Antinuclear

Announcing her decision to approve Adani’s water management plans for its Carmichael mine earlier this month, Ms Price said Adani “accepted in full” advice from the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison also maintained the Government would “make all decisions based on the expert advice from … Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO”.

“We have always been following the advice of the scientists and we’ll continue to do that,” he said.

The advice was provided in a damning review in February of the company’s plans.

But documents provided to the ABC showed Adani refused to accept key scientific findings and recommendations about its water management plans.

The ABC has obtained notes taken by three attendees of a phone hook up on April 5 involving senior officials from the Department of Environment and Energy and staff from Geoscience Australia.

The documents show the government science agency was concerned the water plans could allow Adani’s mine to breach the conditions of its environment approval.

However, Adani would not accept the need for corrective action if that occurred.

The notes said that Adani refused to:

• acknowledge the scientists’ key finding that the model Adani used to estimate the mine’s impacts was not fit for purpose;
• accept that a new model could show that the mine’s impacts would breach environmental approvals; and
• commit to corrective action if the new model showed greater impacts on the environment than Adani had claimed would occur.

A separate briefing note from the Department of Environment and Energy shows Adani also refused to consider scaling back its mining operation to minimise its impacts, despite being asked to do so.

The ABC requested the meeting notes under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Geoscience Australia took the unusual step of releasing the documents immediately instead

The briefing happened after the Department of Environment and Energy had already advised the Minister to approve the plans, which had been finalised the previous month.

One set of notes was taken by Geoscience Australia chief Dr James Johnson, another by head of environmental geoscience Dr Stuart Minchin, and the third by senior executive Dr Richard Blewett.

A handwritten note by Dr Blewett mentions concerns held by Jane Coram, the head of CSIRO’s land and water division.

She complained the science agencies had “not seen the revised plan” set to be approved, and that they were expected to take the summary of it at “face value”.

After the meeting, Ms Price published a statement announcing, “Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO have provided written assurances that these steps address their recommendations.”

A spokesman for Ms Price said she was not present at the meeting.

“Decisions were made between the department officers, Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO on the proper scientific assessment of the issues and no other factor,” the spokesman said.

But the notes show the scientific agencies were asked by the Minister’s department to give formal assurances that Adani’s commitments met their concerns in language acceptable to the Government.

Gov[ernment] is keen for assurance,” the notes taken by CEO of Geoscience Australia, James Johnson said.

“Ideal for gov[ernment]: letter from me to [Mr Finn Pratt] saying based on extensive briefing from [Department of Environment and Energy] on Adani addresses the concerns raised.”

Fin Pratt is the head of the Department of Environment and Energy.

In his handwritten notes of the meeting, Mr Johnson said the Government was keen for an assurance “based on discussion briefing” from the department, but he scribbled that out and changed it to “based on extensive briefing”.

The Minister subsequently published a letter from Mr Johnson to Mr Pratt saying: “Thank you for the extensive briefing … Based on this briefing Geoscience Australia is of the view that Adani have addressed the issues and concerns raised in our recommendations.”

Ms Price’s spokesman told the ABC no pressure was placed on the science agencies.

Adani said in a statement it could not comment on the content of the documents.

“Adani was not privy to internal briefing documents or discussions that the Federal Department of Environment and Energy may have provided to Geoscience Australia and CSIRO, consequently we are unable to comment as to their contents.”

‘Advice to Adani that they refused’

The briefing notes listed in point form the “advice to Adani that they refused”.

These included a recommendation Adani acknowledge their modelling “is not fit for purpose” and that a “new model could revise impacts [to be] greater than [what] has been approved”.

“So told Adani — if new model shows greater impact than current model, they have to sort it out [with] corrective [actions]”, the notes said.

“They refused.”

Before the verbal briefing to Geoscience Australia, the Department Environment and Energy prepared a summary of Adani’s response to concerns raised by Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO, which was provided to the two agencies.

The summary was published by the Department of Environment and Energy.

That document shows Adani declined to commit to a reduced mine plan, or to cutting back coal extraction, as suggested by the Department Environment and Energy in response to the damning report on its groundwater management model and plans by Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO.

It also shows Adani negotiated compromise outcomes in response to some of the scientists’ concerns and rejected other measures that the two agencies sought.

There were gaps between what was included in that document and what was apparently outlined in the verbal briefing to Geoscience Australia staff.

The notes of the verbal briefing the department gave to the scientists said that Adani committed to a “maximum timetable of three months” for conducting an investigation if water use limits were triggered — a demand of both CSIRO and Geoscience Australia.

In fact, the response Adani formally agreed to is less watertight: “If the groundwater level thresholds exceedance is because of authorised mining activities, the investigation will be prioritised and, depending on the nature of the impact, completed within three months.”

Adani told the ABC it was not provided directly with the advice by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia until after the Government approved the plans. Instead it responded to summaries made by the Department of Environment and Energy.

Minister faced intense pressure to approve mine

Ms Price faced intense pressure from her own side of politics to approve Adani’s water management plans before the federal election was called.

Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath warned he would publicly call for Ms Price’s resignation unless she did the “right thing” by Adani, and Queensland’s LNP executive condemned what it called her “delay” in approval.

In the wake of the Federal Government’s sign-off on the water management plans, Adani is pressing the Queensland Government to complete a series of other, state-based approvals that are needed before mining can commence.

When Ms Price announced that she had approved the water management plans — just one working day after CSIRO and Geoscience Australia were briefed on Adani’s responses to their concerns — the Environment Minister said:

“I have accepted the scientific advice and therefore approved the groundwater management plans for the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Infrastructure project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

“Both CSIRO and Geoscience Australia have confirmed the revised plans meet strict scientific requirements.”

The Queensland Government is yet to approve construction as it seeks to protect a colony of black-throated finches around the mine site.

Even if construction is fully signed off, the project still requires more approvals to be granted from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments before coal can be dug out of the ground.

In an official statement to the ABC, a spokesperson for Geoscience Australia said it stood by their earlier statement that Adani’s actions addressed the concerns raised in their technical advice.

“Adani did not acknowledge our advice that their groundwater model was not fit for purpose, and indicated they would not revise the model in the short term,” the spokesperson said.

They said despite that, additional monitoring and mitigation Adani did agree to do satisfied their concerns.

Geoscience Australia said it was not pressured to provide the Government assurance.