"Any proposed bauxite development will trigger top tier EIA...

"Any proposed bauxite development will trigger top tier EIA under the Act. The Commonwealth might even get involved under their EPBC Act or GBR Act (whatever it is called), but that's less likely under an Abbott Govt."

Forget the lack of italics - it is the attempt to interpret reasonably complex legislation that is of immediate concern.

Notwithstanding, are you also suggesting that the provisions of International Conventions, State and or Commonwealth legislation (law) can be simply ignored by a government (e.g. your reference to the Abbott Govt)? I think the High Court might have something (actually quite a lot) to say about that suggestion!

Have you heard of the doctrine of the separation of powers? The whole point of legislation and the common law is that it can not be simply ignored by an individual, company or government. Otherwise, we might all be in the, "doggy doo".

Further, environmental law is a hierarchy;
1. International Law (e.g. Biodiversity convention)
2. Commonwealth Law (e.g. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth))
3. QLD State Law (e.g. Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld))

I do not think that, "(whatever it is called)" is a sustainable position to conclude on a view purporting to examine the application of legislation.

And you might notice that the post contains no disparaging commentary whatsoever.