Governance Update: ALC and related corporations

 

… we have done but greenly

In hugger-mugger to inter him.

Hamlet Act four, Scene five.

 

In a recent post updating developments on Groote (link here), I noted that Groote Holdings Aboriginal Corporation GHAC) had inexplicably withdrawn its Little Paradise EIS proposal before the NT EPA (link here). I also commented on the termination of the former CEO, Mr Mark Hewitt, in October 2024 and canvassed the possibility that his termination payment which appeared to have been approved by Minister McCarthy included amounts linked to his executive roles with GHAC and Winchelsea Mining Pty Ltd (which is 70 percent owned by the Anindilyakwa Advancement Aboriginal Corporation (AAAC).

Subsequent governance developments included the resignation of Mr Hewitt from his role on GHAC on 1 November 2024, and from his role as CEO and Director of Winchelsea Mining (date unknown). In April 2025, following a selection process managed by Indigenous owned recruitment agency Pipeline Talent based in Canberra, the ALC announced the appointment of a new CEO, Matthew Bonson (link here). A Gurindji, Jawoyn and Torres Strait Islander man, Mr Bonson is a former ALP member of the NT Legislative Assembly and Minister (link here). According to the National Indigenous Times (link here), he took up the CEO role on 29 April 2025.

In February 2025, the ALC approved an updated set of Ministerially approved Board Rules which lay out the processes which apply to the operation of the ALC Board and its meetings (link here). A new requirement which arose from the recommendations of the Bellchambers Barret review was that the Board appoint an Independent Board Adviser (section 16). The Board appointed Yamagigu Consulting, an Indigenous owned advisory corporation linked to Deloittes to act as the Board Adviser and to develop a new governance framework in consultation with the NIAA (link here).

Eight months on from the termination of Mr Hewitt as CEO of the ALC, there is still a cloak of secrecy around the detailed operations of the ALC and NIAA’s somewhat ambiguous and entwined relationship with the implementation of the post ANAO audit governance reform agenda. As yet, there is no publicly available information on the outcome of the Yamagigu work on a new governance framework; perhaps this will be rolled out once the NACC hands down its report into the investigation of the NIAA referral of Mr Hewitt. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear that the operations of the ALC and the associated corporations entrusted with implementing and progressing the ALC’s high level strategic agenda for Groote (including the proposed Winchelsea mine) have begun to stall and falter.

Groote Holdings Aboriginal Corporation (GHAC) is responsible for the Little Paradise development and the Aquaculture projects which have been significant recipients of section 64(3) funding from the ALC. According to GHAC’s submissions to the NT EPA, the Little Paradise project is designed to provide considerable logistical and base camp support for the proposed manganese mine being developed on the adjacent Winchelsea Island by Winchelsea Mining whereas all recent descriptions refer to community training facilities and the like.

For reasons that are unclear, GHAC was unable to lodge its 2024 financial statements and hold its AGM in a timely manner. On 12 March 2025, ORIC granted an extension to the required date of 30 November for the AGM (bizarrely and presumably in error the new date was 31 January, predating the letter). The GHAC Directors Report and the GHAC financial statements for the year to June 2024 were signed off on 16 December 2024 but not uploaded to the ORIC website until March 2025. The financial statements, in a section titled “Events after reporting date’ confirm that the former Managing Director of GHAC Mark Hewitt resigned on 1 November 2024 and the newly appointed Acting Chief Operating Officer, Mr Lino Bruno undertook a review of ongoing projects which led to the role of Chief Operating Officer being made redundant. Mr Bruno is listed on the Winchelsea Mining web site as the manager of Marine Services for Winchelsea Mining. According to GHAC ‘s reports to the NT EPA, the Operations Manager was Xiaoli Liu and thus following the decision to make the position redundant she was presumably entitled to a payout. Ms Liu is Mr Hewitt’s spouse. The timing and focus of these developments suggest that a redundancy payment for Ms Liu may have been part of the termination arrangements for the ALC CEO discussed at the 16 October Board meeting and according ot th Senate Estimates brief released under FOI (link here) apparently approved by the Minister in early 2025.

Anindilyakwa Advancement Aboriginal Corporation (AAC) is the majority owner (70 percent) of Winchelsea Mining. According to the ORIC website, AAAC missed the statutory deadline for both the 2023 and 2024 AGMs. A November 2024 letter from ORIC refused to allow a request for an extension of he 2023 AGM, and a March 2025 letter agreed to an extension of the 2024 AGM (strangely with the same date error as in the GHAC letter discussed above). ORIC have not published the correspondence requesting the extension, so the reasons provided to ORIC by AAAC remain unknown. Nor is it known whether AAAC have in fact held the relevant AGM’s.

