Australian Federal Election 2016: is there an ounce of humanity left in Liberal, Nationals and Labor politicians? *WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE*

Enough is enough. It’s time cease off-shore detention on Nauru as well as close the centre on Manus Island and face up to our collective responsibilities under international law.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April 2016:

Pregnant asylum seekers detained on Nauru could be exposed to the Zika virus, with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection confirming there had been cases of the mosquito-borne disease on the island nation.

The revelation was made in the department's submission to the Senate inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers at Australia's regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island.

Detainees have been issued with heavy-duty insect repellent in order to fend off the virus, which has been linked to a serious birth defect of the brain called microcephaly.

The Australian government's smartraveller website currently recommends women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should consider postponing travel to any area where Zika virus is active.

"If you do decide to travel, talk to your doctor first and strictly follow steps to prevent mosquito bites during your trip," it says.

On Wednesday evening, Australian Medical Association (AMA) vice-president Stephen Parnis said pregnant asylum seekers on Nauru needed to be protected, assessed and "not exposed to any risk". He stopped short of saying whether the woman should be removed from the island.

The admission that Zika is present on Nauru comes in the same week senior doctors, including the AMA, raised grave concerns about the standard of medical care available to asylum seekers held in offshore detention, which they said would not be accepted in Australia.

In its submission, the department said "every precaution" was being taken to stop transferees contracting the Zika virus. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April 2016:

The source said the man spoke to UNHCR representatives of "the intolerable mental and physical pressure on refugees and particularly on himself, who [is] imprisoned at Nauru."

UNHCR regional representative Thomas Albrecht said his organisation was concerned about the "grave mental state of asylum seekers and refugees" and urgent action was needed to prevent further suffering and address worsening mental health.

The UNHCR had been in Nauru since Sunday conducting a monitoring mission of arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees transferred from Australia.

A refugee advocate who is in close contact with those at Nauru said tensions were high after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled the Manus Island detention centre was illegal, opening up the prospect that detainees there could be released.

"People are thinking 'what about us'. They are feeling desperate," the advocate said, adding she believed the man had burns to 80 per cent of his body.

The incident follows a Nauruan court decision in February to convict and fine a refugee for attempted suicide in a move authorities said was designed to "stamp out the practice".

Dept. Immigration and Border Protection, media release, 29 April 2016:

A 23-year-old Iranian man who set himself on fire in Nauru has tragically died today from his injuries.

Appropriate support is being provided to his wife and friends.

The man was taken to Republic of Nauru Hospital for medical treatment by the Nauruan authorities. He was then transferred to Australia by air ambulance for medical treatment. The man passed away this afternoon in a Brisbane Hospital.

The Department expresses its sympathies to his wife, family and friends.

The death will be reported to the Queensland Coroner. No further comment will be made at this time.

Facebook:  Doctors4refugees, 29 April 2016

The death of Omid once again exposes the lie that people offshore have the same medical care as those in the Australian community.
We know that the Nauru hospital staff struggled with maintaining an adequate airway and had difficulties accessing an intravenous line. These are quite difficult to do in a severe burns victim and needs a specialised team immediately. Some parts of remote Australia may also not have this expertise but he would have been airlifted out to a tertiary hospital in a matter of hours.
When he got to Brisbane we [sic] was grossly oedematous (swollen) from the loss of vital proteins and had fluid leaking into his lungs, further impairing his breathing. Much of this was clearly compounded by the early lack of adequate oxygenation.
It is not an unusual complication; it’s entirely predictable in a person with this level of burns
This tragic outcome once again demonstrates the complete impracticality of accommodating these highly vulnerable people so far from Australia.

"Omid" set himself alight on 27 April, was airlifted to a Brisbane hospital sometime on 28 April – approximately 22 hours after self-harming. He died on 29 April 2016.

He appears to be the third asylum seeker who has died after setting themselves alight since June 2014 and the eighth offshore detainee who has died since August 2002.

UPDATE

ABC AM, 2 May 2016:

Shocking video and new details have emerged that raise questions about the standard of medical care given to the asylum seeker who set himself on fire on Nauru last week. Omid Masoumali died on Friday in a Brisbane hospital, two days after his injuries. His grieving wife Nana has told doctors on the mainland that while on Nauru, Omid was without a doctor's care for two hours at the medical facility and lay in agony a further eight hours before morphine was administered….

Omid Masoumali's body will be flown back to Iran.
His family have been asked to pay the $17,000 cost.

The Guardian, 3 May 2013

The young Somali woman who set herself alight on Nauru – the second refugee in a week to do so – has been taken to Australia by air ambulance, but her situation remains critical.

Hodan, 21, doused herself and set herself alight inside the OPC1 section of the detention centre on Nauru.

According to reports, she suffered severe burns to most of her body. One person reported “all of her clothes were burned off”.

Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs on the ignorance, guile and bully boy tactics of Australian politicians

Excepts from an interview with President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, in The Saturday Paper on 23 April 2016:

Ramona Koval Did you think it was going to be this hard when you started at the commission? 

