USA 2019: crazy continues to be order of the day (Part Three)

A look at the US politician so many Australian Liberal and Nationals MPs and senators admire and seek to emulate....

Daily Kos, 12 January 2019:

Most of Donald Trump's $35 million in real estate deals in 2018 came with a huge political footnote attached to them. A Forbes analysis found the largest deal, yielding $20 million to Trump, came from the sale of a $900 million federally subsidized housing complex in Brooklyn in which the Trump Organization had a 4 percent stake. 

The Department of Housing & Urban Development had to approve the sale. In other words, the Trump Organization, which is still owned by Trump, needed permission from HUD, which reports to Trump as pr*sident, to turn a profit through a Brooklyn real estate deal. And guess what: HUD greenlit the deal.

Trump also took in another $5.5 million from 36 units sold in a 64-story Las Vegas tower. The catch? About a third of those units were bought by buyers hiding behind limited liability companies so they wouldn't have to disclose their identities. In 2017, USA Today reported that during the two years before Trump became the GOP nominee, only 4 percent of Trump’s building units were acquired by LLCs. So now that Trump's pr*sident, anonymous people are lining his pockets with real estate purchases cloaked through LLCs.

Remember when Trump made a big show of stacking up all the paperwork he was signing in order to supposedly clear up his conflicts of interest and forfeit management of his businesses? Yeah, he's still getting that money.

Murray-Darling Basin Plan: a $13 billion fraud on the environment

Some home truth about the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan to remember as we enter into the morass of competeing claims in NSW State and Australian Federal election campaigns in the first half of this year....

IN THE MATTER OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN ROYAL COMMISSION, Adelaide South Australia, 23 October 2018:

MR R. BEASLEY SC, Senior Counsel Assisting:

….Commissioner, the Water Act and the Basin Plan have been hailed as ground-breaking reform. They are. What this Commission has learnt, however, from the evidence it has gathered, and from the witnesses that have informed us, is that it’s one thing to enact transformative legislation like the Water Act and the Basin Plan, it’s quite another thing to faithfully implement it. Sadly, the implementation of the Basin Plan at crucial times has been characterised by a lack of attention to the requirements of the Water Act and a near total lack of transparency in an important sense.

Those matters have had, and continue to have, a negative impact on the environment and probably the economies of all the Basin Plan states but the state that will suffer the most is the state at the end of the system, South Australia. The Water Act was a giant national compromise. At its heart was a recognition that all of the Basin states – Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia – were taking too much water from the system and had been for a long time. That, as a matter of statutory fact in the Water Act, and as a matter of reality, has led to serious degradation of the environment of the Basin. The Millennium Drought of 2000s underscored the fact that, if nothing was done, over-allocation of the water entitlements in the Basin would inevitably and quickly lead to irreversible damage to the Basin environment.

The Water Act was a response to that. It was the statutory means by which the process of restoration and protection of environmental assets would begin. I say the Water Act was a compromise because the Act contemplates that water will be taken from our rivers and used consumptively for irrigation, the growing of crops and permanent plants. Of course, also for human water needs. But it sets a limit. That limit is that no more water can be taken beyond the point where key areas of the environment and its ecosystems might be damaged. In an environment that’s already degraded, that means the Water Act requires the environment to have both enough water to restore degraded wetlands and the like and also, of course, to maintain them.

That’s not just the right thing to do. It’s what Australia’s international obligations require. That task, setting a limit on the extraction of water, is to be based on the best available science. Not guided by the best science, not informed by the best science but based on the best available science. It also has to be achieved by taking into account the well-known principles of ecologically sustainable development. What the Commission has learnt from the evidence presented to it is that the implementation of the Basin Plan, at crucial stages, has not been based on the best available science. Further, ecologically sustainable development has either been ignored or, in some cases, in relation to supply measures, actually inverted.

