Friday 9 October 2026
Afternoon EditionRSS
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
Sydney

One Nation Proposes Scrapping NSW's Independent Planning Commission to Fast-Track Coal Mines

Plan would undo post-corruption planning reforms if party gains seats in March state election

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources3 outlets
One Nation has announced a plan to abolish the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) and return to ministers the power to approve major coal mines, directly inverting planning reforms that curtailed corruption risks. The proposal comes days after the High Court invalidated a Hunter Valley coal mine expansion over its global emissions impact, and as One Nation campaigns for seats in the region at the March state election.

The High Court's judgment on Wednesday struck down a major coal mine expansion in the Hunter Valley, ruling that NSW planning authorities must consider the emissions from Australian coal burned overseas. The NSW and federal Labor governments have said the decision was narrow and would not affect other approvals. Meanwhile, environmental groups are privately weighing legal action against the recently approved Hunter Valley Operations mine, one of the largest coal proposals in the state's history.

One Nation says it would address the uncertainty by eliminating the IPC entirely and giving ministers direct control over coal mine approvals. The Independent Planning Commission was created in 2018 by then-Coalition planning minister Rob Stokes to take decision-making on contentious projects out of ministers' hands, following repeated corruption scandals.

"The vested interests will love it," Stokes said of One Nation's proposal.

The plan underscores the party's aggressively pro-coal stance as it looks to win seats in the Hunter Valley, a key battleground in the upcoming NSW state election in March.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The proposal would hand decision-making on coal mines back to politicians, removing independent environmental and corruption safeguards.
  • It is the most direct political response to the High Court's groundbreaking emissions ruling, setting up a clear contest over coal policy before the March election.
  • If implemented, the change could fast-track new coal projects, with implications for Australia's climate targets and for communities near proposed mines.

Background

The Independent Planning Commission was established in 2018 to depoliticise approvals of major projects after a series of corruption cases involving ministerial discretion. The High Court's ruling on the Hunter Valley mine added a new dimension by requiring planners to account for overseas emissions from exported coal. One Nation, a right-wing minor party, is seeking to expand its electoral base beyond Queensland into the Hunter Valley, a region with a long history of coal mining. It has positioned itself as a vocal defender of the coal industry.

Key Perspectives

  • One Nation: Argues that the IPC is an unnecessary barrier and that elected politicians should make decisions on major projects, framing the plan as pro-jobs and pro-industry.
  • NSW and Federal Labor: Have treated the High Court ruling as limited in scope and oppose scrapping the IPC, though they have not detailed alternative responses.
  • Rob Stokes, former minister: Warns that returning approval power to ministers would benefit vested interests. His comment reflects the corruption-prevention rationale that led to the IPC.
  • Environmental groups: See the High Court ruling as a potential precedent for challenging other coal expansions and view One Nation's proposal as a threat to independent oversight.

What to Watch

  • The position of the NSW Coalition opposition on the IPC and coal approvals.
  • Any environmental legal action against the approved Hunter Valley Operations expansion.
  • One Nation's performance in Hunter Valley seats at the March election and its influence on planning policy.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe