The government moved just three working days after receiving a submission by NuCoal asking it to consult with the company before any decision to follow through with a recommendation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption to revoke the Doyles Creek licence on the grounds it was issued corruptly.
NuCoal had argued that it had spent more than $40 million on exploring and proving up the resource and its shareholders were an innocent party to a transaction between former Resources and Energy minister Ian Macdonald and his union “mate” John Maitland.
But Premier Barry O’Farrell, who is under political pressure over alcohol-driven violence on Sydney streets, was clear in his decision to revoke the licence under newly introduced laws and is now insisting that the company return exploration data to the state and rehabilitate the site.
The ELs for Cascade Coal’s Mt Penny and Glendon Brook leases were also revoked because they were tainted by corruption involving former state parliamentarian Eddie Obeid.
“There is no intention to immediately re-release the affected areas, but any future process for issuing licenses will be consistent with the NSW government's implementation of the ICAC's recommendations on probity,” a government statement said.
“The legislation will indemnify the taxpayer from any possible claims relating to the issuing or cancellation of the licences.”
NuCoal purchased the shares in Doyles Creek Mining, whose valuable asset was EL7270 [Doyles Creek], for $94 million as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the company said.
“NuCoal and its innocent shareholders did not and could not have reasonably contemplated the risk of loss of title of EL7270, or that the direct allocation of EL7270 by [former] Minister [Ian] Macdonald to DCM was potentially tainted by corruption.”
The Independent Commission Against Corruption is not a judicial body, but investigative only, and is subject to the statutory limitations conferred on such a body, NuCoal said in its submission.
“The Commissioner’s key findings in his December 2013 report are infected with error, both legal and factual, and ignore commercial reality,” it said.
“NuCoal lodged a reply submission to the ICAC, which dealt with these matters, dated 20 June 2013, but neither it nor any argument raised in that submission has been referred to in any ICAC report. NuCoal's reply submission was a critical document and the ICAC’s failure to expressly consider it raises a strong inference that it was overlooked or ignored.”
