Australian Federal Election 2016: is the Liberal Party ripping itself apart in lead-up to polling day?

These days the Liberal Party of Australia is making Labor look like amateurs when it comes to internal party division and dissent.

ABC News, 25 February 2016:

A retired state Liberal MP, Charlie Lynn, who served for almost 20 years and was suspended from the party for speaking out on 7.30, has delivered a stinging rebuke to the state branch of the party, accusing it of acting like the Kremlin.

Charlie Lynn was suspended along with former federal Parliamentary Secretary, Ross Cameron, and branch member, Juris Laucis, by the party's acting State Director, Simon McInnes, for criticising NSW Liberal party pre-selection processes.

The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2016:

PENRITH councillor Marcus Cornish has been suspended from the Liberal Party for six months after an email he wrote for party members was leaked.

At close of business on Friday, February 19, the conservative councillor — who has sided with the party for about 12 years — received the news by email, claiming he was “bringing the party into disrepute in an election year”.

Cr Cornish said: “All I am trying to do is keep democracy alive … if arguments aren’t heard for and against on things, then the people are not really heard.

The Australian, 20 March 2016:

The Liberal Party has erupted in a furious brawl over the role of ­lobbyists in selecting Senate ­candidates after a “farcical” vote on the weekend that defied Malcolm Turnbull, sought to undermine a federal minister and cost retired general Jim Molan a seat in parliament. In a test of money and power, party officials allowed lobbyists Michael Photios and Nick Campbell to step in at the last minute to help decide the NSW Liberal candidates for the Senate at the next election, sparking claims of “corruption” in the process.

The state executive will meet within days to rectify part of the outcome by confirming the Minister for International Development Concetta Fierravanti-Wells at the top of the ticket, but the party faces a wider challenge over the failure to notify candidates of the late switch to the preselection panel.

“The anger is so wide over this that the challenge could come from anywhere,” one Liberal Party member said yesterday, as those involved in the preselection said the result would have been ­completely different if the state executive had not intervened.

While Tony Abbott decreed two years ago that lobbyists could not hold positions as party officials — forcing Mr Photios off the state executive — the surprise move last Friday saw Mr Photios and Mr Campbell take the place of two members of the state executive in the Senate preselection panel.

The move was approved by the state executive, which is controlled by the moderate wing of the party, and was overseen by state party director Chris Stone, who was the returning officer in the preselection and until three weeks ago was an employee of Premier State Consulting, the lobbying firm run by Mr Photios and Mr Campbell.

The preselection vote on Saturday installed Hollie Hughes as the leading candidate, followed by Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Mr Molan, in defiance of the view from the Prime Minister and others that the Minister for International Development should gain the No 1 spot. Mr Molan was the special envoy of Operation Sov­ereign Borders.

The Australian was told Mr Photios and Mr Campbell ­“cajoled” preselectors and “worked the room” to ensure the outcome, exercising influence that has become a commonplace but contentious aspect of NSW preselections.

Sky News, 21 March 2016:

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has taken a swipe at the way Liberal preselections are held in NSW, 'daring' the state executive to suspend his membership for speaking out against the process.

Last month, three liberal members - including Sky News contributor Ross Cameron - were suspended from the party over their calls for direct preselection of candidates via plebiscites.

Tony Abbott, who supports the party's Howard Reforms, told Sky News the men 'were making perfectly reasonable points about the factional stitch up that we've seen again and again in the NSW Liberal Party - they were just saying what needed to be said.'

The former PM also issued a directive to the party in NSW - 'In a sense I dare the state executive to suspend me for saying we need reform in the NSW Liberal Party,' Mr Abbott said.

ABC News, 22 March 2016:

Four sitting West Australian federal Liberal MPs are being challenged for preselection in their seats ahead of this year's election, and a wide range of candidates have nominated for the new seat of Burt.

As previously confirmed, former State Liberal Party Director Ben Morton will try to topple Dennis Jensen in Tangney, where Dr Jensen has twice before lost the support of local members before being endorsed by the party's State Council.

In the seat of Swan, Steve Irons will be challenged by Suncorp Insurance state manager Carl Pallier; Durack MP Melissa Price will battle against geologist David Archibald; and Bunbury local Ben Small will take on Forrest MP Nola Marino.

