George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

No, I do not. I know Mr Finlay—I know Mr Brent Finlay quite well and I have a very high regard for him—but on this occasion I do not agree. Might I remind you, Senator Singh, that all the government proposes to do by reform of section 487 of the EPBC Act is to restore the traditional common law position. As you, Senator Singh, know the traditional common law position, which applies across the entire gamut of Commonwealth law, is that a person with a direct or an indirect interest has standing to approach the courts and there is a body of legal principles that have been developed by the courts over many, many years that define very clearly what constitutes a direct or indirect interest.

Uniquely, section 487 of the EPBC Act says you do not have to have an interest; you do not have to have a direct or an indirect interest in a particular decision in order to challenge a ministerial decision in court. All you have to do is be somebody who, within the previous two years anywhere in Australia, has participated in some form of environmental or conservation related activity. You have asked me this question, or a like question, before and I quoted to you from the vigilante litigants' charter in which those who are determined to try and crash important development projects in Australia have announced their intention to use the court in a vexatious way—not in order to achieve a legitimate litigation outcome, but in order to achieve a political outcome. That particular abuse of the system is what the government has decided to stop.