Unlike GHAC, AAAC is yet to lodge its 2024 financial statements and thus remains in breach of the requirements of the CATSI Act. It is unclear what action, if any, has been taken by ORIC to address this non-compliance. The AAAC’s 2023 financial statements show that in the 2022 and 2023 financial years, the ALC provided $12.7m to AAAC in section 64(3) payments for the project design, feasibility and environmental studies required in relation to the proposed mine. The Winchelsea Mining web site (link here) includes a series of undated photographs of the completed GHAC workers basecamp at Little Paradise thus providing further confirmation of the centrality of Little Paradise and GHAC to the proposed mine. As I mentioned in a recent post, in July 2024 the NT EPA requested additional information on an extensive list of issues form Winchelsea Mining and has asked for an updated EIS to be submitted within two years.

ALC CEO: status

On 18 July an anonymous comment was added to a recent post on this blog stating: “looks like ALC have lost another CEO. resigning after 3 months is surely a sign of issues”. I endeavoured to confirm this development and have been advised by a reliable source that the newly appointed CEO, Matt Bonson, has resigned after a disagreement with the Board. I have however been unable to formally confirm Mr Bonson’s departure. There is nothing on the ALC web site, nor has the Minister made any announcement. I have messaged the ALC but have not received a response. I spoke to an adviser in the Minister’s Office on 25 July seeking a comment from the Minister but have so far not received one.

Given the silence, it seems highly likely that Mr Bonson has in fact resigned. If correct, this suggests that the instability inside the ALC continues and is likely worsening. The overwhelming silence and lack of transparency from both the ALC and the NIAA in itself is a sign of a deep and ongoing management crisis. It is worth noting that the existence of the Board Adviser appears to have been of little use in resolving whatever disagreements were in play in the lead up to the resignation.  

There seem to me to be two possible generic reasons for the short tenure of the new CEO. First, perhaps the recruitment process was flawed or there was some level of interference in the process. There is no evidence on the public record that this in fact occurred. Alternatively (or perhaps additionally) the expectations of Council members (and their families) for access to resources or financial benefits may have exceeded the preparedness of the new CEO to approve or facilitate. Available information on the public record suggests the previous management regime at the ALC was prepared to facilitate an extraordinarily generous allocation of resources from various sources to ensure the maintenance of broad support for the ALC’s wider agenda. Such an approach would almost certainly have raised expectations amongst Board members regarding what is normal and their due. It is also possible that there were multiple informal arrangements in place that a new incumbent would not have been aware of or would not have been prepared to continue.

While there is no definitive proof in the public domain, the pervasive conflicts of interest which existed and the persistent criticism emerging regarding the way the ALC operated under the former CEO adds weight to the possibility that expectations of generous access to financial and other resources reached high levels within the Council’s membership. The fact that notwithstanding their extremely light regulatory oversight, the NIAA were ultimately prepared to refer the former CEO to the NACC also suggests financial expectations may have been and may continue to be excessive. The fact that the Council publicly supported the former CEO right up until the NIAA attended the Board meeting of 16 October 2024 and likely directly intervened to force the CEO’s resignation (perhaps based on intelligence shared by the NACC or perhaps by the increasing accretion of worrisome media stories alleging various forms of misfeasance against the former CEO) suggests that the Council and its members were deeply conflicted. It is salient that the NIAA appear to have directed their complaint to the NACC only against the former CEO and not against the Council as a whole notwithstanding that the Council signed off on virtually all arrangements that facilitated any potential wrongdoing. In other words, it appears that the NIAA were operating on the assumption that the Council was co-opted by the former CEO.

In these circumstances the fact that the new CEO has decided to resign is of particular concern. It suggests that the ALC is at risk of reverting to modes of operation that predated the CEO’s termination. I argued in a previous post (link here) that the facts as we know them are consistent with the NIAA in effect coercing the ALC into terminating the former CEO. If this was in fact the case, then the risk of reversion to former expectations and modes of operation are even more likely to eventuate.