Gillian Triggs [laughs] No! I had absolutely no idea. I rather naively thought if you’d been dean of a law faculty you could manage anything. I was unprepared for dealing with senior political figures with no education whatsoever about international law and about Australia’s remarkable historical record which they are now diminishing. We’ve got senior public servants who will roll their eyes at the idea of a human right. They say, “Look, Gillian, you’re beating a dead horse.” It’s not going to work, because they can’t talk to the minister in terms of human rights. We’ve had, in my view, very poor leadership on this issue for the past 10 to 15 years, from the “children overboard” lie. They’ve been prepared to misstate the facts and conflate asylum-seeker issues with global terrorism. What I’m saying applies equally to Labor and Liberal and National parties. They’ve used this in bad faith to promote their own political opportunistic positions…..

RK You’ve said, “When I was younger I thought one could build on the past. But I have learned that we need to be eternally vigilant in ensuring human rights in a modern democracy.” Is that a sense of an idea of conservatism, building on the past, not letting go of good things that have been achieved? And feeling that confidence in that idea has been shaken?

GT A shocking phenomenon is Australians don’t even understand their own democratic system. They are quite content to have parliament be complicit with passing legislation to strengthen the powers of the executive and to exclude the courts. They have no idea of the separation of powers and the excessive overreach of executive government. 

RK Sisyphus comes to mind.

GT Well, it’s quite true. One can be astonished at the very simplistic level at which I need to speak. Our parliamentarians are usually seriously ill-informed and uneducated. All they know is the world of Canberra and politics and they’ve lost any sense of a rule of law, and curiously enough for Canberra they don’t even understand what democracy is. Not an easy argument to make, as you can imagine: me telling a parliamentarian they need to be better educated. [laughs] But it’s true.

RK Have you done that?

GT Oh, I have. And I have to say that some parliamentarians, and surprising ones, a Nationals MP, says “Come and give us a seminar.” Another one asked me to come up and work in parliament with the members of a particular committee that she was on. Terrific! But they listened to me and do you know, the response of some of them was, “Well, we had no idea Australia had signed up to these treaties. We should withdraw from them!” So backward steps! You still hear people say we must withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we must withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights……

RK I was astonished listening to him – how could the chair of the committee say he hadn’t read the report with such pride? 

GT I know. So I could have reacted very angrily to that and I am quite articulate and I can be very strong if I need to be: I could have used those skills, but I determinedly did not. It’s an environment in which I must be respectful, so frankly I thought as a lawyer I’d lose my case if I did [react angrily]. There was a point when I thought, “I’ve had 50 years as a reasonably respectable and quite conservative lawyer, how on earth do I find myself in this situation?” [laughs] But in the end I just had to get through the moment. But there were some lovely little side things, like the public servants behind the scenes, coming around with bowls of Jelly Snakes and Jelly Babies and mini Mars bars. Because we’d had nothing to eat, and they wouldn’t get us any food. The senators and members of the committee were all going off and having lunch. We’d had no breakfast, no morning tea and no lunch and I thought I’d faint, but these wonderful people were coming in and we were grabbing the food and eating it and they were saying [sotto voce], “You do realise that we are not responsible for this, don’t you?”, because some might think the secretariat had fed them these questions. 

RK But it was all the senators’ own work? 

GT With the attorney-general sitting next to me and encouraging it. And he was writing the questions which would be taken by his staff up to one of the senators, so feeding them the questions – an extraordinary experience. People were hugely supportive afterwards. Flowers were coming in. Each one brought a cheer from the staff and eventually it was so full that I couldn’t get in the room anymore. It was almost as though I had died the week before, and I’m thinking I must have missed something because I’m still standing here…….

RK The extent of the hostility and the personal nature of the attacks must have shocked you. 

GT To use those terrible words that the prime minister and especially the attorney-general used: “We have no confidence in Gillian Triggs.” The words reverberated around my head for a very long time. It was a very cruel and unjustified comment and the attempt to get me to resign for another position was a disgraceful thing to do, but it was exposed by the questions in senate. I could have had other options, the possibility of criminal prosecutions of the attorney. 

RK I wondered why you decided against pursuing that avenue? 

GT The AFP did consider it. They dealt with it extremely professionally. They were courteous but I made the decision that the greatest recognition of this wrongdoing was in the senate itself, when the senate censured the attorney for the first time in about 80 years and I felt that this issue was much more political than it was legal. I also wanted to move on, and I think that this underlies a lot of cases that don’t proceed…… 

RK I see that you have not let the 2015 experience cower you. You have made many comments on matters that you have proper concerns in – from marriage equality and Safe Schools programs to calling for monitoring of conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in offshore detention centres to concerns about counterterrorism laws. It looks like, if the government thought they could bully you into submission, they made rather the wrong call.