 I want to read to you a peer review of the Guide to the Basin Plan from some international scientists in 2010 because it demonstrates that they were well aware, even back then, of what was actually going on in the early stages of drafting the Basin Plan. This is a peer review report by Professor Gene Likens of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Mr Per Bertilsson of the Stockholm International Water Institute, Professor Asit Biswas from the Third World Centre for Water Management and Professor John Briscoe, Gordon McKay Professor from Harvard University. What they said was this, in reviewing the Basin Plan, at page 34 of what became exhibit RCE38:

It is a fundamental tenet of good governance that scientists produce facts and the government decides on values and makes choices. We are concerned that scientists in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who are working to develop the facts, may feel they are expected to trim those so that the sustainable diversion limit will be one that is politically acceptable. We strongly believe that this is not only inconsistent with the basic tenets of good governance but that it is not consistent with the letter of the Water Act. We equally strongly believe that government needs to make the necessary trade-offs and value judgments and need to be explicit about these, assume responsibility and make the rationale behind these judgments transparent to the public.

If all the MDBA had been done in the past eight years since that review was written is “trim the facts”, that would be bad enough. But it’s worse than that. The implementation of the Basin Plan has been marred by maladministration. By that I mean mismanagement by those in charge of the task in the Basin Authority, its executives and its board, and the consequent mismanagement of huge amounts of public funds. The responsibility for that maladministration and mismanagement falls on both past and current executives of the MDBA and its board. Again, while the whole of the Basin environment has and will continue to suffer as a result of this, the state whose environment will suffer the most is South Australia.

The principal task of those implementing the Plan is to set the Basin-wide sustainable diversion limit. How much water can be taken from the rivers before the environment suffers? You’ve heard evidence that has been unchallenged that this task was infected by deception, secrecy and is the political fix. The modelling it has been said to have been based on is still not available seven years later. The recent adjustment of the sustainable diversion limit by raising it by 605 gigalitres, on the evidence you’ve heard, is best described as a fraud on the environment. That’s a phrase I used in opening. It was justified then. It’s re-enforced by the evidence you’ve heard subsequently. The so-called 450 gigalitres of upwater, the water that the then South Australian Government fought for, for this State’s environment, is highly unlikely to ever eventuate. The constraints to the system are just one major problem in the delivery of that water.

Like all aspects of the implementation of the Basin Plan, efficiency measures or infrastructure projects that form the basis of how the 450 gigalitres of water is to be attained, and which are funded by public money, lack any reasonable form of transparency and, as the Productivity Commission recently, and witnesses to this Commission, have noted, are hugely more expensive and less reliable than purchasing water entitlements. I will discuss this in detail but I will give you one quote from an expert who can talk with real authority about the extra 450 gigalitres proposed for South Australia under the Basin Plan. That’s the former Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, David Papps. In his evidence to you said:

 I would bet my house that South Australia is not getting that water.

Mr Papps’ prediction seems safe when one considers the proposed amendments to the Basin Plan by the governments of NSW and Victoria concerning the 450 gigalitres that I will come to shortly. Everything that I have just said to you is based on the views of eminent scientists and other people who have given evidence and lodged submissions. However, neither the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or any Commonwealth government agency has provided any answer to anything I have just said or to the evidence before the Commission that I will refer to shortly. They have no answer. The submissions provided to you very recently by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and the DAWR, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, demonstrate, as did their unwillingness to give evidence, culminating in proceedings to the High Court, that they do not have any answer.

The MDBA, you will recall, were even too busy to meet you. The States also have no answer, as demonstrated in their somewhat thin submissions to you, with the exception of the South Australian Government. When I say the MDBA has no answer to the expert evidence given in this Commission, I should emphasise also that it clearly has no answer to the maladministration and unlawfulness of its implementation of the Basin Plan. It is nevertheless a great pity that relevant persons from the Basin Authority, and other Commonwealth agencies, were not required to give answers to you under oath concerning the scientific evidence the Commission gathered.

The opportunity may have been there had the High Court decided those proceedings in your favour. I’m not going to speculate on what the High Court would have done but, regrettably, the South Australian Government chose not to extend your Commission in order to provide you with the opportunity that may have been available to you to question those relevant people. You made it clear to the South Australian Government that was your strong preference. You advised them that the Commission had potential witnesses that wanted to give important evidence, evidence relevant to the South Australian environment, but only if they were compelled by summons. In other words, they were too scared to talk about the implementation of the Basin Plan without the force of a summons. Why the Commission was not extended to explore these crucial matters is something upon which you can draw inferences as you see fit. I will only say that it’s a great opportunity lost……

Scott Morrison's secretive new public sector corruption division with no teeth - not even a set of badly fitting dentures

Alan Moir Cartoon

A federal statutory body, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) has been in existence since December 2006 and is headed by the Integrity Commissioner. The current Integrity Commissioner is Michael Griffin AM.