Of course, my analysis is constrained by the fact that there is a complete lack of transparency on the part of both the NIAA and the ALC. I may not have adequate information, and this in turn may mean that my conclusions are wrong. In my defence, all I can say is that I am doing the best I can in the circumstances and the analysis I have put forward is consistent with the facts as we know them. Moreover, why is it that the Minister, the NIAA and the ALC are so determined to provide zero information about the activities and operations of a Commonwealth agency established by statute to protect the interests of traditional owners on Groote Eylandt? It seems to me that it is just as likely that I am underestimating the risks and damage to the public interest as overestimating the risks in relation to the ALC’s effectiveness and probity.

It is my considered view that the most important issue here is not whether the former CEO engaged in corrupt conduct, or whether he breached his legislative responsibility. The most important issue by far relates to whether the ALC can effectively undertake its statutory remit. I have absolutely no confidence that the ALC as presently constituted, and operating under a management culture developed over a decade by a person the NIAA has referred to the NACC, has this capability. The former CEO of the ALC clearly bears some responsibility, but the primary responsibility must fall on the Minister and her predecessors who have allowed the ALC to operate in ways which are inconsistent with the intent of the legislation governing statutory corporations in this space, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA) and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA). Responsibility also falls on the Parliament and its committees, in particular the relevant Senate Estimates Committee which has since the publication of the ANAO report on Groote in May 2023 failed miserably to interrogate the issues in play despite considerable evidence being presented to them.

The result has been that the ALC has overseen an ongoing process which privileges the high risk ownership and development of a small mine built on the redirection of substantial section 64(3) royalty equivalents to a narrow constituency of beneficiaries (including select traditional owners, consultants and potential employees who may or may not be Indigenous, and the non-Indigenous co-owners of the Winchelsea mining company) over investments in social, educational, cultural and environmental capabilities across the wider Anindilyakwa community. The reality is that this is not just about whether an economic resource should be developed, it is about whether scarce and finite royalty equivalent payments explicitly designed to compensate local Aboriginal people for the impacts of extensive manganese mining on Groote should be allocated away from Anindilyakwa people to benefit the coalition of largely non-Anindilyakwa interests mentioned above.

In Shakespeare’s time, the word ‘hugger-mugger’ meant ‘secretly, stealthily or furtively’. In more modern usage, it has come to mean disorderly or sloppy. Synonyms include ‘chaotic, cluttered, jumbled, and confused’. The ongoing strategy of the Minister, NIAA and the ALC to avoid informed public discussion about the developments on Groote over the past decade are unashamedly and synergistically hugger-mugger in both senses of the term. The losers will inevitably be the wider Anindilyakwa community on Groote, including future generations, and the public interest more generally.

 27 July 2025

A spokesperson for Minister Malarndirri McCarthy has provided the following comment:

The Minister has been informed by the Anindilyakwa Land Council that Mr Bonson has resigned from his position.

28 July 2025

FOI updates on the ALC and Groote Eylandt

In natures infinite book of secrecy

A little I can read.

Antony and Cleopatra, Act one, Scene two.

 

FOI revelations. The NIAA FOI log contains two recently released documents that expand the information available in the public domain albeit only at the margin. I have also had access to documents released in response to a third FOI but not yet made available on the Disclosure Log. In this post, bolded text has been added by me to emphasise matters of particular salience to the arguments made here. The highlights below were highlighted in the documents provided by NIAA.

Request One FOI/2425/039 dated 30 January 2025 (link here).    This request sought the NIAA’s proposed response to a series of questions on notice from Senator Pocock in late 2024 (which had presumably been delayed in the Minister’s Office and not seen the light of day when the request was made). Once made available, it revealed that the NIAA’s Group Manager Integrity had attended the ALC Board meeting on 16 October 2024 ‘to support Board discussion regarding Mr Hewitt’s employment arrangements.’  The ALC terminated the CEO’s employment at that meeting. NIAA failed to respond substantively to the Senator’s request for information on what legal or policy advice had been provided to the ALC Board by the NIAA attendee.

Request Two FOI/2425/065 dated 14 April 2025 (link here).  This request relating to the February 2025 Senate Estimates hearings (link here) sought All briefs prepared by the agency for the Minister, her staff, senior staff of NIAA, and other Ministers or portfolio agencies which relate to the governance and operations of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, associated corporations in receipt of royalty equivalent payments, the proposed Winchelsea mine, the 2023 ANAO Audit of the ALC; the National Anti-Corruption Commission investigations in relation to Groote Eylandt matters; and/or Groote Eylandt generally."

The response comprised two documents prepared in February 2025. The first document included the following dot points under Key Talking Points:

·       The Ministerial response to the petition was tabled on 29 February 2024. The response states that the Minister has referred the issues raised in the petition and media articles to the NIAA’s Integrity Group for review and referral to relevant Commonwealth and Territory agencies if required.