GT I’ve just turned 70 and I’ve been doing this for a long time and I’m so confident about the law and about the evidence for the law not being respected that I feel very sure-footed in going forward on these other issues. My resilience and determination and experience for a long time in the law give me the determination to get through the remaining 15 months to continue to speak out. When you see that you are being bullied by people who you know are not coming from a good place, you know you don’t have to give in to them. They are cowards and the moment you stand up to them they crumble, and they did crumble. And several now have been seen off long before me. They’re not used to a woman aged 70 standing up to them. They can’t quite believe it. If I were 40 looking for a career opportunity, I probably wouldn’t do what I’ve done because it would have queered the pitch for me professionally. But why do I care now? I can do what I’m trained to do and they almost can’t touch me. And I’ll continue to do that work when I’ve finished with this position.

Read the full article here. 

Australian Federal Election 2016: nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide

It is not just individual taxpayers who should be worried about being caught out using Panama-based firm Mossack Fonseca & Co to allegedly hide unexplained wealth or avoid/evade tax on income earned in this country.

The Turnbull Government should also be worried because this story is likely to run right through the federal election campaign this year and, it is not outside the realms of possibility that names will surface which include known Liberal Party political donors.

It is already a problem for the Prime Minister and Cabinet because along with many other federal government departments/agencies, the Australian Dept. of Defence and Department of Immigration and Border Protection have previous and current contracts with Wilson Security Pty Ltd, a client of Mossack Fonseca.

Neither Defence nor Immigration appear to have conducted genuine due diligence on this company during tender processes, as evidence by their response here and here.

On 4 April 2016 ABC News reported:

Leaked documents have revealed that two brothers embroiled in a massive Hong Kong corruption scandal were ultimately in control of an Australian security company that earned roughly half a billion dollars in lucrative government contracts.

The two billionaire brothers, Thomas and Raymond Kwok, were charged with bribing a Hong Kong government official in July 2012 in a case that shook the Hong Kong establishment.

Soon after their arrest, the leaked documents, obtained by the ABC's Four Corners, show the brothers covertly remained directors of the offshore company that ultimately controls Wilson's operations in Australia — Wilson Offshore Group Holdings (BVI) Limited…..

In December 2014, Thomas Kwok was convicted of the bribery offences and sentenced to five years in prison.

His brother Raymond Kwok was acquitted of all charges.

According to Jason Sharman, professor at the Centre of Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University, the "common sense" definition is that the company listed as the ultimate holding company is "not only the legal owner but the entity in control," he said.

"You would expect that if you've got a company at the top of the chain that is in control of a lot of assets, people would really want to know who they are working for, who they are owned by and who they are being directed by," said Professor Sharman…..

Since the arrest of the Kwok brothers in July 2012, Wilson Security secured a sub-contract to provide garrison services for Australia's offshore detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island as well as various other contracts with Defence, The Australian Tax Office and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Kwok brothers maintained effective control as directors via a covert manoeuvre facilitated by Mossack Fonseca.

Two weeks after the brothers were charged, both Thomas and Raymond Kwok removed themselves as directors from Wilson Offshore Group Holdings (BVI) Limited but replaced themselves with two mysterious new directors that were companies, Winsome Sky and Harmony Core.

The leaked files show the directors of those mystery companies were in fact the Kwok brothers themselves.

Thomas Kwok signed on as the director of Winsome Sky on July 30, 2012, and on the same day Raymond signed on as the director of Harmony Core……

Wilson Offshore Group Holdings (BVI) Limited was originally registered in 1991 under a different name, Covert Investments.

Thomas and Raymond Kwok, as well as their older brother Walter, were early directors of Covert Investments before it changed its name to Wilson Offshore Group Holdings (BVI) Limited in 2004.

BACKGROUND

The company founded by Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca says of itself:

Established in 1977, the Mossack Fonseca Group is a leading global company which provides comprehensive legal and trust services.

With over 500 staff members across every continent, the Mossack Fonseca Group provides excellent services based on more than 35 years of experience. As part of its added value, the Group offers personal advice and a world-class online experience through a virtual Client Portal which is available 24 hours a day. Our web-based Client Information Portal application allows clients to reserve companies online, verify the status of companies, and pay invoices, in addition to other transactions.

Our service and research-oriented professionals specialize in trust services, wealth management, international business structures, and commercial law, among other areas.

Our product and service portfolio is constantly updated and renewed, enabling the Group to find the appropriate solution for your business. We offer research, advice and services for the following jurisdictions: Belize, The Netherlands, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, Malta, Hong Kong, Cyprus, British Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Panama, British Anguilla, Seychelles, Samoa, Nevada, and Wyoming (USA).

Our law firm has specialized attorneys experienced in all areas of law such as shipping, immigration, contracts and intellectual property, as well as commercial law in general. We also assist clients in physically relocating to Panama and supporting them with regard to all of the steps required, from handling immigration matters and buying or renting property to establishing their business in Panama.

Australian Taxation Office media release 4 April 2016:

ATO statement regarding release of taxpayer data

Recently, the ATO received data in relation to a Panamanian law firm containing names of a significant number of Australian residents. Currently we have identified over 800 individual taxpayers and we have now linked over 120 of them to an associate offshore service provider located in Hong Kong.