There is also a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI.

The Morrison plan for a new Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) intends to retain the ACLEI as one of two divisions within the CIC and expand the number of government agencies within this first division’s jurisdiction from twelve (12) to sixteen (16) – otherwise it is business as usual for the multi-agency ACLEI.

At the same time the Morrison Government intends the over-arching CIC to have a second division – the Public Sector Division - without the full powers of statutory anti-corruption commissions.

It is this division which will be charged with investigating corruption allegations based on interactions of sitting members of federal parliament and departmental staff with corporations, lobby groups and private individuals.

Members of the public will have no right to lay complaints or concerns before the Deputy-Commissioner who will head this second division. Only departmental heads and the Australian Federal Police appear to have the right to refer a matter to the Public Sector Division.

The division will not hold public hearings or publish the results of any secret hearings. There will be no transparency in its processes.

This second division represents business as usual for federal parliamentarians, as the government of the day will be able to keep even the most egregious matters under its adjudication by asserting the matter should be classified as a straightforward Code of Conduct breach or a simple matter of non-compliance.

The new Commonwealth Integrity Commission is expected to have an annual budget of around $30 million. A sum which reflects its toothless status.

BACKGROUND

Commonwealth Integrity Commission — proposed reforms, December 2018, excerpts:

The Australian Government proposes to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) to detect, deter and investigate suspected corruption and to work with agencies to build their resilience to corruption and their capability to deal with corrupt misconduct. The CIC will consist of a ‘law enforcement integrity division’ incorporating the existing structure, jurisdiction and powers of ACLEI and a new ‘public sector integrity division’. Both the law enforcement and public sector divisions of the CIC will be headed by separate deputy commissioners, who will each report to a new Commonwealth Integrity Commissioner. The two divisions will have different jurisdictional coverage, powers and functions, tailored to the nature of the entities within their jurisdiction. The law enforcement division will retain the powers and functions of ACLEI, but with an expanded jurisdiction to cover several further agencies that exercise the most significant coercive powers and therefore present a more significant corruption risk. The public sector division will cover the remaining public sector. As such, its powers and functions will be different to those of the law enforcement division and will be appropriately tailored.

Jurisdiction 

Law enforcement division

The law enforcement division will have jurisdiction over those agencies already within ACLEI’s remit, being:

• the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

• the AFP • the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

• the Department of Home Affairs, and

• prescribed aspects of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR).

 Its jurisdiction will also be expanded to cover additional public sector agencies with law enforcement functions and access to sensitive information, such as the:

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and

• Australian Taxation Office (ATO)……

Public sector division

The public sector division of the CIC will have jurisdiction over:

• public service departments and agencies, parliamentary departments, statutory agencies, Commonwealth companies and Commonwealth corporations

• Commonwealth service providers and any subcontractors they engage, and

• parliamentarians and their staff.

By extending the jurisdiction of the public sector division of the CIC to service providers and contractors, the CIC will have the capacity to oversee the integrity of entities which expend or receive significant amounts of Commonwealth funding where there is evidence of corrupt conduct that meets the relevant criminal threshold proposed. The CIC will also be able to investigate members of the public or other private entities that receive or deal with Commonwealth funds (and might not otherwise be within jurisdiction), to the extent that their suspected corrupt conduct intersects with a public official’s suspected corrupt conduct….

The public sector division of the CIC will be responsible for investigating ‘corrupt conduct’ where the commissioner has a reasonable suspicion that the conduct in question constitutes a criminal offence. Notably, the public sector division will investigate conduct capable of constituting a nominated range of specific new and existing criminal offences that will constitute corrupt conduct in the public sector.

 ‘Corrupt conduct’ will include abuse of public office, misuse of official information and non-impartial exercise of official functions. A range of consolidated and new public sector corruption offences will be included in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code). The information below under the heading ‘Amendments to the Criminal Code’ outlines a preliminary summary of ways in which amendments might be made to relevant legislative offences that will collectively form the jurisdictional basis for the CIC. 