The Australian, 24 March 2016:

Julie Bishop is in it and so is Arthur Sinodinos. Lucy Turnbull is a foundation member.

Yet the “inner circle” at the top of the federal government does not seem to include Scott Morrison.

Malcolm Turnbull yesterday acknowledged that the Treasurer was not part of the small group told beforehand that the federal budget would be brought forward a week to prepare for a July 2 election.

“I did not call Scott Morrison on Sunday night. No, I did not,” the Prime Minister told the Nine Network’s Lisa Wilkinson yesterday when pressed on the matter. “It was a very small circle,” he added.

The impression is that Morris­on is a mere comet in the Turnbull solar system, circling close to the sun on some occasions while hurtling into the distance on others.

This has observers mystified. How could the Treasurer not be told as soon as possible of the final decision to bring forward the budget — the document that has his name on its title page?

The Australian, 24 March 2016:

Malcolm Turnbull criticised Scott Morrison over his handling of the GST in front of cabinet colleagues during a dinner at The Lodge.

Some of the Treasurer’s colleagues saw the Prime Minister’s remarks at the February 21 dinner­ as a dressing-down.

The Australian understands Mr Turnbull told Mr Morrison his continued hard sell on raising the GST had shown the government in a bad light and was causing it difficulty.

The dinner at The Lodge that Sunday night was not a full meeting of the cabinet, but many ministers attended. The Prime Minister is also understood over the course of that weekend to have asked the Treasurer to pull back on his media commitments, concerned at his poor performance that week at the National Press Club and in a series of talkback radio intervi­ews, where he spoke about “unicorns” and “pixie horses” and was criticised for lacking vision.

The following day, Newspoll in The Australian showed the government had lost its two-party-preferred lead over Labor and was tied at 50-50, which Mr Turnbull is understood to have sheeted home to Mr Morrison’s poor media performance.

It was the first concerning poll for Mr Turnbull, ending his personal honeymoon. Before then, the Coalition had held a two-party-preferred lead of 53 per cent to 47 per cent for three months.

When The Australian put questions to the offices of Mr Morrison and Mr Turnbull about the terse exchange during the dinner, ­neither denied it had occurred.

The Australian, 24 March 2016:

Abbott likes to give the impression he is helping, but he knows full well he is not. He must know that because he is not totally stupid.

It may satisfy his bloodlust, and those egging him on, to see Turnbull lose the election, but the Liberal Party will not thank him, except for that unhinged, ground-zero minority that wants to see the Liberal Party razed under Turnbull and Bill Shorten become prime minister.

UPDATE

The Star, 23 March 2016:

“It’s very easy for me to campaign ... because the Turnbull government is running on the Abbott government’s record,” said Abbot in an interview with Sky News yesterday.

“It’s a very strong record,” he said, citing the hardline immigration policy that deterred the flow of asylum seeker boats, and a string of free trade agreements.

Abbott remains in parliament but had pledged not to interfere after Turnbull’s takeover, promising on his departure there would be “no wrecking, no undermining, no sniping”.

However, he has continued to intervene, to the delight of a hardcore of right-wing lawmakers who reputedly still entertain the thought of returning him to the top job in the near future.

Turnbull, who has lambasted Abbott’s economic management, hit back last Friday against the putdown which could spell trouble ahead of general elections which he has said could come as soon as July.

“He’s not right,” the prime minister said of his predecessor. “The bottom line is there is continuity and there is change.”

The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 March 2016:

Howard government minister Peter Reith has told Tony Abbott to "keep his head down", warning he would endanger his reputation in the Liberal Party if he persisted in undermining Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Coalition figures are nervous about Mr Abbott's plans to campaign in marginal seats during the upcoming federal election, amid consistent signs the former prime minister is reneging on his promise not to undermine the government……

Mr Abbott's burst of public activity, including newspaper interviews and television appearances, has rattled Coalition figures within and outside the Parliament. Mr Reith warned it had the potential to damage his the former PM's standing within the Liberal Party. "He really does need to keep his head down for his own sake, otherwise he will be trashing his own reputation," he said.

Australian Federal Election 2016: how Liberal Senator for Tasmania Eric Abetz is said to have become a millionaire in 2005

Another bona fide millionaire is discovered within Liberal Party ranks? 