These cases relate to the release of data by transparency or media organisations in Australia and overseas. ATO intelligence on tax evasion comes from a variety of sources, including from concerned citizens, advisers, partner agencies and international bodies. For example the ATO has raised tax liabilities of around $400 million from data supplied by confidential informants.

Deputy Commissioner Michael Cranston said that since the completion of the offshore disclosure initiative 'Project DO IT', the ATO has ramped up its compliance work to deal with those taxpayers who have failed to disclose offshore income and assets. Sharing information and coordinating action closely with other tax administrations is a large part of this work.

"We promised the community that following Project DO IT we would continue to build our intelligence base, undertake audits, apply significant penalties and refer the worst cases for criminal investigation" Mr Cranston said.

"We have been analysing the latest data against information these taxpayers had reported to the ATO and against the information we already have. We are also working closely with the AFP, Australian Crime Commission and AUSTRAC to further cross-check the data and strengthen our intelligence. Some cases may be referred to the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce.

This Taskforce builds on the success of Project Wickenby where we raised $2.29billion in tax liabilities and there were 46 criminal convictions.

"The information we have includes some taxpayers who we have previously investigated, as well as a small number who disclosed their arrangements with us under the Project DO IT initiative. It also includes a large number of taxpayers who haven't previously come forward, including high wealth individuals, and we are already taking action on those cases" Mr Cranston said.

"Through data analysis we have been able to identify patterns such as clusters of individual taxpayer and advisers for further investigation."

"The message is clear - taxpayers can't rely on these secret arrangements being kept secret and we will act on any information that is provided to us" Mr Cranston said.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2016:

More than 11.5 million documents have been leaked from Mossack Fonseca's files, revealing the secrets of hundreds of thousands of clients – including several thousand Australians – covering a period over almost 40 years, from 1977 until as recently as last December.

The release of the documents on Monday follows a 12-month investigation by media groups including The Australian Financial Review, led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in Washington…..

The files show how Mossack Fonseca thwarted Australian regulators and police inquiries, continued to act for individuals accused of fraud and embezzlement, and lobbied actively to prevent Australia from signing agreements that would allow the exchange of tax information with Samoa, a key tax avoidance jurisdiction.

While most investors and corporations who use tax havens have legitimate reasons to use these structures, the leaked records also show some companies domiciled in tax havens were being used for suspected money laundering, arms and drug deals, and tax avoidance.

"Some cases may be referred to the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce," ATO deputy commissioner Michael Cranston told the Financial Review, confirming the Australian link with Mossack Fonseca.

The data includes high wealth individuals "and we are already taking action on those cases", Mr Cranston said.

"ATO intelligence on tax evasion comes from a variety of sources, including from concerned citizens, advisers, partner agencies and international bodies…..

Mr Cranston said some of the Australians under scrutiny had previously been investigated by the Tax Office but the probe included a "large number of taxpayers who haven't previously come forward".

The ATO investigation is based on a smaller set of files detailing Mossack Fonseca's Luxembourg operations, which were sold to the German government by a former employee, triggering scores of raids by tax investigators who targeted Commerzbank​ clients in Germany in February last year.

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung​, working with the ICIJ, subsequently obtained much more extensive files, with a total 2.6 terabytes of data for Mossack Fonseca's entire global operations, from an anonymous informant. No payment was made……

The Panamanian firm is one of the top five global groups providing corporate registry services in 21 low-tax jurisdictions around the world for more than 214,000 companies, trusts and foundations, providing an essential services for legitimate companies and investors, including BHP Billiton.

But the files show that the firm also protects its less reputable clients, keeping Swiss advisory firm Strachans on its books despite a decade of Project Wickenby investigations initially focused on Strachans that led to 46 criminal convictions, including a jail term for a Strachans partner, Philip de Figueiredo.

Another Wickenby target, Rockhampton-born lawyer Peter Borgas, based in Switzerland, remained a valued Mossack client even after he was arrested in Sydney in 2013 (the charge was dropped five months later).

Last December, Mossack decided it would not act on its probity concerns for a firm controlled by Tan Yixin, a Chinese executive jailed for 3½ years for bribes and leaking secrets to Australia's Rio Tinto, because "the client will destroy us with their comments" in the high-growth Chinese market.

When the Australian Federal Police wrote to Mossack Fonseca's British Virgin Islands office in July 2012 to enforce an Australian court order to sell a Perth apartment on which a BVI company, Anchorville Holdings Ltd, allegedly held a mortgage, Mossack replied that Anchorville had been struck off in 2007 and asked the AFP to stop sending letters.

Perth entrepreneur Roger Bryer had lived for a decade in the spectacular Perth penthouse, which was tied up in lengthy criminal trials over a $US15 million ($19.5 million) embezzlement case involving Commerzbank. Most of the proceeds had been transferred to Australian accounts controlled by Mr Bryer, to invest. Mr Bryer told police he had no knowledge the money was stolen. It was not suggested that he had acted improperly.