It is intended that the public sector division will focus on the investigation of serious or systemic corrupt conduct, rather than looking into issues of misconduct or non-compliance under various codes of conduct. Misconduct that is not defined as a criminal offence at Commonwealth law is considered more appropriately dealt with by the entities where the misconduct occurs: public sector agencies for public servants; Houses of Parliament for parliamentarians; the Prime Minister for Ministers; the Special Minister of State for ministerial staff….

Powers

Law enforcement division

The law enforcement division of the CIC will have access to the coercive and investigative powers that ACLEI currently does—these are necessary because the agencies within jurisdiction themselves have access to significant coercive powers and in many cases, sensitive intelligence, personal or other information. The consequences of corruption in circumstances where public officials have access to law enforcement or other coercive powers is generally more significant than for public officials without access to such powers. Those with access to coercive powers and knowledge of law enforcement methods are better able to disguise corruption and corrupt conduct can have a greater impact (for example, where millions of dollars of illicit drugs are permitted to enter the Australian economy). 8 The law enforcement division will have the power to:

• compel the production of documents

• question people

• hold public and private hearings

• arrest

• enter/search premises

• seize evidence

• undertake controlled operations and assumed identities, and

• undertake integrity testing.

Public sector division

The powers available to the public sector division reflect the different nature of the corruption risk in the areas it will oversight. The public sector division of the CIC will have the power to:

• compel the production of documents

• question people

• hold private hearings, and

• enter/search premises.

It will not be able to:

• exercise arrest warrants

• hold public hearings, or

• make findings of corruption, criminal conduct or misconduct at large.

The extent to which the CIC public sector integrity division will have the ability to access telecommunications and surveillance device powers will be part of the consultation process on the proposed model. The law enforcement integrity division will retain all powers that ACLEI currently holds......

Referrals about parliamentarians and their staff 

The public sector division could receive a referral regarding a parliamentarian or their staff that met the CIC’s threshold for investigation from the IPEA, the AEC, the AFP or other integrity agencies. For example, if the IPEA observed potentially corrupt conduct that it reasonably suspected was capable of constituting a criminal offence, it could refer that activity to the CIC for investigation. 

The public sector division of the CIC will also be able to investigate parliamentarians or their staff where an existing CIC investigation into suspected corruption within a different part of the public sector revealed evidence that will meet the investigation threshold. For example, if the CIC was investigating suspected criminal corrupt conduct within a procurement process involving a department, and through that investigation it found evidence suggesting corrupt activity by any Member of Parliament or member of the executive government which it reasonably expected met the relevant criminal threshold, the CIC could initiate an investigation into that matter. 

The CIC will not investigate direct complaints about Ministers, Members of Parliament or their staff received from the public at large.......

Tweet of the Week

I was so thrilled about FINALLY having a federal #ICAC, I let my enthusiasm get the better of me. Am now completely despondent with the terrible model @ScottMorrisonMP is proposing. https://t.co/rCGnKv7GDw

— Kate McClymont (@Kate_McClymont) December 13, 2018

US President Donald Trump aka "Individual-1" named in relation to presidential election campaign violations & contact with Russian President's office

On 29 November 2018 attorney Michael Cohen plead guilty to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to financial institutions, lying to the US Congress and facilitating illegal campaign contributions totalling US$255,000 in the 2016 US presidential campaign.

His plea agreement can be found here.

US President Donald J. Trump is identified in the US Government's Sentencing Memorandums, the first of which recommenfs that Cohen be gaoled for up to three and a half years.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  -v.- MICHAEL COHEN: 18 Cr. 602 (WHP)

THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, filed 7 December 2018, excerpts:

1. Background

Cohen is a licensed attorney and has been since 1992. (PSR ¶ 149.) Until 2007, Cohen practiced as an attorney for multiple law firms, working on, among other things, negligence and malpractice cases. (PSR ¶¶ 156-157.) For that work, Cohen earned approximately $75,000 per year. (Id.) In 2007, Cohen seized on an opportunity. The board of directors of a condominium building in which Cohen lived was attempting to remove from the building the name of the owner (“Individual-1”) of a Manhattan-based real estate company (the “Company”). (PSR ¶ 155.) Cohen intervened, secured the backing of the residents of the building, and was able to remove the entire board of directors, thereby fixing the problem for Individual-1. (Id.) Not long after, Cohen was hired by the Company to the position of “Executive Vice President” and “Special Counsel” to Individual-1. (Id.) He earned approximately $500,000 per year in that position. (Id.)

