Bemusement and bewilderment: why the secrecy with the ALC?

 

Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!

Macbeth, Act two, Scene three

 

In late September 2025, I lodged an FOI request with the NIAA and indirectly the Minister for information related to some elements of the circumstances under which the former CEO of the ALC, Mr Mark Hewitt was in October 2024 terminated by the Anindilyakwa Land Council (ALC) and his contract paid out. As I noted in a previous post (link here) the ALC, advised and assisted by a senior NIAA officer, and without its own legal officer in the room, decided to terminate Mr Hewitt, agreed to pay him a termination payment that was estimated to total around $500,000, and in its formal decision gave no reasons for the termination. Neither the ALC nor the Minister for Indigenous Australians announced the termination and virtually all references to Mr Hewitt were deleted from the ALC web page.

Set out below are extracts from a letter recently received from the NIAA in relation to an ongoing FOI request lodged in late September:

Dear Mr Dillon, Freedom of information request - FOI/2526/015

1. I refer to your request dated 29 September 2025 to the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access to the following documents: “

1. Any documents held by NIAA or the Minister referencing any request by the Minister or her Office relating to the tenure of the employment of Mr Hewitt by the ALC.

2. Any documents including correspondence, emails, texts or file notes of phone conversations between the ALC and the Minister, her Office and/or the NIAA that (a) advise the Council’s decision to terminate the former CEO; or (b) provide or reference reasons for the decision to terminate Mr Hewitt’s employment; or (c) deal with the administrative and financial arrangements for the departure of Mr Hewitt and /or his spouse, or (d) relate to the next steps in relation to filling the CEO position or Ms Liu’s employment within the ALC, AAAC, or Winchelsea Mining Corporation.

3. Any briefing or advice to the Minister or her Office from NIAA (or other agencies) relating to the processes surrounding Mr Hewitt’s termination or to the arrangements for handling his exit from the ALC.

4. Any briefing or advice from NIAA to the Minister or her Office related to either the approval of ALC Budget cover or the approval of funding for termination payments relating to Mr Hewitt and/ or his spouse.

5. Any documents signed by the Minister or her delegate related to the financial and other arrangements associated with the termination of employment of Mr Hewitt and his spouse from employment with the ALC, associated Aboriginal corporations and/or Winchelsea Mining Corporation.” …

3.  I am writing to advise you of my decision that you are liable to pay a charge in respect of the processing of your request. My preliminary assessment of the charge you are liable to pay is $181.40. A 10% deposit of $18.14 is payable….

5. In accordance with section 29 the FOI Act and the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 2019 (Charges Regulations), a charge can be imposed in respect of a request for access to documents under the FOI Act. The charge is for the search and retrieval of documents, decision making and provision of access to documents. Payment of the charge does not guarantee access to the requested documents.

6. I have assessed the work the NIAA would need to do to process your request and have calculated the breakdown of charges set out at Annexure A [not included in these extracts]…

8. I note that in your request for documents, you requested that any charges for processing this request be waived on the grounds of public interest. You specifically referred to “the importance of probity, transparency and accountability in decision-making relating to the appropriate use of financial allocations governed by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013”.

9. Notwithstanding this waiver request, I have decided to impose charges for the processing of this FOI request.

10. In making the decision to impose charges, I accept your contention regarding the importance of probity and transparency. However, I consider that it remains appropriate to impose a charge for the processing of the request.

11. The imposition of a charge in these circumstances reflects the work associated with processing the request, as well as the administrative burden placed on third parties to review documents which they are consulted on….

17. You have 30 days to respond to this notice in writing.

18. You may choose to: • pay the deposit amount or the full charge amount, and notify the FOI Coordinator in writing, • contend the charge has been wrongly assessed, or should be reduced or not imposed and explain your reasons, or • withdraw your request….

30. In accordance with section 31 of the FOI Act, the period for processing your request stops from the date you receive this notice until:

• the day you pay the charge (the deposit amount or the full charge),

• if the amount of the charge is changed following review under the FOI Act, the day you pay the revised charge (the deposit amount or the full charge), or

• if a decision is made not to impose a charge following review under the FOI Act, the day you are notified of the decision….

Kind regards, Sean Worth

Group Manager Integrity Group 16 December 2025

Yesterday, I paid the fees, admittedly feeling a degree of incredulity. I sent an email confirming the payment to the NIAA FOI team, and included the following text in the email:

Good afternoon FOI team

I have paid this fee in full.

Let me for the record register my bemusement and bewilderment at the way in which my request for fee waiver on the grounds of the public interest in transparency and accountability over matters involving substantial sums of taxpayer funds was cursorily dismissed by the decisionmaker. 

I acknowledge of course that the imposition of fees is provided for in the Act and regulations, but I also note that it can be used to deter citizens from pursuing access to information, and that this would not be in the public interest. Unfortunately, such deterrence appears to be de rigeur within the Commonwealth especially in circumstances where ministers or senior officials appear to be potentially subject to embarrassment. 

In this context, I can't help but remind you that section 3 of the FOI Act 1982, which sets out the objects of the legislation provides (emphasis added) in subsection (2):

The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia's representative democracy by contributing towards the following:  (a)  increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better - informed decision - making; (b)  increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities.

and in subsection (4): 

The Parliament also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

I would hope that you would give serious consideration to the damage that is being done to the reputation of the public service and the NIAA in pursuing this course of action as a general policy. 

You have my permission to pass these comments on to the decision maker, the NIAA CEO and indeed the minister

Sincerely michael dillon

Conclusion

In the scheme of things, recounting this skirmish in the transparency war over the as yet unresolved events on Groote is of little consequence. I have decided to publish it because it is indicative (yet again) of the lengths to which the Commonwealth will go to avoid coming clean on what has transpired on Groote Eylandt over the past decade.

I responded with bemusement and bewilderment, because the NIAA has regulatory responsibilities for the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Aboriginals Benefit Account and the Land Councils established under the legislation. On Groote Eylandt where the Anindilyakwa Land Council operates, there are increasing indications that the problems first identified by the ANAO in May 2023 will ultimately lead to significant misallocations, and potentially losses, of many millions of dollars of royalty equivalent payments intended to benefit traditional owners and other community members affected by mining (link here), and there are still questions unanswered in relation to very significant sums of royalties paid to the Anindilyakwa Mining Trust and later transferred to a local corporation, but apparently not received by that corporation (link here). Or even more pointedly, when a senior NIAA officer attends the ALC Board meeting which decided to authorise a termination of the former CEO with associated payments estimated at $500,000 for reasons neither he nor the ALC Board is prepared to reveal publicly, the NIAA can’t see a problem. Nothing to see here!

Yet when an engaged citizen, taxpayer and policy analyst seeks to exercise legislated rights under the FOI Act, the NIAA sees fit to exercise its discretion to charge me $181.40. Am I expected to sleep soundly tonight secure in the knowledge that the FOI regulations are being administered by NIAA without fear or favour?

The endemic lack of transparency, and the extraordinary efforts the Commonwealth makes to keep the lid on the bubbling cauldron serves to add to the confusion that seems to pervade every aspect of the issues involving the ALC on Groote Eylandt.

One is left wondering, just what is it that the Commonwealth has to hide given the continuing and sorry cascade of unanswered questions, dubious decisions, deliberate distraction and incessant obfuscation?

 

18 December 2025