Advertisement

Greens question Mount Pleasant job claims as former judge calls for investigation

October 22, 2026 7:16 am in by
Mount Pleasant Coal Mine. Image: MACH Energy

The Greens have questioned claims by MACH Energy that 400 workers at the Mount Pleasant coal mine near Muswellbrook would lose their jobs without special legislation from the State Government.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the party said job advertisements had been posted by MACH shortly after Premier Chris Minns announced laws to allow the mine to increase its production. The announcement has also prompted former Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy to call for an independent investigation into the decision over public integrity concerns.

Greens spokesperson for climate change and planning Sue Higginson, a public interest environmental solicitor, said the company’s own documents showed the increased mining permitted by the laws would create only around 100 jobs.

Article continues after this ad
Advertisement

“MACH Energy’s own documents show that the increased coal mining that will be allowed by Minns’ special laws would only create around 100 jobs, completely undermining their threat to fire 400 workers if they didn’t get their way,” she said.

Ms Higginson also accused the government of stepping over the independent planning process and the High Court of Australia.

“This is state capture, a form of modern day corruption in our democracy, where billion dollar corporations are writing laws that benefit them, in defiance of the law as laid down by the High Court of Australia and there is no public oversight of that process,” she said.

She said the Greens supported Mr Whealy’s call for an independent review.

The State Government announced on Monday that it would introduce legislation in the next sitting fortnight to authorise an increased annual production limit of 16.5 million tonnes at Mount Pleasant until 2032. MACH Energy has agreed to a Jobs Guarantee to maintain its permanent workforce until 2032. The government said the move responded to legal uncertainty arising from the High Court’s judgment of 7 October.

Article continues after this ad
Advertisement

Advertisement