The
Saturday Paper,
27 April 2019:
Former Australian
Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty is examining links between political
donations and the issuing and buyback of agricultural water licences, amid
concerns that undeclared conflicts of interest could be fuelling corruption.
Keelty told The
Saturday Paper this week he is concerned about the extent of undeclared
conflicts of interest among politicians, lobby groups and businesses operating
in the water market.
“I’m interested to see
how conflicted politicians are declaring their conflicts of interest when
decisions are made about water policy,” he said.
“Where you get those
conflicts of interest and they’re not addressed, that’s ripe for corruption.”
His comments come as the
Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder confirmed to The Saturday Paper that
two contentious water licences for which the federal government paid
$79 million have returned next to no water to the environment since they
were purchased two years ago.
Keelty is conducting
inquiries in his capacity as the Northern Basin commissioner for the
Murray–Darling Basin, a position to which the federal agriculture minister,
David Littleproud, appointed him in August last year with the support of the
Labor opposition.
On the issue of water
licences, he draws a direct comparison with the management of development
applications by local government, where conflicts of interest are required to
be declared.
“We’re not seeing it in
water, and it should be there,” he said.
Keelty, who was also the
inaugural chair of the Australian Crime Commission, is not categorical about
what exposing such conflicts might reveal, though he suggests they are
widespread.
“I’m not saying it’s
corruption; I’m saying it’s conflict of interest,” he said. “But you could draw
a conclusion that if conflicts of interest aren’t transparent, it could lead to
corruption … Water is now the value of gold. If you have corruption in other
elements of society, if you have corruption in other areas of business, why
wouldn’t you have it here, when water is the same price as gold?”
“IT IS NOT AS TRANSPARENT AS I FIRST THOUGHT AND IT IS
MUDDIED BY IN-KIND DONATIONS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPANIES OR ENTITIES THAT ARE
CREATED TO OBSCURE WHO THE REAL DONORS ARE.”
Over the past decade,
Keelty has undertaken inquiries and investigations for various governments on
issues relating to integrity in government policy, especially in emergency
management.
Now turning his
attention to the struggling river system, he is aiming to improve transparency
in the management of the northern Murray–Darling Basin, which has a far worse
compliance record than the river system’s southern half.
His task is to ensure
that water gets back to the river system where it is needed and that those who
rely on this water, and should have rights for its use, are not being ripped
off, especially disenfranchised Indigenous communities and others living
downstream.
Keelty argues that
excessive numbers of water licences have been issued – sometimes on
questionable grounds – and are seriously damaging the river.
“When you look at it
strategically, there are too many licences having been allocated for the amount
of water that is available,” he told The Saturday Paper.
“Nobody is addressing
that, that I can see.”
Keelty also believes the
system is too dependent on property owners acting within the law and reporting
their own activities.
“The system relies on
honesty and integrity but if you look at the number of prosecutions and
infringement notices issued in New South Wales in the last 12 months, the
pillar of honesty doesn’t appear to be that strong,” he said.
“I can understand the
suspicion and the frustration in the southern basin states because they are
directly impacted by the efficiency of the systems in the northern basin.”
Keelty is currently
examining the Australian Electoral Commission records of political donations,
checking links between donors, decision-makers and recipients of water licences
or sales contracts.
“Clearly the National
Party is probably, I guess, a glaring example of where politicians could be
conflicted because their constituency are the very people who are using the
water and the very people who are lobbying about water policy,” he said.
But he is examining
links to other parties as well. “It’s not just the National Party. Different
governments will make decisions about water policy that presumably benefit
their state and their constituents.”
Keelty has concerns
about the system of political donations more broadly.
“It is not as
transparent as I first thought and it is muddied by in-kind donations and
third-party companies or entities that are created to obscure who the real
donors are,” he said. “I’ve found it more difficult and less transparent than
what most of us probably think it is.”
The former police chief
is also arguing for proceeds-of-crime legislation to be more clearly linked to
offences in the water market because he believes the risk of losing a farming
property would be a significant deterrent.
“Where you can prosecute
criminal charges for offending, it makes sense to have parallel action in
proceeds of crime because that will have more of an impact than perhaps some of
the civil charges that are being used to remedy the situation to date,” he
said.
Read the full article here
No comments:
Post a Comment