This appears to be how Senator Eric Abetz made the grade when he was Special Minister for State in the Howard Coalition Government….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March 2016:

In early 2000, Abetz paid $100,000 for almost four hectares of government land adjoining his house block in the Hobart suburb of Kingston. In March 2005, the area was rezoned from "residential" to "business and civic". Four months later, Abetz sold both the house block and the adjoining land to property developer Robert Rockefeller's company, AAD Nominees, for a combined total of $1.9 million.

Here's where Abetz got lucky. For the big vacant block (3.8 hectares), Rockefeller paid him only $400,000. For the house block (0.6 hectare), Rockefeller paid $1.5 million – more than five times the government valuation. This meant the bulk of Abetz's proceeds from the two sales was not subject to capital gains tax (a person's residence is exempt from the tax). The enormous discrepancy in the two sale prices cannot be attributed to the value of the house, a six-room weatherboard construction which has since been demolished.

In 2014, the capital value of Abetz's vacant former house block was assessed by the Tasmanian Valuer General at just $470,000. John Hawkins, the columnist on the Tasmanian Times website who first drew attention to the land deals, believes an explanation is long overdue. Abetz's attitude is calmly dismissive. The house block had more road frontage than the bigger block, which enhanced its commercial value, he tells me. The whole thing was entirely above board.

The Tasmanian Times, 10 September 2010:

Snapshot of Document 1

Mr Rockefeller through his company AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has applied to Kingborough Council to build a shopping centre, car park and other facilities on the adjoining block of land with Channel Highway street numbers 163, 167, 191 and a section of 203 (Document 1).

Kingborough Councillors have recently knocked back the Development Application (Document 2) which had been approved by the Planning Department of the Council. Two of these lots, 191 and 167 have an interesting recent history, of which I became aware as a result of checking the residential address provided by Senator Abetz on his nomination forms for the 1998 and 2004 Senate elections.

Lot 191 (191 Channel Highway) appears to have been owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz and was their family home. The land area was 0.6206 hectares and on it stood a weatherboard house with an imitation tile roof with six main rooms built circa 1910. The property was acquired prior to the introduction of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) so was free of CGT when the Abetz family decided to sell.

An adjoining block, Lot 167 comprising some 3.894 hectares or approximately 10 acres, was purchased by E and MA Abetz from the Tasmanian State Government on 1 June 2000. Lot 167 was purchased for $100,000. The purchase price was $20,000 less than the Government capital valuation price (Cap) and I can find no trace of it ever being put out to tender.

Senator & Mrs Abetz were lucky with the rezoning of their land as a result of the completely new Kingborough Planning Scheme introduced in 2000. The Kingborough Council prepared a Report for an Amendment to its Planning Scheme, and the matter was referred to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). Lots 163, 167,  and part of 203 were rezoned from Residential to Business and Civic in March 2005. (Document 3)

The RPDC archives provide a good background to the matter but do not show who applied for the change of use. The Council Planning Officer, Andrew Goodsell, for some reason incorrectly describes the Abetz land as “167 Channel Highway in two titles (owner E Abetz) ….includes a small title of .3662 ha incorporating the house Lynden Rise” he continues and places emphasis on Lot 167 thus, “Of these lots it is this rear lot of 167 Channel Highway that potentially has the most potential, providing potential for facilities and services that interconnect with those of the Antarctic Division site”.

Interestingly Goodsell in this application reduces the land area of title 191 which gets no mention, only the house is named.

Lot 163, the adjoining house block on a larger land area 0.8232 hectares, had been purchased prior to the RPDC’s agreement to rezone from a Mrs V Wiseman on 10 December 2004 for $565,000 by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd. The Government valuation in 2004 (Cap) was $208,000 (the house was built in 1968). The Capital Value as of 1 March 2009 is $670,000 with a land value of $490,000.

Lot 203 was subdivided from the Antarctic Division block already owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd.

In summary therefore the blocks owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz Lots 191 (although not specified) and 167 were attached to 163 and 203 then owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for the purposes of a rezoning in an application referred to the RPDC for approval.

