A corruption risk is created if a mining company can disproportionately influence policy makers and shape policy decisions for commercial gain.
Lack of transparency, accountability and poor representation can lead to native title agreements that may not serve an Indigenous community’s best interests.
The environmental impact statement is crucial for government decision-making about mining. But how accurate are these statements?
What’s the track record of a company applying for a mining licence? Poor due diligence can allow those with a history of corruption the right to mine in Australia.
Australia’s mining sector is not immune to corruption. By working collaboratively to strengthen transparency and accountability, we can ensure it performs to the highest standards of integrity.
This timeline shows the progress of the Accountable Mining Program in Australia, the collaboration with our diverse range of stakeholders, and events that have showcased our work.
The regulation of resource projects through State Agreements lacks transparency. This means a company’s influence over political decisions can lead to terms that are favourable to the company but do not consider the best interests of the community and industry more broadly.
These maps help stakeholders identify points within the process of approving mining rights where transparency and public accountability need to be strengthened. As mining licence processes differ across Australian jurisdictions, these maps focus on the mining-rich states of Queensland and Western Australia.
What is the process for awarding mining rights in Cambodia? What steps must the company and the government follow? This map provides transparency.
This process map identifies points within the environmental impact assessment process where transparency and public accountability need to be strengthened.