Government and Australian Greens Senators' Dissenting Report
Government and Australian Greens Senators have serious concerns
about the reasons for this inquiry, the manner in which it was run, and its
findings. The entire inquiry has suffered from a number of profound flaws.
A flawed reference
The report states that the reason for the reference of this issue
to the committee was that 'a number of concerns have been raised in the media
about Centrecorp's business operations...'.[1]
The Government and Australian Greens Senators emphasise that
the allegations about Centrecorp's operation have been raised by three
journalists, writing for two papers: Erwin Chlanda from the Alice Springs
News; and Russel Skelton and Ben Schneiders from The Age. Those journalists
made submissions to the inquiry, and it is clear from those submissions that
significant personal hostility exists between the journalists against the
Central Land Council and Centrecorp.[2]
Accordingly, Government and Australian Green Senators question the impartiality
and integrity of the allegations made against the Central Land Council and
Centrecorp.
Government and Australian Green Senators further note that the
criticisms and allegations made by the journalists have not been repeated by
any stakeholders or beneficiaries of either the CLC or Centrecorp. Nor has any
other evidence been presented to the committee to corroborate them. Despite the
inquiry being advertised in the Australian, the Centralian Advocate and the
Alice Springs News, as well as the Internet, the committee received only six
public submissions and one supplementary submission. In light of these facts,
Government and Australian Green Senators cannot see how the criticisms of
Centrecorp and the CLC can be sustained.
In addition, there have been at least three audits of various
aspects of the CLC and Centrecorp by the Australian National Audit Office
(ANAO) and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, Office of Evaluation and
Audit (Indigenous Programs) (OEA) in the past five years.[3]
None of those audits have found any evidence that either the CLC or Centrecorp
is operating other than in strict accordance with their legal obligations. Attempts
by Opposition Senators to qualify, for political reasons, the findings of the
three audits are disingenuous and with no foundation.
These audits included a very thorough audit of Centrecorp by
the OEA, which reported as recently as November 2008. With all the financial
and audit expertise available to the OEA, it did not uncover any legal obligation
which had been breached by Centrecorp or the CLC, either individually or in
their relationship with one another.
Accordingly, Government and Australian Greens Senators saw no
reason for, or benefit of, the reference of this issue to the committee. Neither
the Government nor the Australian Greens supported the reference when it was originally
moved in the Senate by the Opposition back in May 2009. The Government and
Australian Greens Senators saw it as an unproductive use of the committee's
time and resources to inquire into the financial and management operations of
an organisation so recently audited by experts, particularly when the committee
lacks the necessary audit expertise. The inquiry simply placed unnecessary
burdens on the CLC and Centrecorp, for no public benefit.
A flawed inquiry process
Government and Australian Greens Senators on the committee
have serious concerns with the way in which this inquiry was run.
The Coalition majority of the committee deferred, on two
occasions, public hearings and then decided not to hold public hearings for
this inquiry, on the basis that 'it was unnecessary to further investigate [the
CLC and Centrecorp]'[4]
because 'the committee did not find any evidence of impropriety in the
operation or management of either organisation'.[5]
Government and Australian Greens Senators objected to this course of action but
the Coalition majority were unyielding.
Yet, the Coalition majority made a
number of serious but unfounded criticisms of the CLC and Centrecorp in its
report, and the lack of a public hearing denied either organisation the
opportunity to respond. This constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid
providing the CLC or Centrecorp with the opportunity to defend themselves
against what could only be described as politically motivated attacks and
criticism.
Government and Australian Greens Senators are of the view
that if the committee wishes to make public criticisms of any organisation in a
report, in the interests of fairness and justice it should give those
organisations the opportunity to respond to those criticisms.
Furthermore, the majority report criticised both the CLC and
Centrecorp for being unhelpful because of their alleged 'reluctance to provide
the committee with basic financial information about [Centrecorp's]
operations', and the editing of documents by both organisations.[6]
Government and Australian Greens Senators firmly reject these statements.
Government and Australian Greens Senators note the comments
contained in the majority report regarding the CLC's extensive public reporting
obligations:
The CLC is a Commonwealth Statutory Authority within the
terms of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act).
The CLC is also a Native Title Representative Body under the Native Title
Act 1993. Both acts prescribe various annual reporting requirements which
the CLC must fulfil. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) performs
annual audits of the CLC's financial statements. There is no suggestion in any
of the OEA or ANAO audits of the CLC that these statutory requirements are not
being fulfilled.[7]
The committee wrote to both organisations on 18 June 2009
requesting an array of financial and management documents, many of which were
not, and usually would not be placed, in the public domain. The committee requested
the documents by 26 June 2009, giving the CLC and Centrecorp only six
working days in which to collate the documents and edit any commercially
sensitive, personal, or unnecessary information from them.
Centrecorp responded to the request the following day,
suggesting that the committee obtain the documents from the ANAO. On 27 June,
Centrecorp sent the committee a further letter requesting clarification of the
terms of the committee's request. In total, the committee sent Centrecorp four
letters regarding its request for documents during June and July 2009.