Following approval by the RPDC on 24 Feb 2005, Senator & Mrs Abetz immediately sold 191 and 167, with completion on 18 July 2005, to AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for $1.9m with Abetz apportioning $1.5m to the family home, 191 Channel Highway, and $400,000 to Lot 167, the 10 acres purchased from the State Government for $100,000. It should be noted that the Abetz name does not feature on the Title to Lot 191 in this transfer; why?

Since the purchase, AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has obtained two reductions in the rated value on Lot 191 - the Abetz family home, now a land value of $430,000 and a capital value of $840,000. In a rarity for Kingston this loss of value over the past five years, must put a question mark over the assigned value of the Abetz residence in 2005.

Is it a case of Lot 191 having been overvalued by Abetz? This would reduce his capital gains tax liability on the adjoining 10 acre land Lot 167. Perhaps Abetz can elucidate further.

The Senate requires all Senators to maintain a “Statement of Registrable Interests”. This is kept at the Senate in Parliament House, Canberra.

Regarding real estate, the Register requires that the suburb or area is provided and makes a distinction between residential and investment property, and whether the property is used as a residence, as a holiday home, as a farm, or is held for investment or other business purposes. For all purchases or disposals of real estate, the date of settlement is to be considered the date of alteration of interests and notification should be made within 28 days of that date.

Senator Abetz’s information in his Statement of Registrable Interests for each of his terms of office reveals, in part, his real estate interests. The 1994 Register, his first in Parliament, gives his only property as ”Kingston Tasmania Residence”; in an alteration to Senators’ Interests (Document 4) he cancels his loans but he makes this addition to his interests, “Consultant to Abetz & Co in association with Shields Heritage”.

He declares the purchase of two investment properties at Gagebrook in 1995 and 77 Beach Road Kingston - a block of four units or flats overlooking the golf course - in 1998, with a sale in 1999.

There is no mention on the Register of Assets of the separate purchase from the State Government of Tasmania of Lot 167, yet he informed the Register: “My wife and I have contracted to purchase land adjacent to our residence through a nominee” possibly the Abetz Family Trust on 14 Feb 2000. He later confirmed the purchase but in joint names (Document 5) on 5 June 2000, with no mention of investment that would turn out to be financially beneficial. Eighteen months later, in Dec 2002, still no mention, but he informs the Register that he has paid out the loan.

Someone must have been looking into Erich’s affairs, for his former legal office Abetz Curtis at 83 Davey Street was the subject of Documents 6 and 7. It may be that Gagebrook, Beach Road and Davey Street should be subject to audit if a check is to be run over 167 and 191 Channel Highway.

The acquisition of 10 acres of land, Lot 167 Channel Highway, from the Tasmanian State Government, followed by rezoning from Residential to Business and Civic, must turn this transaction to a “property held for investment” and as such it becomes very much a “Registrable Interest.” This property as 167 Channel Highway has never been declared as either a purchase or sale to the Senate of Australia.

Abetz still gives, “Kingston Residence” as his only property even after 167 and 191 are sold with completion, 18 July 2005, yet he has to inform the Register within 28 days of sale. I ask why the delay? The sale was declared as Residential on 3/Jan/2006 (Document 8)

The sale of Lot 167 within five years, at a declared profit of $300,000 - but arguably an actual profit of approximately $1.3m - makes this a very good investment indeed. If this is so the capital gain is in excess of $1m and the Capital Gains Tax unpaid would be in excess of $200,000.

This begs the question, why did the Tasmanian Government not arrange itself for the rezoning in conjunction with the developer, so as to benefit the people of Tasmania rather than a well-connected Senator?

See http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/abetz-and-channel-highway-land-deals#sthash.zt9f3o5X.dpuf for document downloads.

It is noted that as of 19 March 2008 the very expensively purchased house and land package known "Lynden Rise", 191 Channel Highway, Kingston remained undeveloped and only became the subject of a development application in 2014. While the larger but less expensively acquired Lot 167 appears to remain undeveloped to date.

