Australian-based companies investigated in international bribery scandal

The story so far......

In 2010 Leighton Holdings Limited thought it was a good idea to employ a 'door opener' to assist in gaining big ticket international contacts through one of its entities Leighton Offshore.

Four years later both the 'door opener' and Leighton were under investigation across multiple jurisdictions for allegedly corrupt conduct, as contractor and sub-contractor the pair had fallen out and a British court ordered the company to pay an additional est. US$18.37 million to its 'door opener' and, the company's credit rating had slumped. 

The then sixty-five year old company was taken over by Spanish multinational 
Actividades de Construcción y Servicios (ACS) and, in 2015 its name changed to CIMIC Group Limited. 

A rough timeline of corruption allegations reported in the mainstream media.......

The Huffington Post, 31 March 2016:

The letter arrived via snail mail, and read like a page from a Le Carré spy thriller. If my newspaper and I wanted to expose a corporate bribery scandal involving the biggest names in the oil business, the anonymous sender wrote, I should place an advertisement in the real estate section of French newspaper Le Figaro in July 2015.

The advertisement must include the code word "Monte Christo".

The sender wanted to protect his identity, and perhaps ensure I was a journalist committed to following a lead around the world. Whatever the intention, his proposition was too intriguing to ignore.

Also piquing my interest was the mention of a mysterious company called Unaoil, run by the wealthy Ahsani family of Monaco……

Unaoil Group legal letter of 29 March 2016 to Fairfax Media Publications:

The Age, 31 March 2016:

A massive leak of confidential documents has for the first time exposed the true extent of corruption within the oil industry, implicating dozens of leading companies, bureaucrats and politicians in a sophisticated global web of bribery and graft.

After a six-month investigation across two continents, Fairfax Media and The Huffington Post can reveal that billions of dollars of government contracts were awarded as the direct result of bribes paid on behalf of firms including British icon Rolls-Royce, US giant Halliburton, Australia’s Leighton Holdings and Korean heavyweights Samsung and Hyundai.

The investigation centres on a Monaco company called Unaoil, run by the jet-setting Ahsani clan. Following a coded ad in a French newspaper, a series of clandestine meetings and midnight phone calls led to our reporters obtaining hundreds of thousands of the Ahsanis’ leaked emails and documents.

The trove reveals how they rub shoulders with royalty, party in style, mock anti-corruption agencies and operate a secret network of fixers and middlemen throughout the world’s oil producing nations…..

Fairfax Media and The Huffington Post today reveal how Unaoil carved up portions of the Middle East oil industry for the benefit of Western companies between 2002 and 2012.

In part two we will turn to the impoverished former Russian states to reveal the extent of misbehaviour by multinational companies including Halliburton. We will conclude the three-part investigation by showing how corrupt practices have extended deep into Asia and Africa….

Western firms involved in Unaoil’s Middle East operation include some of the world’s wealthiest and most respected companies: Rolls-Royce and Petrofac from Britain; US companies FMC Technologies, Cameron and Weatherford; Italian giants Eni and Saipem; German companies MAN Turbo (now know as MAN Diesal & Turbo) and Siemens; Dutch firm SBM Offshore; and Indian giant Larsen & Toubro. They also show the offshore arm of Australian company Leighton Holdings was involved in serious, calculated corruption.

The leaked files reveal that some people in these firms believed they were hiring a genuine lobbyist, and others who knew or suspected they were funding bribery simply turned a blind eye.

But some knew much more. A handful of senior insiders at firms such as Spanish company Tecnicas Reunidas, French firm Technip and drilling giant MI-SWACO, not only actively supported bribery but pocketed their own kickbacks; US defence giant Honeywell and Australia’s Leighton Offshore agreed to hide bribes inside fraudulent contracts in Iraq; a Rolls-Royce manager negotiated a monthly kickback for leaking information from inside the British firm. [my red bolding]

Rest of the article here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2016:

The latest revelations show Unaoil's campaign of corruption spread across the former Soviet states. Leaked Unaoil files reveal that one of the crooked middlemen, Stefano Borghi, who worked with Unaoil in Kazakhstan, was also working with Australian firm WorleyParsons around 2008.

In conjunction with Unaoil, Borghi paid kickbacks to the senior managers who oversaw oilfield contracts. The oilfields were jointly managed by the Kazakhstan government and Italian international oil company Eni.

In return for bribes, Eni managers leaked inside information and rigged tender committees to assist Borghi and Unaoil's multinational clients.

The leaked files revealed that in 2008, Borghi and Unaoil stood to make hundreds of thousands of dollars if they helped a consortium led by WorleyParsons to win a multimillion-dollar contract.

"In case of award to PARSONS or any third party represented by PARSONS, ECO [Unaoil's British Virgin Islands company] shall be entitled to receive a fee equal to 1% (one percent) of the total price of the portion of the contract awarded to PARSONS," a leaked Unaoil memo states.

Another email shows that, in 2007, a senior WorleyParsons manager used Borghi to find out confidential information in Kazakhstan through "the back door".

At the time, Borghi was bribing a corrupt Eni manager whose job was to oversee several large contracts in Kazakhstan. The manager, Diego Braghi, was leaking sensitive information from a tender committee that was considering whether to award the WorleyParsons' consortium a contract on the Kashagan oilfield.

Managers from the consortium asked Borghi to leak information about their competitors, and to get other forms of assistance from tender committee insiders.

Unaoil regarded WorleyParsons as a company able to pay middlemen huge sums to win contracts. Other firms, including US giant KBR, had scaled back these practices due to concerns over corruption.

"WP [WorleyParsons] do not have any of the constraints that kbr … do now and can pay serious fees," Unaoil's memo says.

In the end, for the WorleyParsons manager handling the transaction, this preparedness to do the wrong thing paid off. Worley beat their competitors and won the contract.

In a statement, WorleyParsons confirmed that "Stefano Borghi was an employee of an agent of WorleyParsons."

"At the time the agency agreement was put in place, WorleyParsons had in place rigorous processes to select and appoint agents who provide services to the company," the company said. [my red bolding]

The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2016:

The revelations place intense pressure on the Turnbull government to respond to corporate corruption scandals with the same ferocity they have attacked corrupt unionists. Labor senator Sam Dastyari and independent Nick Xenophon have revealed they will bring forward to April a Senate inquiry into corporate bribery and seek to force allegedly corrupt executives to testify. 

