The Missing $41m payment from AMT to ARAC: a trust deficit

 

Round and round the cauldron go;

In the poisoned entrails throw….

Sweltered venom, sleeping got,

Boil thou first i’th’ charmed pot.

Macbeth, Act four, Scene one.

 

In my previous post (link here), I provided commentary on a number of the Questions on Notice asked by Senator David Pocock. I mentioned in that post that I would deal with this question in a separate post. Unfortunately, it involves both a convoluted narrative of events and some accounting issues. The bottom line however is much simpler: a Senator asked a question in good faith based on allegations made in correspondence from residents of Groote Eylandt, and received a dismissive, misleading and probably substantively incorrect response from the NIAA which we must presume had the endorsement of the Minister which raises more questions than answers.

Here is the question and answer provided:

Senator David Pocock’s Question #8

In an article dated 20 July 2024, The Saturday Paper referred to correspondence to your predecessor signed by dozens of Groote residents which alleged that an amount of $41m was paid from the Anindilyakwa Mining Trust (AMT) to the Anindilyakwa Royalties Aboriginal Corporation (ARAC) but which has not been accounted for. A recent review of the relevant publicly available financial statements pertaining to ARAC appears to confirm this. There is also explicit evidence that the ALC effectively controls ARAC and has a direct role in managing ARAC finances. Is the Minister/NIAA aware of the $41m payment and if so has the matter been investigated? If not, will the Minister instruct the NIAA or ORIC to advise her regarding the $41m payment and the circumstances of its payment by the AMT and receipt/utilisation by ARAC?

NIAA Answer #8

The NIAA has made enquiries regarding the recognition of payments made from the Anindilyakwa Mining Trust (AMT) to the Anindilyakwa Royalties Aboriginal Corporation (ARAC) and has been informed that reporting differences arose because of the entities recognising these transactions in different financial years. The NIAA notes that the accounting records of both entities are subject to independent audit. Detailed questions regarding the recognition of financial transactions of the ALC and associated entities should be directed to the ALC.

Below I set out my detailed commentary on the answers to the question and various related issues:

Comment mcd #8

I have previously posted contextual comments on this issue in three posts. The posts were titled Royalties, flawed governance and non-transparency: a potent brew (link here) dated 26 July 2024; The Anindilyakwa Royalties Aboriginal Corporation: micro accountabilities; macro policy implications (link here) dated 3 August 2024; and Annual Reports on Groote: an unconventional assessment (link here) dated 18 January 2025. I strongly recommend that readers keen to understand the context within which the AMT, ARAC and the ALC operate read these posts, especially the first two.

In the light of the NIAA answer provided above I sought to revisit the financial statements for the relevant periods. I was surprised to find that the 2022 Audited Financial statements for ARAC had been removed from the ORIC website without explanation. I find this somewhat strange especially given its relevance to the issues raised by the correspondents form Groote referred to in the Saturday Paper article. I requested a copy and was provided one, but as of 24 February 2025 it has not been published on the website. Financial statements for the previous years which I had obtained from ORIC in 2024 have still not been published on the ORIC website. Given that section 35(2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 requires land councils to distribute section 64(3) royalty equivalent payments on to CATSI corporations, there would seem to be substantial merit in the Registrar ensuring that the financial statements of CATSI corporations in receipt of such payments are published on the ORIC website. In any case, should readers wish to read the relevant financial statements I cite below, I suggest you contact ORIC direct.  

The basic facts are as follows.

The 2022 AMT financial report lists under the heading Grants a payment to ARAC of $41,324,957.

The 2022 audited financial statement for ARAC under the heading Revenue records a s.64(4) grant from the ABA of $9.6million (which would have been approved by the Minister) and a grant of $14.3m in s.35 payments from the ALC (the equivalent amount in 2021 was $34.8m). Total income is listed as $23.0m. There is no record of any grant being received from the AMT.

The 2023 audited financial statements for ARAC identify a series of grants and other revenue, including $31.9m in section 64(3) payments from the ALC.  Total income for 2023 is $40.2m. In addition, an amount of $8.1m in investment income is recorded. There is no record of a grant or payment for $41.3m being banked in the 2023 year.