·       The NIAA received some information that was subsequently referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

·       As part of NIAA’s response, the NIAA commissioned an independent review of the ALC’s responses to the issues and recommendations of the ANAO audit.

In a section headed ‘If asked: What is NIAA doing to address the concerns in relation to ALC governance?’, the brief discussed the Bellchambers Barrett Review, referring to it as ‘independent’, and confirming that that the Group Manager Integrity had determined the scope and composition the review. 

The brief then states:

• The ALC CEO and Board fully cooperated with this independent review….

• In my capacity as NIAA Integrity Group Manager, I accompanied the independent reviewer to Groote Eylandt on 27 and 28 May 2024 to gather additional evidence and meet with the ALC Board and management.

• On 24 Sepember [sic] 2024, I also attended Groote Eylandt to provide the newly elected ALC board members a walkthrough of the issues review report.

• On 15 and 16 October 2024, I attended Groote Eylandt to work with the board members to support their next steps in progressing the governance arrangements of the ALC board.

A second document was the brief prepared for the NIAA CEO.

The CEO brief confirms that the ALC has engaged Yamagigu Consulting to act as Independent Adviser to the ALC Board and to develop a governance framework in consultation with the NIAA. Yamagigu is associated with Deloitte Australia.

The CEO Brief states:

·       The August 2024 Bellchambers Barrett review concluded that while significant progress has been made by ALC since May 2023 across the ANAO’s 15 recommendations, none had been fully implemented.

·       The Minister wrote to the ALC Board on 29 August 2024 to advise she was extremely disappointed to read the review’s conclusion.

In a section headed Former Chief Executive Officer Mark Hewitt, the Brief notes:

• The ALC Board terminated the employment of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mark Hewitt on 16 October 2024 ….  

• The termination payment made to Mr Hewit [sic] was in accordance with his contract of employment and provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

o If asked: Did the Minister approve the termination payment?

o [placeholder - brief was provided to the Minister for approval in February 2025].

• The CEO’s tenure had been a matter for the ALC’s Board.

• The NIAA is aware of public concerns that Mr Hewitt allegedly misused royalties and directed funds into a mining company in which he is a director.

• The NIAA referred the former CEO to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in July May* 2024. [*Correction made by NIAA FOI Team]

Request Three FOI 2425/066 dated 19 May 2025. This request sought briefing notes and associated file notes and records related to the attendance by NIAA officers at the ALC Board meeting in mid-October 2024 and all records of communications with the Minister or her Office in relation to the attendance at the ALC meeting or in relation to discussions with Mr Hewitt. Six documents were identified as being within the scope of the request. Access to three (documents 1, 2 and 4) was refused in full on the basis that they were legal advice that was subject to legal professional privilege. The remaining documents were released in part. Extensive sections were redacted on the basis of personal privacy exemptions.

Document 3 was an email to either the Minister’s Office or senior NIAA officers dated 18 October 2024 advising inter alia that the ALC had terminated the CEO and had appointed the ALC’s Chief Financial Officer Colin Wakefield as interim CEO.

Document 5 is an email trail dated 5 November 2024 beginning with a request for a brief to support a meeting between the Minister and the ALC the following day. NIAA’s Group Manager Integrity provided a series of talking points under the heading Update on ALC CEO status. After listing the date of the termination, the appointment of an interim CEO and the ALCs intention to appoint a recruitment firm, the brief stated:

·       As part of the termination process, Mark has resigned from the positions of Executive Director Groote Holdings Aboriginal Corporation (GHAC) and CEO of Winchelsea Mining

·       The Boards of GHAC and Winchelsea are considering next steps following Mark Hewitt’s termination, including engagement of an independent advisor to assess current operations and the required way forward.

Document 6 is a NIAA brief to the Minister dated 25 October 2024 responding to the ALC Chair’s correspondence dated 16 October advising that the Board had terminated their CEO. Under a heading Key Points, the NIAA noted that the Chair had advised that the CEO had been terminated ‘on notice’ by the ALC and that the ALC Board had been considering Mr Hewitt’s position for some time. The brief then stated:

5. It is understood ALC will be submitting a supplementary budget request shortly to cover Mr Hewitt’s final entitlements.

