Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Wednesday 2 November 2016

"I don't know who the dickhead is that thought up this incredible, brilliant idea; it's just a total waste of taxpayers' money" - Warren Mundine


Having read the following media release last Thursday I feel sympathy for Warren Mundine’s obvious sense of frustration at the announcement of yet another ‘make busy’ inquiry into the criminal justice system and indigenous incarceration.

It was only in March last year that the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees began an Inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Experiences of Law Enforcement and Justice Services, which received fifty-one submissions and held hearings in Perth, Sydney and Canberra.

The final report was due on 25 August 2016, however as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull pulled the plug on all current parliamentary inquiries on 9 May 2016 by calling a double dissolution federal election, time spent, taxpayers’ money and the efforts of concerned parties have come to naught.

Rather like most of the recommendations of previously completed state and federal inquiries into the Aboriginal experience of Australian society and its institutions.

UNCLASSIFIED
SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

SENATOR THE HON NIGEL SCULLION
MINISTER FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE­

ALRC inquiry into incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians

Today we announce that the Turnbull Government will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to examine the factors leading to the over representation of Indigenous Australians in our prison system, and consider what reforms to the law could ameliorate this national tragedy.
It has been 25 years since the final report of the landmark Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, but Indigenous Australians are still overrepresented in Australia’s prisons. In 1991, Indigenous Australians made up 14 per cent of our nation’s prison population; by 2015, this had increased to 27 per cent.

Other worrying statistics include the fact that Indigenous children and teenagers are 24 times more likely to be incarcerated than their non-Indigenous peers, while Indigenous women are 30 times more likely to be incarcerated.

The ALRC’s inquiry is a critical step for breaking through these disturbing trends. The terms of reference will be subject to consultation, particularly with Indigenous Australians, state and territory governments who have primary responsibility for our criminal justice frameworks, as well as the broader legal profession.

The Turnbull Government is committed to reducing Indigenous incarceration and has committed $256 million in 2016-17 through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy for activities to address the drivers and improve community safety.

27 October 2016

Sunday 30 October 2016

Twitter takedown and court cases over the seas in Clinton & Trump Land


Lumen (formerly Chilling Effects) database record of a takedown request which saw a tweet removed and a Twitter account suspended:


SENDER
[Private], , ,Sent on October 23, 2016
RECIPIENT
[Private]San Francisco, CA, 94103, US
Received on October 23, 2016
SUBMITTER

ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING URLS:
https://t.co/FaGCCC5x3X
https://twitter.com/liberalsexposed/status/790220186829791232

The Twitter hashtag timeline the offending tweet was posted in was probably #LiberalsExposed which is a thread focussing on the current U.S. presidential election.

JUSTIA Dockets and Filings:

Plaintiff David Kittos alleged that Defendants Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Donald Trump, Sr., Donald Trump, Jr. and Michael Pence used an authorized copy of his photograph in a campaign advertisement in violation of the Copyright Act. Specifically, Defendant Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted the plaintiff's photograph with this accompanying text: "[i]f I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem."
Plaintiff: David Kittos
Defendant: Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Michael Pence, Donald Trump, Jr., Donald Trump, Sr. and Does 1-10
Case Number: 1:2016cv09818
Filed: October 18, 2016
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Gary Feinerman
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Benaissa v. Keep America Great Pac [Democrat PAC fundraiser being sued by US surgeon over allegations found in this August 2016 political media release]
Plaintiff: Rafik Benaissa
Defendant: Keep America Great Pac, Francesca Lucia, Jon Cooper, Nathan Lerner, Scott Dworkin, Chuck Westover and Jarad Geldner
Case Number: 1:2016cv07796
Filed: October 5, 2016
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Foley Square Office
County: NewYork
Presiding Judge: Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Doe v. Trump et al [Allegations of sexual assault of a child said to have occurred in 1994]
Defendant: Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Case Number: 1:2016cv07673
Filed: September 30, 2016
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Ronnie Abrams
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Defendant: Hillary Rodham Clinton, DNC Services Corporation and USA
Plaintiff: Harold Peterson
Case Number: 1:2016cv00429
Filed: September 23, 2016
Court: New Hampshire District Court
Office: Concord Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph N. Laplante
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Jury Demanded By: None

Allister v. Rodham Clinton et al [Self-described Aspiring President of The United States” sues 26 people/institutions (including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) and goes down in flames on 13 December 2016]
Plaintiff: Sonja M. Allister
Defendant: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Benjamin Carson, Catherine Parrish Carpenter Andrews, Kevin Matthew Andrews, Emily McCormick, Bowdre George Longo, Roswell Police Department, C. T. Jackson, Shelby Sanford, Lynn Apt, Roswell Police Department Group, The City of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, Alpharetta Police Department, Peachtree City Police Department, Atlanta Police Department, East Point Police Department, College Park Police Department, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, GA, The City of Alpharetta, The City of Peachtree, The City of Roswell and The State of Georgia
Case Number: 1:2016cv03273
Filed: August 31, 2016
Court: Georgia Northern District Court
Office: Atlanta Office
County: Fulton
Presiding Judge: Richard W. Story
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Thursday 20 October 2016

STATE OF PLAY: Gun importation regulations in Australia and why we are all still vulnerable to the decisions of week-kneed politicians

On 18 October 2016 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Parliament and the nation that:

Under the current national firearms agreement, lever action shotguns are category A. There has been a move on the COAG committee of justice ministers to have those guns reclassified, which we have supported. Because agreement has not been reached, we put in place an import ban, which expired in August this year, so we have renewed it and we have renewed it indefinitely. What that means, of course, is that—…..