In neither ARAC financial report is there a line item showing a payment of $41,324,957. The explanation provided to the Senate by NIAA that the payment was recognised in a different financial year is thus prima facie incorrect. Moreover, it has the effect of misleading the Senate and the wider community. That is not to say there may not be a perfectly appropriate explanation, but without a forensic audit that identifies the bank account(s) into which the AMT payment was deposited, we will never know.

The comment in the NIAA answer about the financial affairs of the relevant entities being independently audited reeks of either naïveté or an attempt at gaslighting. Auditors can make errors or be provided with incorrect information.

As pointed out in my previous post on ARAC (link here) and extracted in the Appendix below, the ARAC 2022 financial statements identify the cancellation of an infrastructure debt commitment (for $39m) from AMT to ARAC. Whether the auditor was misinformed or failed to follow up the issue, it is clear that the $41m was not deposited in the 2022 year (and not in a later year) and that this is reflected in black and white text in the 2022 financial statement. This reinforces the conclusion that the unidentified person who the NIAA consulted regarding the transaction has misled them; they in turn have misled the Minister and she in turn has misled the Senate (given that Ministers approve or are responsible for answers to Questions on Notice).

Rather than focussing on the independence of auditors while providing incorrect information, NIAA should perhaps focus on the persons who do have the requisite knowledge, namely, the Directors of ARAC. The Directors of AMT and of ARAC were identical and apart from independent Directors were also ALC Board members (see the discussion in my earlier post ‘a potent brew’ (link here). Both the AMT and ARAC Boards considered and formally resolved to approve and certify as true and correct the financial statements for the respective entities in the 2022 year. Prima facie (even on a hypothetical assumption that the NIAA explanation is correct) there appears to have been a failure of the ARAC Board to identify the absence of the $41m grant in ARAC’s revenue for 2022 and 2023. Has the Minister or NIAA requested the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations to investigate this prima facie error? In this context, see the comments in my recent post on annual reports (link here) related to the ARAC Board’s decision to purchase at considerable cost (sourced from funds notionally provided for the benefits of traditional owners) personal liability insurance for the Directors. Did this decision raise any concerns with the Registrar or the NIAA when it was reported in the ARAC financial statements? And if not, why not?

The assumption that in the face of allegations of a missing $41m, that NIAA, the ALC’s regulator, would ask a person they fail to identify for an explanation and then accept that explanation without being taken through the detailed figures that would allow the allegation to be put to rest, seems at best naïve and incompetent. The fact that this explanation is confidently provided to the Senate as if there is nothing to see here is extraordinary. It reeks in my view of indifference, deliberate disregard, obfuscation and disrespect.

The whole purpose of the Estimates process is to allow Senators to obtain an explanation from the Executive arm of the activities of agencies and corporations within a legislative framework that is entirely the responsibility of the Minister. If the NIAA can’t provide the assurance the Senate seeks, they should themselves take the action necessary to obtain it for Senate. ARAC is not an entity that appears before the Estimates Committee and is incorporated under the CATSI Act that comes within the Minister’s portfolio. The ALC which appears to exercise effective control over ARAC and assists with its bookkeeping and preparation of financial statements is within the Minister’s portfolio. The former CEO oversighting ARAC’s bookkeeping has been dismissed by the ALC at a meeting attended by the NIAA on grounds which the Minister has seen fit not to make public. The former CEO’s spouse (who has not been mentioned in any of the public statements related to the termination the CEO by the ALC and the Minister) was at various times an employee of the ALC working in the Royalty Development Unit that assisted corporations such as ARAC with their finances and operations.

Conclusion

Given the complex web of potential and actual conflicts of interest in play, and the fact that there is a missing $41m also in play, the Minister and the NIAA have an obligation in my view to do much better than they have with this answer and the others discussed in my previous post.

Indeed, given the extraordinary refusal to agree to commission an independent forensic investigation (bearing in mind that not all malfeasance will necessarily be corrupt or criminally illegal), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Minister and NIAA are, through their inaction and deliberate obfuscation, contributing to the social and economic harm that will inevitably emerge once the full ramifications of the maladministration on Groote becomes apparent.

The Minister and her agency are accruing a substantial trust deficit through her unwillingness to be transparent on what has transpired within the ALC and its associated entities. Given the standard of answers provided to the Senate in response to Senator Pocock’s questions, that trust deficit will inevitably continue to grow unless decisive action is taken. My recommendation is that the Minister should immediately request the ANAO to undertake or commission a comprehensive and independent forensic audit of the operations of the ALC and its associated entities over the past seven years.