Google Earth snapshot, 26 March 2016

In which Tony Abbott once again demonstrates why he was never fit to hold office

"Cautionary note concerning the publication of this report

Aspects of this research were only made possible by the involvement and cooperation of community leaders and stakeholders in West Cairns and Aurukun. Their co-operation was based on an understanding that the information provided by local people would be used to find effective solutions to the problems as described in this report. The project team in turn gave a commitment that we would do our best to work with these communities to make them safer, especially for their children. For our part, the present research was always seen as the first phase of a longer-term project that would involve the implementation and evaluation of interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and impacts of sexual violence and abuse in these communities.

Because the focus of this work is on specific communities, it has not been possible to present the report without identifying the communities. While we have done our best to avoid presenting information that could identify individuals within these communities, we are mindful that identifying the communities themselves nevertheless presents significant risks. Publicly naming these communities, particularly in the context of the present findings concerning sexual violence and abuse, risks damaging the relationships and community commitment upon which the success of future prevention efforts so fundamentally relies. Community tensions are very real in both communities, and especially in Aurukun. Insensitive media reporting, for example, even if well intentioned, could inflame these tensions. We fear that such attention would focus on the problems alone, and yet again the voices of those working toward a better future in these communities would not be properly heard.

We understand and support the Queensland Government’s commitment to openness and public accountability, and we are mindful that the present research was conducted with public funding. We understand that in the normal course of events the present report would and should be made available to the public. However we strongly urge caution with respect to the timing and circumstances of making this report public. We believe some delay may be warranted to allow a properly-considered government response to this report to be formulated, and perhaps for some positive outcomes to be presented. We believe we owe that to the members and leaders of these communities." [Smallbone, S. et al, (2013), Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun: Establishing the scope, dimensions and dynamics of the problem, p. vii, report released 12 March 2016]

Sacked former prime minister Tony Abbott and the mainstream media obviously paid no heed to Page vii of this report, when an opportunistic Abbott rushed to journalists with a simplistic, punitive and appallingly ignorant response.

Stop treating indigenous abuse differently: Abbott TONY Abbott has called for law and order to be enforced in indigenous communities as it is elsewhere.

Responding to an alarming government finding that sexual abuse of and by kids was "normalised" in some of the state's indigenous communities, the former prime minister said there needed to be consequences for any law-breaker - regardless of their background or age.

"Part of the problem often (are those who say) there should be different standards in different places," Mr Abbott (pictured) said. "That is not something that is acceptable. We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people - whether they are male or female, black or white." Mr Abbott said the response was required in the wake of the "utterly scandalous" government findings, in a secret report that was revealed by The Courier-Mail

AAP Bulletin News, 21 March 2016:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has urged authorities in north Queensland to arrest and charge alleged sex offenders as young as 10.

A Queensland report has revealed children are both victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse.

Asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun, Mr Abbott told the Courier Mail: "They should be arrested, they should be charged, there are juvenile justice systems."

He said it was not acceptable to have different standards in different places.

"We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people, whether they are male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim," said Mr Abbott.

The Cairns Post, 21 March 2016:

TONY Abbott (right) has controversially declared that Far North Queensland's 10-year-old sex offenders should be arrested, charged and forced through the juvenile justice system.

Commenting on an "utterly scandalous" report outlining distressing rates of child sexual assault, the former prime minister has demanded Australia end its different expectations for black and white communities, and law and order be enforced.

Many politicians remained floored by Professor Stephen Small-bone's The Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun report. But Mr Abbott, who has a strong record of engaging with indigenous Australians, including volunteering in Aurukun, said there needed to be consequences for any law breaker.

"The conditions are utterly scandalous and there needs to be a very strong response," he said.

Mr Abbott was asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun."They should be arrested. They should be charged. There are juvenile justice systems," he said.

The more reasoned response of the report:

BACKGROUND

The Courier Mail, 19 March 2016:

AURUKUN is again in the news and though the news is not new, it is not good. A report by researchers from Griffith University, led by Professor Stephen Smallbone, on youth sexual violence in Aurukun sat idle through three years of the Newman government before being released by Treasurer Curtis Pitt last weekend.

Ostensibly, then-premier Campbell Newman did not release the report because Aurukun Mayor Derek Walpo objected on the basis it would compromise the confidentiality of the children and families involved in the research. This may have been understandable but the failure to respond to the report is appalling. It was provided to the state more than two years ago.

How did things come to this tragic state? Many readers will think this is just the way things are in Aurukun. But it has not always been this way. In fact, things were once very different and how and why things deteriorated so badly is an important backstory.