It is not a temporary ban. It is permanent. It is set in stone. It can be amended, but it is there—like any import ban. If the honourable member is seriously interested in the safety of Australians, as I trust we all are, let me explain. Firearms are classified under the national firearms agreement as category A, B, C or D. Category A guns are relatively readily able to be acquired. For category B you need to nominate a specific purpose, like primary production. Firearms in categories C and D are very, very difficult to obtain, and appropriately so. So the debate that is being conducted and has not yet been agreed between the state jurisdictions, who of course have the regulation of firearms, is whether and how the Adler seven-shot lever action gun should be classified. What my government has done is to ensure that no Adler lever action guns with more than five rounds can be imported in any category. They cannot be imported at all….

What we have done is put a stop on it. The fact is that we stand by the national firearms agreement. We want to see it stronger. We are supporting that with an import ban. We are proud of the achievements of John Howard. The action of the opposition in trying to use this as a distraction is a disgrace…..

I tell you that ban will remain in place until such time as there is a satisfactory reclassification of these guns by the COAG committee. That was the purpose of the ban when we first put it in place; that was the purpose when we renewed it. We stand by our commitment for the public safety of Australians.

On 8 August 2016 the Turnbull Government had given effect to the latest version of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956.

These regulations state in part:

Note:       The public interest test under item 8A of Part 1 and the national interest test under item 8B of Part 1 apply in relation to the importation of all the articles to which this Part applies (see subregulation 4F(1A))….

15
Detachable firearm magazine, having a capacity of more than 5 rounds, for:
(a) semi‑automatic shotguns; or
(b) pump‑action shotguns; or
(c)  fully automatic shotguns;
whether or not attached to a firearm.
The importation must comply with at least 1 of the following tests:
(a) the official purposes test;
(b) the specified person test;
(c) the specified purposes test;
(d) the returned goods test;
(e) the dealer test.

Despite Prime Minister Turnbull's assertion that the Adler A110 shotgun cannot be imported, it appears that there is no longer an absolute ban in place provided any specific application to import this lever action shotgun can meet at least two of seven tests.

Rather alarmingly under the public and national interest tests in the regulations Turnbull refers to, Attorney-General George Brandis may give written permission to import these lethal weapons (which fire a bullet per second) based on his interpretation of public and national interests and the weapon being properly registered/authorized and safely secured once in the country.

Additionally he may certify in writing that in his or her opinion it is in the public interest that responsibility for a permission or a refusal of a permission specified in the certificate should reside solely with the Attorney‑General and should not be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Mr. Turnbull was careful to avoid the question of how easily the Adler shotgun with less than a five round magazine can be legally converted after importation into an 11 round lever action shotgun. Something which has reportedly been occurring since the Abbott Government first allowed importation of the 4-round version of this shotgun.

Today the NSW Baird Government will consider reclassifying both four and seven-round Adler shotguns to make them more available to shooters, who as a lobby group appear to harbour the strange notion that firearm ownership in this country should be covered by Amendment II of The Constitution of the United States.

Tomorrow 21 October 2016 the eight state and territory police and justice ministers are expected to consider the ban at a scheduled meeting.

Given the lack of spine displayed by politicians these days I am not expecting that public safety will receive more than lip service in any decision they make on the day.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 October 2016:

Tony Abbott has publicly criticised Malcolm Turnbull's failure to rule out trading away elements of Australia's gun laws in exchange for crossbench support for its key industrial relations legislation.

Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm said on Tuesday the government had reneged on a deal to end the ban on importing the controversial Adler lever-action shotgun into Australia. 

Senator Leyonhjelm warned he wouldn't vote to reinstate the government's construction industry watchdog unless Mr Turnbull agreed to allow the gun to be imported into Australia.

Labor moved to suspend standing orders in the House of Representatives, emboldened by comments from Mr Abbott over the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation.

"Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits," Mr Abbott wrote.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten accused the Liberal Party of entertaining "grubby deals" on gun laws and said reforms championed by former Liberal prime minister John Howard in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre shouldn't be watered down.

The Abbott government had previously agreed to allow the importation of the gun later in 2016, in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm's support on migration issues.

A deal to introduce a sunset clause came as a review of technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement was under way.

But a temporary ban on the gun was extended before expiring in July.