 

Commentary on FOI documents released:

What jumps off the page in the documents provided in response to Request One is the determined effort by both the Minister and NIAA to keep the Minister at arm’s length from whatever is going on. This signals, in turn, either prior knowledge of misfeasance within the ALC, a statutory corporation in the Minister’s portfolio for which she is responsible, or an appreciation that the events unravelling on Groote and within the ALC were in some way potential political time bombs.

At least two other issues arise from the Request One documents. First, the close involvement of the NIAA in the Bellchambers Barrett Review – which as I have pointed out previously was focussed solely on the ANAO recommendations and not on the detailed issues identified - (including collecting evidence) and the ‘cooperation of the ALC CEO and Board’ raise serious questions regarding the Review’s independence.

The second issue concerns the reason for the Group Manager’s attendance at the Board meeting. In the response to Senator Pocock’s questions, it was stated that it was ‘to support Board discussion regarding Mr Hewitt’s employment arrangements.’ In the Estimates brief, it was ‘to work with the board members to support their next steps in progressing the governance arrangements of the ALC board’.

The visit took place in the context of a series of previous events: the prior visits to Groote by the Group Manager; a letter from the Minister to the ALC expressing her ‘extreme disappointment’ in relation to the poor ALC response to the Review that her agency had been involved in developing for months; the referral by the NIAA of the former CEO to the NACC four months previously. The visit coincided with the NACC attendance at the ALC Office on Groote to obtain evidence. Given NACC protocols to allow it to work with Commonwealth agencies on investigations, it is possible that the NIAA had been provided with progress reports by the NACC. The differences in the explanations set down in the two documents, although nuanced and not definitive, point to something more than NIAA engaging in a purely passive support role. Why else would legal advice have been necessary (bearing in mind that the ALC employs its own legal advisers)?

The complete absence of any preparatory briefing (except perhaps the emailed legal advice), as well as the absence of any file notes recording the ‘support’ offered by the NIAA officer suggests a deliberate effort to avoid future scrutiny and serves to reinforce the sensitivity (and potential irregularity) of the discussions. This is the bureaucratic equivalent of a police officer turning off his/her bodycam prior to engaging with a person of interest.

The Request One CEO Brief (document two) confirms that notwithstanding NIAA’s awareness of allegations that ‘Mr Hewitt allegedly misused royalties and directed funds into a mining company in which he is a director’, and their decision to refer the CEO to the NACC presumably in relation to at least these allegations, the ALC decided to pay Mr Hewitt an unspecified termination payment and the Minister appears to have been asked to approve that payment in February 2025. This strikes me as unusual insofar as if it was entirely consistent with the CEO’s land council employment contract and assuming that the contract which has never been made public adheres to standard employment practice), there would have been no need to obtain the Minister’s approval. On the other hand, if the ALC proposed to pay any amount related to his termination as CEO of GHAC and/or Co-CEO of Winchelsea Mining, the ALC may well have found it necessary or convenient to seek ministerial approval for an expansion of its section 64(1) operational budget approval or for an approval under section 36 of the ALRA (link here). I have previously argued that the former CEO’s simultaneous roles constituted misfeasance insofar as the ALC CEO salary set by the Remuneration Tribunal is for a full-time position, and it seems unlikely that the Tribunal’s approval was sought and granted for the CEO to engage in additional paid employment.

The fact that the document 5 of Request Three makes clear that the Mr Hewitt resigned from his roles on Winchelsea and GHAC ‘as part of the termination process’ adds to the likelihood that the Minister was made aware of and agreed to termination payments for Mr Hewitt linked to a notice period for these roles. Importantly, the apparent willingness of the ALC to intrude financially into the internal affairs of GHAC and AAAC/Winchelsea Mining (apparently with the tacit assent of the NIAA)  also reinforces the argument I have made on numerous occasions that the ALC exercises effective control over these corporations through the allocation of section 64(3) payments and is thus in effect allocating royalty equivalent funds to itself in contravention of the intent of the ALRA.

The CEO Brief also confirms that NIAA’s referral to the NACC was in May 2024, a year after the ANAO report was issued. The allegations mentioned above that likely formed the basis for the NIAA referral of the then CEO to the NACC were two of numerous concerns described in the ANAO performance audit over a year before the referral. Why then did it take a year for the Minister and NIAA to make the referral? And what changed to persuade them to act in May 2024?

As I have long argued in my posts on this blog, there appears to have been a deliberate and sustained attempt by NIAA and the last two Ministers to ignore and downplay the concerns raised by the hundreds of signatories to the February 2024 petition to Parliament and the numerous serious issues raised by the ANAO report. Whether intentional or not, it amounts to complicit behaviour with respect to these issues. As mentioned above the tactic adopted was to establish a review that focussed solely on the ANAO recommendations, and to ignore the myriad concerns and red flags raised in the detail of the 2023 ANAO report. What is less clear is why this policy of regulatory neglect was pursued.

