Groote developments: NACC referral by NIAA

                                                Here in [Australia]

Where I have seen corruption boil and bubble

Till it o'errun the stew

Measure for Measure, Act five, Scene one

 

The ABC is reporting (link here) that the ALC CEO has been referred to the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) by the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).

 

The article quotes a spokesperson from the NACC as stating:

The Commission can confirm that it has received a referral from the NIAA. The Commission is assessing the referral, as it does with all referrals, and will not make further comment at this stage.

 

Notwithstanding the headline and various statements throughout the article, the focus and basis for the referral is not clear from the statements of the NACC and NIAA spokespersons quoted in the article.

 

In my view, the ABC article over simplifies the situation in a number of ways. It fails to critically examine the nature of the current NIAA review, and implicitly suggests that it is aimed at the issues related to the CEO’s relationship with Winchelsea. In fact, its terms of reference are much more limited, linked to assessing the state of progress in implementing the recommendations of the ANAO Audit of May 2023, which was itself focussed on the ALC, and not the operations of the various corporations which are directly linked to funding Winchelsea. It appears to accept the NIAA claim that the review is ‘independent’, whereas its remit is limited and the NIAA has admitted that it was provided with a draft on 6 June, almost five weeks ago. An independent review would not provide a draft.

 

Most importantly, the NIAA has failed to make clear in its evidence to the Estimates Committee, nor in its description of the terms of reference of the review, that the Commonwealth itself has previously provided significant funding towards logistical support for the proposed Winchelsea mine, and that former Ministers apparently waved through advice of the CEO’s conflicts of interest and approved the mining agreement that necessarily involved the then ALC Chair and the current CEO negotiating with themselves over the terms of the mining agreement. Given this background, not only is the notion of an independent review oversighted by NIAA a contradiction in terms, but it opens the possibility that the NACC investigation, if it proceeds, may well end up focussing as well on the actions of former Ministers and NIAA staff.

 

A second assertion in the ABC report that appears entirely unwarranted is that the ALC stands to receive millions of dollars in mining royalties from Winchelsea. Statements to this effect may well be circulating on Groote but the limited size of the Winchelsea deposit and the significant costs involved in standing up a new mine in a remote locations make the economic feasibility fo the deposit unlikely. I discussed this matter in detail in an earlier post (link here).

 

The bottom line then is that the issues in play are extraordinarily complex, and indeed are much more significant than whether or not any ALC officeholders or employees are benefitting inappropriately. Of course, if they are, they should be held to account, but the ABC would do well to invest some more investigative resources in coming to understand an issue which has been running now for over 14 months with almost zero attention from the ABC.

 

To be clear, it is significant that the NACC is now assessing whether to investigate issues related to the ALC and Winchelsea Mining, and the ABC has broken new ground in reporting this revelation.

 

The questions that now need to be asked of the Minister for Indigenous Australians include:

 

What in particular led her to instruct her agency to make such a referral, and when did this occur?

 

Why has it taken so long to finalise the so-called independent review given that she was reported in the media in February saying that she had asked the Integrity Unit in NIAA to undertake an investigation?

 

If there is an adequate basis for referring issues to the NACC, what action has been taken by the Minister to ensure that individuals involved are not in a position to cover their tracks in the meantime? For example, if the referral relates in any way to the ALC CEO or former Chair, why did she not request them to stand aside pending the resolution of the matters subject to the referral?

 

Given that there is an election due next month in the NT, can the Minister give an assurance that she has not been deliberately seeking to keep the lid on these issues until the election is over?

 

Can she provide an assurance that there have been no requests from the ALP Government in the NT to delay action on assessing these issues until after the election?

 

To sum up, in my view, the policy issues involved which have the potential to constrain and limit the future economic prosperity of the whole population on Groote are such as to demand a public statement by the Minister explaining what she knew, when she knew it, what action she took and why it has taken so long to get nowhere in particular. The ALC is, after all, a Commonwealth statutory corporation which exists within the portfolio of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The fact that we haven’t seen such a statement to date is to my mind a reflection of the extraordinary regression in our standards of governance generally, and reflects poorly both on the Government and the Parliament in general. At some point, the cauldron of shady dodginess on Groote is going to boil over. The only unanswered question is who will be scalded and how much mess will be left behind.