Australian Capital Territory

Australia

Western Australia

South Australia

New South Wales

Tasmania

Northern Territory

Victoria

Queensland

The defendants, due to their concern about climate change, participated in a protest. The defendant considered and maintained it was important for individuals and the government to reduce the use of climate change. They hoped to disrupt the activities of Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), which they understood as the gas and petroleum industry lobby group. 

"The protest involved blockading the two main entrances to the Premises. The Defendants are each charged with being a person, in a territory, who engaged in unreasonable obstruction while taking part in an assembly, in contravention of subsection 9(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property Act 1971 (Cth) (the Act)." - excerpt from ruling. 

Defendants were not dealing with Climate Change through their obstruction. Their actions would not solve or improve the issue of Climate Change. The goal was to get the public's attention to the urgency of the issue and the government's policies with respect to climate change. Since no reasonable person would believe that the defendants actions were actually directed in addressing an emergency (here, climate change), the court ruled that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. 

Wollongong Coal sought to terminate its NRE No 1 Colliery Workplace Agreement under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing that the 2011 Agreement was outdated, financially burdensome, and restrictive for plans to reopen the Russell Vale mine, which had ceased operation and entered care and maintenance in 2015. The company planned to restart operations using a more labour-intensive bord and pillar mining method but claimed it was unable to achieve necessary operational flexibility under the existing agreement. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) opposed the termination, asserting it would negatively impact former employees who expected re-employment under the agreement and could set a precedent lowering regional industry standards.

On Aoril 7, 2020, Commissioner Riordan dismissed Wollongong Coal’s termination application, concluding that the termination was not clearly in the public interest, given uncertain employment benefits and potential negative impacts on regional wages. Riordan also highlighted past compliance concerns with Wollongong Coal’s financial and employment obligations. The company appealed, arguing errors in the decision-making process, notably that speculative negative outcomes were improperly weighted, and that the Commission failed to properly assess the importance of termination for reopening the mine.

On 24 September 2020, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission upheld Wollongong Coal’s appeal. The Bench found the original decision contained significant errors in applying the legislative criteria under section 226, including improperly emphasizing speculative regional wage outcomes while inadequately evaluating the operational and financial necessity for terminating the agreement. Climate change issues, though briefly mentioned during the original proceedings, were explicitly considered not to be relevant to the Commission’s decision-making process, as policy on climate change and coal mining is a matter for government. The Full Bench quashed the initial decision and ordered a rehearing to properly determine if terminating the enterprise agreement was appropriate under all relevant circumstances.

Australian Capital Territory

Recent cases