In 2012, the DPP applied to sell the penthouse as part of the proceeds of crime, but Anchorville had been set up as mortgagee on it.

Rebuffed by Mossack Fonseca, the AFP obtained a BVI search warrant in November 2012. A Mossack executive produced old documentation showing Anchorville was owned by yet another nominee company.

Meanwhile, Mossack had contacted the original registered owner of Anchorville and offered to reinstate the company, for $5487. As part of that reinstatement, new documents were registered in 2013 that showed that Bryer had owned Anchorville since 2001.

Mr Bryer told the Financial Review on Sunday that he had made it clear to the AFP that he controlled Anchorville and the matter had been completely resolved in a confidential settlement with the AFP and DPP on February 6, 2013.

While Anchorville was set up as a mortgagee company, its mortgage on the penthouse was not valid.

"I have very grave doubts as to whether they were acting legitimately," Mr Bryer said of Mossack Fonseca. "None of it was credible for that company."…..

In 2008, Sydney developer George Ghossayn​, who at the time was a regular in the appointment diary of Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid​ before later switching his support to the Liberal Party, was setting up an offshore partnership with fellow developer Fouad Deiri​, in a BVI company, Fitall Development Limited.

In September 2013, convicted cocaine dealer-turned-Queensland property developer Joseph Frangieh​ took control of a Seychelles company, Silver Tiger Enterprises Limited.

In late 2011, sports promoter Dominic Galati​ was publicly challenging to replace Frank Lowy as chairman of Football Federation Australia, "because I believe that someone has to be a voice out there for the people that are passionate about this game".

Behind the scenes, Galati was involved in setting up half a dozen companies in Samoa, which were transferred to a new Hong Kong company, Global Wealth Group, controlled by Galati, William Aloisi, John McGeary and Roy Bijkerk.

William Aloisi's website describes him as an investment banker. Mr McGeary is a greyhound trainer, while Bijkerk is a convicted cocaine importer who has built a property empire through Guardian Care Properties.

A remarkable 269 shareholdings of companies in the British Virgin Islands, Samoa, the Seychelles and Panama, almost all of them holding bearer shares, are linked to just four addresses on the Gold Coast associated with family members of Ian Taylor, a New Zealand businessman who, with his father Geoffrey Taylor, has set up shell companies that have since been linked to arms deals, Mexican drug lords and Russia's largest tax fraud.

There has been no suggestion of illegality by the Taylors.

Ian Taylor has previously told Fairfax that "only a small handful" of their companies were misused.

"Clients of certain nationalities are discriminated against only due to their citizenship.

Read the full article here.

The Australian, 4 April 2016:

More than 1000 Australian links to companies have been found in a data leak of millions of documents from a Panama law firm…..

The passports of hundreds of Australian citizens connected to companies as directors, shareholders and beneficial owners, are included according to the ABC.

A hint of what the Australian Federal Police know concerning the Ashby-Brough affair

What Senate Estimates tells us this month: 

* Liberal MP for Fisher Mal Brough has been formally interviewed by federal police at least once; 

* hundreds of thousands of emails, documents and images have been seized from the homes of Mal Brough, James Ashby, Karen Doane and elsewhere; 

* the official charge being considered is unauthorised disclosure¹; 

* federal police have read “Ashbygate” by Ross Jones; 

* the Kingston Hotel in Canberra is well-known in Senate circles; and

* LNP Senator Ian Macdonald has no understanding of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates (Public) Tuesday, 9 February 2016:

[Labor, Victoria] Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would like to ask some questions about the status of the AFP investigation into the theft of the official diary of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter, as the investigation obviously remains on foot, so I will be attempting to ask some fairly factual questions, but please let me know if you think it is inappropriate, given that the investigation is on foot. It has been reported publicly that the AFP raided the homes of Mr Brough, Mr Ashby and Karen Doane, looking for evidence in relation to the theft of the former Speaker's diary. Are those reports accurate?

[Australian Federal Police Commissioner] Mr Colvin: The way that you have characterised them, Senator, I guess is relevant to the investigation. We are making an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of and access to the diary. I would draw a distinction between that and theft. I just want to be very careful about what we say.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. So you do not think it is appropriate to discuss at this stage whether you have raided the homes of those people?

[Federal Attorney-General] Senator Brandis: Senator Collins, I think the point Mr Colvin was making to you is that there is no investigation into theft.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay. What language would you like to use, Mr Colvin?

Mr Colvin: We refer to it as unauthorised disclosure.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: All right, we will use that language and I will ask the same question.

Mr Colvin: Yes. I am not trying to be picky on that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is fine.

Mr Colvin: In relation to matters that we have or have not done, some aspects of this investigation are already in the public arena, and I am happy to confirm matters that are in the public arena. But, to the extent that matters are not, it is not our normal course, as you would appreciate, to talk about what we may be doing. Deputy Commissioner Close has the details.