We can talk about the many proximate causes of the crisis in Aurukun (grog, welfare dependency, unemployment) but its ultimate explanation lies in government violence starting with the Aurukun Takeover in 1978 by the Queensland government under then-premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The takeover resulted in the Presbyterian Church being kicked out of Aurukun and replaced by the Queensland government. The Smallbone report is the bitter harvest of this original violence at the hands of the state.

Before the takeover respectful kinship relationships meant everything to the Wik people of Western Cape York. A hybrid of traditional and missionary authority and paternalism gave an order to the Aurukun mission that was shattered, and not replaced. Child neglect, homicides, suicides, violence and abuse were virtually unknown before 1985 when then local government minister Russ Hinze finally forced a canteen to open up against the objections of elders.

The first instalment of the state's takeover was the imposition of the local government structure. The second was the imposition of the canteen. This story of state violence began when Bjelke-Petersen's government seized control of the Aurukun's extensive bauxite reserves in 1975 and gave it to a French multinational, Pechiney. The Church supported legal and political campaigns by the Wik people against the state's actions. This is why Bjelke-Petersen and Hinze removed the Church and took over Aurukun.

Aurukun was no longer a mission. It was now a shire. But what was a shire? A shire needed revenue. The only viable source of revenue was to convert unemployment benefits received from the Commonwealth Government into canteen revenues for the shire council. The bodies of the Wik people would be the means through which this conversion of Commonwealth funding into state revenue, would take place. The young bodies and brains of infants would be victims of this money laundering.

Minus the paternalistic protection of the church, the Aurukun people were powerless to resist the shire council's introduction of a wet canteen. This was opposed by many in Aurukun, particular by a strong group of Wik women, but the battle was lost.

The rivers of grog started to flow and they flowed for two decades. The painful story of the collapse of family and clan relationships was now set in train. Serious assaults became commonplace. There were nine homicides in the five years after the opening of the local canteen. The Four Corners report by David Marr in 1990 declared the crime rate at Aurukun far worse than notorious American cities.

The actions of Bjelke-Peterson and Hinze were a form of state violence. The cycle of abuse and neglect that followed the grog chaos from 1985 was imprinted on the young children who were born in its wake……

It’s important to not let the scale of the problem obscure the fact that there are many upstanding individuals and families in Aurukun. The parents who send their kids to school every day, families that nurture and support their children, people who are seeking out a better life for their families, the very parents and grandparents that now stand proud as their children graduate from high school and university. Among them are strong natural leaders in Aurukun. And female leaders are the key.

This active leadership should buoy us and this ground-up movement must not be squashed by bureaucracy and service delivery jargon. These women, with the right support, are Aurukun’s last best hope.

The history that I name as state violence should stand as a reminder of what happens when governments take over and smother local leadership and structures. The colonisation of service delivery has not worked to date and will not work in the future.

Fiona Jose is executive general manager, Cape Operations, at Cape York Partnership

Don't even have an election date yet but already the sheep are getting nervous....

Quote of the Week

“As of November 2015, labour force under-utilisation (the unemployed plus the underemployed) was 14.3%. This is the real picture of unemployment in Australia.” [Shadow Minister for Families and Payments and Shadow Minister for Disability Reform & Labor MP for Jagajaga Jenny Macklin in The Guardian, 16 March 2016]

Liberal Party of Australia: when faced with corruption allegations first ignore, then deny, defy and threaten - ending all with weasel words

The Liberal Party of Australia was warned, the Liberal Party ignored, the Liberal Party denied, defied and then told political lies to the electorate…..

The general warning that went out

NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC), 24 March 2015 Media Release:  NSW Electoral Commission to penalise failure to disclose political donations

The NSW Electoral Commission will take enforcement action against 14 entities and individuals that have missed the deadline or entirely failed to disclose political donations they received between 1 July 2014 and 1 March 2015.

The NSW Electoral Commission received 411 declarations on behalf of parties, elected members, candidates, groups and third-party campaigners for the Additional Disclosure Period in the lead-up to the 28 March State Election.

Out of the entities and individuals required to lodge a declaration, five have failed to lodge and 11 lodged a declaration after the due date, making a total of 16 contraventions.

