
Chaos at Aussie-led PNG anti-corruption body
The two Australian and one New Zealand commissioners have made criminal allegations against each other as PNG's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looks set to crumble.
Established in 2023, PNG's ICAC estimates the country loses up to $1.5bn every year to corruption. Reports from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report say corruption is endemic in PNG.
Brisbane commercial lawyer Andrew Forbes is the ICAC commissioner. Former Victorian detective Daniel Baulch is a deputy commissioner, as is former New Zealand Serious Fraud Office executive Graham Gill.
In September last year, a senior PNG ICAC official made a confidential affidavit, alleging the commissioner, Mr Forbes, had manipulated proposed laws to give himself the power to be the only person allowed to conduct compulsory questioning hearings in suspected corruption cases, The Age reported.
'We reasonably suspect that the commissioner has engaged in a course of corrupt conduct,' deputies Mr Gill and Mr Baulch wrote in a letter last year.
An arrest warrant was issued for Mr Forbes; however, he obtained a court injunction against the warrant.
Now, Mr Forbes has reported his deputies to police for alleged financial misconduct, related to travel and accommodation.
They told the ABC that they had been 'subjected to retaliatory behaviour' and would 'strongly defend the allegations'. Papua New Guinea's Independent Commission Against Corruption was established in 2023. PNG ICAC Credit: Supplied
The ABC reports the deputies have both left PNG, and ICAC's expat staff – including many Australians – are likely to resign.
The turmoil comes as PNG tries to avoid highly restrictive international money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures that would severely isolate the Oceanic nation, particularly families of Papuans living overseas who receive money from their expatriate relatives.
'When you look at the context of corruption in PNG, it is fair to say that 20 per cent of government spending is lost through corruption, waste or error in any given year,' Mr Gill said in July.
NewsWire has reached out to Mr Forbes for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
Tax big businesses that don't invest in new technology, science body argues
Billions of dollars in incentives to get Australian businesses to invest in innovation have not shifted a low level of research and development (R&D). Having tried a carrot, one of the nation's top scientific bodies wants to try the stick: whacking big business with a levy if they don't invest a minimum amount in R&D. 'Research and development underinvestment by both government and business had been long term and is now intolerable," said Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive at the Australian Academy of Science. As the government searches for ideas to boost the nation's flagging productivity and economic growth, the Australian Academy of Science is calling for a rebatable levy on businesses with annual revenue of more than $100 million. The idea is to force them to spend up on R&D — say 0.25 per cent or 0.5 per cent of their revenue — or cop a levy equal to that, with the money invested by the government in innovation. The academy is arguing that a massive boost in research and development is needed to boost productivity. "It's not just me saying it, it's the Treasury, it's the Productivity Commission," said Ms Arabia, who blasted the complacency of Australian businesses. And it is not just them either. The Lowy Institute's Jenny Gordon was chief economist at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and supports the push to fund R&D more effectively. "I don't know whether I'd call it a stick, I mean, you could also call it an incentive scheme," she said. "This is an alternative way to say, 'Well, we need to raise funding, reliable funding for R&D'. So that is not at the whim of government and whatever the budget decides to allocate. Australia spends vastly less than similar nations on R&D. In 2023, the Productivity Commission wrote that Australian businesses were not "keeping pace" with innovation. Prior to the pandemic, the Harvard Growth Lab Atlas of Economic Complexity ranked Australia 93rd in terms of the complexity of its economy. At the time that was lagging Kazakhstan, Uganda and Senegal, and only just ahead of Pakistan and Mali. The academy, an organisation representing Australia's top research scientists, argues sustained underinvestment by the business sector means there is now a gap of $32.5 billion when compared with the OCED average (we spend 0.89 per cent of GDP, less than half the OECD average of 1.99 per cent). It is proposing the levy to push business to go harder on innovation: to secure the future of Australian business. "Our back is up against a wall now," Ms Arabia said. Professor Roy Green knows about the benefits of innovation, as a special innovation advisor at the University of Technology Sydney and on the board of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). He believes Australian business has been coasting on the research done by tertiary institutions and government. What that means now, he says, is that we "have very poor productivity performance that the government is now trying to address … largely because of our failing research and development support system". The amount spent on R&D has fallen in all sectors: universities, public institutions and private businesses. "Public R&D barely makes a dent," Professor Green said. "And that's combined with a massive fall in business expenditure in R&D. The only institutions that are holding it up are universities, and that's only because of increased funding from overseas students — which we've just cut." Levies to push business to take up beneficial activities — such as the training guarantee in the 1990s — show it can be done, he added. The government's looming Economic Reform Roundtable will bring together business groups, unions, community sector representatives and experts in Canberra next month. Ahead of the event, groups like the academy are making suggestions for changes they would like to see, and submissions on what they see as key issues. The submission from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) was released before the suggestion by the academy to put a levy on business, and so does not include a response to it. What it does do is note how much we lag other nations and make suggestions for how to fix that. "This underperformance is closely tied to broader issues in the business environment, including weak private