In January 2017, Cohen formally left the Company and began holding himself out as the “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States…..

4. Cohen’s Illegal Campaign Contributions

On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate and supporter of Individual-1. (PSR ¶ 39). 

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. (PSR ¶ 51)…..

First, Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election. It is this type of harm that Congress sought to prevent when it imposed limits on individual contributions to candidates. To promote transparency and prevent wealthy individuals like Cohen from circumventing these limits, Congress prohibited individuals from making expenditures on behalf of and coordinated with candidates. Cohen clouded a process that Congress has painstakingly sought to keep transparent. The sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of Cohen’s brazen violations of the election laws and attempt to counter the public cynicism that may arise when individuals like Cohen act as if the political process belongs to the rich and powerful…..

in a secretly recorded meeting Cohen took credit for the payment and assured Individual-1 that he was “all over” the transaction. And after making the payment to the second woman, and after Individual-1 was elected President, Cohen privately bragged to friends and reporters, including in recorded conversations, that he had made the payment to spare Individual-1 from damaging press and embarrassment.....

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, filed 7 December 2018:

The Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) provides this memorandum in connection with the sentencing of Michael Cohen scheduled for December 12, 2018. On November 29, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to Congress, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). The government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be imposed but submits that it is appropriate for any sentence of incarceration to be served concurrently to any sentence imposed by the Court in United States v. Cohen, 18-cr-602 (WHP).

The defendant’s crime was serious. He withheld information material to the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”), and the SCO. The defendant lied to Congress about a business project (the “Moscow Project”) that he worked on during the 2016 presidential campaign, while he served as Executive Vice President at a Manhattan-based real estate company (the “Company”) and as Special Counsel to the owner of the Company (“Individual 1”). The defendant admitted he told these lies—which he made publicly and in submissions to Congress—in order to (1) minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1 and (2) give the false impression that the Moscow Project had ended before the Iowa caucus and the first presidential primaries, in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations being conducted by Congress and the SCO.....

The defendant’s false statements obscured the fact that the Moscow Project was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government. If the project was completed, the Company could have received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian sources in licensing fees and other revenues. The fact that Cohen continued to work on the project and discuss it with Individual 1 well into the campaign was material to the ongoing congressional and SCO investigations, particularly because it occurred at a time of sustained efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. Similarly, it was material that Cohen, during the campaign, had a substantive telephone call about the project with an assistant to the press secretary for the President of Russia.....

The defendant, without prompting by the SCO, also corrected other false and misleading statements that he had made concerning his outreach to and contacts with Russian officials during the course of the campaign. For example, in a radio interview in September 2015, the defendant suggested that Individual 1 meet with the President of Russia in New York City during his visit for the United Nations General Assembly. When asked previously about these events, the defendant claimed his public comments had been spontaneous and had not been discussed within the campaign or the Company. During his proffer sessions, the defendant admitted that this account was false and that he had in fact conferred with Individual 1 about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting. The meeting ultimately did not take place…..

More reasons why establishing a federal independent commission against corruption is a good idea

The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November 2018:

Australia is becoming more corrupt because successive federal governments have failed to create an effective national anti-corruption body similar to the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption, a leading jurist has argued.

Writing in support of a national anti-corruption body, David Harper, a former Court of Appeals justice at the Supreme Court of Victoria, noted that in 2012 Australia ranked seventh in Transparency International’s global corruption index, but that today we were ranked 13th.

“The lack of a federal anti-corruption agency remains a reason why we have never come close to being corruption-free,” he has written in an opinion piece for the Herald.

Mr Harper writes that the lack of an effective federal anti-corruption watchdog had allowed corruption to flourish undetected and, in turn, allowed federal politicians to hide behind the myth that the federal sphere is free of corruption.....

