Because coal extraction, consumption and export, is viewed as an economic and energy essential, and these activities are viewed as best carried out by private economic interests, activities related to coal extraction and its use provide great scope for moral and financial corruption. Coal mining, transport and burning create ecological and environmental damages that accumulate. The marginal “side-effect” environmental costs of coal burning due to climate change are rapidly increasing, and threaten many species and our own existance. Human primary moral capacity is easily exceeded by the ability to benefit directly from the coal industry, and ignore widespread and growing side-effects.

NSW ICAC investigated matters related to granting coal exploration licenses to the Obeid family. ICAC concluded that there are perverse incentives and opportunities embedded in the existing coal allocation system, that lead to corrupt behaviour. ICAC also made many recommendations for changes that are required to reduce the potential for corrupt behaviour. [8]

Corrupt behaviour is encouraged by the very design of legislative framework for the coal mining industry. The minister and the public officials responsible for mineral resources had broad discretion to determine how coal Exploration Licences (EL) are released, allocated and renewed.

In the case for EL for an area where coal is already known to exist, but more exact mapping is needed to undertake a mining operation, prior to applying for a mining license (ML), the EL represents a large potential financial gain for its owners.

The mapping process requires a substantial amount of money investment, in “firming up” the case for a mining proposal. Only after this case is made, can other government departments evaluate the mining proposal against social, economic and environmental matters. If approved, this represents the transfer of mineral assets in the order of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars or more, from state to private hands.

The descretion of choice allowed, in company allocation, timing and renewal of EL areas, without obvious guidelines or rules, allows manipulation of the system for substantial personal gain in the acquisition of mineral assets, and makes those having such power a strong temptation target for bribery short cuts.

ICAC recommended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, which they say, by definition, would not contain incentives and extensive opportunities to distort the process through improper lobbying, manipulation and corrupt behaviour.

Corruption of values

Even if all of the ICAC report recommendations were implemented, this will not address the larger policy issues of economic vs. ecological system values. The NSW government has now approved mining projects, which were previously thought to be off limits, because of their impact human environmental services, such as water catchment areas. Any exploitation of any natural resource will have some environmental impact. Who gets to decide on the significance of that impact?

In NSW, the process of dealing with the clash of human environmental services vs resource mining, now is said to be handled by a “arms length independent decision-making process”. Projects are assessed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, which can decide if their are significant risks, and can give approvals subject to “strict conditions”. For instance the Wallerah 2 long wall coal mining project at the Central Coast has been approved, despite opposition from environmentalists and despite pre-election promises of the government to the contrary.[2]

For the Wallerah 2 project, the problem is finding out what exactly is meant in practice by “minimal impact” on underground water tables, “limited discharge” from above-ground facilities, and “extensive” monitoring network for ground and surface water.

Addicted to growth

At the root of the pressure for more “development” with mining projects, is the inbuilt cultural, economic and financial drives for continued growth in wealth (GDP) and population. These drives are presently only questioned indirectly, by opposition to individual projects. The aim of the current NSW government is to reduce local opposition to all planning proposals by official ministerial and bureaucratic automated process, thus accelarating the pressure for growth.

There is evidence that a satisfactory distribution of jobs, income and happiness is possible without a growth economy, by seriously planning for a steady-state economy.[1] The current pressures for growth come from revenue hungry large corporations and government. Bulk growth just adds to the size of our environmental problems.

Proponents of mines and the jobs they provide always ignore alternative economic possibilities which are healthy, sustainable or include renewable energy.