I have long taken the view that not only were there shortcomings in the ALC’s management processes, but that the NIAA and its ministers have failed in their role as the ‘regulator’ oversighting the operations of the ALC and particularly its royalty and royalty equivalent distributions.

The unexplained termination of the ALC’s CEO in October 2024, the determined efforts of all involved to downplay those events, the complete absence of any justification or rationale form the ALC, and the secrecy imposed until now on the termination payments made to him notwithstanding the concerns that were significant enough to underpin a yearlong investigation by the NACC, suggests that there is much more to this than is currently available on the public record.

One hypothesis that is consistent with the facts as we know them is that the Government decided (utterly belatedly) that the ALC should terminate the CEO to set up a situation where a potentially adverse NACC report could be defended with the blithe response that the individual responsible for whatever egregious flaws are determined to have existed has already been dealt with. Persuading the ALC would be simple: the Minister had the leverage of only partially approving the ALC’s budget for 2024/25 as well as numerous ways in which to make the land council’s ongoing operations difficult. Persuading the former CEO (and his spouse) to depart quietly would be trickier. The offer of generous termination payments would assist, but other inducements are also conceivable. In this scenario, the ongoing silence of the terminated CEO would be more securely achieved if the termination payments were accompanied by a formal non-disclosure agreement.

Concluding comment

In my view, the pervasive veil of secrecy that has been thrown over this whole episode would be necessary only if the decisions taken were not able to be justified according to law and were not able to meet the so-called ‘pub test’. The fact that questions from Senator David Pocock have been ignored or answered with misleading diversions serves to emphasise the determination of the Commonwealth to avoid public scrutiny. The fact that the veil of secrecy remains substantially in place merely reinforces doubts regarding the appropriateness and propriety of the actions (and inactions) of ministers and the NIAA related to the oversight of the ALC over the past decade.

The issues and concerns raised by the ANAO and by the concerned community members who signed the 2024 petition to Parliament are yet to be addressed in any rigorous and comprehensive way. The fact that the NACC is investigating unspecified matters without any transparency in relation to the focus of its investigation is no substitute for an open, transparent and rigorous examination of what has transpired.

Unfortunately, the reluctance to initiate such a forensic and strategic review appears to be an essential element of the Commonwealth’s approach to the operations of the ALC (and also reinforces the likelihood that the hypothesis outlined above is in play). This means that we are reliant on the efficacy of the various accountability institutions with a role on Groote to ensure that the systemic issues that allowed the imbroglio on Groote to emerge and to flourish are identified, and curtailed. I don’t see the NACC as the institution best placed to address these systemic issues (though I hope they at least go some of the way to doing so).

The ANAO in my view should step up. It could undertake a follow up report to its 2023 performance audit. It might also take a long close look at the issue of the effective control by the ALC over the corporations involved in the Winchelsea mine and the Little Paradise infrastructure hub, and which are in receipt of ongoing and significant flows of royalty equivalents. A decision to qualify the annual financial statements of the ALC (and the concomitant ramifications of such a decision) would go a long way to addressing the systemic defects in the current sector wide administration of the ABA and ALRA.

 

25 June 2025

Nothing to See Here: NIAA’s answers to recent Senate Questions related to Groote

Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs,

Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes

Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.

Richard II, Act three, Scene two.

The NIAA has provided answers to a series of Questions on Notice lodged By Senator David Pocock following the last Estimates Hearings in November 2024 (link here). The questions related to the ongoing situation on Groote Eylandt, the status of various issues within the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the NIAA’s actions throughout this rather sorry and complex saga.

Given that there appears to be few external parties taking an interest in these issues (apart of course from the ongoing NACC investigation which may not report for months), I feel it is incumbent upon me to provide some commentary if only for the record. For the larger context, I recommend readers look at my previous post and in particular, the article I co-authored with Bill Gray in the Mandarin (link here).

In this post, I have focussed on those answers which I consider to be inadequate. In a subsequent post, I will address the issues raised by the answer to Question #8.

I have italicised the questions and the NIAA answers and indented my comments in relation to each answer.