In August 2015, Senator Leyonhjelm bragged to the Senate about blackmailing the government into adding the 12-month sunset clause to the Adler ban, claiming bureaucrats advising Justice Minister Michael Keenan were incompetent and too closely aligned to an anti-guns agenda. 

The man behind plans to import the Turkish-made gun is Robert Nioa, the son-in-law of Queensland independent MP Bob Katter. 


@CroweDM @ljayes, 18 October 2016
Click on images to enlarge




In 2013-14 115,827 modern guns were imported into Australia, by 2014-15 109,994 modern guns were recorded as coming into the country and in 2015-16 the figure was 104,000 firearms imported.

According to The Conversation on 28 April 2016 there are now an additional 1,026,000 firearms in private hands since the government gun recall after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre and, the total number of registered guns in Australia are in the hands of only est. 6.2 per cent of all households.

Tuesday 18 October 2016

NSW ICAC Operation Cavill: former NSW Liberal MP for Gladesville & former Ryde Mayor committal hearing on charges of blackmail and misconduct in public office


The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 October 2016:

A former Liberal state MP and Sydney mayor will face court on Monday to determine if he should be committed to stand trial for blackmail and misconduct in public office.
Ivan Petch was Ryde mayor when, in 2012, a controversial redevelopment of the Ryde Civic Centre triggered a series of flash points that later became the subject of a two-week hearing by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
Mr Petch now faces a range of charges arising from the inquiry, including two counts of blackmail, misconduct in public office and giving false or misleading evidence to ICAC.
Mr Petch lashed out at the corruption watchdog last week for having "discoloured" his "whole career in one fell swoop".
"I have spent 37 years serving the people and, in that time, I have always acted in the interests of the community," he said. "I have stood by them all the way through."
After losing his state seat of Gladesville in the 1995 election to Labor's John Watkins by the narrow margin of 250 votes, Mr Petch became an independent councillor who went on to serve six terms as Ryde mayor.
However, in 2013, ICAC investigated Mr Petch over the alleged release of confidential council information "on many occasions for various reasons" but most notably to "undermine" council employees such as the former general manager John Neish.
During the inquiry, a phone tap was played of Mr Petch threatening to "destroy" Mr Neish. It emerged that, a short time later, sensitive material was leaked in a bid to discredit the council's head, after he refused to delay a high-rise residential redevelopment plan for council's ageing civic centre.
Mr Petch, who is charged with one count of misconduct in public office for allegedly releasing that material, has also been charged with "being an accessory before the fact of a count of blackmail" in relation to the alleged threat, for which property developer John Goubran is also facing a blackmail charge.
Mr Petch is also facing a separate charge of blackmail for allegedly attempting to improperly influence Mr Neish's acting replacement Danielle Dickson after her predecessor quit.
The then mayor allegedly threatened Ms Dickson that councillors, including himself, would block her application for the permanent position if she failed to resolve an ongoing Supreme Court costs dispute in their favour.
Mr Petch's three-day committal hearing will be heard in Sydney Local Court by Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley.

BACKGROUND

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC):


The ICAC investigated a number of allegations involving the former Mayor of the City of Ryde, Ivan Petch, and others, including the alleged release of confidential council information by Mr Petch on many occasions for various reasons, including in an attempt to undermine council employees, such as the former General Manager, Mr John Neish.
In its report on the investigation, made public on 30 June 2014, the Commission makes corrupt conduct findings against Mr Petch, John Goubran and Richard Henricus. The Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with respect to the prosecution of Mr Petch, Mr Goubran, Anthony Stavrinos, John Booth and Mr Henricus for various offences.
The ICAC is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the DPP also with respect to the prosecution of Mr Petch, councillors Justin Li, Jeffrey Salvestro-Martin, Terry Perram and former councillor Victor Tagg for offences under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times in August and September 2012. The Commission also recommends that the Office of Local Government gives consideration to disciplinary action against Mr Petch, with a view to his dismissal…..

Recommendations for prosecutions…..
The ICAC is of the opinion that the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obtained with respect to the prosecution of the following persons:
Ivan Petch
* The common law offence of misconduct in public office in relation to his handling of the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer and his attempts to leak the material to the media.
* Five offences of giving false or misleading evidence pursuant to section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 relating to the discovery of adult material on John Neish's computer.
* The common law offence of misconduct in public office in relation to his release of confidential advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and also internal Council emails concerning planning approvals.
* Making an unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention of influencing the exercise of a public duty pursuant to section 249K of the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to the approach to Danielle Dickson.
* Offences of accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to section 96E of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 1, 7, 15, and 22 August 2012, and also 29 August and 5 September 2012.

Full report here.

Friday 7 October 2016

Australia's two most senior legal officers square off


Attorney-General George Brandis is making the news again for all the wrong reasons.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 October 2016:

Attorney-General George Brandis is facing calls to resign after the government's top legal adviser accused him of misleading Parliament, in a dramatic escalation of a toxic row between the country's two most senior legal officers.


