A politician was able to push for beekeeping reforms in Queensland without declaring he had just acquired shares in a honey business eyeing deals with beekeepers nationwide.
The politician was not required to declare the connection under parliamentary debate rules that mean even sugar cane-growing politicians can seek sugar industry law amendments without prefacing speeches about their interest.
The situation is such that a public sector ethics group says the rules surrounding declarations seem inadequate.
In 2022, the politician, Jon Krause, acquired shares in a start-up honey business, whose fellow investors included former rugby player Nick “Honeybadger” Cummins.
Nick Cummins, pictured on The Bachelor in 2018, was a fellow investor. (Supplied: Channel Ten)
Australian Honey Ventures had aimed to source honey from beekeepers to supply to distributors under Australia’s first profit-sharing model with beekeepers.
The Western Australia-based business told potential investors it hoped to buy “honey on the east coast later” in the year, depending on a national supply contract eventuating.
Its March 2022 crowdsourced fundraising effort accumulated $2 million. Mr Krause appears to have partaken in that fundraising.
He declined to answer how much he invested, although the company at the time said more than 1,000 shareholders had shown interest and Mr Krause did not appear on a top 20 investor list in 2024.
No mention of shares in nearly 10-minute speech
Mr Krause’s register of interests in mid-2022 listed a shareholding in AHV Holdings Pty Ltd but the business type was not required to be disclosed.
In August 2022, he addressed Queensland parliament on conservation laws, focusing solely on improving conditions for beekeepers.
“Amendments to be moved by the LNP to remove the restrictions on beekeepers operating in areas that they presently occupy in the national park estate … should be supported,” he said.
Changes would allow beekeepers to “plan for the future”, he added.
Australian Honey Ventures raised $2 million in crowdfunding. (Unsplash: Wolfgang Hasselmann)
He spoke for almost 10 minutes. He referred to bees stinging him when younger. He did not mention his interest in AHV.
Under parliamentary standing rules, politicians must declare any pecuniary interest at a speech’s beginning if that interest is greater than “the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally”.
The standing orders do not clearly define the concept of “in common” with the public. But guidelines give examples such as a water customer not having to declare an interest when discussing water laws.
Geoffrey Watson SC labelled the disclosure laws in Queensland “bizarre”. (ABC News: Chris Gillette)
A politician owning a commercial property in a shopping centre, meanwhile, should declare their interest during a debate on a road bypassing it.
New Zealand’s authorities have described the term “in common” as being whether the interest affected a politician “in a different way or to a materially greater degree than most other people”.
They say an interest would be held in common if the politician was “part of a large group of people affected in a similar way”.
‘No requirement’ to disclose
Mr Krause declined interview requests, but his spokesman said the Clerk of Parliament had advised he “had no requirement for disclosure during debate”.
The rationale for a non-disclosure requirement included that his stake in the honey venture was too remote from Queensland’s beekeeping industry, and that his interest was not an “overly limited class” and one held “in common with other subjects of the Crown or [politicians] generally”.
Mr Krause declined to reveal when he sought the Clerk’s advice.
He is a conservative LNP member for south-east Queensland’s Scenic Rim. He previously headed the state’s Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee, which in 2021 blasted the Crime and Corruption Commission’s investigation into Logan councillors.
Declaring an interest
Politicians have varied approaches about pronouncing interests.
In 2000, the National Party member for Burnett Doug Slack declared a pecuniary interest during tree-clearing debate as he owned a “considerable amount of land”, although he noted this was an interest commonly held.
But in 2005, a fight emerged about three politicians with interests in cane farming not declaring their interest in a sugar industry amendment bill.
Parliamentary debate rules that mean even sugar cane-growing politicians can seek sugar industry law amendments without prefacing speeches about their interest. (ABC: Dominic Cansdale)
Then-speaker Tony McGrady wrote this did not breach rules under guideline examples given earlier, specifically about cane farmers and whether such situations marked them as having an interest greater than the public.
But Mr McGrady noted: “Any possible criticism or controversy would be avoided if members were especially diligent to declare any possible pecuniary interest they have in a matter.”
The Centre for Public Integrity, a national thinktank headed by former judges and integrity experts, said the examples with cane growers were “bizarre”.
The centre’s Geoffrey Watson SC told the ABC a disclosure should be made in such situations, and in the beekeeper debate.
Mr Watson said if parliamentary rulings were that matters did not need to be disclosed, then “either that interpretation is wrong, or the rule is wrong”.
Geoffrey Watson SC says Mr Krause should have disclosed his interest before speaking on it in parliament. (ABC News: Sissy Reyes)
For a politician being proactive, a “simple disclosure up front would have been appropriate, to say ‘Look I do have an interest, perhaps only peripheral to this matter, because of et cetera’,” he said.
“[A disclosure is so] the public can hear and make a judgement about what you’ve got to say, in light of what you’ve disclosed.
“There’s nothing magic to it. It’s just transparency in decision-making.”
Speaking generally, Macquarie University risk governance expert Elizabeth Sheedy said a small interest in an asset relative to someone’s wealth was less likely to sway people’s judgement than a major one.
But she added initial investments in start-ups could be small relative to the potential gain.
While many start-ups fail, a small number succeed well.
“The distribution of outcomes is skewed like a lottery,” she said.
