mines in 2025, he said:
Let’s assume we’re approaching it [1.5 degrees] but very close, as we get closer and closer to 1.5 degrees, inevitably the proportional impact of any amount of emissions is going to get greater relative to the 1.5?
Professor Bindoff’s response was "Absolutely correct”.
This is exactly the problem with new coal mines in 2025, there is almost no carbon budget left.
12 August 2025: Whitehaven Coal's compliance and safety issues
31 July 2025: our cross-examination of Whitehaven’s staff and experts
After the ICJ ruling, ACF’s legal team cross-examined five senior Whitehaven staff as well as five experts engaged by Whitehaven.
One of the witnesses was Whitehaven’s Chief Financial Officer.
When asked about the pollution from burning the coal that Whitehaven plan to dig up, Whitehaven’s CFO told the Court:
“My understanding is scope 3 emissions are down to the – um – party that’s burning the coal.”
In other words – Whitehaven think it’s not their problem, effectively contradicting the ICJ’s advisory opinion that climate action obligations don’t rest solely with end users, but also on the producers themselves.
But perhaps the most confronting aspect of the cross-examination was hearing how Whitehaven explains the company’s world view.
ACF’s barrister put to the CFO that the worst thing a company that claims to be "committed to protecting biodiversity” could do is dig up coal. Whitehaven’s CFO responded, “All I can say is we are working within the guidelines of the policies of the government and we’re a mining company.”
He was asked about coal demand and revealed that his view is:
"... coal remains a competitive source of energy, and manages to contribute towards decarbonisation because it’s – with carbon capture and storage it is actually low-emissions at that point.”
The fact is, carbon dumping (also known as ‘carbon capture and storage’ or ‘CCS’) is a fossil fuel smokescreen, promoted by big climate polluters like Whitehaven, desperate for a licence to keep polluting and creating new climate-wrecking gas and coal projects. Carbon dumping is an expensive failure and a distraction from the vital transition to a renewable powered Australia.
Having this senior executive explain the company’s position and irresponsible world view is critical. These companies don’t usually get confronted with hard questions – the public statements they make are tightly crafted. They are only asked questions in stage managed Annual General Meetings and closed investor briefings.
These answers show the importance of ACF’s work both in cases like this but also pushing the Federal government to be more ambitious on climate and to stop new coal and gas.
29 July 2025: on the ground with ACF's General Counsel Adam Beeson
22 – 24 July 2025: site visit
The court and lawyers inspected the site of the proposed coal mine in North Queensland. They had the chance to see the koala and greater glider habitat that Whitehaven are proposing to destroy to export coal.
21 July 2025: day 1 in court
The Queensland Land Court today began hearing the Australian Conservation Foundation and Mackay Conservation Group’s challenge to Whitehaven Coal’s Winchester South thermal and metallurgical coal mine, proposed for the Bowen Basin.
Over eight weeks the environment groups will argue the court should recommend no mining lease or environmental authority be granted for the Winchester South project – Australia’s largest proposed new coal project – due to its significant environmental and human rights impacts.
ACF and MCG will be represented in court by the Environmental Defenders Office.
Both sides made their opening statements today.
Over one hundred people rallied outside the Land Court of Queensland with a loud, clear message: NO NEW COAL.