Documents released at a Senate inquiry on Wednesday suggest same-sex marriage laws and a proposal to strip dual nationals involved in terrorism of Australian citizenship were flashpoints in a simmering feud between the two men.

Mr Gleeson, the government's top legal adviser, said in an explosive submission to the inquiry that he had not been consulted about a change requiring all ministers – including the prime minister – to obtain the written approval of Senator Brandis before seeking his advice.

Senator Brandis claimed in Parliament Mr Gleeson was consulted about the legally binding change, made days before the election.

Mr Gleeson said he had taken steps to have the change "withdrawn and for a proper consultation process to commence" but they had "proved futile".

"Had I been consulted ... I would have made a submission to the Attorney-General, in the strongest terms, that [the change] should not be made," Mr Gleeson said.

Legal experts have expressed concern the change is a power grab that restricts the independence of the Solicitor-General.

Mr Gleeson said there had been times since his appointment in 2013 when he had been asked directly by "persons, such as a Prime Minister or Governor-General" to provide confidential advice and it was "critically important" this should continue.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 October 2016:

Mr Gleeson wrote to Senator Brandis in November 2015, raising concerns the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) rather than his office was consulted on a marriage equality proposal that was "under active consideration by the government".

Mr Gleeson also said he was not consulted about significant changes to a proposal to strip dual nationals involved in terrorism of Australian citizenship. Senator Brandis later made public statements that Mr Gleeson had advised there was a "good prospect" the law would withstand a High Court challenge….

The Guardian, 5 October 2016:

So what did George Brandis tell the Senate? He tabled an unequivocal statement that he had consulted the solicitor general in relation to the Legal Services Direction:

“Section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903 empowers the attorney general to issue directions, which are to apply generally to Commonwealth legal work, or are to apply to Commonwealth legal work being performed, or to be performed, in relation to a particular matter. As the Direction relates to the process for referring a question of law to the solicitor general, the attorney general has consulted the solicitor general.”

A document obtained under Freedom of Information by The Guardian newspaper demonstrates that the Attorney-General has a rather odd notion of what consultation entails.

This letter clearly highlights the fact that there had been no prior consultation on changes to Legal Services Direction 2005:

Unfortunately for Senator Brandis the current Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' inquiry into the Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 allows the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth to give a full and frank explanation of the circumstances surrounding the Attorney-General's blatant power grab.

Something Justin Gleeson SC avails himself of in Submission No. 3 to the inquiry:




Evidence given at the 5 October 2016 inquiry hearing supports the contention that the Solicitor-General was only consulted about a guidance document (now superseded) not the directions document.

It  would appear that the Attorney-General has indeed knowingly mislead the Australian Parliament.

A position that sections of the mainstream media support.


Crikey.com.au, 6 October 2016:

George Brandis has blatantly misled parliament and has to resign. And his reluctance to use a better lawyer than himself for advice is behind the debacle……

Brandis has clearly, plainly misled Parliament, and on a very important issue. There’s no wriggle room or get-out clause for the provincial lawyer from Brisbane. He’s got to go.

As to a motive imputed to Brandis by the Crikey journalist - I suspect that the Solicitor-General holds a similar view although more diplomatically worded here:



Friday 30 September 2016

Queensland Government being sued to finally return other people's money


ABC News, 23 September 2016:

Lawyers say a class action in Queensland over unpaid wages to Aboriginal people is setting a national precedent, as dozens more come forward in other states to say they were not paid properly.

More than 300 people are suing the Queensland Government in the Federal Court, which held money in a trust that should have been paid to them as labourers or domestic workers more than half a century ago.

Rebecca Jancauskas, from Shine lawyers, said the class actions first directions hearing this week had revealed that the litigation proceedings would be speedy because of the advanced age of the claimants.

"It was clear that these claims are being taken seriously by federal court bench," she said.

"And proceedings have set the tone for litigation in other states where protectionist legislation was in place and wages were withheld from Indigenous people.

"So what we're doing at Shine is investigating bringing proceedings in other states — including the Northern Territory, Western Australia and NSW."……

The Queensland Government did set up a reparations scheme in 2002, but Ms Jancauskas said claimants only received between $2,000 and $7,000 for decades of work as labourers, stockmen or domestic servants.

"The amount they received through the reparations scheme was but a fraction of the money that the Government is holding in trust for them," Ms Jancauskas said.

"Had people received their entitlements through reparations schemes, then there would be no need for litigation to be pursued."

Those who took part in the scheme had to sign a deed of release, stopping them from taking further action.

But Ms Jancauskas said that would not stop them from participating in the litigation.

Thursday 29 September 2016

Tale of an unsolicited proposal approved by the NSW Iemma Government and distorted out of all recognition by Baird Government


When the people of New South Wales were told of a successful unsolicited proposal for a section of Darling Harbour foreshore land in 2007, this was what they were told the Barangaroo development would eventually look like:
Since then the approved development plan has undergone nine modifications until around a third of the total foreshore parkland area has been reduced to a “promenade” in order to satisfy the Packer family’s desire to build yet another private casino and hotel complex – this one 71 stories high at an estimated cost of $2 billion.

