Abstract
Australia leads the world in formally dedicating private land to environmental conservation, helping governments protect critical biodiversity without straining the public purse. In Queensland, the booming resources sector threatens this biodiversity protection, even beyond landholders’ well-recognised lack of veto power over mining approvals on their land. Three structural legal biases increase this vulnerability. To differing degrees, Queensland’s laws assume that mining affects only land under or adjoining mining tenures, overlooking scientifically likely longer-distance impacts (‘boundary bias’); they emphasise protecting built and commercial infrastructure over ecological assets, overlooking significant investment in species and ecosystems (‘infrastructure bias’); and they allow consideration of proposed mining in isolation, without considering cumulative impacts on ecological assets (‘singularity bias’). Fortunately, Queensland law and policy precedents suggest potential corrective reforms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