One can see Mr. Harper's point. Allegations of federal corruption regularly surface and are never fully addressed.

Take the allegations that one Liberal MP when minister borrowed money to buy into a proposed coal seam gas field (a proposal he supported in the parliament) and another Liberal minister inappropriately handed federal funding to his mates.......

ABC News, 14 November 2018:

A Northern Territory consulting company that employs Country Liberal Party president Ron Kelly was awarded more than $1.4 million through federal grants intended to tackle Indigenous disadvantage.

North Australian Remote Management Consultants (NARMCO) was given the money by Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion over a three-year period through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the Aboriginal Benefits Account.

The Indigenous Advancement Strategy is a $4.9 billion federal fund that was designed "to improve the way that the Government does business with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to ensure funding actually achieves outcomes".

NARMCO is not an Aboriginal-owned company, but has previously said it works with Indigenous companies.

It is unclear how the award of funds achieves the stated aims of the IAS fund.

Mr Scullion has recently faced criticism for his allocation of IAS funds, with Indigenous groups calling for an investigation into the awarding of hundreds of thousands worth of Indigenous grants to a variety of non-Indigenous groups to assist their legal opposition of land right claims.

The NT Amateur Fishermen's Association, the NT Cattlemen's Association and the NT Seafood Council received funds.

Mr Scullion told the ABC he issued NARMCO with a "show-cause notice" about how it intended to manage the perceived conflict of interest, but the company declined to comment on how it handled that and said it was following proper processes.

ASIC records show NARMCO was established by longstanding CLP member John Jansen in 2003.

According to Government records, the company received its first IAS payment in June 2015 — nine months after Mr Scullion assumed the role of Indigenous Affairs Minister.

Mr Scullion was president of the CLP until October when he was succeeded by Mr Kelly, who formerly worked as Mr Scullion's chief of staff.

Mr Kelly began working for NARMCO in February 2018.

He previously worked as former NT chief minister Adam Giles's chief of staff before being handed a lucrative role as chief executive of the NT Department of Mines and Energy in 2015.

NARMCO 'supporting regional and remote people'

NARMCO's first grant through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy was awarded in June 2015.

It received $385,000 for a 12-month project that was later amended by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to $330,000 for a 36-month project in Katherine, under the heading of "provide employee management and support".

Later in June 2015, the company received $225,000 listed as money "to provide Indigenous employment and economic development and business support services to indigenous Australians".

It was later changed to a 13-month contract from a 28-month term, which is permitted under the grant rules.

On September 13, 2017, NARMCO was again awarded $251,453 for a 10-month project in Katherine, but this time through the Aboriginal Benefits Account to "deliver outcomes by getting adults into jobs, fostering Indigenous business and assisting indigenous people".

On December 7, 2017, the company received $289,300 for "VRD Quarry Enterprises — Indigenous Business Entity Establishment" to run until June 2018.

The ABC asked Senator Scullion and NARMCO to explain how the grant money was spent for each project listed.

NARMCO said it supported "regional and remote people to establish and develop sustainable businesses and implement Indigenous employment programs", but would not release the names of which companies they worked with, citing confidentiality issues.

It said it could not comment on how it spent the money, and added that it does not distribute the funds to Indigenous companies on behalf of the Commonwealth Government.

ABC News, 31 October 2018:

The Indigenous Advancement Strategy was established in 2014 to improve employment, economic development and social participation in Indigenous communities, and has been funded to the tune of $4.9 billion.

Senator Scullion told the hearing the money would help speed up longstanding land claims in the Northern Territory by allowing non-Indigenous groups affected by the claims to submit "detriment" applications to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner.

The commissioner is due to make recommendations by the end of the year about 16 outstanding land claims which have previously been recommended for grant, but never finalised.

"I'm sure many Aboriginal people wouldn't be happy with their public money being used by third parties who are effectively trying to cease or alter an Aboriginal land claim," NLC chairman Joe Morrison told the ABC.

"I think it's a poor look."

But during the hearing, Senator Scullion rejected concerns from Labor senator Malarndirri McCarthy that the funding would be used to oppose land claims.

