by Cheryl Adam
In 2014, the Newman Queensland Government declared the Galilee Basin State Development Area which includes two rail corridors for rail lines to Abbot Point – one from the central area where the proposed Carmichael mine is to be built and another from a southern section where GVK Hancock has its three proposed mines.70 According to the ABC around 74 landholders are impacted.
Currie did not know it at the time but the owner of the proposed mining ventures, GVK, had connections in high places. On the eve of clinching a $1.3 billion deal with G.V. Krishna Reddy, back in June 2011, The Age and Crikey.com published stories revealing that Rinehart invited none other than Barnaby Joyce and Julie Bishop and a former Liberal Brisbane politician Teresa Gambaro to attend Reddy’s granddaughter’s wedding in Hyderabad in India.71
The Sydney Morning Herald in October 2013,72 detailed the politicians’ collective claims of more than $12,000 in allowances, some of which covered airfares, which was reportedly partly paid back. The article claimed half of the meetings Bishop listed occurred on the day of the wedding, June 11, and involved meetings with members of the wedding party including the bride’s grandfather and Rinehart’s business partner Dr G.V. Krishna Reddy.
In 2008, the Queensland Coordinator General declared the Alpha and adjacent Kevin’s Corner proposed coal and rail line “a significant project” and the mines were recommended for approval by the Queensland Coordinator General in 2012 and the Federal Environment Minister the same year.73 Like the Adani mine, the proposed mines are intended to transport the coal from the Galilee Basin to Abbot Point for export.
In Queensland, major approvals for large mines under State and Federal legislation are given a mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act MRA (1989) Qld, an environmental authority under the Environmental Protection Act (1994) Qld EPA, and under the Federal Government’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). Following the Coordinator General’s Report, the mine was publicly advertised for objections under the MRA and EPA.
Currie discovered that GVK Hancock’s own research reportedly showed that the draining of the groundwater for one of its proposed mines would run as close as four kilometres to his farm – but the company had failed to contact the Curries. The mine itself is around 15 kms from his eastern boundary. GVK Hancock, meanwhile, had stated it would be releasing a ‘make good agreement’ with landowners to protect their groundwater supplies.
One of Currie’s main criticisms is that these mining ventures, which stand to appropriate farmers’ land, do not widely advertise their intentions, so often the approval process is rushed through. He is also critical of the ‘make good agreement’ process, which essentially means farmers sign over their rights to the mining companies without guidance and later find they have no legal rights to rely upon.
Currie admits that back then, he was naïve.
“No one had spoken to us at the time,” Currie recalls. “We thought if there was an issue, we would lodge an objection, that we’ll make whoever is responsible to come and talk to us and we’ll go through a ‘make good agreement’ and everything would be fine.”
In September 2013, Currie represented himself in the Queensland Land Court, and lodged an objection to the company’s plans along with other graziers and community groups. Initially, the Curries engaged a solicitor, but after several rewritten agreements with GVK Hancock in which the ground rules, he said, appeared to constantly change, as well as facing burgeoning legal costs, they decided to represent themselves.
“We got to about version three and every time the legal bill would go up and I had about enough,” Currie told me. Legal bills conceivably could have been between $150,000 and $200,000. “For what? For a recommendation which the Government minister can ignore?” Currie asks. He is convinced that justice in Australia is only for the wealthy and that during the protracted legal proceedings, he just wanted to get back to running his business but was concerned that he had to stand up to this major threat to the family’s livelihood.
Once the Curries made the decision to fight the project, many other landowners contacted them. There have been several challenges by landowners and graziers to the proposed mines especially tackling its environmental approval. After a three-month hearing, in 2013 the Land Court recommended that the impacts on groundwater supplies could be potentially “so severe and so uncertain” that the mining lease and environmental authority should be refused or further assessment be undertaken of the groundwater impacts. It was a victory, although a partial one, as the Land Court is only able to make a recommendation, not a ruling.
