Doctors outraged over hospital putting its name to advertising for New Acland mine, saying it sends the wrong message amid coal health concerns

A major Queensland hospital, and the mining magnate who heads its board, have defended publicly backing a new coalmine that a court ruled should not go ahead after the company possibly breached air pollution limits.

The Mater hospital has put its name to an advertising campaign by New Hope Group calling for the state government to approve its New Acland stage 3 mine, despite its landmark rejection by Queensland’s land court.

Doctors, including one who works at the Brisbane hospital’s refugee clinic, have condemned the move, calling for the Mater to abandon support for a project that raised public health concerns.

David King, a state representative of Doctors for the Environment Australia who chose to speak out despite his contract with the hospital.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest One of the newspaper advertisements bearing the Mater hospital’s name. Photograph: Supplied

The chairman of the Mater Group board is Brian Flannery, a prominent mining entrepreneur and BRW rich lister who is also the managing director of White Energy, which aims to become “a major player in the production of cleaner and more efficient coal”.

The hospital board’s deputy chair is Flannery’s fellow White Energy director Terence Crawford.

A third White Energy director, Vince O’Rourke, who is also a director of the thermal coal producer Yancoal Australia, is also on the Mater board. The trio’s industry links are detailed on the hospital’s website. It is unclear whether those individuals were involved in the decision to support New Hope.

The Mater, believed to be the only major Queensland hospital that still burns coal on site to carry out sterilisation and other activities, is a longtime customer of New Hope.

The advertisements are part of a campaign by New Hope that one advertising industry figure estimated has cost more than $200,000, and which had previously prompted a complaint to the consumer watchdog.

“I’m sure [New Hope] thought it was a coup to get a hospital logo on their ad,” King said. “It looks like they were desperate to get some health/green-washing to give them some approval to get the social licence for such a thing.”

But King said the hospital was “sending the wrong message”, particularly when there had been “health concerns with that particular mine”.

He said a senior colleague at the Royal Australian College of Physicians was “aghast” at the Mater’s involvement, saying it was “just not something health organisations should do”.

David Shearman, the secretary for Doctors for the Environment, said it was “outrageous” that New Hope were “trying to cleanse themselves by involving a hospital” in their advertising campaign, Shearman said.

Activists ask consumer watchdog to investigate Acland mine ad campaign Read more

Flannery, in a statement responding to questions the Guardian put to the hospital, said support for New Acland was “predicated on the fact that we have a reliance on ongoing coal supply from New Hope to run a range of essential services”.



“Alternative energy sources to run these essential services, as well as being much more expensive within the context of a limited health care budget, will take a considerable period of time to put in place at a significant cost and we therefore have a reliance on coal supply for some time to come.”

Flannery said the hospital confirmed New Hope was the only company “supplying coal for small domestic consumers in south-east Queensland”.

He said the hospital’s “support for the advertisement was contingent on New Hope meeting environmental and other regulations and standards”.



“Clearly New Hope must operate within their regulated licence and we understand there are a number of government departments who are mandated to monitor and administer the various licences,” he said. “It is up to New Hope to demonstrate to the minister for mines and energy and the government that they can co-exist with their neighbours and other stakeholders and operate within their licence conditions.”

Land court member Paul Smith in May ruled that the government should refuse mining and environmental licences for stage three, crucially because of groundwater impacts. New Hope has appealed in the supreme court, while the government has delayed its decisions until 2018.

Court recommends $900m New Acland mine be rejected Read more

Smith in his ruling said he had “no doubt that [residents] have been greatly inconvenienced and impacted by dust produced by the mine”.

He said “given their evidence, it is quite possible [environmental licence] limits with respect to dust and particulate matter have been exceeded”.

Smith found that landholders who complained of noise had “actually been treated very poorly by both [New Hope]” and the environment department, with monitoring of its environmental licence compliance “laughable”.

King said Doctors for the Environment called on the hospital to abandon its role in the campaign and explain to staff how the decision was made.

“I think employees would like to have more transparency brought out in the open so at least we can be aware of that,” he said. “We’d like them to not just pull the logo but to acknowledge it was the wrong thing to do for the hospital, so they can affirm their commitment to sustainability.”

The Guardian sought comment from O’Rourke and Crawford through the hospital’s spokesperson.