 

Senator Pocock Question #1

Will the Minister initiate an independent, comprehensive, forensic audit into the administration and operations of the ALC and of those Aboriginal Corporations that received funding determined by the ALC, so that the new Board of the ALC can move ahead in confidence to regain the trust of the Anindilyakwa community and other key stakeholders, and achieve the standard of governance that will ensure the ALC can properly represent its people and achieve its mission? If not, why not?

NIAA Answer #1

The former Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon Linda Burney MP referred concerns regarding Anindilyakwa Land Council (ALC) governance and operations to the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) for review and action as required. In response, the NIAA commissioned an independent review of the ALC’s responses to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) governance audit and has subsequently been overseeing the ALC’s actions to improve its governance, transparency and accountability.

The NIAA has and will continue to refer all relevant matters to law enforcement and other agencies as required. 

Comment mcd #1

A preliminary and more general point: The NIAA is under the direct control of the Minister. Both she and her agency have regulatory responsibility for the ALC (and for the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations who is the regulator for CATSI Corporations who are the beneficiaries of section 64(3) payments). Any shortcomings of the NIAA are ultimately the responsibility of the Minister. Any failure to answer questions asked are a failure of the Minister as well as her agency.

The Minister/NIAA have not answered the question regarding the forensic audit. The so-called ‘independent’ review commissioned from BellchambersBarrett was constrained in its terms of reference and focussed only on the formal ANAO recommendations and not on the wider issues which were identified by the ANAO in its fine-grained analysis. The NIAA and the ALC were involved in finalising the BellchambersBarrett Report, and for this reason it was clearly not independent. The answer refuses to contemplate an independent forensic review and fails to provide any assurance that this is covered off in some other way. The deeper question this raises is why? Why won’t the Minister initiate the action required to get to the bottom of what has transpired on Groote? Why doesn’t she want to the public to know?

Senator Pocock Question #3

Can the Minister confirm that the conflicts of interest identified by the ANAO in May 2023 and again more recently in the BellchambersBarrett review of August 2024, have now been addressed to the satisfaction of the Minister and NIAA?  If not, what are the issues still outstanding?

NIAA Answer #3

The ALC has developed a schedule of activity to address the ANAO and Bellchambers Barrett recommendations, including those associated with conflicts of interest management. The NIAA has been overseeing the ALC’s performance of those activities and is satisfied that implementation of acceptable arrangements for conflict of interest management will be progressive over the forthcoming months. The conflicts of interest noted in relation to the former ALC Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have been resolved following the termination of Mr Hewitt and his removal from positions in all associated entities. The current ALC Board Chair does not hold any of the positions that gave rise to the conflict of interest concerns in relation to the former Board Chair.

Comment mcd #3

The question has not been answered. The answer makes clear that the Minister is not yet in a position to be satisfied (“acceptable arrangements for conflict-of-interest management will be progressive…”), yet they have not gone on to identify the issues that remain in progress.

The unqualified assertion that the termination of Mr Hewitt and the election of a new Chair addresses the conflicts of the past is problematic. It ignores the complex web of influence previously exercised by the former CEO and his spouse, and the inevitable expectations on Groote that the benefits flowing form those prior arrangements will continue. The current status and oversight of the various positions and financial interests previously held by Mr Hewitt’s spouse remain completely obscure.

One important but unintentional revelation of this answer is the reference to Mr Hewitt’s ‘removal from positions in all associated entities.’ How was this achieved? Did the Minister and NIAA give Mr Hewitt and his spouse some kind of ultimatum to resign (and if so what was the quid pro quo) or did the ALC direct the ‘associated entities’ to dismiss him, thus confirming that they in fact exercise control over these entities? The public interest requires that clarification and answers to these questions be provided.

Senator Pocock Question #4

Has the Minister/NIAA approved any arrangements for the management of the conflicts of interest that were identified in the ANAO and Bellchambers Barrett reports? If so, will the Minister please table those arrangements.

NIAA Answer #4

Formal approval of the ALC’s conflict of interest arrangements is the responsibility of the ALC Board in consultation with the ALC Audit Committee and ALC management.

Comment mcd #4

The implication is that the Minister and NIAA have not approved any arrangements for the management of conflicts of interest. The ALC has been riven with actual and potential conflicts of interest for at least six years; this Blog has previously identified and discussed many of them. Without ministerial engagement and approval of the actions being put in place, there is no guiderail in place to prevent the re-emergence of conflicted influence over decision-making in the future. Moreover, without a forensic audit, it is unclear whether the pre-existing conflicts of interest led to misallocation of funding and resources (with detrimental impacts on individuals and corporations on Groote), and whether there is remedial action required to rectify such misallocations. The laissez-faire approach of the Minister and NIAA is patently inadequate and represents in my view a serious lapse of ministerial responsibility. The minister has numerous and far-reaching powers under ALRA to play a direct role in the ALC’s administration for however long it takes to establish a new set of watertight operational procedures.