Without such decisive action, the levels of distrust will at some point reach a tipping point where wider political consequences will take hold and potentially destroy the current institutional framework of land rights as we know it. In the meantime, the fallout will inevitably have adverse impact not just on the constituents of the NT land councils, but on those nominal servants of the public interest who have been prepared to look away while the cauldron of distrust boils over.

 

Appendix

The following text is taken from my previous posts and provides more contextual detail on the information above. It has been lightly edited.

Extract from Royalties, flawed governance and non-transparency: a potent brew

The AMT/ARAC financial transactions

The notes to the 2016 Financial statements for the AMT which are available on the on the ACNC website (link here) include the following text:

12 Commitments During the year ended 30 June 2016, Anindilyakwa Mining Trust committed to contributing $3,500,000 to the Economic Development Unit (which has been established by the Anindilyakwa Land Council) on or prior to 30 June 2018. The first instalment of $500,000 was made during the 2016 financial year. 

The notes to the 2017 AMT Financial Statements state that the first instalment of $500,000 was made during the 2016 financial year and the second instalment for the first year of $500,000 and the first instalment for the second year of $750,000 was made during the 2017 year.

The notes to the AMT 2018 financial statements comment:

12 Commitments During the year ended 30 June 2016, Anindilyakwa Mining Trust committed to contributing $3,500,000 to the Economic Development Unit (which had been established by the Anindilyakwa Land Council) of which $1,000,000 was paid during the 2016 financial year and $750,000 was paid during the 2017 financial year. During the 2018 financial year, an instalment was made for $1,250,000. Therefore, as of 30 June 2018, the Trust has a $500,000 outstanding commitment.

During the year ended 30 June 2017, Anindilyakwa Mining Trust committed to contributing $51,122,311 to Anindilyakwa Royalties Aboriginal Corporation (ARAC) for costs associated with the purchase of infrastructure and funding of the operational budget. During the year, $6,000,000 was paid to ARAC. Therefore, as of 30 June 2018, the Trust has a $45,122,311 outstanding commitment. [mcd comment 24 Feb 2025: it is worth noting that the payment of $6m from AMT to ARAC was transparently listed in ARAC’s revenue for the 2018 FY. A clear contrast with 2022 and 2023.]

The 2019 AMT financial report included a note indicating in relation to the 2016 commitment, a further instalment of $500,000 had been paid thus meeting that initial commitment. The note also states that in relation to the 2017 commitment, the AMT had paid an instalment in the 2019 FY of $5,975,000, thus leaving an outstanding balance to be paid of $39,147,311.

The 2020 and 2021`AMT financial reports note that no payments had been made and the outstanding commitment remained at $39,147,311. The Notes to the 2021 AMT financial report note that the outstanding amount was paid in FY 2022; this suggests the payment was made in the first half of the financial year. The 2022 AMT financial report lists under the heading Grants a payment to ARAC of $41,324,957. No rationale is provided for why the amount has increased from $39m to $41m.

There are no further payments reported in the 2023 AMT financial report.

The 2022 financial statement for ARAC was previously available on the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations website. It has been taken down (link here). Under revenue, it records a s.64(4) grant from the ABA of $9.6million (which would have been approved by the Minister) and a grant of $14.3m in s.35 payments from the ALC (the equivalent amount in 2021 was $34.8m). Total income is listed as $23.0m. There is no record of any grant being received from the AMT. Nor is there any record of such a grant being banked in the following financial year.

That a payment of $41m appears to have disappeared is somewhat strange. It is even stranger when one considers that the AMT has no staff and its administration appears to be undertaken by Mutual Trust, an established and highly experienced financial services firm, that ARAC has no staff (see the 2022 ARAC General Report) and its office is at 58-62 Macleod Street Cairns, the same address where the Commonwealth transparency portal lists ALC’s Finance and Royalty Development Unit (RDU) employees being located. The staff servicing ARAC Board meetings and probably implementing Board decisions (including managing income and payments) are likely part of the ALC’s Royalty Development Unit, a small team in Cairns. Clearly a forensic audit is required to determine the reason for the apparent disappearance of these funds. I should acknowledge that I was alerted to the issues around the missing $41m by the recent story in the Saturday Paper (link here).