The Coast and Country Association of Queensland (CCAQ) fought several court battles over the Galilee mines. They challenged the granting of mining leases and environmental authority granted to several of the projects including Adani’s Carmichael mine and the Alpha and Kevin’s Corner mines. CCAQ’s objections to the Adani mine were lodged in the Land Court of Queensland in March–May 2015,74 focusing on the environmental damage which would be caused to the ancient springs at Doongmabulla Springs; the endangered Black-throated finch as well as the damage to the Great Barrier Reef through causing ocean acidification when the coal was burnt. The Land Court, however, recommended the Carmichael mine be approved subject to protecting the Black-throated finch.
CCAQ then appealed to the Supreme Court in August 2016 for a judicial review of the Queensland Government’s decision to grant the Adani mine environmental authority as it had not complied with the Environmental Protection Act (1994) to safeguard the environment. However, this Review Application was dismissed in November 2016.
CCAQ had already objected in the Land Court in September and October 2013 to the mining lease and environmental authority being approved for the Alpha Mine75 on three bases: groundwater, climate change and economics and objected to the Kevin’s Corner Mine76 in October 2015 for the similar reasons. The Curries were among a number of unrepresented objectors who also took part in the case against both mines mostly because of the effects of the groundwater being used by the proposed mines on their properties. After the Land Court recommended that the Alpha mine be either refused, or approved with additional groundwater conditions in April 2014, CCAQ then lodged a judicial review in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Land Court decision. CCAQ lawyers also argued that environmental harm through greenhouse gas emissions should have been acknowledged. Upon dismissing the judicial review, the Supreme Court noted that the argument about greenhouse emissions could not be considered as the coal would be substituted by another project should the Alpha mine not go ahead. On 2 September 2015, the judicial review was dismissed. An appeal by CCAQ to the Queensland Court of Appeal was similarly dismissed.
The CCAQ went further seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court in October 2016 on grounds relating to the Land Court’s failure to consider greenhouse gas emissions when approving coal mines in Queensland. The application to appeal to the High Court was dismissed in April 201777 as the application was deemed to be “not a suitable vehicle” for addressing the questions raised in the application. On July 4, 2017, the Land Court recommended that the mining lease be granted and environmental authority be issued for the Kevin’s Corner mine.78
Nevertheless, the initial win against a mining giant in the Land Court catapulted Currie on to the Australian political stage, convincing him to fight for his land and the groundwater he relied upon to survive. He was the perfect candidate as ‘the farmer and grazier’ for our trip to India.
After arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi, Bruce Currie confesses that he has not eaten any of the plane food. This is his first trip to an Asian country. A pastor friend of the family had advised him to stock up on muesli bars and to avoid all other food, especially meat. His friend, he admits, had visited India more than 20 years ago, but nonetheless … For the duration of our visit, he only strayed from the never-ending supply of muesli bars to indulge in vegetarian food, a first for his normal diet that consists, unsu
rprisingly, of steaks.
Imogen Zethoven and I are vegetarians. We delight in the boundless variety of vegetarian cuisine that only India can produce with such aplomb.
The fourth member of our party is Geoff Cousins, then President of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). The ACF, according to its website, boasts more than 450,000 people who care about and act for a world where “forests, rivers, people and wildlife thrive.” It was Cousins who came up with the idea of the letter to be presented to Gautam Adani, and who had personally approached Australian cricket legends Ian and Greg Chappell (knowing how much Indians loved cricket) and then went on to collect an impressive collection of signatures from other celebrities and businesspeople calling on Adani to abandon the mine.
Billed as ‘a millionaire businessman’, he was government adviser to former Prime Minister, John Howard, as well as CEO of the phone network Optus and has served on ten other boards ranging from PBL to Telstra. I had first heard Cousins’ resounding baritone on the ABC’s Radio National some months earlier defending the Great Barrier Reef and attacking Adani. His voice rang with confidence and truth, commanding respect. I remember making a mental note to find out who this man was. His voice was that of a businessman accustomed to being heard – not the expected soft dulcet tones of a Green politician.
