Exclusive : Snippets of data among thousands of pages of redacted documents suggest state officials were still working out benefits of policy after it was announced

Details of the Queensland government’s “transparent policy framework” – which delivered a royalty deal for Adani’s Carmichael mine in Queensland – are being kept secret, with Right to Information requests resulting in thousands of pages of redacted or withheld documents.



The correspondence that was released appears to show public servants scrambling after the policy announcement to find an economic justification for it, which a senior public servant puts a stop to, saying “It just gets [people] absolutely tangled up” and “Don’t wanna go there”.



Adani reaches mine royalty agreement with Queensland government Read more

The document dates, and the reasons for redactions, appear to confirm the so-called “transparent policy framework”, which the Palaszczuk government said was not a special deal for Adani, was made specifically for Adani.



The Right to Information request to Queensland Treasury, submitted by Adam Walters from consultancy Energy Resource Insights, also asked for the details of the specific agreement reached with Adani, but again, almost all the information was either refused or redacted.

Anastacia Palaszczuk promised before the election to not do any “secret deals”, and argued the Adani project must “stand alone on its feet ... on the economics of the project itself”.



Australia Institute researcher Tom Swann said the royalty deal was one of two subsidies the Palaszczuk government was planning to provide to the Adani project, breaking a key election promise twice. Since the state government is responsible for any federal subsidy through the Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund (Naif), its support for the potential $1bn loan through it also amounts to a subsidy, he said.



While the details of the royalty deal are being kept secret, it is understood it involves Adani deferring its royalty payments. Unless that deferment is being paid back at a later date with commercial interest rates, the deferment would amount to a subsidy.

The Australia Institute has estimated the royalty deal could be the equivalent of a $725m subsidised loan, but would be at least $370m.



Even if the loan is being made at commercial rates, depending on other terms, it is likely to be a subsidy since the Queensland taxpayer is taking on the risk of the project failing, potentially leaving the loan unpaid.



The “policy framework”, which was touted as opening the Galilee and Surat Basins to mining, was announced by the Palaszczuk government on 27 May after internal feuding over whether to provide a “royalty holiday” to Adani.



Four days after the policy was announced, it revealed Adani was the first company to reach an agreement under the policy.



However, a letter from Adani to Queensland Treasury accepting the terms of a royalty deal refers to a letter from Treasury dated 27 May, suggesting the policy may have been designed for Adani.



Swann said: “There was no talk about a general policy framework for a royalty loan system before the controversy about the Adani royalty holiday.”

“There was backlash about giving Adani free coal so they worked out another way to support Adani through royalties. It’s ended up being a subsidised loan and in the process they’ve created a framework that is open to any new coalmine in the state in a greenfield area.”



In addition, while one of the Right to Information requests was for the “policy framework”, not the deal with Adani, many of the documents were withheld or redacted on the grounds their release would reveal the business activity of Adani.



In one section of correspondence that was not entirely redacted, a public servant in the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines asks a colleague in Queensland Treasury for information to help calculate the benefits of the policy. The request was made after the policy was announced.



“Anything that can be shared on the details and potential benefits of the agreed royalty reforms would be appreciated,” he said.



The Treasury public servant responded that he would rather not because “it just gets [people absolutely tangled up]”.



His colleague replied: “Even some resources economists? I think we can handle it”.



Treasury responded that he was sure they could handle it, but that he was concerned about “what happens next”. “Sorry mate,” he said. “Very burnt ... Don’t wanna go there.”

Swann said: “It very much gives the impression that the public service is scrambling after the deal has been made to try and work out how they can describe the claimed benefits of it.”

“And the public servants are expressing their concerns about being dragged into what is inevitably going to be a political controversy.”



A state government spokesman said the details of the policy framework had been published, pointing to a press release published on 27 May. That press release discusses “a transparent policy framework” but it does not describe any details of how it would support mining companies, and does not shed light on the deal reached with Adani, under the new policy.



The spokesman denied that a deferral of royalties that are paid at a later time on sub-commercial grounds would be a form of subsidy.

He also said the Queensland government would not be conducting its own due diligence process on any potential loan from NAIF. “NAIF is a federal government body, established under federal government legislation, operating under federal government mandate, and responsible to federal government ministers,” he said.