According to the Crown Resorts Limited website:

The Crown Sydney Hotel Resort will be world-class and will feature 350 hotel rooms and suites, luxury apartments, signature restaurants, bars, luxury retail outlets, pool and spa facilities, conference rooms and VIP gaming facilities.

This is what that est. 33 per cent of public parkland in the plan is now expected to look like per the June 2016 NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) approval:
Millers Point Fund Incorporated has been formed by local Millers Point community groups and the matter is now before Justice Nicola Palin in the NSW Land & Environment Court with Minister for Planning Robert Gordon Stokes,  Barangaroo Delivery Authority, Crown Resorts, Lendlease, and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority as respondents.

On behalf of the Millers Point Fund the NSW Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) will be arguing that the PAC was wrong to remove public parkland for private profit.


I suspect that the EDO could do with a little financial help as it takes on the legal might of the super-rich and politically powerful. Online donations can be made here.

Friday 2 September 2016

ASIO wouldn't be asking for these extensions to its coercive powers if Australian Attorney-General George Brandis hadn't already given the nod


If Labor and the crossbenches agree to this demand then there is little hope left that Australians will have adequate protection under law.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 August 2007:
ASIO has proposed scrapping the need for judge-approved warrants to detain and question Australians for up to a week without charge in terrorism investigations, in a watering down of safeguards that has alarmed lawyers and rights advocates.

The power to grant the security agency a controversial "questioning and detention warrant" would rest instead with the Attorney-General – a situation the Law Council of Australia has branded "unprecedented".

The changes being requested by ASIO would also remove a current separate requirement that an independent legal authority, such as a retired judge, is present when a person is being questioned. Rather, oversight of questioning would rest with the intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Under laws passed in the wake of the September 11 and Bali bombing attacks, ASIO has the power to hold someone for up to seven days and question them if it may "substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence", even if the person isn't a terrorism suspect themselves…..

Currently ASIO needs an "issuing authority" in the form of a serving judge to approve the warrant.

The laws include both "questioning warrants", which make it an offence to refuse to answer ASIO's questions and also "questioning and detention warrants", which allow ASIO to have the Australian Federal Police arrest and hold someone so ASIO can question them…..

Police and intelligence agencies say that terrorism plots in the Islamic State era are increasingly rudimentary and fast-moving, which means processes such as obtaining warrants need to be streamlined as much as possible so authorities can swoop to protect the public.

But the detention warrants have never actually been used in the 11 years they've been in place. Questioning warrants have been used 16 times since 2004, though not since 2009.
The Attorney-General already has the power to approve intelligence-gathering methods such as phone intercepts and surveillance.

But Law Council of Australia director Arthur Moses, SC, who also gave evidence to the inquiry, told Fairfax Media: "We're talking here about persons being detained in custody and deprived of their liberty. That takes it to an entirely different level."

"Western democracies have always taken the position that we do not in effect have a situation where a politician can give that authority … Usually people have the protection of a judicial officer … In my view it's unprecedented.

"We accept and understand that in respect of an evolving security threat environment, sometimes legislation and procedures need to be amended … but we are not aware of any issue that has arisen where ASIO has attempted to obtain a detention warrant and it has not been able to."…..

Wednesday 31 August 2016

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption 'Operation Spicer': you saw the telemovie now read the book


The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation named Operation Spicer ran for approximately five months and claimed a number of political scalps including that of the then NSW Coalition Premier Barry O'Farrell.

Operation Spicer hearings were a feature of nightly news reports and journalists' live tweeting during this period.

Given the number of legal challenges mounted against ICAC since those hearings ended the final inquiry report has only now been released to the general public. 

In its media release of 30 August 2016 ICAC states:

Operation Spicer investigation has exposed prohibited donations, fund channelling and non-disclosures in the NSW Liberal Party’s 2011 state election campaign.

The Commission’s report, Investigation into NSW Liberal Party electoral funding for the 2011 state election campaign and other matters, was made public today. The ICAC’s findings include that Raymond Carter, Andrew Cornwell, Garry Edwards, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Hilton Grugeon, Christopher Hartcher, Timothy Koelma, Jeffrey McCloy, Timothy Owen, Christopher Spence, Hugh Thomson and Darren Williams acted with the intention of evading laws under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (the election funding laws) relating to the disclosure of political donations and the ban on donations from property developers.

Messrs Grugeon, Hartcher, Koelma, McCloy, Owen, Thomson and Williams were also found to have acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to caps on political donations. The Commission also found that Craig Baumann, Nicholas Di Girolamo, Troy Palmer and Darren Webber acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations and that Bart Bassett knowingly solicited a political donation from a property developer.

The ICAC found that during November and December 2010 the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in the campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited donors under the election funding laws.