The inquiry will intersect with the Turnbull government's push to pressure the Senate into reviving the Australian Building and Construction Commission. [my red bolding]

Excerpt  from Google Translate’s version of 31 March 2016 Monaco Government press release:

Communiqué of the Department of Legal Services of the Principality of Monaco

Following an urgent request for international judicial assistance in criminal matters from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK, and in accordance with international agreements signed by the Principality of Monaco, it was conducted searches at the homes of officers of the Monegasque company UNAOIL and headquartered in the Principality. The leaders of this company were also heard on 29 and 30 March 2016. 

These investigations and hearings were conducted in the presence of British officials, as part of a vast corruption scandal with international ramifications involving many foreign companies operating in the oil sector.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 April 2016:

In continuing fallout from the joint Fairfax Media-Huffington Post investigation into corruption in the oil industry, the Monaco government revealed that it had raided the homes and offices of Unaoil's principals, who ran the company exposed as the global bagman for the oil industry.

Unaoil executives "were also interviewed… in the presence of British officers in connection with a case of vast corruption with international ramifications that involves many foreign companies active in the petroleum sector," the Monaco government's statement said.

Fairfax Media revealed on Thursday that the British police had teamed up with the Australian Federal Police, the US Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the vast cache of leaked Unaoil emails on which our stories have been based.

Unaoil was hired over almost two decades by large multinational firms, including the offshore arm of Australia's Leighton Holdings, to pay bribes to top overseas officials in return for winning government funded contracts in oil-rich nations.

Fairfax also revealed that the chief executive of Primary Health Care, Peter Gregg, was under criminal investigation over a $15 million payment he allegedly made in a former job as chief financial officer of Leighton Holdings.

He appears to have signed documents making the payment to a United Arab Emirates firm, Asian Global Projects and Trading, to guarantee the supply of steel to the Australian construction giant at "preferred and commercially beneficial" prices. No steel was ever supplied and Fairfax Media has obtained documents revealing the Dubai company that received the money has engaged in bribery and money laundering……

Read the rest of this article here.

The Age, 1 April 2016:

Questions are emerging about how Unaoil operated for so many years with impunity, using bank accounts in New York and London to launder funds and pay bribes between 2000 and 2012, possibly more recently…..

Many of Unaoil’s crooked deals were organised in London, or used UK and US linked middlemen, bank accounts and shelf companies. British authorities appear to have been in the dark about Unaoil and the Ahsanis, who also operate a London property investment company. The British foreign office has even assisted Unaoil overseas, giving Unaoil and its executives briefings and support.

Boing Boing, 2 April 2016:

By week's end, police in the UK, US and Australia announced criminal investigations against top executives, and the Monaco police raided Unaoil's HQ.

But the BBC -- a national broadcaster charged with impartially reporting on the news -- has literally never mentioned Unaoil in any of its online news coverage. Many of the companies involved in the scandal are headquartered in the UK, and some, like Rolls-Royce, are practically synonymous with British industry. Meanwhile, the news coverage has described how Unaoil used the City of London as its go-to money laundry.

The Huffington Post, 4 April 2016:

Halliburton, KBR and other corporate conglomerates relied on Unaoil to deliver them lucrative contracts with corrupt regimes in oil-rich nations. But without the help of banks like HSBC and Citibank, none of Unaoil’s operations would have been possible.

Both Citibank and HSBC declined to comment on whether Unaoil or the Ahsani family, who own and operate the firm, remain their clients.

HSBC and Citibank have histories of corruption. In 2012, HSBC was fined $1.9 billion for laundering drug money and violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. In 2015, it paid Swiss authorities $43 million to settle allegations that it helped the global elite illegally dodge taxes. Citibank was fined $140 million last year for violations of money laundering laws related to its work with an energy company involved in a bribery scandal with the Mexican government. The bank is currently being investigated for its role in the bribery scandal at FIFA, the international soccer organization.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 November 2013:

Damning evidence has emerged in a court case linking construction firm Leighton Holdings to allegedly corrupt payments of "not less than $25 million in marketing fees" to a Monaco firm to help win Iraq government projects, even though the projects required no marketing.

Leighton's own lawyers recently labelled these payment agreements as "vague and uncertain", while corporate corruption expert Dr Kath Hall, Associate Professor at the ANU College of Law, said they were risky and compared them to the dealings of AWB Limited in Iraq over a decade ago.

Files from the British High Court of Justice case reveal that the fees were contained in deals, known as Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs), struck between Leighton's offshore business and another company, Unaoil, in the last half of 2010 and in early 2011 and aimed at securing oil pipeline contracts in the south of Iraq.

Unaoil operates out of Monaco but is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven with an opaque banking system.

The Unaoil deal is one of two deals linked to the Iraq projects in 2010 - the second involving UAE company Oceanking - that Leighton insiders now concede should have never been struck because they involved payments for services that were undefined and vague.

Leighton only referred the deals to police in November 2011, after external lawyers discovered company files outlining allegations of bribery in Iraq.

The two deals were overseen by former Leighton International director David Savage and former top executive Russell Waugh.

Unaoil has alleged in its court case that the MOAs required the Australian firm to pay pay Unaoil "a minimum price for construction and marketing of $US55 million" in the event that the Iraqi government awarded Leighton the second pipeline contract.

"Furthermore, the parties agreed that Unaoil shall be paid an additional marketing fee of 5 per cent of any amount that Leighton receive on the [Iraq] Project above $US500 million."

"For the avoidance of doubt, the marketing fee paid to Unaoil shall not be less than $US25million."

In documents lodged in court in April this year, Leighton's barrister Sean Brannigan, QC, rejected Unaoil's demands, stating that the MOA between Leighton and Unaoil was "so vague and uncertain that it cannot be given contractual force"

.As federal police bribery investigators continue to investigate Leighton's Iraq dealings, several figures closely associated with Leighton said the MOAs should never have been drawn up. Most corporate anti-corruption programs warn that ''marketing fees'' may be used as a vehicle to pay bribes in overseas business deals.

Former Leighton chief executive Walk King, who departed Leighton at the start of 2011, was also on the board that oversaw Leighton Offshore's initial Iraq contract and initial MOAs with subcontractors.

Mr King said that he had no knowledge of or involvement in the ''so-called second contract'' in Iraq, which is the subject of the British legal dispute between Leighton and Unaoil. [my red bolding]

AFR Weekend, 10 October 2013:

WorleyParsons chief executive Andrew Wood has seized on Leighton Holdings’ bribery allegations to stress his global engineering group will not tolerate any form of corrupt practices.