Cousins is a man of paradoxes. Amongst his professional corporate careers, he’s had some impressive wins environmentally. He is passionate about campaigning, he tells me later. He managed to provoke Malcolm Turnbull, then Federal Environment Minister, calling him the Minister Against the Environment and later campaigned against Turnbull during the 2007 election. Along with Booker prize-winning novelist, Richard Flanagan, he turned the tide against the Gunn’s pulp mill in Tasmania, which included drawing on a star-studded list of celebrities to speak out against the pulp mill. He also presented 20,000 signatures from ANZ customers to persuade the bank not to fund the mill.
His approach to offer his help to Flanagan, who had written a stirring piece in The Monthly Magazine against the mill, was by describing himself in an email, according to an article by Greg Bearup in The Sydney Morning Herald in March 2012, as “the Devil arrived in a silken cloak.” He had after all worked for Howard known for his lacklustre achievements on climate change.
Although on the same plane as us from Australia, Cousins travelled separately. He, too, had decided to make the journey to India to intercept the Premier and to present the letter from a host of celebrities and influential business people. He is funding his own trip. I am yet to meet him. A tantalising welcome card at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi proclaims his imminent arrival.
Cousins’ genius, as becomes clear when we get down to the serious business of disrupting the Queensland Government’s message, is to draw on his former career as one of the most successful advertising men of the 1980s when he was chairman of the George Patterson advertising agency. In this business, brevity is all. Avoid any issue that the enemy (whoever they may be) wants to raise. Keep on message. Confidence is everything.
Both Cousins and Zethoven are clearly veteran travellers, travelling with small pull-along cases filled with mix and match navy jackets and pants and tops, thus managing to always look unruffled and professional. Cousins informs us later that he will be standing down as President of the ACF. But he is clearly committed to this journey and to defeating Adani.
We are a disparate band thrown together over the issue of the proposed Adani coal mine in Australia but, as the trip unfolds, each of us, as it turns out, contributes a unique perspective.
Our first destination, after reaching Gujarat is Hazira, a few kilometres from the Arabian Sea and about half an hour’s drive from Surat. It will be the first time we are to witness the legacy of Adani’s aggressive industrial expansion. Gujarat, unsurprisingly, given its location at the furthermost tip of the northwestern coast of India, was once home to India’s first port. As far back as 1000 to 750 bce, the state traded with Egypt, Bahrain and Sumer (in modern-day southern Iraq). Gujarat is home to the Indus Valley civilisation, one of the three earliest northern hemisphere civilisations along with Egypt and Mesopotamia).
Narendra Modi, India’s sixteenth Prime Minister of India, comes from Gujarat. In May 2014, he glided on to the world stage in that role with a demeanour more like a Messiah than a politician with a beatific smile and warm handshake. Modi has humble beginnings. His family originates from what the Government of India classifies as ‘Other Backward Class’, a class considered socially and educationally disadvantaged in India. At the tender age of eight, he helped his father run a tea stall and from that early age joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation, and reportedly the parent organisation of Modi’s ruling political party the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Gujarat is dear to Modi’s heart. In 2001, he was appointed Chief Minister of the state, a position he held until becoming Prime Minister. His political party, the BJP, has ruled the state uninterruptedly for more than two decades. Aligned with strong Hindu nationalistic beliefs, Modi leads an exclusionary social agenda and this has reportedly led to global condemnation for persecuting Muslims particularly through his alleged incitement of anti-Muslim feelings in the Gujarat riots of 2002 which left 1000 people dead. The BBC79 cited a senior police officer’s sworn statement to India’s Supreme Court that Modi had deliberately allowed anti-Muslim riots in the state. Modi has denied any wrongdoing when he was questioned in an inquiry into the riots.