"The Commission takes seriously the rules on disclosing political donations and will be taking enforcement action against 14 entities and individuals that, on the information known to the Commission, have broken the law," said NSW Electoral Commission Chairperson, Hon Keith Mason AC QC.

"We have issued Penalty Notices and Cautions according to the seriousness of the contravention and will also be considering a prosecution in one case."

The declarations that have been lodged are a matter of public record and are published on the NSW Electoral Commission website at: http://adp.elections.nsw.gov.au/

The declarations must disclose political donations of $1,000 or more received between 1 July 2014 and 1 March 2015. If no donations were received, declarations should have been lodged to that effect.

This additional requirement on parties and candidates applied only to the 2015 State Election and was introduced in accordance with the interim recommendations of the Panel of Experts on Political Donations.

The Panel has since delivered its final report which has proposed long term reform options on political donations.

For more information about disclosure of political donations generally or the State Elections to be held on 28 March 2015, visit the NSWEC website at http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au

Excerpt from NSW Electoral Commission 2014-15 Annual Report:

Forming a new Commission

The year saw significant structural change, following implementation of a 2013 recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Committee found that our electoral legislation required a comprehensive review with a focus on consistency, functionality and modernisation. The Committee recommended a new electoral Act for NSW that would cover both the conduct of State elections and the regulation of campaign fi nance and disclosures, and that the new Act be administered by a single statutory corporation.

Consequently, legislative change during the year reconstituted the Commission so that it consists of the Electoral Commissioner, a former Judge as Chairperson of the Commission and a member with financial or audit skills, instead of it being constituted only by the Electoral Commissioner. The Election Funding Authority was abolished and its functions conferred on the reconstituted Commission. The new Commission is therefore responsible for administering the election funding, expenditure and disclosure scheme in NSW. The Commission’s role is also to provide “assistance” to the Electoral Commissioner in his statutory function of conducting elections.

Legislative change in 2014 also empowered the Commission to investigate and undertake enforcement actions for breaches against the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011. This has moved our function from largely administrative to a greater focus on client services and regulation, with increased investigative and enforcement activities. We now have additional objectives of promoting campaign finance transparency and enforcing compliance with the legislation.

Ignoring evidence of the Commission’s resolve in the first instance

NSWEC, 27 July 2015 Media Release: Magistrate convicts registered officer of NSW political party for failure to lodge

Mr Robert Smith, Registered Officer of the Fishing Party, was convicted on 13 July 2015, at the Downing Centre Local Court, of failure to lodge a declaration of disclosure of donations received and made and expenditure incurred pursuant to s.96H(1) of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 ("the Act").

Mr Smith was required to lodge a declaration with the NSW Electoral Commission, in the prescribed form, by 23 September 2013 and failed to do so. His Honour Local Court Magistrate Grogin emphasised, when sentencing Mr Smith, the importance of the transparency of political parties in relation to the declaration of political donations, regardless of the size or financial means of the political party. Grogin LCM also considered that general and specific deterrence are important considerations when sentencing for such an offence. Further, his Honour emphasised that ignorance of the law is no excuse in failing to comply with the requirements in the Act.

His Honour Grogin LCM convicted Mr Smith and ordered him to pay a fine of $2750, being the amount of the initial penalty notice issued by the NSW Electoral Commission, as well as awarding costs to the prosecutor of $5000.

The matter was investigated by the NSW Electoral Commission and prosecuted on its behalf by the Crown Solicitor's Office.

On 27 July 2015 the Commission was notified that Mr Smith has lodged an appeal of his conviction with the District Court. The matter is listed for mention on 23 September at the Sydney District Court.

"The Commission takes seriously the rules on disclosing political donations and expenditure and will take enforcement action against entities and individuals that, on the information known to the Commission, have broken the law," said NSW Electoral Commission Chairperson, Hon Keith Mason AC QC.

Ignoring its own predicament in the second instance, denying and defying

Excerpts from NSWEC, 23 March 2016 document: Final Summary of Facts – Decision re Liberal Party

20. On 1.1 February 203.6 the Acting Electoral Commissioner wrote on behalf of the Commission to the Party Agent of the Party, Mr MCInnes . The letter outlined the Commission's tentative concerns and invited submissions directed to the two legal issues mentioned above as well as the issue as to whether a final payment should be made under the Election Campaigns Fund in light of these matters.