Amid concerns the scandal could damage WorleyParsons’ reputation, Mr Wood told investors that ethical behaviour was “paramount" to the company’s success.

“Recent revelations of alleged corrupt practices by Australian companies operating overseas we know is a concern to shareholders of a global companies such as ours," he said at WorleyParsons’ shareholder meeting in Sydney.

“I can assure you that at WorleyParsons we have zero tolerance of corrupt practices." Like Leighton, WorleyParsons only banned facilitation payments last year after the Australian Federal Police began an investigation in late 2011 into suspect payments made by Leighton to secure oil contracts in Iraq.

Excerpts from Memorandum of Agreement as set out in the Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd [2014] EWHC 2965 (Comm) judgment of 12 September 2014 which found in favour of Unaoil:

"MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

…

WHEREAS

LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and UNAOIL respectively wish to record their irrevocable and binding agreement relating to their collaboration and co-operation in connection with the "IRAQ CRUDE OIL EXPORT FACILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT reference EFP 0910100 (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT" and or "JICA") for SOUTH OIL COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as the "CLIENT") in Iraq.

NOW THEREFORE, it is on the basis of the foregoing premise being an integral part this MOA that the Parties hereto agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 – PURPOSE OF THE MOA

In consideration of the mutual undertakings each Party gives to the other under this MOA, the Parties agree as follows:

1.1 To freely enter into this MOA, in collaboration and co-operation, whereby the Parties agree that such collaboration and cooperation is by way of a sole and exclusive contractor and sub-contractor relationship in respect of the above PROJECT for the UNAOIL Scope of Work (later herein defined).

1.2 That UNAOIL shall immediately following signature irrevocably commit to the further engagement of subcontract resources and the continued incurrence of costs in respect of the above PROJECT for the UNAOIL Scope of Work (later herein defined).

…

1.5 Save in so far as the Party's respective subcontract arrangements that may be necessary in order to support the purpose and intent of this MOA, or as otherwise expressly provided in this MOA, neither Party shall individually enter into any relationship which is substantially equivalent to that defined by this MOA, in connection with the PROJECT and the UNAOIL Scope of Work with any person or firm other than the other Party to this MOA. For the avoidance of doubt, neither Party shall, whether directly or indirectly, make any other tender to or agreement with the CLIENT or any other party with respect to a work scope that is substantially equivalent to the UNAOIL Scope of Work (later herein defined) on this PROJECT which would thus attempt to circumvent the purpose and intent of this MOA.

…

1.7 Nothing in this MOA shall create any entitlement whatsoever between the Parties, including any right to damages, costs or expenses in the event LEIGHTON OFFSHORE (or any one of it's [sic] existing or future group companies) is not awarded the contract for the PROJECT by the CLIENT.

…

ARTICLE 2 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOA

The Parties agree to proceed as follows:

2.1 UNAOIL confirms that it together with any partners with which it works in connection with the PROJECT shall have, the requisite skill, experience, ability and available resources and that it meets, and all such partners shall meet, all requirements at law including holding of all relevant licences to execute the UNAOIL Scope of Work as is hereby subcontracted by LEIGHTON OFFSHORE to UNAOIL in accordance with this MOA.

2.2 Without further payment obligation unless and until LEIGHTON OFFSHORE (or any one of its existing or future group companies) is successful in securing the PROJECT from the CLIENT, LEIGHTON OFFSHORE hereby appoints UNAOIL (or by way of later assignment one of its existing or future group companies, subject to LEIGHTON OFFSHORE approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) to be its sub-contractor for the execution of the onshore construction activities (as further defined in Exhibit 1 and 2) in connection with the PROJECT ("UNAOIL Scope of Work").

2.3 Other than those agreements set forth in this MOA, UNAOIL and LEIGHTON OFFSHORE will negotiate in good faith to agree the further terms and conditions of the subcontract for the UNAOIL Scope of Work with such terms and conditions to be on a back to back basis with the terms and conditions contained in the contract between LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and the CLIENT, to the fullest extent such terms and conditions may reasonably and proportionately be deemed applicable in the context of the subcontract and the UNAOIL Scope of Works…

2.5 LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and UNAOIL agree that UNAOIL Scope of Work shall be as set out in Exhibit 1 …

2.6 LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and UNAOIL agree to the commercial points of principle as set forth in Exhibit 3 hereto and, in so far as is necessary and without prejudice to the same, further agree that they will negotiate together in good faith to incorporate the said agreed principles into any further detailed terms and conditions of the subcontract.

2.7 LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and UNAOIL agree an all inclusive price of USD 75,000,000 (seventy five million dollars).

…

ARTICLE 5 – EFFECTIVE DATE

This MOA is effective and binding between the Parties as of the date of its execution under hand.

ARTICLE 6 – LAW AND DISPUTES

This MOA and any non-contractual obligations arising in connection with it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales.

…

ARTICLE 7 – TERMINATION

Other than as set out hereunder in this Article 7, neither party shall have any further obligation to the other under this MOA after its termination. Article 3 CONFIDENTIALITY, Article 6 LAW AND DISPUTES and Article 7 TERMINATION shall accordingly remain in full force and effect after its termination. This MOU [sic] will terminate on the earliest of any of the following events occurring:

…

4. The award of the PROJECT to LEIGHTON OFFSHORE and entry by the Parties into (by mutual consent and formal execution thereof) of a subcontract agreement for the UNAOIL Scope of Work that includes a condition that expressly supersedes this MOA.

…

ARTICLE 8 –LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

8.1 If LEIGHTON OFFSHORE is awarded the contract for the PROJECT by the Client, and LEIGHTON OFFSHORE does not subsequently adhere to the terms of this MOA and is accordingly in breach hereof, LEIGHTON OFFSHORE shall pay to UNAOIL liquidated damages in the total amount of USD 40,000,000 (Forty million US dollars). After careful consideration by the Parties, the Parties agree such amount is proportionate in all respects and is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that UNAOIL would incur as a result of LEIGHTON OFFSHORE's failure to honour the terms of the MOA.