[Deputy Commissioner, Operations] Ms L Close: Senator, I can confirm that the search warrants were executed on premises for the three people that you have just mentioned.

Senator COLLINS: Are there any other search warrants that are fitting in with Mr Colvin's point and that are a matter of the public record?

Ms L Close: No, there are none on the public record.

Senator COLLINS: Am I correct in concluding that you do not want to discuss any that may have occurred but are not on the public record?

Ms L Close: That is correct.

Senator COLLINS: Okay. What is the current status of the investigation into Mr Brough's conduct?

Ms L Close: The investigation continues. As you can understand, we are relying heavily on electronic records, which we have obtained from various entities. Because of the complex nature of this matter we have also had to obtain legal opinion in respect of search warrants and other avenues of inquiry. Just to demonstrate, some of the investigation time frames are quite lengthy, because we have recovered, to date, in excess of 7,600 emails, 141,000 documents, 116,000-plus images and thousands of email attachments. That just highlights for you the extent of the investigation we are undertaking. 

Senator COLLINS: Are you able to tell me when you expect to be able to finalise the investigation?

Ms L Close: No.

Senator COLLINS: Does all that material you just referred to cover the book Ashbygate?

Ms L Close: No.

Mr Colvin: No.

Senator COLLINS: What are the possible outcomes of the investigation? What will happen when you conclude all of that work?

Ms L Close: We then make an assessment as to whether we believe there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to have a prima facie case to put to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth DPP will then make a determination of whether there are any charges to be laid in respect of any people.

Senator COLLINS: And at this point in time you are not able to advise me of the time frame on which you think you will conclude your review of the material?

Ms L Close: Not at this point, no. 
Mr Colvin: Further to that, there are aspects of all investigations, and this one is no different, that are out of the control of the organisation. We are in the hands of processes, and sometimes individuals, that mean that we cannot give you a time frame with any degree of certainty.

Senator COLLINS: Mr Brough has remarked that he is willing to be interviewed by the AFP in relation to the criminal accusations that have been made against him. Has that interview occurred?

Ms L Close: We have spoken to Mr Brough, and that is on public record.

Senator COLLINS: When was that, and where did the interview occur?

Mr Colvin: I think in fairness to Mr Brough, if he wishes to make some of that material public then he may do that. We have not said that publicly and I do not think it is appropriate. We would not normally make that public. That is a matter for Mr Brough, if he wishes to.

Senator COLLINS: When you say, though, that you have spoken to Mr Brough, is that what would be regarded as an interview? Or have you a need for further interview?

Ms L Close: It really will depend on the analysis of all the material that I outlined to you earlier as to whether we need another interview or not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay, but in terms of you looking at all the material before you, it was not just simply a preliminary discussion.

Ms L Close: We have had preliminary discussions—

[Nationals, Queensland] Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, could I just raise a point of order? I am struggling to see the relevance of this in the context of estimates. I would understand if the senator were pursuing details about the cost of these investigations, the volume of resources and the like. But we have quite literally hundreds of investigations underway at the moment that would have a political interest, and the trade movement and the like. We could spend the next week here examining the AFP's involvement. I just do not understand the relevance, and I would like you just to consider it and perhaps rule on it.

[LNP Queensland, Senator Ian Macdonald] CHAIR: It is relevant to the expenditure on wages and equipment.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, if the questions were that, I would understand that, but that is not—

CHAIR: Well, that is not how they are being used, I guess, but I would allow it at this time.

Senator Brandis: I think the point is that Mr Colvin and Deputy Commissioner Close have made it clear that they cannot go beyond that which is on the public record, and that which is on the public record is already on the public record. So, I just wonder what it profits us to ask questions to which we already know the answer, since only matters to which we do already know the answers are appropriate objects of inquiry.

CHAIR: It is really up to the senator to use her time in whatever way she seems fit. As you say, even if the information is already there, if the senator wants to keep asking the same questions and gets the same answer, that is really up to her.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr Colvin: In answer to your question: I do not wish to discuss investigational strategies. Whether we decide to re-speak to Mr Brough in a formal or informal capacity, they are all matters that my investigators will make a judgement on depending on where the investigation takes them, and it is not something I wish to discuss openly.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, and that was not really the point of my question. I was simply seeking to establish whether we were both talking about an interview, which is what Mr Brough had referred to, as opposed to some preliminary conversation to establishment.

Mr Colvin: I will leave that for Mr Brough to talk about, not us.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It has been reported that Mr Ashby has offered to provide the AFP with a copy of the document which he says proves that Wyatt Roy instructed him to steal the former Speaker's official diary. For example on 1 December—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is an emotively embedded question when the commissioner has made it very clear to you that there is no investigation on foot regarding theft. At least keep your language in accordance with the fact that have been presented to you in the evidence.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I suggest you go back to the buffet.

CHAIR: You have made your point of order on that one.