"It is about making their position about how they use the land at the moment and about how different determinations may affect their industry in different ways," he said.

"It certainly wouldn't be about opposing land claims … this is a process about establishing what detriment they will have.

"The land commissioner can then cross-examine or question or ask for more evidence about that, but it is a requirement under the act that the land commissioner take detriment into consideration."

Funding to educate members and represent interests

Senator Scullion pointed out that the Northern Land Council had received $7.5 million in federal funding to progress the claims, and that another $1 million had gone to the land commissioner.

But Mr Morrison said AFANT, NTCA and NTSC should not have received their funding from the IAS.

"There's a process under the Land Rights Act that if people require assistance to submit detriment claims then that's dealt with by the Attorney-General's department, not by the Indigenous Affairs Minister," he said.

The Australian, 16 February 2018:

Barnaby Joyce owns land near a coal-seam gas project he promoted as resources minister, despite admitting it could be seen as a conflict of interest and pledging to sell it 4½ years ago.

The land, at Gwabegar in central NSW, is covered by the same petroleum exploration licence as Santos’s Narrabri Gas Project, which could supply up to half the state’s gas needs for the next 20 years.

Santos is seeking approval to drill up to 850 wells on 425 sites in the Narrabri project area, about 25km to the east of Mr Joyce’s land. If approved by the NSW government, the project could make way for further LNG developments in the area including, potentially, on Mr Joyce’s property.

The Deputy Prime Minister and his wife hold the land in two blocks totalling 970 hectares. They paid $230,000 for the first, on Heads Road, Gwabegar, in July 2006. They purchased an adjacent block for $342,000 in 2008.

Mr Joyce is on record as saying he didn’t realise the blocks — in The Pilliga region between Coonabarabran and Narrabri — were subject to a petroleum exploration licence when he bought them.

He told Fairfax Media before the 2013 election that he would sell the properties, acknowledging it could be “viewed as a conflict of interest”.

But the register of members’ interests, updated in January, shows he still holds the blocks.

Mr Joyce’s office told The Australian the Deputy Prime Minister was open to offers on the land, but declined to say what steps he had taken to sell it.

Real estate agents in the area said the properties were not currently listed for sale. Mr Joyce grazes cattle on the land, but locals say it is marginal farming country.

Mr Joyce advocated strongly for the project to go ahead in September last year, when, as resources minister, he and Malcolm Turnbull met with Santos and other gas companies.

Corruption in the Australian public sector

All three tiers of government in Australia have recorded instances where public service employees allegedly participate in potentially criminal activity.

Here is the most recent……

WA Crime and Corruption Commission, 16 August 2018:

The Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) has today tabled in State Parliament a comprehensive report into corrupt activity at the North Metropolitan Health Service (NMHS) that went undetected for up to a decade. 

The Report into bribery and corruption in maintenance and service contracts within North Metropolitan Health Service highlights serious misconduct at its most shocking – corrupt relationships between the private and public sectors resulting in the gross misuse and fraudulent misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

The Commission heard evidence of corruption and serious misconduct involving public officers who:

• accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts of interstate and overseas travel and accommodation from contractors in return for awarding them work;

• accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts of expensive restaurant meals, entertainment, alcohol and other gratuities in return for awarding work;

• received thousands of dollars in cash payments from contractors in return for awarding them continued work;

• facilitated contractors to fraudulently invoice NMHS to cover the costs of the corrupt benefits of travel, accommodation, meals, entertainment and cash they received;

• colluded with particular contractors in 'bid rigging' activities for the purpose of subverting the WA Health and NMHS procurement processes; and

• a senior public officer used contractors to renovate his private residence at a discount and then facilitated the building contractors to fraudulently invoice NMHS approximately $170,000 for works carried out on his private residence.

The Report recommends that prosecuting authorities consider preferring criminal charges against three former public servants (including a former Executive Director of Facilities Management at NMHS and a former Executive Director of Perth Children’s Hospital Service Integration) and no fewer than 10 private sector contractors.

