AgForce's court case against the feds has begun

Last month, Queensland lobby group, AgForce, announced it would challenge the federal government's decision in relation to the Glencore proposal and yesterday morning it lodged its application to start what could be a lengthy and costly legal battle.

And, while AgForce chief executive officer Michael Guerin is optimistic of a win, he estimates it could cost millions and the lobby group is yet to get a response to its request for funding from the NFF Fighting Fund.

Mr Guerin said AgForce was seeking a judicial review of the federal decision of February 2022 that the Glencore proposal was not captured by Matters of National Environmental Significance provisions under the EPBC Act.

Glencore, through its subsidiary CTSCo, is awaiting a decision from the Queensland government as to whether it can inject liquified carbon dioxide waste from the Millmerran power station into the GAB at Moonie.

Mr Guerin said AgForce argues that the federal government's decision not to consider Glencore's application under the MNES provisions was wrong.

He claims Glencore put in their federal application for its carbon capture project at Moonie that bore water at its proposed site was not potable or usable, but in its state application acknowledged it was potable.

"So there's a lot of legitimate questions about this (application), that being one of them...the fact is, the federal application (of Glencore's) did not have all the pertinent information," he said.

In a written statement to Queensland Country Life, CTSCo general manager Darren Greer said he wanted to make it very clear that the specification of the water had remained unchanged across its project applications to both federal and state government regulators.

"We have also been consistent in stating that the water quality in the deep aquifer we are targeting is not fit for human consumption," he said.

"As our EIS states the water in this aquifer is brackish and contains fluoride levels six times higher than the guideline for human consumption.

"We have acknowledged that this brackish, high fluoride water can be fed to some livestock such as pigs which are typically slaughtered within a year of birth. The fact remains, however, that the water is low quality and unfit for human consumption."

Mr Guerin told Queensland Country Life that "they had a very good case" in view of the number of people who have reviewed it from legal counsel, industry and others.

"It's one of the reasons why we're so mystified I suppose by the lack of response by politicians of all colours and lack of interest by the media over the last few weeks as it's really quite a black and white case where food security and the environment is at risk.

"And that's not too strong a statement to make given that you could have lead and arsenic released into waterways which is then dragged into food systems.

"And the Great Artesian Basin...is across four states and 30 per cent of Australia's land mass and is relied on totally by hundreds of regional communities so when you put all that together and the ENMS provisions are matters of national environmental significance, we simply don't understand how the two didn't result in a very different decision.

"So we're very confident in the case...you're never guaranteed in these things, but we're very confident and that's one of the reasons that AgForce is backing it and the other reason is it's just an argument that we...that we can't afford to lose."

AgForce has applied for funding from the NFF Fighting Fund to pay for the court action, but Mr Guerin said a decision on that application was "still a work in progress".

"The important point is that AgForce...is underwriting the whole action so we are not constrained by funding, but we look forward to a favourable response from Australian farmers fighting fund," he said.

Mr Guerin said around $300,000 had been raised so far, but the court case could cost millions if it goes all the way and gets difficult.

He said it was a little unclear as to whether the federal court application would put the state approval process on hold, but AgForce had asked that "urgent consideration" be given to it being put on hold.

"They could push through because it's a regulatory process at the state level...but it could become awfully messy if they don't (put the process on hold)," he said.

A Department of Environment, Science and Innovation spokesperson confirmed that AgForce's review into the Commonwealth decision relating to CTSCo's proposal under the EPBC Act did not affect the Queensland government's assessment process and that a final decision on the EIS was due by May.

Mr Guerin hopes the federal court matter is dealt with as a matter of urgency, but did not at this stage have a timeline of proceedings.

"From our perspective, the sooner the better, there is an urgency to it. We filed seeking urgency, but we're in the hands of the court," he said.

As to how Queensland producers and AgForce members are reacting to AgForce's stand, Mr Guerin said it was the first time in his seven years as CEO that not one person was in opposition to the proposed approach.

He said not one person opposed AgForce putting such significant financial resources at risk to seek the right answer.

"One of the reasons we're going the way we're going and one of the reasons we're doing what we're doing is not only to get the right outcome for the Glencore application, but to make absolutely sure it can't happen again," he said.

"The right outcome in the court is just the start of this, not the finish."