8.2 Any liquidated damages payable under Article 8.1 shall be paid by LEIGHTON OFFSHORE to a bank account nominated by UNAOIL in instalments, with one initial instalment of USD 10,000,000 (Ten million US dollars) being made within 30 days of a written demand by UNAOIL, and the balance sum being paid in 14 equal instalments on a monthly basis, commencing in the month following the initial payment, or as may be otherwise agreed in writing between UNAOIL and LEIGHTON OFFSHORE.

ARTICLE 9 – CONTINUED SERVICE PROVISION

9.1 If LEIGHTON OFFSHORE does not subsequently adhere to the terms of this MOA and is accordingly in breach hereof, then notwithstanding and without prejudice to LEIGHTON OFFSHORE's obligation to pay liquidated damages to UNAOIL in accordance with Article 8 but subject always to the strict conformity and adherence of the agreed payment structure set forth therein, UNAOIL will continue to assist LEIGHTON OFFSHORE with the successful execution and completion of the PROJECT for the CLIENT and shall:

•    Provide local knowledge and advice on the preferences of the CLIENT, its partners, the government and governmental agencies.

•    Assist in arranging meetings and maintaining relations with the CLIENT, its partners, the government, governmental agencies and any other business representatives that are deemed desirable for the satisfactory completion of LEIGHTON OFFSHORE's contract.

•    Ensure LEIGHTON OFFSHORE is kept appraised of all requirements the CLIENT may have in relation to the execution of the contract.

•    Provide feedback and monitoring of performance of the CLIENT, its partners and others during execution to ensure a successful contract execution.

•    Provide assistance on possible change orders and guidance relating to invoicing procedures and billing issues if needed.

AGREED COMMERCIAL POINTS OF PRINCIPLE

…

2. Payment terms

The agreed payment terms are set forth below:

a. Non-refundable Advance Payment of 15.0% of the Fixed Lump Sum Price contained in Article 2.7, which shall be set against each of the Lump Sum Prices contained in Exhibit 2 UNAOIL's Unit Rates / Price Breakdown …

b. Within 30 days of (a) a Non Refundable Pipe Laying Equipment Asset Write Down and Mobilisation Payment of 7.5% of the Fixed Lump Sum Price contained in Article 2.7, which shall be set against each of the Lump Sum Prices contained in Exhibit 2 UNAOIL's Unit Rates / Price Breakdown.

c. Thereafter, monthly progress payments against actual progress of the Work Breakdown Structure activities on the balance of 72.5% of each of the Lump Sum Prices contained in Exhibit 2 UNAOIL's Unit Rates / Price Breakdown …

d. …

e. With the exception of (a) and (b) above (which are payable on demand following the opening of the main contract LOC and the receipt of first funds by LEIGHTON OFFSHORE as set forth in (a) and (b)), the period of payment shall be no greater than 45 calendar days …

5. UNAOIL's approval as a subcontract

In the event of a written objection by the CLIENT to UNAOIL's engagement as a sub-contractor to LEIGHTON OFFSHORE, UNAOIL shall in a timely manner seek and obtain approvals for its continued engagement to perform the works as set forth in this MOA. For the avoidance of doubt, should thereafter UNAOIL's continued engagement remain unacceptable to the CLIENT, then notwithstanding the same both Parties hereby agree that UNAOIL shall always continue to be obliged to provide the services set forth in Article 9.1 and LEIGHTON OFFSHORE shall always be obliged, upon the continued provision of those services, to pay UNAOIL in strict accordance with the instalments set forth in Article 8.2. If at such time UNAOIL have already issued the Performance Bond set forth above and in Article 2.10, then LEIGHTON OFFSHORE hereby agree to return the same with a letter of unconditional release from obligation there under to UNAOIL's guarantor bank."

Up until June 2014, the Leighton Group delivered its services through a long-established structure, consisting of Leighton Holdings and five independent, overlapping Operating Companies, being: Leighton Contractors; Thiess; John Holland; Leighton Asia, India and Offshore; and Leighton Properties. In June 2014, Leighton announced a Strategic Review of its operations. This included a transformation of the business operating model. Henceforth the Group will deliver its services through four specialised businesses focused on construction, contract mining, PPPs, and engineering. Refer section titled ‘Strategic Review’ below for further details. The Group also has a 45% investment in the Habtoor Leighton Group, a Middle-East based construction company, and investments in other listed and non-listed entities. [Leighton Group, 2014 Annual Report, p.12]

On 13 February 2012, the Company announced to the Australian Securities Exchange that it had reported to the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) a possible breach by employees within the Leighton International business of its Code of Ethics that, if substantiated, may have contravened Australian laws. The possible breach related to payments that may have been made by a subsidiary company Leighton Offshore Pte. Limited in connection with work to expand offshore loading facilities for Iraq's crude oil exports. The AFP is investigating the Iraq issue and the Leighton Group’s international business operations. In November 2013, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) made public statements about its cooperation with the AFP in the AFP’s investigation. On 28 March 2014, ASIC informed the Senate Estimates Committee that it had commenced a formal investigation into potential breaches of the Corporations Act relating to a number of matters being investigated by the AFP. Leighton is cooperating with the AFP and the ASIC investigations. Leighton does not know when the investigations will be concluded. [ibid, p.106] [my red bolding]

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 March 2015:

Leighton Holdings has confirmed it will change its name to CIMIC Group as the construction group's new Spanish owners try to distance themselves from corruption allegations, shedding an Australian brand that has existed for more than 60 years.

Leighton has asked shareholders to approve the name change at the company's annual general meeting in Sydney on April 21.

As exclusively reported by Fairfax on Thursday, Leighton Holdings lodged an application to trademark "CIMIC" with IP Australia, the government agency that administers intellectual property rights, on March 3.

CIMIC stands for Construction, Infrastructure, Mining and Concessions.

The name change follows the acquisition of Leighton by Spanish construction group ACS a year ago, and the subsequent restructure of the company…..

Leighton's name dates back 65 years to 1949, when the construction group was formed in Melbourne by Englishman Stanley Leighton.


UPDATE

Financial Review, 4 April 2016:

The Tax Office is investigating more than 800 high net wealth Australian clients of the controversial Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is the focus of an unprecedented leak of tax haven records released globally.

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.

IPART told Clarence Valley Council is dysfunctional, manipulative, dishonest, deceptive, wasteful, incompetent and other similarly 'complimentary' terms

In February 2016 Clarence Valley Council lodged an application with the Independent Pricing And Regulation Tribunal (IPART) for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) of 8% p.a. (including the rate peg limit) for five years, starting 2016-17, in accordance with Section 508A of the Local Government Act 1993. From 21 August 2015 through to 25 September 2015 Council undertook public consultation on the proposed 8% p.a. SRV by implementing the Community Engagement Strategy for its ‘Financial Sustainability – the Road Ahead’ process, which included applying for an 8% p.a. SRV for 5 years and reviewing Council’s discretionary services.

