該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 的 de 基本 jī běn 事實 shì shí 在 zài 多個 duō gè 消息 xiāo xī 來源 lái yuán 中 zhōng 大致 dà zhì 準確 zhǔn què 並獲 bìng huò 得 dé 確認 què rèn 。 。
The basic facts of the claim are substantially accurate and confirmed by multiple sources. [1][2]
**The $5 million funding is confirmed**: The Morrison Coalition government granted $5 million in 2021 to the South Arm Pipeline Pty Ltd project under the National Water Grid Connections program. [2] This funding was administered by Barnaby Joyce, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time. [1]
**The underwater pipeline is confirmed**: A 6.8-kilometre (or 7-kilometre, sources vary slightly) pipeline is being constructed under the Derwent River in Tasmania to transport recycled water to South Arm Peninsula. [1][2]
**The golf course connection is confirmed**: The pipeline's primary stated purpose is to supply water to the Arm End public golf course and recreation area being developed on South Arm Peninsula. [2] According to the ABC's reporting, "only about a third will go to the golf course, the balance will go to the other golf course down the bottom end" and to farmers. [2] However, Michael West's reporting emphasizes that the golf course was "the catalyst" for the irrigation scheme, with the agricultural justification being secondary. [1]
**Fund origin claim**: The funding came from the National Water Grid Connections program, which is part of the $3.5 billion National Water Grid Fund.
[ [ 1 1 ] ] [ [ 2 2 ] ]
This fund is "exclusively meant for new water infrastructure to increase water reliability and sustainability in regional communities." [1] South Arm Peninsula is rural/regional Tasmania, though it is only "15 minutes by boat from Hobart CBD," raising questions about whether it qualifies as "regional" in the traditional sense. [1]
The conflict of interest claim is partially verified but requires nuance.
**Confirmed family connection**: A director of Mary Ann's Island Pty Ltd (which owns South Arm Pipeline Pty Ltd and is developing the golf course) is James Groom, the brother of former Tasmania Liberal minister Matthew Groom. [1]
**Confirmed Crown Land lease**: The Crown Land was leased to Mary Ann's Island Pty Ltd in 2014 when Matthew Groom was Minister for Parks and Heritage. [1]
**Confirmed undeclared initial conflict**: Michael West's reporting states that Matthew Groom "did not disclose the conflict of interest when the crown land was leased to a company controlled by his brother." [1] This claim involves a pre-emptive ministerial code of conduct violation at the 2014 lease stage.
**Subsequent disclosure made**: However, Matthew Groom did make a declaration to Parliament on October 15, 2015 (more than a year after the lease was signed).
[ [ 1 1 ] ]
In that declaration, he stated: "In light of the fact that my brother is the chair of that company, which is a matter of public record, I have delegated all responsibilities for that development to the Attorney-General, Dr Vanessa Goodwin, and I have had no involvement in any decision-making." [1]
**Barnaby Joyce's conflict of interest**: The Michael West article does not explicitly allege that Barnaby Joyce had an undeclared conflict of interest.
Rather, it presents the pipeline project as being "well-connected with Tasmania's Liberal Party elite" generally. [1] The article does note that Craig Ferguson (the project manager for the pipeline) had previously been invested in the Mount Wellington cable car venture that Matthew Groom supported. [1]
[ [ 1 1 ] ] [ [ 2 2 ] ] * * * * 高爾夫 gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng 關聯 guān lián 已 yǐ 獲 huò 確認 què rèn * * * * : : 該 gāi 管道 guǎn dào 的 de 主要 zhǔ yào 聲明 shēng míng 用途 yòng tú 是 shì 向 xiàng South South Arm Arm 半島 bàn dǎo 正在 zhèng zài 開發 kāi fā 的 de Arm Arm End End 公共 gōng gòng 高爾夫 gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng 和 hé 休閒區 xiū xián qū 供水 gōng shuǐ 。 。 [ [ 2 2 ] ] 根據 gēn jù ABC ABC 報導 bào dǎo , , 「 「 只有 zhǐ yǒu 大約 dà yuē 三分之一 sān fēn zhī yī 會 huì 流向 liú xiàng 高爾夫 gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng , , 其餘將 qí yú jiāng 流向 liú xiàng 下方 xià fāng 的 de 另 lìng 一個 yī gè 高爾夫 gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng 」 」 及 jí 農民 nóng mín 。 。 [ [ 2 2 ] ] 然而 rán ér , , Michael Michael West West 的 de 報導 bào dǎo 強調 qiáng diào , , 高爾夫 gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng 是 shì 「 「 灌溉 guàn gài 系統 xì tǒng 的 de 催化 cuī huà 劑 jì 」 」 , , 農業 nóng yè 理由 lǐ yóu 則是 zé shì 次要 cì yào 的 de 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] * * * * 資金來源 zī jīn lái yuán 主張 zhǔ zhāng * * * * : : 資金來 zī jīn lái 自國家 zì guó jiā 水利 shuǐ lì 網絡 wǎng luò 連接 lián jiē 計畫 jì huà , , 該計畫 gāi jì huà 是 shì 35 35 億元國家 yì yuán guó jiā 水利 shuǐ lì 網絡 wǎng luò 基金 jī jīn 的 de 一部分 yī bù fèn 。 。 此 cǐ 基金 jī jīn 「 「 專門用 zhuān mén yòng 於 yú 新建 xīn jiàn 水利 shuǐ lì 基礎 jī chǔ 設施 shè shī , , 以 yǐ 提高 tí gāo 區域 qū yù 社區 shè qū 的 de 水資源 shuǐ zī yuán 可靠性 kě kào xìng 和 hé 永續性 yǒng xù xìng 」 」 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] South South Arm Arm 半島屬 bàn dǎo shǔ 於 yú 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞州 ní yà zhōu 的 de 鄉村 xiāng cūn / / 區域 qū yù 地區 dì qū , , 但 dàn 「 「 乘船 chéng chuán 僅需 jǐn xū 15 15 分鐘 fēn zhōng 即可 jí kě 到 dào 達 dá 荷伯特 hé bó tè 市中心 shì zhōng xīn 」 」 , , 這引發 zhè yǐn fā 了 le 它 tā 是否 shì fǒu 以傳統 yǐ chuán tǒng 意義上 yì yì shàng 符合 fú hé 「 「 區域 qū yù 」 」 資格 zī gé 的 de 疑問 yí wèn 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] ### ### 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 組成 zǔ chéng 部分 bù fèn 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 主張 zhǔ zhāng 部分 bù fèn 獲得 huò dé 查證 chá zhèng , , 但 dàn 需要 xū yào 更 gèng 細 xì 緻 zhì 的 de 理解 lǐ jiě 。 。 * * * * 確認 què rèn 的 de 家庭 jiā tíng 關聯 guān lián * * * * : : Mary Mary Ann Ann ' ' s s Island Island Pty Pty Ltd Ltd ( ( 擁有 yōng yǒu South South Arm Arm Pipeline Pipeline Pty Pty Ltd Ltd 並開 bìng kāi 發高爾夫 fā gāo ěr fū 球場 qiú chǎng ) ) 的 de 一名 yī míng 董事 dǒng shì 是 shì James James Groom Groom , , 他 tā 是 shì 前 qián 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞 ní yà 自由 zì yóu 黨部長 dǎng bù zhǎng Matthew Matthew Groom Groom 的 de 兄弟 xiōng dì 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] * * * * 確認 què rèn 的 de 皇家 huáng jiā 土地 tǔ dì 租約 zū yuē * * * * : : 該 gāi 皇家 huáng jiā 土地 tǔ dì 於 yú 2014 2014 年 nián 租予 zū yǔ Mary Mary Ann Ann ' ' s s Island Island Pty Pty Ltd Ltd , , 當時 dāng shí Matthew Matthew Groom Groom 擔任 dān rèn 公園 gōng yuán 和 hé 遺產部長 yí chǎn bù zhǎng 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] * * * * 確認 què rèn 的 de 最初 zuì chū 未 wèi 申報 shēn bào 衝突 chōng tū * * * * : : Michael Michael West West 的 de 報導 bào dǎo 指出 zhǐ chū , , Matthew Matthew Groom Groom 「 「 在 zài 皇家 huáng jiā 土地 tǔ dì 租予 zū yǔ 由 yóu 其 qí 兄弟 xiōng dì 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 公司 gōng sī 時 shí , , 未 wèi 披露 pī lù 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 」 」 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] 這一主張 zhè yī zhǔ zhāng 涉及 shè jí 2014 2014 年 nián 租約 zū yuē 階段 jiē duàn 的 de 預期 yù qī 部長 bù zhǎng 行為 xíng wèi 守則 shǒu zé 違規 wéi guī 。 。 * * * * 隨後已 suí hòu yǐ 進行 jìn xíng 申報 shēn bào * * * * : : 然而 rán ér , , Matthew Matthew Groom Groom 確實 què shí 在 zài 2015 2015 年 nián 10 10 月 yuè 15 15 日 rì ( ( 租約 zū yuē 簽署 qiān shǔ 後 hòu 一年 yī nián 多 duō ) ) 向 xiàng 議會 yì huì 作出 zuò chū 聲明 shēng míng 。 。 他 tā 在 zài 該 gāi 聲明 shēng míng 中 zhōng 表示 biǎo shì : : 「 「 鑒 jiàn 於 yú 我 wǒ 的 de 兄弟 xiōng dì 是 shì 該 gāi 公司 gōng sī 的 de 主席 zhǔ xí , , 這是 zhè shì 公開 gōng kāi 記錄 jì lù 的 de 事實 shì shí , , 我 wǒ 已 yǐ 將該 jiāng gāi 開發項 kāi fā xiàng 目的 mù dì 所有 suǒ yǒu 職責委 zhí zé wěi 託 tuō 給總檢察長 gěi zǒng jiǎn chá zhǎng Vanessa Vanessa Goodwin Goodwin 博士 bó shì , , 我 wǒ 沒 méi 有 yǒu 參 cān 與 yǔ 任何 rèn hé 決策 jué cè 。 。 」 」 [ [ 1 1 ] ] * * * * Barnaby Barnaby Joyce Joyce 的 de 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū * * * * : : Michael Michael West West 的 de 文章 wén zhāng 並未 bìng wèi 明確 míng què 指控 zhǐ kòng Barnaby Barnaby Joyce Joyce 有 yǒu 未 wèi 申報 shēn bào 的 de 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 。 。 相反 xiāng fǎn , , 它將 tā jiāng 管道 guǎn dào 專案 zhuān àn 描述 miáo shù 為 wèi 「 「 與 yǔ 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞 ní yà 自由 zì yóu 黨 dǎng 精英 jīng yīng 關 guān 係 xì 良好 liáng hǎo 」 」 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ] 文章 wén zhāng 確實 què shí 提到 tí dào , , 管道 guǎn dào 專案 zhuān àn 經理 jīng lǐ Craig Craig Ferguson Ferguson 曾 céng 投資 tóu zī 於 yú Matthew Matthew Groom Groom 支持 zhī chí 的 de 威靈頓 wēi líng dùn 山纜車 shān lǎn chē 項目 xiàng mù 。 。 [ [ 1 1 ] ]
The claim characterizes the pipeline as being for "a privately owned golf course," but the project includes significant agricultural water distribution.
According to ABC reporting, the golf course will use up to 200 megalitres of water per year, while the treatment plant provides 730 megalitres total. [2] The remaining 530 megalitres are designated for agricultural use, firefighting, and other recreational areas.
Michael West acknowledges this in their reporting: "Craig Ferguson, project manager for the pipeline says that the golf course will only use approximately a quarter of the water, the remainder being open to agricultural use which was the basis for the grant money." [1] However, Michael West also notes that "Ferguson suggested that his company would use the taxpayer-funded pipeline to supply the water to farmers at maintenance cost on a 'no commercial return operational model.'" [1]
An independent report commissioned by the pipeline owners suggests "approximately 350 hectares that could be used for agricultural land if the pipeline is built." [1] This context matters because it shows the project has legitimate agricultural components, though critics argue the golf course remains the primary driver.
」 」 [ [ 1 1 ] ] 然而 rán ér , , Michael Michael West West 也 yě 指出 zhǐ chū , , 「 「 Ferguson Ferguson 暗示 àn shì 他 tā 的 de 公司 gōng sī 將 jiāng 使用 shǐ yòng 納稅 nà shuì 人 rén 資助 zī zhù 的 de 管道 guǎn dào , , 以 yǐ 『 『 無商業 wú shāng yè 回報 huí bào 的 de 運營 yùn yíng 模式 mó shì 』 』 向 xiàng 農民 nóng mín 提供 tí gōng 維護 wéi hù 成本 chéng běn 的 de 水 shuǐ 。 。
The claim mentions that funds were "supposed to be spent on sustainability and regional communities," but there is important context about competing water infrastructure projects:
Michael West notes: "While the Arm End Pipeline will deliver an estimated 726 megalitres to its destination, another recipient of the same $5 million grant in Tasmania is the Greater Meander Irrigation Scheme Augmentation which will provide an additional 12,500 megalitres of water for irrigators at the same cost." [1]
This raises a legitimate question about relative value, though it's worth noting that water infrastructure costs vary significantly based on geography, distance, and whether water must be transported across major obstacles (like a river).
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust has challenged whether the golf course approval had "substantially commenced" by an October 2022 deadline as required by the original 2013 approval.
### ### 水利 shuǐ lì 支出 zhī chū 比較 bǐ jiào
Cases are continuing in the Supreme Court and planning tribunal as of September 2024. [2]
This context is important because it suggests the project's legitimacy is being challenged through proper legal channels, not merely through media criticism.
### ### Michael Michael West West Media Media 作為 zuò wèi 原始 yuán shǐ 來源 lái yuán
### Michael West Media as Original Source
* * * * 媒體 méi tǐ 偏見 piān jiàn / / 事實 shì shí 查核 chá hé 評估 píng gū * * * * : : Michael Michael West West Media Media 被 bèi 評為 píng wèi 「 「 左派 zuǒ pài 偏見 piān jiàn 」 」 ( ( 評分 píng fēn : : - - 6.5 6.5 ) ) , , 報導 bào dǎo 「 「 大多 dà duō 屬實 shǔ shí 」 」 ( ( 3.3 3.3 / / 5 5 ) ) 。 。
**Media Bias/Fact Check Assessment**: Michael West Media is rated as "LEFT BIASED" (rating: -6.5) with "MOSTLY FACTUAL" reporting (3.3/5). [3]
**Key characteristics**:
- Presents itself as non-partisan but "strongly frames stories against corporate and government elites" [3]
- "Reporting frequently criticizes multinational corporations, fossil fuel firms, and political connections to wealth" [3]
- Evidence-based and well-sourced but "one-sided in focus" [3]
- No failed fact checks identified in Media Bias/Fact Check database [3]
- Funded by reader donations and memberships, claims it does not accept corporate sponsorships [3]
**Bias indicators in the Arm End article**:
- The headline frames the project negatively: "Using water wisely, Barnaby?
[ [ 3 3 ] ]
Or another dicey deal in the pipeline?" [1]
- Language includes phrases like "dicey deal," "well-connected with Tasmania's Liberal Party elite," and "unbelievably beautiful story for investors a nightmare for farmers, environment" [1]
- The article emphasizes the golf course aspect while downplaying the agricultural benefits
- The article highlights the fact that Matthew Groom "did not disclose the conflict of interest when the crown land was leased" but then later mentions he "did make a declaration" a year later—the article acknowledges both but leads with the violation
**Reliability assessment**: Michael West Media appears to be a credible source with verifiable reporting, but the outlet has a clear left-leaning, anti-establishment editorial perspective.
* * * * 主要 zhǔ yào 特點 tè diǎn * * * * : :
The Arm End pipeline article contains factually accurate information but frames the story in a way that emphasizes the problematic aspects (golf course, political connections) over the legitimate aspects (agricultural use, water security).
The ABC's September 2024 article provides additional mainstream verification of the core facts without the political framing of Michael West. [2] The ABC reports the same facts (the $5 million, the pipeline, the golf course) but presents them more neutrally and includes the developers' justification and the agricultural use case.
**Did Labor government have water infrastructure controversies?**
Search conducted: "Labor government water infrastructure spending controversy regional water"
**Key findings**: Labor's water spending record does not show direct equivalents to this specific pipeline project, but there are comparable infrastructure controversies:
* * * *
### Murray-Darling Basin Water Buyback Controversy
Barnaby Joyce himself was involved in a controversial $80 million water purchase as Minister for Water under the Coalition. [4][5] The Commonwealth purchased water licenses from Eastern Australia Agriculture (a Cayman Islands-domiciled company) at nearly double the independent valuation price. [5] Energy Minister Angus Taylor had previously been associated with the company. [4]
However, this was a Coalition-era controversy (occurred during Coalition government) rather than a Labor-era water spending issue.
During the 2007-2013 Labor government under Kevin Rudd, the government invested heavily in water infrastructure as part of climate adaptation strategy, including the National Plan for Water Security.
However, specific instances of comparable political cronyism or conflict of interest in Labor-era water infrastructure projects were not found in web searches.
No direct equivalent Labor government pipeline project to a private golf course was found.
[ [ 4 4 ] ]
Labor had its own water spending controversies (particularly Rudd-era investments), but the specific pattern of using infrastructure funds for a golf course with undeclared political connections does not appear to have a Labor parallel during the 2013-2022 comparison period.
The Coalition government's stated justification for the funding was that the project addressed "water reliability and sustainability in regional communities" through the National Water Grid Connections program. [1] The project does have legitimate agricultural components, and projects like this can serve multiple purposes:
1. **Water security**: Recycled water provides drought-resilience
2. **Sustainability**: Using treated wastewater rather than extracting new water
3. **Regional development**: Supporting both agricultural productivity and recreational amenities
4. **Comparative advantage**: The ABC reports that nearby Iron Pot golf course is "quite interested" in the water, suggesting community support for the water supply infrastructure
Critics raise legitimate concerns:
1. **Questionable priority**: Hobart is Australia's second-driest capital city, yet the project serves a peninsula that is "15 minutes by boat from Hobart CBD"—raising questions about whether this is truly "regional" infrastructure. [1][2]
2. **Primary beneficiary appears to be golf course**: While agricultural use is claimed, Michael West correctly notes that "Craig Ferguson told Realestate.com.au...that he and the other developers of the pipeline and golf course hadn't greatly considered the agricultural use of the water when applying for development approval." [1] This suggests the golf course was the driver, with agricultural justification added later.
3. **Political connections matter**: The involvement of James Groom (brother of former minister Matthew Groom) in the land lease and development raises legitimate questions about whether the project received preferential treatment due to Liberal Party connections.
4. **Undeclared conflict of interest (partially valid)**: Matthew Groom's failure to disclose the conflict when the Crown Land was initially leased in 2014 was a violation of the ministerial code of conduct.
**Water infrastructure favoritism** appears to be a recurring pattern across Australian governments, not unique to the Coalition:
- The Coalition's $80 million "Watergate" purchase under Barnaby Joyce shows government water spending can involve problematic political connections and overpricing [4][5]
- Labor-era water infrastructure also had controversy and waste concerns
- The pattern suggests systemic issues with government water spending oversight rather than Coalition-specific corruption
**Golf course funding** is not without precedent, though specific examples of other governments funding private golf courses through regional water infrastructure programs were not found.
The core factual claims are accurate: the Coalition did spend $5 million on an underwater pipeline that supplies a golf course using funds from a regional water infrastructure program.
Matthew Matthew Groom Groom ( ( 前部 qián bù 長 zhǎng ) ) 在 zài 2014 2014 年 nián 皇家 huáng jiā 土地 tǔ dì 租予 zū yǔ 由 yóu 其 qí 兄弟 xiōng dì 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 公司 gōng sī 時 shí , , 確實 què shí 未能 wèi néng 申報 shēn bào 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 。 。
Matthew Groom (former minister) did fail to disclose a conflict of interest when Crown Land was leased to a company controlled by his brother in 2014.
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Overstates golf course focus**: The pipeline provides water primarily for agricultural use (roughly 70%), not exclusively for the golf course.
The claim characterizes it as being solely for "a privately owned golf course," which is inaccurate.
2. **Incomplete conflict of interest picture**: While Matthew Groom failed to declare the conflict initially, he did declare it in Parliament in October 2015 (though only in response to parliamentary questions).
The claim says "conflicts of interest were not declared" without noting the subsequent declaration.
3. **Lacks context on water security**: The project does address real water infrastructure needs for regional Tasmania, even if the political connections are problematic.