Undisclosed political donations were also channelled through a business, Eightbyfive, to benefit Liberal Party 2011 state election campaigns on the Central Coast. These donations included donations from property developers and donations in excess of the applicable caps on donations.

The ICAC also found that there were payments made by property developers, who were prohibited donors, to help fund NSW Liberal Party candidates’ campaigns in the Hunter. The true nature of these payments was disguised, for example, as consultancy services or funnelled through another company with the intention of evading the election funding laws.

The above are findings of fact, not findings of corrupt conduct. As explained in the Foreword to the report, the ICAC cannot make corrupt conduct findings in cases of failure to comply with the requirements of the election funding laws where, although those failures could have affected the exercise of official functions of the then Election Funding Authority of NSW, officers of that authority were not involved in any wrongdoing.

The ICAC makes a finding of serious corrupt conduct against Joseph Tripodi for, sometime prior to 16 February 2011, misusing his position as a member of Parliament to improperly provide an advantage to Buildev by providing to Darren Williams of that company a copy of the confidential 4 February 2011 NSW Treasury report, Review of Proposed Uses of Mayfield and Intertrade Lands at Newcastle Port.

The Commission’s report notes that at the relevant time proceedings for an offence under the election funding laws had to be commenced within three years from the time the offence was committed. As the Operation Spicer public inquiry did not conclude until September 2014, and the matters canvassed in the report occurred mostly from 2009 to 2011, a prosecution for relevant offences is now statute barred.


 Excerpt One:

Chapter 34 of this report contains statements made pursuant to s 74A(2) of the ICAC Act that the Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with respect to the prosecution of the following persons:

* Samantha Brookes for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act • Andrew Cornwell for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Wife of former Liberal MP for Charlestown Andrew Cornwell]

* Timothy Gunasinghe for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [GM /Director at Commercialhq]

* Christopher Hartcher for an offence of larceny [former Liberal MP for Terrigal & NSW Minister for State, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Central Coast]

* Timothy Koelma for three offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Proprietor, Eightbyfive]

* William Saddington for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Director, PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd]

* Joseph Tripodi for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. [former Labor MP for Fairfield] 
Note: My red annotations

Excerpt Two:

Set out below are some of the principal factual findings made by the Commission.
* Sometime shortly prior to 16 March 2011, Nathan Tinkler offered to make a political donation to Jodi McKay’s election campaign. In making this offer, Mr Tinkler was attempting to induce Ms McKay to accept a donation from a person she knew to be a prohibited donor and which would be falsely disclosed to the Election Funding Authority as coming from private individuals. Mr Tinkler knew at the time he made the offer that he was a prohibited donor and was not able to make a political donation and that Ms McKay was not able to accept a political donation from him (chapter 11).
* Each of Mr Williams, David Sharpe and Ann Wills of Buildev played an active part in the “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” mailout campaign, which was designed to damage Ms McKay’s prospects of re-election. Given its inherent political nature, the expenditure on the leaflets amounted to “electoral communication expenditure”, as defined by the Election Funding Act. This expenditure was incurred in the period between 1 January 2011 and the end of the polling day for the 2011 NSW state election and was therefore incurred within the “capped expenditure period” as defined in s 95H of the Election Funding Act. As the electoral communication expenditure exceeded $2,000 in a capped expenditure period, Buildev was operating as a “third-party campaigner” as defined in s 4 of the Election Funding Act. Buildev failed to register as a third-party campaigner as required by s 96AA of the Election Funding Act and failed to disclose to the Election Funding Authority its electoral communication expenditure as required by s 88(1A)(a) of the Election Funding Act (chapter 11).
* Mr Tripodi played a central role in the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign by nominating the printer for the mailout pamphlets and involving himself in the drafting and design process for the pamphlets (chapter 11).
* During November and December 2010, the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the Free Enterprise Foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in its 2011 state election campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited under the Election Funding Act from making political donations (chapter 15).
* Each of Simon McInnes, Paul Nicolaou and Anthony Bandle knowingly used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations, including political donations from property developers, to the NSW Liberal Party to fund its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised from the Election Funding Authority (chapter 15).
* Timothy Koelma used his business, Eightbyfive, to receive and channel political donations for the benefit of Christopher Hartcher, Christopher Spence, Darren Webber and the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers, which operated from 14 December 2009, and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. The funds obtained and channelled in this way were used for the purposes of the NSW Liberal Party 2011 election campaigns in the seats of Terrigal, The Entrance and Wyong. Mr Koelma directly benefited from the donations through Eightbyfive, as he was able to draw from those funds to give himself a salary, thereby, enabling him to work for Mr Hartcher on the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Mr Koelma subsequently obtained full-time employment in Mr Hartcher’s ministerial office after the 2011 election (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was involved in the establishment of Eightbyfive and took an active part in using Eightbyfive to channel political donations from Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd, Gazcorp Pty Ltd and Patinack Farm Pty Ltd for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party, himself, Mr Spence and Mr Webber with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers (in the case of Gazcorp) and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. Mr Hartcher benefited from this arrangement because part of the funds channelled through Eightbyfive enabled Mr Koelma to work for him on the 2011 NSW state election campaign at no cost to Mr Hartcher, while other funds channelled through Eightbyfive ensured that Mr Hartcher’s likeminded political colleagues were funded to campaign for the Central Coast seats of Wyong and The Entrance (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was a party to an arrangement with Nicholas Di Girolamo and Mr Koelma, whereby Mr Di Girolamo made regular payments through Australian Water Holdings to Eightbyfive. Under this arrangement, between April 2009 and May 2011, Eightbyfive received $183,342.50 from Australian Water Holdings. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Australian Water Holdings but were in fact political donations made to assist Mr Hartcher by providing funds to Mr Koelma so that Mr Koelma could work for Mr Hartcher in the lead up to the 2011 NSW state election. Mr Hartcher and the others involved in this arrangement intended to evade the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations. The payments totalling $36,668.50, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 18).
* Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Junior, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of The Entrance) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between May 2010 and April 2011, Gazcorp made payments totalling $121,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Gazcorp but were in fact political donations which were mainly used to help fund Mr Spence so that he could work on the Central Coast election campaign and on his campaign for the seat of The Entrance. Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence intended by this arrangement to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act and the ban on the making and accepting of political donations from property developers. The payments totalling $33,000, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 19).
* Mr Hartcher, Mr Koelma, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Troy Palmer and Mr Williams were parties to an arrangement whereby, between July 2010 and March 2011, Patinack Farm made payments totalling $66,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Patinack Farm but were in fact political donations to help fund the NSW Liberal Party 2011 Central Coast election campaign. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011, totalling $33,000, exceeded the applicable caps on political donations. Although the payments to Eightbyfive were made by Patinack Farm, the arrangement was organised through Buildev, a property developer (chapter 20).
* Mr Koelma and Mr Webber (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Wyong) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between 2010 and 2011, Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, made payments totalling at least $34,650, and up to $49,500, to Mr Webber. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Mr Webber to Eightbyfive but were in fact political donations to help fund Mr Webber’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Wyong. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011 exceeded the applicable caps on political donations (chapter 20).
* Raymond Carter used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donor was disguised from the Election Funding Authority. A portion of this money was from property developers (chapter 21).
* Mr Carter and Mr Koelma entered into an arrangement to use Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations and the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. The political donations obtained by Mr Carter under this scheme included $5,000 from each of LA Commercial Pty Ltd, Yeramba Estates Pty Ltd and Brentwood Village Pty Ltd, and $2,200 from Crown Consortium Pty Ltd (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Carter used a business, Mickey Tech, with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure of political donations by disguising from the Election Funding Authority political donations of $2,000 from INE Pty Ltd and $2,000 from Maggiotto Building Pty Ltd. In each case, the money was sought and received by Mr Carter as a political donation for the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Although at the time Mr Carter received the money he intended to apply all the money for the purposes of the election campaign, he eventually only applied $2,400 for this purpose, the balance being applied to private use (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Hartcher received three bank cheques payable to the NSW Liberal Party totalling $4,000. They were received by Mr Hartcher for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party for the March 2011 state election campaign. In November 2011, some eight months after the election, Mr Hartcher arranged for the cheques to be paid into the trust account of Hartcher Reid, a legal firm, and for that firm to draw a cheque for $4,000 in favour of Mickey Tech, a business owned by Mr Carter’s partner. After the $4,000 was deposited into that account, it was withdrawn in cash by Mr Carter and given to Mr Hartcher. These steps are inconsistent with an intention on the part of Mr Hartcher to apply the $4,000 for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party (chapter 23).
* In about November 2010, Mr Gallacher sought a political donation from Mr Sharpe of Buildev by inviting him to attend a New Year’s Eve political fundraising function for which Mr Sharpe or Buildev would make a payment. Mr Gallacher knew that they were property developers, and he sought the political donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations (chapter 25).