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, on the same point, if I may—and I know Senator Collins is a serial offender here—but if words are to be attributed to someone then the precise words they use, not a paraphrase of them, has to be put to the witness. On numerous occasions, in this forum and in the chamber, it has been discovered after Senator Collins has put a paraphrase of words to a senator or a witness that what she has put to the senator or the witness was not an accurate rendering of what they said.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is simply untrue.

Senator Brandis: On numerous occasions I have caught you out doing this.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, that is untrue. On numerous occasions you have practised malapropism, because you do not know how to apply words that you think are big and attractive. Senator Brandis: If you are going to attribute words which bear a very, very important insinuation against somebody's reputation then in fairness both to the witness and to the person whom you are trying to smear—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: 'Smear' now? Stop imputing improper motives.

Senator Brandis: please put the direct speech to the witness or not at all.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Your behaviour is outrageous. I really do not know how Mr Turnbull puts up with you.

CHAIR: A point of order was raised and I am ruling on it. There is no point of order—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, there is not. That is right.

CHAIR: but I am sure Commissioner Colvin will take the warning and will, himself, be cautious in how he answers the questions, as he always is, of course.

[Labor, Tasmania] Senator BILYK: It is all very draining now.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I mentioned that it had been reported and I was about, if I had been given one extra moment of oxygen, to quote that report. If Senator Brandis wants to take issue with the quotation he is encouraged to take issue with the ABC.

Senator Brandis: Then you will be kind enough to provide us with the source from which you are quoting.

CHAIR: The ABC.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Certainly, which I just did.

CHAIR: That is a reliable source. We can all rest assured now that this will be accurate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: On 1 December last year the ABC reported that: Mr Ashby has also claimed today that Assistant Minister for Innovation Wyatt Roy advised him to copy Mr Slipper's diary. CHAIR: And the question is?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, I am going to go through the full quote, because I do not want to— Senator Brandis: Are you reading from the report or are you reading from words attributed in direct speech to Mr Ashby?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am about to go to words directly attributed to Mr Ashby now, in The Australian newspaper.

Senator Brandis: In direct speech?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, can we have a copy of this while this is happening so we can keep it in context and so we can follow the senator's efforts here?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. In quotation of Mr Ashby: "Wyatt said he didn't really know how to advise me and said he wanted to speak with Christopher Pyne," Mr Ashby told The Australian newspaper. Again in quotation of Mr Ashby: "He then called me back and I went and saw him in his office and he presented me a sheet of paper with instructions of what I should do, and one of the first steps was to get a copy of the office diary." Still in quotation: 'That is how I came to be printing off a copy of the digital diary. It was evidence in my case.' That is the end of the quote. This is still from the ABC, though: Mr Ashby confirmed the quotes on Macquarie Radio this morning and said the sheet of paper would have Mr Roy's fingerprints on it. Finally, referring to Mr Ashby: 'And Wyatt's never denied giving me any assistance in the beginning,' he said. Following that public reporting, has Mr Ashby provided a copy of this set of written instructions to the AFP?

Mr Colvin: I am not aware of that particular report. I know it is not necessarily relevant to your question, I just think it would be very unwise for me to give an indication to the committee while this matter is still ongoing. That is directly relevant to the ongoing nature of the investigation, and it is just not something I am prepared to talk about publicly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Hear, hear.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I appreciate that. Senator O'Sullivan, maybe you were still down at the King O when I started these questions—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You do not know where I was, and your comments are offensive and you should keep them to yourself.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: We do know where you were.

CHAIR: Senator Collins, that is an offensive comment on a Senate colleague. I will not ask you to withdraw—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: For the record, I was not at the Kingston Hotel.

CHAIR: You do not have to say where you were.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but I am just sick of this.

CHAIR: You should desist from that, though, because otherwise people will say you are always permanently drunk, Senator Collins, and that does not get us anywhere.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: They are welcome to say that. It would not have much credibility.

CHAIR: Well what you are saying about Senate colleagues does not have much credibility either.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The issue is that I said at the outset of this discussion, and Mr Colvin remembers that because of the response he just made—

CHAIR: You made a snide comment to another senator, which should not happen. Go on with your question.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: If you defended me as adequately as you are now him, obviously people would not feel encouraged to respond to poor behaviour. I understand that Mr Colvin does not want to respond to that question, and I accept his explanation of that. My next question—

Senator Brandis: I think Mr Colvin said it would not be appropriate to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, and I said that I accept that.

Senator Brandis: You said that he said he did not want to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Will you stop being such a pedant? Seriously.

Senator Brandis: I think there is a difference.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It is very late at night, and your behaviour is very draining.

Senator Brandis: There is no reluctance on the part of these witnesses to respond to questions to which they feel they can respond appropriately. When the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police says that it is not a question to which he can appropriately respond, then that is the ground on which the question has not been answered—not because he does not want to provide the committee with all the information he appropriately can.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Brandis, no one implying any differently. You are just making this tedious.