IPART received over 50 submissions, predominately from individuals.

Having sampled a fair number of these frequently uncomplimentary submissions here are just two examples from former local government councillors.

Read the remainder of the submission here.

Read the remainder of this submission here.

With NSW local government elections at the end of the year, I suspect that Mayor Richie Williamson will have to tap dance wildly to secure his re-election if the sentiments contained in most of the submissions are any indication.

Another Liberal Party official tacitly admits wrongdoing

After almost eight years of putting his hand on his heart and signing all those Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) financial disclosure documents, Simon McInnes (left) is bowing to the inevitable….

The Australian, 29 March 2016:

NSW Liberal Party finance director Simon McInnes will today stand down from his role as the party executive with responsibility for campaign finances.

His resignation as party agent comes ahead of the NSW Liberals amending their disclosures to admit receipt of illegal donations from property developers, which will see them face a fine up to the nearly $700,000 — or equivalent to the dollar value of the donations unlawfully received.

The Australian can also reveal the Liberal Party has not ruled out legal action in the Supreme Court against the NSW Electoral Commission if it withholds up to $4.4 million in funding ahead of the federal election.

Mr McInnes is expected to resign as the Liberal Party’s agent to state director Chris Stone today, but will not resign from his role as finance director. The party’s agent is the person legally responsible for management and disclosure of election campaign finances to the NSW Electoral Commission.

Mr Stone is preparing to meet the NSW Electoral Commission to identify which of the Free Enterprise Foundation donations were earmarked for the federal campaign and which for NSW…….

With the Liberal Party preparing to amend its disclosures, it would be inconsistent for Mr McInnes to authorise the new ­returns, given he signed off on the last disclosures that did not ­include details of the $700,000 ­donated via the Canberra-based trust, the FEF……

The FEF publicly disclosed to the AEC $1.15m of donations from major companies, including property developers, in 2010-11.

Political Cartoons of the Week

Jon Kudelka, The Australian, 29 March 2016

Geoff Pryor, The Saturday Paper, 26 March 2016

Mining exploration company Anchor Resources active again on Dorrigo Plateau

Image from Blicks River Guardians

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc:

Calling for Cancellation of ALL Mineral Exploration Licences on the Dorrigo Plateau

A Dorrigo landholder has for the past 6 years fought to stop antimony exploration activities on their property. The exploration company, Anchor Resources Ltd, breached the Mining Act 1992 in 2011 and was subsequently fined. Since that time there has been constant pressure from the exploration company for a new land access agreement regardless of the landholder not wishing to have exploration activities on the property. This matter has been held up in a prolonged arbitration process despite the exploration licence expiring on the 3rd March 2016.

More recently Anchor Resources Ltd, which also holds two other substantial exploration licences on the Dorrigo Plateau has been identified by Delisted Australia as a ‘Worthless Share Company 2015/2016’ (http://www.delisted.com.au/capital-gains-tax/capital-losses-2015-2016). 

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. questions how a landholder can be subject to such prolonged stress by a government process that supports an exploration company that is considered worthless financially? Where is the natural justice and procedural fairness for landholders? The financial capability of Anchor Resources Ltd clearly does not comply with the requirements of financial solvency as part of the exploration licence approval process, and yet the NSW Government has done nothing. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. request that the NSW Government immediately cancel all exploration licences held by Anchor Resources Ltd. We also question the integrity of the current process given that no government action has yet occurred to cancel these exploration licences and that a landholder has been subject to unnecessary and prolonged stress. Our recent invitation to Melinda Pavey, MP for Oxley to visit the site and discuss the issues, was declined.

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. reiterate that any form of mining on the Dorrigo Plateau is an inappropriate land use given the significant biodiversity, agricultural, World Heritage and water catchment values of which the Plateau is nationally and internationally renowned. The current land use policies, planning and environmental laws do not adequately or fairly protect the Plateau’s natural assets from inappropriate land uses, such as mining.

___________________________________________________________

Arbitration decision released 29th March 2016

Breaking news..........Anchor Resources Ltd granted a 3 year Landholder Access Agreement as a result of Arbitration. It is understood at this early stage that the access agreement is to initially undertake remediation at Wild Cattle Creek from prior exploration activities and then to continue with their exploration activities planned since 2011. More details to be provided soon......................

The hidden delights of an as yet undeveloped block of land at Iluka in the Clarence Valley

These are photographs supplied by an Iluka resident highlighting some of the biodiversity of a 19ha lot which is currently the subject of a 162 lot subdivision development application before the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel and Clarence Valley Council.

Rainbow bee-eaters (Merops ornatus) - listed as a Migratory species and a Marine species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Protected under JAMBA international treaty.

Native orchid

Flowering gum tree

Strangler fig

Coastal cypress pine (Callitris columellaris)

Part of the tree cover

Wallaby track

Coastal banksia (banksia integrifolia)

Red stinkhorn fungus (Phallus rubicundus)

Female koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) with joey

Banksia laden with cones

Native fungus

Young native staghorns, ferns and orchid plant attached to tree

Mature fern speciman

Wattle (Arcacia)

Native fungus

*

Young native staghorns, assorted ferns and mosses

River lily (Crinum pedunculatum)

Tree canopy

Drop Bear distribution map for the wary travellers in Australia

http://australianmuseum.net.au/drop-bear

Around the size of a leopard or very large dog with coarse orange fur with some darker mottled patterning (as seen in most Koalas). It is a heavily built animal with powerful forearms for climbing and holding on to prey. It lacks canines, using broad powerful premolars as biting tools instead…

Drop Bears can be found in the densely forested regions of the Great Dividing Range in South-eastern Australia. However there are also some reports of them from South-east South Australia, Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island…..

Drop Bears hunt by ambushing ground dwelling animals from above, waiting up to as much as four hours to make a surprise kill. Once prey is within view, the Drop Bear will drop as much as eight metres to pounce on top of the unsuspecting victim. The initial impact often stuns the prey, allowing it to be bitten on the neck and quickly subdued.

If the prey is small enough Drop Bears will haul it back up the tree to feed without harassment from other predators…..

Bush walkers have been known to be 'dropped on' by drop bears, resulting in injury including mainly lacerations and occasionally bites. Most attacks are considered accidental and there are no reports of incidents being fatal.

There are some suggested folk remedies that are said to act as a repellent to Drop Bears, these include having forks in the hair or Vegemite or toothpaste spread behind the ears. There is no evidence to suggest that any such repellents work. 

How to turn a NSW North Coast family beach from terrific to toxic

In 2014 Evans Head on the NSW Far North Coast scored a 100% rating for having a good or very good rating on all its beaches, with Main Beach being scored Very Good in the State of the Beaches 2013-14 report.

Main Beach, Evans Head, 1 October 2014

Twenty-one months on from that environmental accolade and this is Main Beach sand as at 20 March 2016

The Northern Star, 24 June 2015:

DREDGING will start this week on the Evans River and boat harbour at Evans Head.

Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis said the NSW Government contributed more than $550,000 toward the Evans Head dredging project. 

"The works are funded under the NSW Government's Dredging of Priority Waterways on the North Coast program which supports commercial fishing fleets and leisure boating through navigational dredging," he said.

"Maintaining access to coastal river entrances and harbours is vital to regional economies and this program focuses on work between Forster and Tweed Heads with provision of work at other locations.

"The work at Evans Head was due to commence this week (22 June) to dredge 18,000 cubic metres of clean marine sand from the Evans River navigation channel that will be used to renourish the beach area between the Evans River northern breakwater and the Beach Street carpark.

"Another 2,000 cubic metres of sediment will be dredged from the boat harbour and pumped into geotextile bags. "

Once dewatered, the sediment will then be transported offsite to a licensed landfill facility.

"The dredging contract for the $564,225 project was awarded to National Dredging Services, a local company based in Yamba," Mr Gulaptis said…..

Echo NetDaily, 1 February 2016:

In a letter to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development group has blasted the Crown Lands department for the quality of spoil dumped on Main Beach last year during dredging operations.

Group spokesperson Dr Richard Gates said ‘In my view the whole dredging process has damaged the beach and the contaminated spoil has probably acted to attract sharks to the area via direct or indirect means’.

Dr Gates said photographic evidence showed that Crown Lands and other departments had failed to ensure that the quality of spoil dumped on Main Beach was consistent with the natural sands of the area.

Photos show black sludge containing material such as oyster shells being dumped on the beach, or being released into the ocean.

He said the Richmond Valley Council had been left to try clean up the mess.

‘In my view there needs to be a thorough review of this whole process,’ he said.

‘Richmond Valley Council has been left to clean up a contaminated beach.  Who will be picking up the bill?

‘And I would like to know why material incompatible with the beach and the ocean was dumped on the Main Beach at Evans Head and who made the decision to allow that to happen.

‘Where were the monitoring authorities and why was no oversight given to the process by independent agencies?

Echo NetDaily, 29 March 2016:

A residents’ group in Evans Head is demanding that a dredge operator pay to clean up Evans Head’s Main Beach after dumping contaminated material on it.

The material, which includes oyster shells, shell fragments, shards of glass, metal cans and organic matters, has resulted in visitors avoiding the beach, and some getting cut feet.

The Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development Incorporated (EHRSDI) has lodged a complaint about the dumping, and is now asking why the Richmond Valley Council is moving the contaminated material further up the beach.

EHRSDI spokesman Dr Richard Gates said the contaminated spoil dumped on the Main Beach opposite the Surf Club during a dredging program last year in the Evans River.

‘A comprehensive photographic record shows that not only was a considerable amount of the spoil not compatible with the beach but that the spoil was taken from parts of the Evans River which were identified as being not appropriate for the beach,’ Dr Gates said.

‘That material should have been removed and bunded as happened with contaminated material from the boat harbour.

He said despite repeated attempts by council to clean the beach of the contamination with a raking program the shell fragments and glass, etc., continue to appear.

‘And a sand cliff has formed at the beach which makes it difficult for Surf Life Saving to get its rescue equipment to the water,’ he said…..

Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development Inc. had this to say on Facebook, 23 March 2016:

So what has the EPA had to say about problems with dredging at Evans Head? Well here is their response with names removed.

They received comprehensive information from us about what had happened:

"Thank you for your emails of 19, 22 and 23 November 2015 regarding the dredging works in the Evans River. I appreciate you taking the time to bring these issues to our attention. 

Given that Crown Lands is responsible for assessing and approving the works in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is appropriate to discuss the content of the REF with Crown Lands. Towards this end I understand that Mr XXXXXXXXXXXX of Crown Lands contacted you last week to discuss the issues you have raised with the project. 

Crown Lands is currently undertaking a number of navigation dredging projects in the north coast region. Some of these have been recently completed, including the Evans River project. 

The EPA has received several complaints regarding these dredging projects and has conducted inspections in responding to these complaints. This culminated in a recent meeting with Crown Lands regarding the environmental performance of dredging projects in the region. This meeting focused on the environmental issues which have been identified and discussed future refinements to the assessment and management processes to deliver enhanced environmental outcomes in the future. 

In response Crown Lands has agreed to revise its current processes in the following manner :
• A more robust assessment of potential sediment disposal locations;
• A more robust assessment of sediment dewatering methodologies that are to be based on site specific sediment characteristics;
• Improved community consultation;
• Improved management and supervision of dredging contractors; and
• Improved water quality management.

Given the nature of the issues which have been identified during the current dredging program the EPA will be closely monitoring future dredging projects. 

If you identify any further issues with future dredging programs I encourage you to contact our Environment Line on 131 555.”

So they had a bit of chat with Crown Lands about getting dredging projects right in future!!!!!! Wait a moment. We're missing something here. So there is a major stuff up with a beach in a community which depends on tourism for its survival and all the EPA can do is make it a 'learning experience' for another government department. Where is the chat with the operator?

You and I stuff up and government agencies are all over us. A powerful department and its contractor stuff up big time and all that happens is they have a chat and are told to learn from their experience so that they can get it right next time.....at our expense!!!! In our view we are being failed badly, very badly yet again by our environment protection authority which is fundamentally a licencing agency for pollution. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If you are concerned about the beach and what is happening and you think there is a risk to the public there is always the Environment Line 131 555. And you don't need to give your name.

Both the operator and NSW Department of Primary Industries have a lot to answer for.