Read the full media release

Media release - CCC report reveals corruption within the North Metropolitan Health Service and serious warnings for public sector agencies and private sector contractors.pdf 

Download the Report

Report into bribery and corruption in maintenance and service contracts within North Metropolitan Health Service

ABC News, 16 August 2018:

Senior WA Health bureaucrats corruptly reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and travel paid for by contractors in exchange for winning work on Government projects, an explosive new report has found.

One senior bureaucrat allowed contractors to fraudulently bill the North Metropolitan Health Service (NMHS) for $170,000 in renovations carried out on his private home, while he and another accepted benefits that included overseas travel, restaurant meals, entertainment, cash bribes and alcohol in exchange for the awarding of government contracts.

The Corruption and Crime Commission began investigating after a tip-off from a junior whistleblower within the department in 2014.

Its report recommends charges be considered against three former senior health bureaucrats and nearly a dozen contractors, for what was described as sustained efforts to engage in and cover up bribery.

The report named former NMHS executive directors John Fullerton and David Mulligan, as well as former facilities development manager Shaun Ensor, as the bureaucrats involved in the corrupt conduct.

"This report details more than a decade of corrupt conduct reaching into senior levels within WA Health," the CCC report stated.

"It exposes a culture of contractors freely giving gifts and benefits to public officers, with the expectation of thereby winning work and recovering the costs of the gifts through fraud.

The report uncovered extensive efforts by contractors to shower Mr Fullerton with gifts and other benefits in exchange for government work.

Examples of corruption found by the CCC:

Lavish lunches at restaurants including Nobu, Rockpool and Coco's totalling more than $50,000

A three-week business-class trip to the UK for Mr Fullerton and his wife, Jacqui

A business-class trip for the Fullertons to Canada to attend their son's wedding

A three-week US holiday for Mr and Mrs Fullerton

Annual trips to Melbourne for Mr and Mrs Fullerton

Trips to Canada, Bali, Hong Kong, China and Dubai for Mr Fullerton and his wife

An all-expenses paid trip to the UK for Mr Mulligan

A night at the Galaxy nightclub including paid hostesses

Melbourne Cup lunches and AFL grand final tickets

Gifts of cologne, shoes, business suits and shirts worth thousands of dollars

Cash payments of more than $25,000

Over about a decade, Mr Fullerton received thousands of dollars in cash and $150,000 in gifts including flights, meals, perfume and clothes paid for by contractors, according to the report.

"In return, those contractors obtained regular work at NMHS," the report stated.

"For the majority of contractors, this was the price of doing business with Mr Fullerton."……

The CCC said prosecution should be considered for 10 contractors involved in the corruption, as well as the three senior bureaucrats.

"On occasion, money added to NMHS invoices [was] purely for greed rather than to recoup money spent on 'gifts'," the report stated.

CCC commissioner John McKechnie said covert surveillance discovered some of those involved discussing plans to destroy evidence and create falsified records to cover up their wrongdoing.

"It's staggering, the extent of this in North Metro Health and the fact it has continued for so long," Mr McKechnie said.

"We think serious consideration should be given to prosecuting not only the public officers but some of the contractors.”

BACKGROUND

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, 17 July 2018:

Public sector corruption refers to the misuse of public power or position with an expectation of undue private gain or advantage (for self or others). It may include:

bribery

embezzlement

fraud

extortion

trading in influence

perverting the course of justice

exchanging goods for money or information.

Corrupt conduct can occur directly through the improper or unlawful actions of public sector officials, or through the actions of individuals operating in the private sector who attempt to inappropriately influence the functions of government.

Organised crime groups try to corrupt public officials to gain access to public funds, information, protection and other services to facilitate criminal activities. These officials are likely to be from law enforcement agencies, border agencies, and agencies that issue identification documents.

Corruption has a serious impact on government, industry and national security. It prejudices the rule of law and distorts markets. It can inhibit foreign investment and international credit ratings and damages Australia’s reputation as a safe reliable economy in which to invest and trade. It can also harm cooperation and relations with foreign governments and law enforcement agencies.

Corruption of public sector officials has substantial multiplier effects and benefits for organised crime. There may be significant links between corruption in the public sector and organised crime groups that, by their very nature, remain hidden. The key challenge in identifying and investigating corruption is that corrupt conduct occurs in secret, between consenting parties who are frequently skilled at deception.