The CLC provided the committee with 1602 pages of documents
in response to the committee's request on 17 August 2009. Centrecorp provided
the committee with 264 pages of documents in response to its request on 24
August 2009.[8]
Government and Australian Greens Senators do not consider it
unreasonable for the CLC and Centrecorp to have taken two months to provide the
committee with that quantity of documents, particularly given that the scope of
the committee's request to Centrecorp was not clarified until a month prior to
Centrecorp providing the requested documents.
Government and Australian Greens Senators also do not believe
the CLC and Centrecorp's editing of those documents was unreasonable. The CLC have
a right to remove information which was: 'not within the committee's terms of
reference',[9]
predominantly portions of minutes from board meetings which do not relate to
Centrecorp; or 'subject to privilege, confidentiality, commercial-in-confidence
or privacy considerations'.[10]
Centrecorp removed commercial-in-confidence information.[11]
Given that Centrecorp is not required to provide any
financial or other information to government, Government and Australian Greens Senators
consider their cooperation in providing 264 pages of documents which were
not commercial-in-confidence commendable. It is unreasonable for the Coalition
members of the committee to expect a private company, who are subjected to a
politically motivated attack, to provide commercially sensitive information to
a Senate committee.
Additionally, the committee's behaviour towards Centrecorp
and the CLC can hardly be described as cooperative. The committee organised and
then cancelled public hearings in Alice Springs on two occasions, placing a
substantial imposition on both organisations which had ensured the availability
of senior executives and directors on those dates.
In light of these facts, the Government and Australian
Greens Senators on the committee consider the criticisms of Centrecorp and the
CLC made in the majority report to be entirely unfounded.
Flawed conclusions
The report is entirely contradictory in its findings and
conclusions. On one hand it says there is no evidence of 'wrong doing' in quite
a number of places, but then attempts to leave the impression that CLC and
Centrecorp have not been cooperative and there are still concerns. Given the
lack of evidence before the committee on these issues, Government and Australian
Greens Senators reject these suggestions outright.
Government and Australian Greens Senators endorse the
majority report finding that '...the committee did not find any evidence of
impropriety in the operation or management of either organisation, nor in the
relationship between the organisations.'[12]
This statement is supported by several other sections in the report which demonstrate
that there is no case for Centrecorp and the CLC to answer. The following
quotes provide examples:
...The committee concludes that the documents provided by the
CLC, Centrecorp and related entities do not, on their face, disclose any
inappropriate behaviour on the part of either organisation, or indicate an
improper relationship between the two organisations.[13]
The committee has not received the information provided by
Centrecorp to its shareholders and beneficiaries and therefore makes no
independent finding as to its adequacy. The committee did not consider it
necessary to inquire further into the issue, given the OEA's previous
consideration, coupled with the fact that none of Centrecorp's shareholders, or
current or potential beneficiaries submitted concerns to the committee.[14]
...the committee found no indication of: the existence of an
improper relationship between the entities; any impropriety in Centrecorp's use
of, or accounting for, government funds; any improper conduct in Centrecorp's
donations; nor anything to suggest that Centrecorp is acting other than in
accordance with its charitable charter.[15]
Government and Australian Greens Senators also acknowledge
the OEA's findings that there is room for improvement in the transparency of
Centrecorp's operations.[16]
In this vein, Government and Australian Greens Senators welcome the recent
establishment of the Centrecorp Foundation which addresses one of the OEA's key
concerns regarding the administration and payment of donations.[17]
The Foundation is a new donations body established by Centrecorp that is 'primarily
focussed on the needs of young Aboriginal people in disadvantaged
circumstances'.[18]
The Foundation is a significant step towards implementing the OEA's findings
about the governance and transparency of Centrecorp's donation policy, and the
Government and Australian Greens Senators commend Centrecorp for this
initiative.
Government and Australian Greens Senators emphasise the fact
that Centrecorp is a private organisation that operates solely for the
furtherance of charitable objectives. Centrecorp has provided donations
totalling $448 021 to the Central Australian Indigenous community over the past
five years, and also provides other significant benefits to that community.
Centrecorp has been very successful in building up assets to increase its
income, which ultimately increases the benefits available to Indigenous people.
The accumulation of assets for charitable purposes was exactly what Centrecorp
was established to do, and is exactly what it has done.
There has been no attempt by Opposition Senators to
effectively address the terms of reference and the Central Land Council and
Centrecorp have been denied natural justice as a result of the cancellation of
public hearings and what seems to be the prejudice against these bodies by Coalition
Senators involved in the inquiry.
This has been a flawed reference, a flawed process, and a
politically motivated attempt to discredit the Central Land Council and
Centrecorp and, as a result the conclusions of the majority report are
fundamentally flawed.
Senator Doug Cameron
Deputy Chair
Senator Trish Crossin
Senator Rachel Siewert
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page