investment and an outdated tax and regulatory framework that discourages innovation," the ACCI submission noted. ACCI wants to see a long-term policy commitment and a clear strategy from Commonwealth and state governments. Among its recommendations are "refundable tax credits, direct grants, and concessional financing options" for small to medium-sized businesses and "stage-specific, low-interest government loans to support business R&D investment". Earlier this year, another business lobby group, the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), welcomed a government discussion paper on R&D. "We must fundamentally re-imagine Australia's R&D strategy as a dynamic, responsive system that recognises industry isn't just a vehicle for commercialising R&D developed elsewhere," Ai Group chief executive Innes Willox said at the time. "To put it simply, the current system is not working in Australia's interests." The group reiterated what the paper suggested, that R&D-intensive businesses demonstrate stronger jobs growth and resilience in uncertain times. "R&D investment is not merely an academic exercise but a crucial driver of national prosperity," Mr Willox said, calling for a radical push to boost the field. "Everything must be on the table. There can be no sacred cows. "Simply calling for R&D spending to reach 3 per cent of GDP [gross domestic product] isn't enough. As a start, we must address fundamental issues around commercialising public sector research and how to strengthen industry-research collaboration." As the roundtable approaches and more big ideas are thrown out, the future structure of R&D could be undergoing development of its own.

ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
Groups call for Victorian coal mine operators to pay for rehabilitation water
Victoria's power legacy is carved deep into the landscape in the Latrobe Valley. The heart of Victoria's coal-fired power industry, the region is home to three large coal mines that are collectively more than four times the size of Sydney Harbour. Those mines are in the process of closing as Victoria phases out coal power. The first, Hazelwood, closed in 2017, with the Yallourn mine to follow in 2028, and the last, Loy Yang, set to close in 2035. As part of their rehabilitation strategies, their owners plan to fill the mines with water and turn them into lakes. In doing so, the companies are relying on international cases of rehabilitation, such as the Ruhr Valley in Germany, and Lake Kepwari in Western Australia as examples of best practice. Power companies are required to present their rehabilitation strategies to the Victorian government for approval to ensure that they are safe and stable for the long term. But proposals to draw the water from the nearby Latrobe River system, and the vast quantities of water required, have environmentalists concerned. Environment Victoria senior organiser Hayley Sestokas said the river was already stressed and "in a state of terminal decline". "They already receive less than half of the flows they need to flush themselves out," Ms Sestokas said. "That helps prevent deadly algal blooms and increases in salinity, and these things are going to get worse as climate change heats the water as well." A 2019 Victorian government water study found that the amount of available water in the Latrobe River system was in decline and predicted to fall further due to climate change. It found long-term available water declined by a quarter between 1997 and 2017, from about 800 gigalitres (GL) a year to about 600GL. The report predicted that the amount would fall to about 467GL by 2050 and 334GL by 2080. Power generators have access to water to run their power stations, but those entitlements do not allow it to be used for mine rehabilitation. To fill the three mines, a total of 2,354GL of water is needed — more than four times the volume of Sydney Harbour at 500GL. Yallourn will need 630GL, Hazelwood 637GL, and Loy Yang 1,087GL. To access the water, operators for Yallourn and Loy Yang need to apply to the Victorian water minister for a bulk water entitlement. Engie, the company behind Hazelwood, has a separate private contract with Gippsland Water. AGL, which operates the Loy Yang mine, has made an application for an entitlement of up to 35.8GL a year for mine rehabilitation. On its website, AGL said the amount being requested was "the total of the historical average annual volume of water used for power generation". The Victorian government is seeking community feedback on the application, which closes on August 15. Environmentalists want the state government to charge mine operators to access the water for mine rehabilitation, with the money raised invested in projects to improve river health. "The funds generated must be reinvested locally into programs to help protect and restore the Latrobe River system." Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body (VRFish) representative Rob Caune, who has spent half a century on the region's waterways, said he was concerned about the impact filling mines with water would have downstream. Mr Caune, who is also a member of the Gippsland Lakes Recreational Fishing Alliance, said he was not convinced the mine operators' attempts to mitigate environmental impacts by staggering the water input over wetter or drier years would work. "The total amount of water required to rehabilitate all three brown-coal mines is [nearly] 2,500 billion litres of fresh water that is to come out of our already stressed rivers that flow into the Gippsland Lakes," he said. AGL said it was seeking access to water to fill the Loy Yang mine as part of its plan to rehabilitate the mine in a manner that was "safe and sustainable". It did not directly answer questions about whether it should pay for the water access. "Technical studies currently indicate that repurposing the coal mine pit as a lake is the most viable and sustainable rehabilitation option," AGL Loy Yang general manager Christo van Niekerk said. "A lake could create new habitats for wildlife and increase opportunities for the mine pit to be useful for a range of purposes in the decades ahead." Mine operators for Hazelwood and Yallourn similarly told the ABC a lake was the safest and most sustainable option for mine pits, with the water to be gradually used over a 10 to 20-year period. A spokesperson for the Victorian government said: "No decision has been made on AGL's application for a new bulk water entitlement and any water accessed for mine rehabilitation would not diminish the entitlements of existing users, including farmers and the environment."

ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
What does lifting trade restrictions on US beef mean for Australia?
It might not be on our plates or menus just yet, but US beef has been a hot topic of conversation across the nation after this week's decision to lift import restrictions that had been in place for more than two decades. Australia banned beef imports from the US in 2003 after the fatal neurological disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, was discovered in American cattle. The blanket ban was lifted in 2019, however restrictions remained on beef that was sourced from Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the US, amid concerns it could carry the disease. "The Americans were unwilling to … do the traceability work to make sure that beef that was coming to Australia wasn't actually rebranded from somewhere else," veterinarian and former NSW Farmers Association president, James Jackson, said. "We don't want foot and mouth disease in this country, we don't want our consumers to eat beef and get Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is the disease you get from eating cattle with mad cow disease." While some in the industry were optimistic that lifting the restrictions would open up trade opportunities for Australian producers, others raised concerns that Australia's biosecurity could be compromised. The federal government said the move was the result of a decade-long biosecurity review that found more robust movement controls had been introduced in the US. "The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks," Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said. "The Albanese Labor government will never compromise on biosecurity." Nationals leader David Littleproud questioned the timing of the decision, saying it looked as though it was a trade to appease US President Donald Trump. The biosecurity restrictions on beef imports from the United States were one of the key grievances that led the Trump administration to impose tariffs on Australia. Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said while the decision may have been pushed through "slightly quicker" than expected, he was confident it was the result of a long-running assessment. Global AgriTrends analyst Simon Quilty said the risk of US beef imports introducing diseases to Australia was now much lower. "They have improved their traceability methods within America and I think, in all honesty, that the degree of risk is significantly low," he said. Mr McKillop said any risk would also be mitigated by the limited amount of beef Australia was likely to import from the US. "They have the lowest beef herd in 70 years in the US at the moment [due to drought]," he said. "The most [beef] that was ever brought in, and this was pre-BSE … was 210 tonnes … in contrast to the 395,000 tonnes we exported to the US last year." Mr McKillop said the US was also experiencing near-record beef and cattle prices, and it was unlikely Australians would want to pay high prices for their product. While the amount of beef coming into Australia from the US may be limited, Mr Jackson said there could be a market for it. "There may be some lines [of product] come into Australia, people who want to sell American beef on a restaurant menu or something like that," he said. Mr Jackson said Australia must be open to accepting American beef if it wanted to maintain a trade relationship with the US. "Part of a trade deal is that you're willing to take product from other countries," he said. "Are we happy with Australian consumers eating American beef? Well, probably we're not that happy, but the reality is that if you trade, you've got to be happy to take other people's product as well." The trade restriction on US beef has been a key grievance for the Trump administration, which placed a 10 per cent tariff on all Australian imports earlier this year. Professor Ben Lyons, from the University of Southern Queensland's Rural Economies Centre of Excellence, said it was difficult to know how the move would impact that tariff. "Nothing would surprise us at the moment because that's the new paradigm under the Trump administration — full of surprises," he said. Dr Lyons said he was confident the Australian beef industry would maintain a strong export market, regardless of US-imposed tariffs. "If past performance is the best indicator of the future, we always seem to find a way with our export markets," he said. "Even the announcement of this tariff on Australian beef at the beginning of the year hasn't really had any economic impact as yet on our exports. "I think we should just carry on calmly and do what we do best. I don't really see this as being a long-term issue for Australian agriculture."