Senator Pocock Question #5

Can the Minister confirm that the Aboriginal residents of Groote Eylandt have not been subject to predatory commercial behaviour and financial losses arising from the actions of the former CEO, his spouse and the former Chairman of the ALC? If not, what action is she taking to ascertain the extent of the potential losses to the community?

NIAA Answer #5

As previously noted, the former Minister referred concerns regarding ALC to the NIAA for review and action as required. The NIAA has and will continue to refer all relevant matters to law enforcement and other agencies as required.

Comment mcd #5

One obvious problem with this answer is that not all commercially predatory behaviour will be illegal or corrupt. If it is the case that legal and non-corrupt predatory behaviour has occurred, the question becomes: is the Minister prepared to allow the officers and staff of agencies within her portfolio to engage in such behaviour, and more directly, why was she not prepared to take action within her regulatory powers when she became aware of such activities rather than hiding behind the convoluted and time-consuming processes of law enforcement agencies?

Given the deliberate policy of minimising the disclosure of relevant information, we do not know if the issue of potential predatory commercial behaviour was even of concern to the Minister or her predecessors, nor whether it is of concern to her today.

What were the concerns that she referred to the NIAA and onwards to law enforcement? When were those concerns formally referred to the various agencies? Which agencies received referral? How long transpired between the Minister and her agency becoming aware of the concerns and referrals being made? Why won’t she indicate the general nature of those concerns? I am sure the people who are the subject of any investigations understand that investigations are underway. Why keep the public in the dark? What has the Government got to hide?

The bottom line is that the answer to this question is deliberately designed to hide crucial accountability information. This is not in the public interest.

Senator Pocock Question #6

According to the ALC website, in the period 2019 – 2023, the ALC distributed $361m of s64(3) monies to various corporations and organisations on Groote Eylandt. Can the Minister/NIAA confirm that these distributions were determined by the ALC in compliance with the provisions of the ALRA, including s23(3) & s23 AA of the Act?

NIAA Answer #6

Distributions were determined by the ALC in compliance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA).

Comment mcd #6

This answer exudes unwarranted confidence. In my view it is both misleading and wrong. Section 23AA requires the ALC to undertake its functions inter alia, in a fair manner. The ANAO identified a series of payments to corporations where the ALC CEO played a major role in the application and/or was on the Board or had a conflict. The obverse of this favouritism is unfairness to the traditional owners who might otherwise have been beneficiaries.

The ALC’s effective control of associated corporations (in my view implicitly acknowledged in the actions taken by the NIAA to have Mr Hewitt vacate all his positions on associated entities) is itself an effective breach of the legislative requirement that land councils pay 64(3) payments to (independent) corporations and not to an entity it controls.

The provision (s.23(1)(ea)) that allows land councils to assist local corporations has a rider that such assistance must not cause the land council ‘to incur financial liability or enable it to receive financial benefit’. The ANAO found instances where the ALC could not demonstrate that this was the case. More substantively, where a land council effectively controls a corporation, then the liabilities of the corporation are those of the land council. This inevitably leads to a breach of section 23(1)(ea).

In a grave error of judgment, the NIAA and Minister appear to have lost sight of both the first and second Laws of Holes (link here). They should stop digging, and the Aboriginal citizens on Groote are still in a deep hole.

Conclusion

The answers to the questions above are in my view deliberately obfuscatory, are incomplete and by failing to provide the full story have the effect of misleading the Senate. In some cases, they are just wrong. This is a continuation of the approach adopted from the first day the ANAO tabled its performance audit in May 2023, which is best described as a policy of ‘nothing to see here!’ At best, this involves putting the political interests of the Government above the public interest. At its worst, it is much more serious than that. It erodes trust in Government and diminishes the quality of our democracy.

The failure to get to the bottom of what has transpired on Groote (not all of which will necessarily meet the definition of corruption, or criminal behaviour) will lead to ongoing and deep-seated disadvantage to the Aboriginal population of Groote Eylandt and may have wider implications for the viability of the core institutions established by the Commonwealth’s NT land rights legislation. These disadvantages will certainly be political, and financial, but most importantly they will also have social consequences for the fabric of community life on Groote. This is the tragedy that is unfolding.

 

21 February 2025