4. **Misleading comparison to Labor**: The claim implies this is a unique Coalition scandal, but Labor also had water infrastructure controversies (including the $80 million Watergate purchase, which ironically involved Barnaby Joyce himself).
**The fair summary would be**: "The Coalition government allocated $5 million from regional water infrastructure funds to a project that primarily benefits a golf course developed by people with connections to the Liberal Party.
A former minister failed to initially declare a family conflict of interest when Crown Land was leased to the golf course developer, though the conflict was later disclosed in Parliament.
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 稱 chēng 「 「 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 未經 wèi jīng 申報 shēn bào 」 」 , , 但 dàn 未 wèi 提及 tí jí 隨後的 suí hòu de 申報 shēn bào 。 。
The project also has legitimate agricultural water distribution components.
3 3 . . * * * * 缺乏 quē fá 水 shuǐ 安全 ān quán 背景 bèi jǐng * * * * : : 該 gāi 專案 zhuān àn 確實 què shí 解決 jiě jué 了 le 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞區域 ní yà qū yù 地區 dì qū 的 de 真正 zhēn zhèng 水利 shuǐ lì 基礎 jī chǔ 設施 shè shī 需求 xū qiú , , 即使 jí shǐ 政治 zhèng zhì 關聯 guān lián 是 shì 有 yǒu 問題 wèn tí 的 de 。 。
This represents questionable use of public funds driven by political connections, though similar controversies exist across Australian governments."
The core factual claims are accurate: the Coalition did spend $5 million on an underwater pipeline that supplies a golf course using funds from a regional water infrastructure program.
Matthew Matthew Groom Groom ( ( 前部 qián bù 長 zhǎng ) ) 在 zài 2014 2014 年 nián 皇家 huáng jiā 土地 tǔ dì 租予 zū yǔ 由 yóu 其 qí 兄弟 xiōng dì 控制 kòng zhì 的 de 公司 gōng sī 時 shí , , 確實 què shí 未能 wèi néng 申報 shēn bào 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 。 。
Matthew Groom (former minister) did fail to disclose a conflict of interest when Crown Land was leased to a company controlled by his brother in 2014.
However, the claim is misleading in several ways:
1. **Overstates golf course focus**: The pipeline provides water primarily for agricultural use (roughly 70%), not exclusively for the golf course.
The claim characterizes it as being solely for "a privately owned golf course," which is inaccurate.
2. **Incomplete conflict of interest picture**: While Matthew Groom failed to declare the conflict initially, he did declare it in Parliament in October 2015 (though only in response to parliamentary questions).
The claim says "conflicts of interest were not declared" without noting the subsequent declaration.
3. **Lacks context on water security**: The project does address real water infrastructure needs for regional Tasmania, even if the political connections are problematic.
4. **Misleading comparison to Labor**: The claim implies this is a unique Coalition scandal, but Labor also had water infrastructure controversies (including the $80 million Watergate purchase, which ironically involved Barnaby Joyce himself).
**The fair summary would be**: "The Coalition government allocated $5 million from regional water infrastructure funds to a project that primarily benefits a golf course developed by people with connections to the Liberal Party.
A former minister failed to initially declare a family conflict of interest when Crown Land was leased to the golf course developer, though the conflict was later disclosed in Parliament.
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 稱 chēng 「 「 利益 lì yì 衝突 chōng tū 未經 wèi jīng 申報 shēn bào 」 」 , , 但 dàn 未 wèi 提及 tí jí 隨後的 suí hòu de 申報 shēn bào 。 。
The project also has legitimate agricultural water distribution components.
3 3 . . * * * * 缺乏 quē fá 水 shuǐ 安全 ān quán 背景 bèi jǐng * * * * : : 該 gāi 專案 zhuān àn 確實 què shí 解決 jiě jué 了 le 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞區域 ní yà qū yù 地區 dì qū 的 de 真正 zhēn zhèng 水利 shuǐ lì 基礎 jī chǔ 設施 shè shī 需求 xū qiú , , 即使 jí shǐ 政治 zhèng zhì 關聯 guān lián 是 shì 有 yǒu 問題 wèn tí 的 de 。 。
This represents questionable use of public funds driven by political connections, though similar controversies exist across Australian governments."