CHAIR: Let us move on. Your time has finished, but we can come back to you, Senator Collins. I will go to Senator O'Sullivan, but, before I do, as part of Senator O'Sullivan's time, could I just ask if the offence being considered or investigated is unauthorised disclosure? Is that right?

Mr Colvin: The circumstances that we are investigating is the unauthorised disclosure of the former speaker's diary. The offence that we may end up considering as the most appropriate—if we even get to that point—is still to be determined.

CHAIR: It is what?

Mr Colvin: It is still to be determined. We have a range of—

CHAIR: There is no technical offence of unauthorised disclosure, is there? That is not a criminal offence.

Mr Colvin: There are offences of unauthorised disclosure.

CHAIR: Where do they rate in the scale of offences? Are they like murder? Terrorism? Rape? Robbery?

Mr Colvin: Chair, that is very difficult for me to answer, because it depends upon the circumstances—for example, are there aggravated circumstances. All offences have penalties that the court can impose, and, clearly, unauthorised disclosure has a very different penalty to what a terrorism offence would.

CHAIR: There was a lot of discussion earlier about the cost and your resources and all this, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to hear Ms Close say that you have investigated thousands and thousands of emails and documents. I can well appreciate the questions on the use of your resources, when you are clearly involved in a huge amount of effort. Is someone, or are several people, going through every one of those emails, every one of those documents, with a magnifying glass, considering each aspect?

Ms L Close: Yes, we have investigators looking at every document that we have seized in relation to this matter.

CHAIR: That would be a very time-consuming exercise, I take it.

Ms L Close: Yes.

CHAIR: For something that I would have thought—and you can tell me I am wrong—in the course of criminal activities that the AFP look at would rank pretty low: unauthorised disclosure.

Mr Colvin: There are a few things there to consider. One is: the court will make determinations in terms of penalty of what gravity of offence the court may consider if somebody is convicted. But there are broader considerations for the AFP than just the penalty of the offence. It is the circumstances and the public interest in the matter. I am probably better off just leaving it at that.

Senator Brandis: I think, if I do not misunderstand what is being said, that it is actually not the offence of unauthorised disclosure; it is the offence of procuring another person to have unauthorised access. I do not think it is being suggested that Mr Brough himself had unauthorised access. I think it is being suggested by some that Mr Brough encouraged somebody else to have unauthorised access.

CHAIR: That would take it to being an even lesser matter, but I take Commissioner Colvin's point and will not pursue that. I hesitate to ask for this on notice, but can someone tell me the penalties that have been imposed on the last successful convictions for procuring someone to have unauthorised disclosure?

[Australian Greens, Tasmania] Senator McKim interjecting—

CHAIR: It is wasting resources, is my point, when we are dealing with criminals, thugs, rapists, murderers, and we have the AFP looking through hundreds of thousands of documents and emails for an offence which, even on conviction, I guess would get a good behaviour bond or something. That would be my experience of how lenient the courts are these days. How difficult would it be to get me some examples of the last time someone was convicted for procuring someone else to make an unauthorised disclosure? Would that be difficult to find?

Ms L Close: I am not aware of the last matter where a person was convicted, so we will have to take that on notice and do some research.

CHAIR: I do not want you to do too much research, because I for one appreciate that you have far more important things to do. But if it is easy to get the last couple of times there were convictions—if there have ever been any in the history of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth—I would be interested to see when they were, what the penalty was and how many there were. With that, I will pass to Senator O'Sullivan.

1. Section 70—disclosure ofinformation by Commonwealth officers

3.91       Section 70 of the Crimes Act is the only provision remaining in pt VI of the Crimes Act.[125] A version of s 70 was included in the original Crimes Act in 1914, and was based on a provision of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).[126] This original version of s 70 was repealed and replaced in 1960 to extend the prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers to include former Commonwealth officers.[127] While minor amendments have been made to s 70 on three occasions since 1960,[128] the substance of the provision has not changed since that time.

3.92       The effect of s 70 is to apply criminal sanctions to the breach of secrecy obligations by public officials.[129] Section 70 provides that:

(1)  A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)  A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence....

What kind of information is protected?

3.100   Section 70 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer to disclose ‘any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer’. On its face, s 70 could apply to the disclosure of any information regardless of its nature or sensitivity.

An example of conviction for unauthorised disclosure: R v Scerba (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 359 (5 November 2015)

Decision:

1.                   Michael Scerba be convicted of unauthorised disclosure of information by a Commonwealth officer. 2.                   Michael Scerba be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence today, 5 November 2015. 3.                   On 4 February 2016, after serving three months imprisonment, and upon giving security in the sum of $500, Michael Scerba be released on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 4.                   Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the following items, seized by members of the AFP during the execution of a search warrant at [redacted], Richardson in the ACT on 21 October 2012, be forfeited to the Commonwealth: a.                   All hard drives contained in the black ‘ANTEC’ computer tower (item no 001 recorded on property seizure record A228052); and b.                  5 x shards/pieces of compact disc (item no MS/ET/45 recorded on property seizure record A228055)