National Dredging Services (NDS) states it carries a $20 million public liability insurance policy on its works sites – perhaps the good people of Evans Head should be contacting the company and its insurer to inquire as to what a policy of this type actually covers and ask if the company also carries additional insurance.

Photographs from nbnweathershots.com.au, echo.net.au and Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development Inc.

Australian Right nailed by Rundle

The Saturday Newspaper, 26 March 2016:

The Australian right survives because it is supported by hothouse institutions: the loss-making parts of News Corp, oxymoronically named "think tanks", which take anonymous corporate money to lobby for their industries and then claim tax-deductible charitable status, and the cocooned political process that pipes wacko right-wing fantasists up from student politics through these think tanks and into the senate without encountering democracy at any point.

Such right politics thrives on fear, uncertainty and nostalgia. With a quarter-century of growth, we have very little of that, at least in the all-encompassing sense. The population has become not only more prosperous, but more progressive – values that were once the preserve of the smaller culture or knowledge-producer class are now general. Support for same-sex marriage and multi-ethnic life, alongside suspicion of Western military adventures and pro-choice abortion politics, are now spread among 70 per cent of the population. The conservative right has struggled to accept this. It believed that residual conservative values – for harsh immigration policies, for Anzac – suggested a silent conservative majority out there. They believed that Tony Abbott, rising to power on a promise of running Labor's programs while being not Labor, could then become a powerful author of the conservative rollback.

But Abbott failed because the conservative faultline runs through the man himself. Abbott is no Ted Cruz, a man forged in the heat of a great and confident national political tradition. He's a searching neurotic product of a convert Catholic family, deeply conflicted about the role ordained to him – "Tony will be pope or PM," parents and family said – expressing his European reactionary mindset, pre-1789, in the manner laid out by B. A. Santamaria in his last decades, as a politics of pessimism and noble failure. There was little attempt to create a coherent 21st-century right, as David Cameron has in Britain, and in its absence self-indulgence took over, as marked by the soap opera hysteria at the heart of it, recounted by Niki Savva. It may or may not be embellished in the telling, but who doubts its substance? People leading serious political revolutions don't get caught up in some mash-up of House of Cards and Gossip Girl. People for whom politics has ceased to provide a meaningful vocation do.

There was an emotional decadence at the heart of the Abbott government, a result of its attempt to project its right-wing fantasies onto a country that no longer felt defined by them. What's happening now is simply the endgame of the Abbott push, and the right-wing culture politics attached to it.

While we're on the subject of political donations to the Liberal Party - perhaps voters should look more closely at Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's past and present

Senator Arthur Sinodinos is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Liberal Party of Australia election campaign fundraising…….

In 2003 Malcolm Bligh Turnbull stepped down as Liberal Party treasurer to stand as a candidate in the seat of Wentworth at the 2004 federal election.

Former federal Liberal Party treasurer Michael Yabsley and then federal Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull appear to have created the Wentworth Forum on 25 May 2007 with the listed address Suite 505, 80 William Street, East Sydney,  NSW 2011. It was not originally listed as an associated entity.

It said of itself:

The Wentworth Forum is a fundraising initiative to engage members of the Wentworth community and other personal supporters of Malcolm Turnbull.

The Forum presents a dynamic range of small events to further thought leadership on the future of Australia, and how best to safeguard and ensure our continuing development as a nation. Membership of the Wentworth Forum is by private subscription and details are available by contacting The Wentworth Forum.

The Wentworth Forum was almost immediately noticed by the Murdoch media.

The Daily Telegraph, 1 August 2007:

FOR most Australians $55,000 is a lottery win, but for the richest politician in Australia - Malcolm Turnbull - it's the entry fee to his elite election fundraising club.

The Environment Minister has asked his well-heeled Eastern Suburbs supporters to fork out between $5500 and $55,000 for membership to the Wentworth Forum, a think-tank whose main aim is to get him re-elected.

And he's even throwing party at his harbourside mansion as part of the campaign, with a guest appearance from Prime Minister John Howard.

Mr Turnbull, a former merchant banker, said he needs the money because the Liberal Party is at a financial disadvantage to Labor, which he claims receives a "torrent of cash" from the unions.

"I couldn't be more concerned, I'm totally concerned, I do not take Wentworth for granted," the Member for Wentworth said.

In August 2008 the federal Labor Government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions And Gifts) Bill 2008 to remove tax deductibility for contributions and gifts to political parties, independent members and independent candidates. This became law in early 2010.

Before then, in 2009, the media began to look once more at Turnbull’s forum and it is said to have ceased operation in that same year. Though it remains a registered business name in NSW (BN98292798) and still keeps a website with contact details at wentworthforum.org.au.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 July 2009:

NEARLY 20 individuals or families listed among Australia's richest 200 have contributed to Malcolm Turnbull's electorate fund-raising machine, which has collected more than $1.4 million since 2007.

Contributors to the Opposition Leader's fund-raising arm, the Wentworth Forum, include the Seven Network chairman, Kerry Stokes; the Westfield founder, Frank Lowy; the former Macquarie Bank boss, Alan Moss; and the Aussie Home Loans chief, John Symond.

Others include the former chief of the failed investment bank Babcock & Brown, Phil Green; the boss of Meriton, Harry Triguboff; the property developer Bob Rose and Ros Packer.

Mr Turnbull, a former merchant banker, is listed by BRW among Australia's richest 200 people. The forum is run by the federal Liberal Party treasurer and Mr Turnbull's long-time friend, Michael Yabsley.

It was set up in 2007 when Mr Turnbull was environment minister in the Howard government. At that time, electoral boundary changes had made Wentworth a less safe seat for the Liberals.

Regarded as the country's most sophisticated political fund-raising machine, the forum offers membership packages that give the most generous supporters more opportunities to gain

access to Mr Turnbull.

It costs $5500 to be a "member", $11,000 to be a "sponsor", $16,500 to be a "patron", $25,500 to be a "benefactor" and $55,000 to be a "governor".

A governor can host boardroom events, and gets two tables at big functions featuring Mr Turnbull, and attendance at an exclusive dinner for supporters.

Members receive one seat at a big function and three tickets to boardroom events.

Disclosure of the forum's methods has prompted charges that Mr Turnbull has put himself up for sale.

"That's the first time we've seen it so clearly … It is spelt out what you will have and how often you will see that person," said the NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon, who with an academic, Norman Thompson, has scrutinised the forum's operations.

