An independent review has raised serious questions about the system for registering people and companies for sensitive environmental activities in Queensland.

Key points: Applicants were approved despite leaving questions unanswered, missing documents

Applicants were approved despite leaving questions unanswered, missing documents Environmental lawyer describes the process as "sloppy"

Environmental lawyer describes the process as "sloppy" The Environment Department says it helps applicants fix applications

The ABC can reveal that not a single applicant has been denied "suitable operator" status since the system was brought in three years ago, despite instances of missing paperwork, inadequate information, and applications containing "disqualifying events".

The Queensland Environment Department commissioned independent firm Ernst and Young to evaluate its suitable operator procedures.

The ABC has obtained a copy of the "outcomes report" from that review, which noted "incomplete applications [including] unanswered questions, no date, missing date of births, missing documents".

The report also found "that in the sample of applications provided to them with disqualifying events, there were no instances of applications being refused".

"The Ernst and Young review demonstrates it's a very sloppy process," said Ariane Wilkinson, a lawyer with Environmental Justice Australia.

"The suitable operator registration process is the first step; it's the background check or the corporate character check."

Got a confidential news tip? Email ABC Investigations at investigations@abc.net.au For more sensitive information: Text message using the Signal phone app +61 436 369 072 No system is 100 per cent secure, but the Signal app uses end-to-end encryption and can protect your identity. Please read the terms and conditions.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has confirmed to the ABC that it "received more than 1,000 applications for suitable operator registration since this process commenced in 2013. No applications have been refused to date as all applications were assessed as fulfilling the legislative requirements to be approved".

But the Environment Department also confirmed to the ABC that it does help applicants fix inadequate applications.

"In instances where incomplete or insufficient application documentation was received, the department has worked with the applicant to obtain the necessary additional information to fulfil the legislative requirements to be approved as a suitable operator."

Concerns over Adani port expansion prompted review

The ABC understands that the Ernst & Young review was ordered in response to concerns about the approval given to Adani companies to expand the Abbot Point coal port in north Queensland.

The Indian giant wants to develop the $21 billion Carmichael coal mine and rail project in the Galilee Basin.

The coal would then be shipped from Abbot Point, which lies next to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The Queensland Resources Council (QRC), which represents a number of mining companies with suitable operator registration, says the registration is just one part of the overall regulation of the industry.

"Unlike other industries, a resources industry has to go through an environmental impact statement process for almost every project," said QRC chief executive Michael Roche.

"[But] we support improving the system. If it results in proposals for legislative amendment, we are happy to look at those amendments and participate in that process."

Background check 'ignores foreign offences'

While Ms Wilkinson said she welcomed the Department's decision to conduct an independent review into the suitable operator system, it was disappointing that the review "failed to address the single biggest flaw in the current background check test — that it ignores foreign environment offences".

Conservation groups have repeatedly raised concerns about Adani's environmental record in India.

Last year the ABC revealed that Adani Mining's chief executive and Australian head, Jeyakumar Janakaraj, failed to disclose that he was a senior executive at a Zambian copper mine when it discharged dangerous contaminants into a major river in 2010.

The mining company later pleaded guilty to four charges, including polluting the environment and wilfully failing to report it.

After an investigation, the Federal Environment Department said Adani likely made a "mistake" when it failed to reveal that Mr Janakaraj was the company's director of operations at the time of the discharge.

The Queensland Environment Department confirmed that the "legislated criterion for suitable operator registration status … does not extend to [an applicant's] environmental record in overseas jurisdictions".

"It is looking at Australian operators, people based here, the Australian entities — that's all it can look at," said Mr Roche.

"So, as far as it goes, it's appropriate, and we don't see any need to extend that."

Loading...