Narendra Modi carved out a future lined with gold for the state projecting all of the right signs for investors. It was Modi who, as Chief Minister, set up Gujarat as ‘open for business’. He reportedly abolished labour laws making it harder for workers to form unions, and easier for employers to hire and fire them. He also reportedly reduced the amount of money spent by the government on healthcare.
One Indian newspaper, The Economic Times, in December 2017, criticised him for a lack of policy innovation during his time as Chief Minister commenting, “he mainly did well at inviting large companies to set up shop in the state.” One method was making the pathway to profitable business easier under the slogan ‘Vibrant Gujarat’. His new ministry swiftly got on with the job of making the state attractive to investors, diluting many environmental laws which included companies no longer requiring clearance from the National Board for Wildlife for projects close to protected areas. One article accused Modi of approving a ‘toothless’ board without mandatory non-government individual wildlife and ecology experts.80
Modi also relaxed or abolished a number of other environmental regulations, often at the expense of the environment. According to the Indian online newspaper The Wire in June 2017, “the Modi Government have seen the transformation of the environment from being a field of relative stability and inactivity, to functioning as an active instrument of capital accumulation.”81 The article noted: “The sharp polarisation between extremely positive initiatives (like India’s assertive global position on climate change, ambitious forays into renewables and bills institutionalising water for life) and negative anti-people actions (especially decisions regulating natural ecosystems like coasts, forests and wetlands, and the eroding of people’s rights), is based on the government rationale to endorse everything that augurs well for business, new technology and international acclaim, even if this is achieved at the expense of the protection of ecosystems, conservation, people’s livelihood and well being.”
In October 2017, Narendra Modi was voted the third most followed leader in the world (with over 34.6 million followers on Twitter as of September 2017), behind Donald Trump (38.8 million followers) and Pope Francis according to Twiplomacy, a Burson Marsteller research project that tracks the use of Twitter by governments and international organisations.
Enter Gautam Adani. India has 121 billionaires placing the country as the home of the third largest group of the ultra-rich behind the United States and China. Ada
ni group founder, Gautam Adani, is one of them. He was placed 154 on the Forbes Magazine Rich List and in 2017, the tenth richest in India. For the 2017 calendar year, according to the Bloomberg Millionaire Index, Gautam Adani was recorded as the biggest gainer in India with his wealth rising by 124.6%. As of 31 December 2017, his net worth soared to US$10.4 billion (AU$13.48 billion) from US$4.63 billion in January 2016.82
The Adani Group was established in 1988 and only began publicly trading in 1994. Gautam Adani has listed interests in mining, ports, power plants, real estate, renewable energy, food, and even defence. Until a few years ago, Adani was India’s single biggest aggregator of cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery.
Amongst the hype, however, there is another side to the glowing headlines about Gautam Adani. According to the 2018 Report for IEEFA by Tim Buckley, Adani Enterprise’s net debt as at March 2018 was $US2.4 billion. Its market capitalisation is currently just over US$2 billion. Writing in the Good Weekend back in November 2017, Tim Elliott commented that some analysts “question Adani’s ability to service its borrowings. Others have referred to his empire as ‘a house of cards’. Not that this has curbed his appetite for risk.”83
Gautam Adani’s remarkable ascension to power parallels Narendra Modi’s own rise. Their views and opinions seem to match. Earlier on, according to an article in the Indian newspaper The Economic Times, Gautam Adani is the man who built Rs 47,000 crore infrastructure empire.84 It also reported that in March 2013, Adani withdrew his support as the major sponsor from the Wharton India Economic Forum after it cancelled its invitation to Modi to deliver the keynote address. When Modi was declared BJP’s best prospect for prime minister in September 2013, according to The Economic Times in March 2014, his newfound status had an unmistakable effect on the Adani Group. The newspaper noted that shares in Adani companies quickly changed gears: “Adani Enterprise surged 124% … Adani Port SEZ has rallied 48%, and Adani Power has gained 18% during the same period.”