 

Extract from The Anandilyakwa Royalties Aboriginal Corporation: micro accountabilities; macro policy implications

Each of the six ARAC financial reports from 2017 to 2022 inclusive include a statement, signed by two Directors and resolved by the Board, outlining the corporation’s purpose as follows:

The Corporation's operations purpose [in its first year] has been, to hold assets and manage statutory royalty equivalents and negotiated royalties in such manners as determined by the Anindilyakwa Land Council, consistent with its goals for effective, responsible and sustainable use of such royalty flows [emphasis added].

This statement appears to make plain that the ALC exercises direct control over the operations of ARAC….

… In my previous post I noted that the payment of $41m from the AMT to ARAC did not appear to be accounted for in the ARAC 2022 financial statements. With the availability of the previous year’s reports, it was possible to track the recording of an amount of $39,147,311 as an ‘AMT infrastructure debtor’ in the ARAC 2020 and 2021 financial reports. In 2022, the year that the AMT paid ARAC $41,324,957, there was no record in ARAC’s Financial statements of any such grant being received. However, there was a line item now called Payment in Advance (whereas it was previously termed AMT Infrastructure Debtor) which showed an outstanding debt of $39,147,311 in the previous year, but nil in the current 2022 FY. Rather than resolving the problem, this treatment of the outstanding commitment, whether intentional or not, obscures the recipient of the payment while acknowledging that the commitment no longer applies. [The discrepancy between the amount of $39m and $41m appears to be related to differing CPI treatments of the original commitment by the AMT and the ALC].

 

24 February 2025

Christmas fudge: eight ways to mislead the Senate - an update on Minister Scullion, the ILC, and the treatment of Senate Estimates Committees

‘Tis an ill cook that cannot lick his own fingers

Romeo and Juliet, Act IV, scene 2

Further to my recent post (link here) on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs’ failure to comply with his statutory obligations, the Minister has now belatedly provided his response to the question taken on notice during a recent Senate Estimates hearing.

In essence, the issue relates to the reasons for the failure of the Minister to terminate an ILC Director who missed five consecutive meetings in early 2018.

Section 192H(4) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 (ATSI Act) states:

If an Indigenous Land Corporation Director who holds office on a part-time basis is absent, except on leave granted under section 192C, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Indigenous Land Corporation Board, the Minister must terminate the appointment of the Director.

I recommend readers re-read my original post as I will cross reference key information therein in analysing the adequacy of this response.

Here is the question and the answer submitted on 17 December and copied verbatim from the Parliament web site (link here):

Senator the Hon Kristina Keneally: asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 2 November 2018

During Estimates, Senator Keneally asked:

Senator KENEALLY: I want to be clear. My concern is not so much with Mr Martin's actions. It is with the actions of the minister in accordance with the act. As you have flagged, if there are particular challenges of people being able to attend meetings or being supported to do so, could you also provide advice as to what you are doing to address that. Senator Scullion: I will take that on notice. I appreciate your comments, Senator. This is about me and this is about the board and reporting on the act. I do appreciate that that is what the questions are about. I will provide a comprehensive answer to that on notice.

Can the Minister advise what steps he has taken in this matter?

Answer — The Indigenous Land Corporation Chair wrote to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion, about the absences of Mr Martin and subsequently confirmed on 31 August 2018 that Mr Martin had been granted leave of absence from these meetings.

Perhaps the easiest way to analyse this answer is to focus on how many ways it manages to mislead the Senate.

First, the Minister promised a ‘comprehensive response’. He acknowledged that the question was about his actions (or inactions), about the Board’s involvement, and about the reporting from the ILC of relevant information.  He provided his response in one sentence of 42 words, with no explanation of his role and actions, vague reporting of the ILC Board’s role and involvement, and no information on the adequacy of the reporting of relevant information in relation to the requirements of the Act. This is patently not a comprehensive response. On the basis of this response, the Minister’s statement to the Estimates Committee that he would provide a comprehensive response was patently misleading.

Second, the ILC Chair wrote to the Minister about some but not all of the relevant absences of Director Martin (see my previous post for details). The answer provided states that the Chair wrote to the Minister about the absences, but in fact he did not mention all the absences. It is misleading in this respect.