Negligible Financial Penalty

In practice, there are no significant penalties for a company breaking its “strict conditions”. Where a company has a choice between extra profit, or paying a trivial fine for a large environmental infringement, it is incentivised to do the latter. Permanent damage to the geology of water infrastructure is not given an economic loss value for a long period of time. There is no legal representation to pay for permanent damage to natural features, and no compensation to be awarded to natural features, such as streams, rivers, and lakes, if they are damaged by subsidence or pollution. Penalties are never close to the size of the economic benefit obtained by the corporation.[3]

Removal of rights of legal appeal

The NSW supreme court has just upheld the decision of the Land and Environment council against the appeal of Rio Tinto and the NSW state government vs the township of Bulga. [4] The residents of Bulga had objected to the expansion of a nearby coal mine that would lead to the destruction of their township, and won its case in court. The NSW government has then expanded tax payers money in appealing to the supreme court, in partnership with Rio Tinto, and after losing the appeal, must pay costs. There is no doubt that the NSW government sees economic benefit in the project, as it obtains royalties in every tonne of coal extracted. It has greatly reduced the possibility of local community opposition to mine projects using the court system, by reducing the funding to the Environmental Defenders Office, and specifying that a minister appointed board handle objections to planning proposals.

Automatic approval for economic benefit

The mining industry has been asking for “certainty” in the NSW government planning approval process. To provide this, the minister for Planning and Infrastructure has made changes that automate approval if the project can demonstrate it will provide an direct or indirect economic benefit to the state. This is to be the only criteria for approval. Direct and indirect costs to the state, such as health and environment effects are not discussed. The project defeated in court to save the Bulga township will now be automaticly approved by NSW state planning machinery, without meaningful appeal rights, as Rio Tinto now will re-apply to this with the same proposal.

Corruption by State Significant Development

By giving the minister arbitrary power to declare a project to be a State Significant Development, which overrides all other criteria, the potential for corruption is as great as that uncovered and censured by ICAC for arbitrary approval of exploratory licenses. Its the Part 3A of the old planning act in a new guise.

Mega-Corruption by ignoring climate change

In all of this “concern” of government and developers for growth in jobs and economic development, their is never, ever any mention of the urgent need to cut global down fossil fuel burning to zero, and even implement carbon storage solutions, in order to ameliorate the human induced sixth great extinction event from global climate warming. This is incompatible with coal mining expansion. [5] With such corrupt and ignorant political attitudes, a 4C and rising global excess of heat is more than likely by 2100.

Corrupted environmental approval

The Maules Creek mine was approved by the NSW government, despite coal company claiming a fake set of environmental offsets which are different and of no help to the dozens of species which will be forced into extinction. The political clout of a former National Party minister, Mark Vail, as a director of Whitehaven Coal was probably a factor. The mine threatens community health and agricultural land at Maules Creek, and the health and survival of Koala populations in the Leard State Forest, and should never have been approved by a rational and non-corrupt society.

Coal mines, banks, corporations and governments are mired in corrupt cooperation

Mega coal mines projects in the approval pipeline, and associated port facilities, coral reef dredging, rail infrastructure to be supported by taxpayers, while Australian governments threaten to multiply its coal exports. Long term human survival is under threat, and Australia is under threat by climate change. Greed and denial currently make this a certainty. If we want a future for our children, these must be fought by all available means, beyond the point of global economic collapse. The scales of the justice system are biased in favour of this big money, and against nature. The depth of institutional corruption, between banks, corporations and governments goes from the top to the bottom of our fossil fuel energy addicted societies. It is part of the air we breath, and the daily media reports. The vehemence of the prosecution against Jonathan Moylan, for taking action against this deadly cartel of interests by using a hoax press release, indicates the weight of wealthy privilege opposed to climate survival.[7, 6]

Reform becomes institutionalized corruption, and corporate enablement

The creation of automatic approval mechanisms, which gives the appearance of ministerial and government “hands off”, reduces the possibility of public appeal and challenge. There are two processes here, and they should not have conflated processes. One is allowing companies to put fowards economic cases for mining or development projects, which the NSW government has stated as its primary objective. The more important are long term, numerous, widespread and global “side-effects” of social, environment, sustainability, and global climate results, and alternative economic potentials. By concentrating approval in automatic processes, governments can make themselves appear immune from the accusations of corruption, but they have buried the corruption deeper into the system, by using ministerial appointments and policy. The NSW government has removed legal pathways of appeal and denied citizens the right of veto. Ministers are supposed to be servants of the people, the voters, whom they made promises to. Voters deserve “certainty” of promise delivery, much more than corporations.[9]

References