* In late 2010, Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams of Buildev were involved in an arrangement whereby two political donations totalling $53,000 were provided to the NSW Liberal Party for use in its 2011 election campaigns for the seats of Newcastle and Londonderry. To facilitate this arrangement, on 13 December 2010, Mr Palmer, a director of Boardwalk Resources Limited, a company of which Mr Tinkler was the major shareholder, drew two cheques totalling $53,000 payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. These were provided to Mr Hartcher who arranged for them to be sent to Mr Nicolaou. Mr Nicolaou sent the cheques to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $53,000. Of the $53,000, some $35,000 was used to help fund Timothy Owen’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Newcastle and $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Bart Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheques for the donations were drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, they were made for Buildev, a property developer. Each of Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams entered into this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the accurate disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations (chapter 26).
* In about February 2011, Jeffrey McCloy gave HughThomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Newcastle with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Mr McCloy gave Mr Owen $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Owen intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Hilton Grugeon gave Mr Thomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $5,000 made by Keith Stronach, a property developer. The payment evaded the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers. The political donation was not disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Stronach was a property developer and were aware that Mr Stronach paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $14,190 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. In organising the payment, Mr  Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Buildev was a property developer and that it had paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Mr Gallacher was responsible for proposing to Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon an arrangement whereby each of them would contribute to the payment of Luke Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. He did so with the intention that the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority would be evaded (chapter 27).
* Mr Owen, Mr Thompson, Mr Grugeon and Mr McCloy were parties to an arrangement whereby payments totalling $19,875 made to Mr Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were falsely attributed to services allegedly provided to companies operated by Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon. Those involved in this arrangement intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority. The payments were also in excess of the caps imposed on individual donors (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Joshua Hodges for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $3,998.50 made by William Saddington of PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd. The payment was disguised as being for consultancy services provided to that company. The payment had the effect of evading the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Saddington was contributing to Mr Owen’s election campaign expenses by paying Mr Hodges. They did not ensure that the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Australian Decal Sales and Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for in August 2011 by a political donation of $3,198.80 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. By organising the payment, Mr Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware this political donation had been made by a property developer and participated in this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. They did not ensure the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, a third-party campaign known as “FedUp” was conducted by Rolly De With, Neil Slater and Paul Murphy using the name of a local business association, the Newcastle Alliance. The purpose of the campaign was to assist in defeating the sitting member for the seat of Newcastle, Ms McKay, in the 2011 NSW state election. In March 2011, a payment of $50,000 was arranged by Mr Williams of Buildev and authorised by Mr Tinkler to fund the campaign. The payment was ostensibly made by Serene Lodge Racing Pty Ltd but was in fact money from Mr Tinkler and was made for Buildev, a property developer. The $50,000 payment was a political donation and was in excess of the $2,000 cap on political donations made for the benefit of a third-party campaigner. The political donation was not disclosed to the Election Funding Authority by Buildev, Serene Lodge Racing or Mr Tinkler (chapter 28).
* On 6 October 2010, Mr McCloy paid $10,000 in cash to Andrew Cornwell, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Charlestown, as a political donation for Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 election campaign. By making the donation, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the disclosure of political donations. By accepting the donation Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act requirement relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 29).
* Andrew Cornwell, his wife, Samantha Brookes, and Mr Grugeon were parties to an arrangement involving the pretence that a payment of $10,120 made in early 2011 by Mr Grugeon, a property developer, was for a painting. The $10,120 was in fact a political donation made by Mr Grugeon to fund Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 NSW state election campaign. In participating in this arrangement, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of donations by property developers and the requirement for disclosure of political donations. In participating in this arrangement, Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers, and the requirement for accurate disclosure of political donations received. The payment exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 29).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, Garry Edwards, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Swansea, received a political donation by way of a cash payment of about $1,500 from Mr McCloy, a property developer. Mr Edwards accepted the donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the requirements for disclosure of political donations. Mr McCloy knew he was making a political donation and that, as a property developer, he was prohibited from making such a donation (chapter 30).
* In 2007, Craig Baumann, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Port Stephens, entered into an arrangement with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon to disguise from the Election Funding Authority the fact that companies associated with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon had donated $79,684 towards Mr Baumann’s 2007 NSW election campaign. As part of this arrangement, a company associated with Mr McCloy made a political donation of $32,604 and a company associated with Mr Grugeon made a political donation of $47,080. These political donations were paid to Mr Baumann’s company, Mambare Pty Ltd, which, in turn, paid the money to the Medowie branch of the NSW Liberal Party to be used for Mr Baumann’s 2007 election campaign. Mr Baumann caused Mambare to lodge a declaration with the Election Funding Authority that falsely claimed that it had donated the money to the NSW Liberal Party. Mr Baumann did so with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 31).
* In about November 2010, Mr Baumann entered into an arrangement with Vincent Heufel with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the truthful disclosure of political donations. Under this arrangement, Mr Heufel made a donation of $100,000 for Mr Baumann’s election campaign and Mr Baumann reduced the amount his company, Mambare, charged for building Mr Heufel’s house by that amount. This was done so that Mr Heufel could falsely represent that he was responsible for making the political donation, rather than Mr Baumann’s company and so that Mambare could evade disclosing that it had made a political donation for Mr Baumann’s 2011 NSW state election campaign (chapter 31).
* In 2010, for the purposes of his 2011 NSW state election campaign, Mr Bassett, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Londonderry, solicited a political donation from Buildev, a property developer. This culminated in the drawing of a cheque, dated 13 December 2010, for $18,000 on the account of Boardwalk Resources, which was payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $18,000. The $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Mr Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheque for $18,000 was drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, the donation was made for Buildev. Mr Bassett was aware at the time he solicited the political donation that Buildev was a property developer and knew it was not able to make a political donation and he was not able to accept a political donation from a property developer (chapter 32).

Full 172 page report here.