Coalition seeks corruption watchdog probe on EDO

The opposition says the Federal Court identified examples of the EDO and its agents manipulating material, coaching witnesses and confecting evidence in its legal fight with Santos.

Senator Susan McDonald at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire/Martin Ollman

The national corruption watchdog has been asked to consider whether foreign donors ­behind the Environmental ­Defenders Office may have adversely affected the conduct of public officials.

Opposition resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald has sent a letter to the National Anti-­Corruption Commission urging it to investigate the taxpayer-­funded EDO following a Federal Court judgment.

Judge Natalie Charlesworth earlier this year threw out a legal challenge that the EDO had brought against Santos’s plans for a new gas pipeline in the Timor Sea on behalf of a group of Tiwi Islanders after finding a series of failures and concerns in the conduct of the EDO and the academics it recruited as experts.

Senator McDonald flagged in late November that she would consider referring the EDO to the NACC, given the watchdog’s capacity to investigate the recipients of commonwealth grants.

The letter, dated December 5, draws attention to Justice Charlesworth’s judgment that the senator said showed how the EDO and its employees and subcontractors distorted and manipulated material before a court, coached witnesses and confected and constructed evidence during the Santos matter.

“Arguably, the purpose of the above conduct was to both intentionally and dishonestly mislead a court, and to also intentionally and dishonestly mislead the commonwealth government’s own regulatory authority, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which is, in part, ‘responsible for integrity and environmental management for all offshore energy operation[s]’,” Senator McDonald wrote.

The senator noted Justice Charlesworth’s findings that a cultural heritage expert and EDO lawyer had engaged in the “subtle coaching” of Tiwi Islanders to effectively propel their traditions into the sea and the vicinity of Santos’s pipeline.

She also highlighted Justice Charlesworth finding that an EDO lawyer, during a community engagement meeting with Tiwi Islanders, drew on a map “in a way that could not on any reasonable view truthfully reflect what the Tiwi informant had said”.

“I request the NACC conduct an urgent investigation into the conduct of the EDO, its employees, and its various subcontractors, based on the findings of the Federal Court, and give urgent consideration to whether their actions and activities fall within the meaning of corrupt conduct,” Senator McDonald wrote.

She also requested the NACC assess whether the foreign funding the EDO received could “adversely affect ‘either directly or indirectly’ the honest or impartial exercise of any public official’s powers as a public official”.

The Federal Court in November ordered the EDO to pay the entirety of Santos’s legal costs from the case, which had totalled more than $9m. The EDO relies on state and federal government grants as well as donations from around Australia and the world.

Senator McDonald has repeatedly called for greater clarity around those foreign donors, noting the example of Russian mis­information as part of an environ­mental campaign to stop oil and gas drilling in Britain.

She requested the NACC assess whether the foreign sources of income the EDO received could “adversely affect either directly or indirectly the honest or impartial exercise of any public official’s powers as a public official”.

EDO chief executive David Morris said the organisation “strongly refutes suggestions made by Senator McDonald”.

The EDO is expected to receive $8.247m in commonwealth funds between the 2023 and 2026 financial years. The Coalition has vowed to cut all commonwealth funding to the EDO if it is elected.

The NACC has the capacity to investigate the recipients of commonwealth grants and their officers and employees “if they engage in conduct that adversely affects the honesty and impartiality of a public official’s exercise and performance of their powers, functions and duties”.