As a backbencher in 2005, Mr Turnbull proposed a ban on donations from companies, unions and foreigners. Individuals would be allowed to donate subject to an annual cap.

A spokesman for Mr Turnbull said yesterday that the forum's activities were similar to those of "many other fund-raising forums used by both political parties"……

An analysis of forum donations, fund-raising events and memberships between 2007 and last December shows Mr Turnbull received more than $1.4 million. He personally contributed about $10,000 in catering for forum events.

Most of the money was raised before the 2007 federal election.

The forum has accepted money from British American Tobacco, with a senior executive paying $16,500 for a "patron" membership this financial year.

Other contributors include the Sydney multimillionaire Matt Handbury, co-founder of the Australian Rain Corporation and nephew of the News Corporation chief, Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury's company received a $10 million grant from Mr Turnbull when he was environment minister not long before the 2007 election.

From August 2007 to last December companies and people associated with Mr Stokes have contributed $44,000 to the forum.

New Matilda, 15 July 2009:

Turnbull’s fundraising efforts have been largely managed by his friend — and veteran Liberal Party fundraiser — Michael Yabsley. With their intimate knowledge of how to tap rivers of gold from wealthy Australian donors, these two have proved to be a formidable team.

Yabsley brought considerable experience to the task of establishing the Wentworth Forum. Significantly, as Chair of the NSW Liberal Party’s Millennium Forum, Yabsley introduced a new style of political fundraising in Australia, one which put access to leading politicians centre stage when donations were solicited.….

The individuals who have contributed to the Forum are a Who’s Who of Sydney’s finance, law and property worlds. At least 17 — including Turnbull himself, who has donated catering for Forum events — have been listed at least once during the past three years in the list of Australia’s 200 richest people, published annually in the Business Review Weekly…..

Throughout 2007, the money rolled in for Turnbull; the Forum raised over $1.1 million for his re-election campaign. A total of 92 individuals joined the Forum in this period, mainly as Members or Sponsors. There were only 10 people among the Patron and Benefactor group and one Governor…..

The Forum continues to raise money for Turnbull. The latest figures for the six months up to December 2008 show that it raised over $300,000 for the 2008–2009 year. Most of this money was from membership renewals, which provide the many levels of access to Turnbull. Only about $17,000 came from direct donations. More money will be received throughout 2009 as people renew their memberships.

One of the more contentious donors to the Forum is British American Tobacco Australia (BAT). Early on, only small amounts of money were paid by BAT for attendance at fundraising events. Then in December 2008, Bede Fennell, who is the Head of Public Affairs for BAT Australia, paid $8250 for a half-year Patron membership in the Forum to take effect in 2009. A further $16,500 was paid for a Patron membership in 2009–10. The Liberal Party reported this money as received from BAT.

The Wentworth Forum activities do not sit easily with Turnbull’s earlier reform zeal for electoral funding when he was a humble backbencher.

In a February 2005 email to Woollahra councillors, he went on the public record in opposition to donations from companies and other groups. He wrote, "no political donations should be allowed unless they are: from citizens and/or persons on the electoral roll (i.e., no companies, unions, associations etc); subject to a cap; and donors should certify that the donation is either their own or their spouse’s money and has not been given to them by a third party."

Interestingly, in these comments Turnbull did not mention a cap on a candidate’s own money, which leaves him, as a very wealthy individual, with a distinct advantage. He spent over $600,000 of his money on the 2004 election. It is not known if the NSW Liberal Party also spent funds in Wentworth since this information is not required to be disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission.

In his time as federal Opposition Leader, Turnbull has thwarted electoral funding reform, quite possibly judging that the current system gives the Liberals an advantage. When federal Labor and the Greens combined in 2009 voting to ban foreign donations and make contributions from other sources more transparent, the Coalition and Senator Fielding defeated it in the Senate…..

News.com.au, 29 August 2009:

GODWIN Grech, the Treasury official at the centre of the fake email affair, proposed a fee deal to the merchant bank running the OzCar fund whose chairman was a key backer and personal donor to Malcolm Turnbull.

The effect of the deal was to enable Credit Suisse, the bank hired by Treasury to implement OzCar, to maintain its $5 million in fees, despite the fund being scaled back from $2 billion to $1.3bn.

The Weekend Australian can reveal that John O'Sullivan, the chairman of investment banking for Credit Suisse, donated more than $20,000 to the Wentworth Forum, the Opposition Leader's political fighting fund.

Mr O'Sullivan is president of the federal electorate conference in Mr Turnbull's Sydney electorate of Wentworth and a member of the Opposition Leader's Point Piper branch.

The OzCar affair was the subject of a recent report by Auditor-General Ian McPhee, which criticised Mr Grech's conduct in the OzCar affair and accused him of at times acting in a partisan fashion…..

The Wentworth Forum surfaced in the public record again in 2011.

Submission to the inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns, Dr Norman Thompson, Director NSW Greens Political Donation Research Project, June 2011:
Almost all candidates running on a political party’s ticket submit nil returns to the AEC after each federal election in spite of many spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their campaigns and probably receiving similar amounts for their campaign funds. When some candidates report expenditure but no donations received, I have been told that this involves a candidate spending his or her own funds on their campaigns.

Malcolm Turnbull is an excellent example of this. It is only because his Wentworth Forum disclosed membership data to the NSW EFA but not the AEC that we know this fundraising body collected at least $1.1 million for his campaign in the run-up to the 2007 federal election.  Local observers estimate he spent far in excess of a million dollars on this campaign.

Yet, Mr Turnbull submitted a return to the AEC after the 2007 election in which he reported no donations received and less than $72,000 spent.  As I stated above, I have been advised that when expenditure is reported by lower house candidates this is usually their personal money if they reported receiving no donations. Obviously Turnbull’s donations were funnelled through the head office of the NSW Liberal Party. This appears to happen with almost all candidates who run on a political party’s ticket, hiding the identities of who financially supports these candidates.

In December 2011 the Joint Standing Committee Report on the funding of political parties and election campaigns also made passing reference to The Wentworth Forum, but essentially since then there has been little mention of how Prime Minister Turnbull goes about fundraising for his own re-election campaigns.

In 2012-13 the Liberal Party reported more than $73 million in revenue to the Australian Electoral Commission, of which $14.1 million came from the party’s NSW Division.

By 2013-14 the NSW Division was reporting revenue of $19.6 million and in 2014-15 $20.4 million.