Third, the Chair of the ILC wrote twice to the Minister (see previous post for details), once on 4 May advising that the requirements of the legislation relating to termination of the Director had been met and requesting that Director Martin be terminated in accordance with the Act, and later in July reversing his position and suggesting termination was no longer required (notwithstanding the clear intent of the legislation). The Minister’s failure to outline and explain this is misleading by omission.

Fourth, the response states that the ILC Chair had confirmed in a letter dated 31 August 2018 that Director Martin had been granted leave of absence from ‘these meetings’ (ie the incomplete set of meetings). The Minister’s response omits to mention that the granting of leave of absence was retrospective, and is thus misleading by omission.

Fifth, the response fails to mention that while the ILC Chair did confirm that leave of absence had been granted, the ILC had subsequently formed the view that the Chair’s purported actions in granting retrospective leave of absence were beyond his authority, and thus of no effect (see previous post for details). The Minister should have been advised of this discovery particularly as it meant that the 31 August letter to the Minster was substantively incorrect. By the time the Estimates questions were answered, the relevant information was available on the ILC FOI log and had been the subject of an article on 14 December in the Mandarin (link here). There seems little basis for an argument that the Minister or PMC were not aware that the 31 August letter was substantively incorrect (and if they were not, they should have been), yet the Minister went ahead and used it as the basis for his lack of action in his response to the Senate. The response was thus fundamentally misleading in relying on the ILC Chair’s 31 August letter without further explanation.

Sixth, the response omits to mention that the Minister and the Chair had discussed the issue in June (refer previous post). The response not only fails to indicate the tenor and content of those discussions, but avoids any mention of the meeting notwithstanding that it was clearly a crucial element in the Minister’s consideration of the events. Given that the question explicitly refers to ‘what steps’ the minister took, the response appears to be deliberately misleading in relation to this meeting albeit by omission.

Seventh, the response omits to deal with the issue of the delay between the third consecutive missed meeting (on 9 March 2018) and the eventual effective granting of retrospective leave of absence on 1 November, a period of almost eight months. Even were we to grant the Minister the benefit of the doubt and use the purported granting of leave of absence in August as the relevant date, the delay amounts to almost six months.

Eighth, the response provides no information or any explanation for the Minister’s failure to act in a timely way to comply with his statutory obligations under the legislation. It is clearly deliberately misleading in this respect.

What might we make of all this. I focus on two general points.

The first relates to the particular issue relating to the minister’s statutory obligations, and the analysis in my previous post. The Ministers ‘explanation’ offers no alternative explanation which might cast doubt on my earlier analysis.

It leaves major questions unanswered concerning the quality of governance within the ILC under the current Chair’s tenure, the quality and accuracy of information provided to the Minister, the processes put in place by PMC to ensure the Minister is in a positon to carry out his statutory obligations under the Act, and to oversight more generally the activities and operations of a statutory corporation within his portfolio. Further, while it implicitly lays blame and attention on the information provided by the ILC, it fails to acknowledge that that information was in many respects incorrect, misleading and inaccurate, and it fails to identify what action the Minister has taken or intends to take to rectify these deficiencies in the future.

Most importantly, the response and ‘explanation’ fails to address the likelihood that the Minister played a direct role in encouraging the Chair to change his formal advice and instead request that the Minister defer action while a retrospective leave of absence for Director Martin was put in place.  Determining what transpired in relation to this issue goes to the heart of determining what has occurred here, and has significant implications for the independence of the ILC. It also raises serious questions about the capacity and preparedness of the ILC Chair and ultimately the Board to carry out their statutory responsibilities independently of Ministerial interference. All in all, the extreme parsimony of the Minister’s response only adds to the weight of suspicion that he was involved in an inappropriate plan aimed at avoiding the necessity for him to carry out his statutory duty.

The second point relates to the apparent disdain with which this Minister treats the Senate and in particular the Senate Estimates Committee. He promised a comprehensive response and delivered what amounts to a deliberately misleading fudge. He missed the key deadlines in terms of the provision of answers. And he comprehensively failed to adequately explain why it is that he failed to act in accordance with his statutory obligations.

Of course, this is an issue which goes beyond this Minister, and appears to be part of an inexorable slide in the influence of the Parliament vis a vis the Executive. It is time that the Parliament stood up to the Executive, demanded substantive accountability from Ministers. 

In particular, it is to be hoped that the Senate will refuse to accept the self-serving fudge this Minister serves up to them and in turn, to the Australian people.