21. The letter in reply from Mr MCInnes dated 18 February 2016 did not advance any response to the suggestion about the invalidity of The Free Enterprise Foundation "trust". The letter further asserted that the Party had and has no responsibility to disclose information relating to individual donors to the Foundation, a position that the Commission completely disputes. The invitation to remedy the deficient 201.1 declaration was firmly declined.

22. On 24 February 2016 the Commission considered whether the Party was eligible for public funding taking into account sections 70(I) and 97L(I) of the Act. The Commission was not at that stage satisfied that the Party was eligible, because the Party had failed to disclose reportable political donations for the period ending 30 June 2011.

23. Since public monies totalling $4,389,822.80 is at issue the Commission decided to give the Party a further opportunity to change its stance or satisfy the Commission that the Commission's tentative views were erroneous. A letter was sent to Mr MCInnes on 26 February 2016 enclosing a draft Summary of Facts document and inviting the Party's response.

24. On 18 March 2016, Swaab Attorneys forwarded the Party's response. None of the Summary of Facts were disputed,

25. The Party's response contended that a declaration in requisite form had been lodged and that its adequacy in terms of detail was irrelevant to the decision confronting the Commission under sections 7011) and 97L(I),

26. The Commission rejects this submission for the reasons already set out. Neither does the Commission accept the submission that the amount that must be withheld cannot exceed the total of unlawful donations involved. For one thing, this ignores the matters set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. On 23 March 2016 SWAAB Attorneys sent a further letter on behalf of the Party urging the Commission to release all but $693,000 of the funding claimed. After careful consideration the Commission believes it does not have discretion in this matter having regard to the terms of sections 70(I) and 97(I) of the Act.

Full 5-page document here.

A response to that defiant stand

Excerpt from NSWEC, 23 March 2016: Statement by Chairperson of the NSW Electoral Commission

The NSW Electoral Commission has decided that the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) is not eligible for payment of its current claims for about $4.4 million in public funding because it failed to disclose the identities of all major political donors in its 2011 declaration.

Effective 23 March 2016, the Liberal Party will not receive further funding from the Election Campaigns Fund or the Administration Fund, administered by the Commission. The Party will remain ineligible until it discloses all reportable political donations in relation 10 its 201I declaration. These donations include some made by donors identified during the ICAC's public hearings in Operation Spicer.

The Liberal Party did not submit a "requisite declaration", which is a breach of the Election Funding,  Expenditure and  Disclosures Act 1981.

The Commission considered the public evidence generated by ICAC's Operation Spicer and other information held by the Commission and information and submissions put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party and The Free Enterprise Foundation. Since I I February 2016, the Liberal Party was given opportunities to rectify its declaration but  it declined to do so.

Copy of full document and related correspondence here.

Threats of legal action

Excerpt from SWAAB Attorneys letter to NSWEC, 23 March 2016:

As is clear from the Response attached to our letter of t 8 March 2016, our client denies that it has in any way given an incorrect disclosure for the year ended 30 June 2011. Nevertheless, at paragraph 12 of our response, we suggested that at the very least the NSWEC should release the Funding, but withhold $693,000 pending resolution of the matters in issue concerning the donations from the FEF (Balance Funding).

Provision of the Funding, or the Balance Funding, is of critical importance to our client. We are instructed that our client requires the Funding or the Balance Funding in order to continue its operations. If the Balance Funding is not received by 30 April20,6 our client will be forced to take emergency measures, the most likely of which will be forced retrenchment of staff. Even then, retrenchment of staff will only allow it to carry on its operations for a relatively short period of time thereafter.

You are also aware that there will be a federal election this year, perhaps as early as 2 July 2006, placing further pressure on our client's financial position, and our client requires provision of the Funding or the Balance Funding as a matter of urgency.

We require that the NSWEC pay to our client the Balance Funding by 30 March 2016.

If this request is not met, our client has no choice but to apply to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for urgent relief that, inter alia, the monies be paid to our client without further delay.

This is an open letter and will be tendered on any application made to the Supreme Court, including on the question of costs.

Liberal Senator for NSW and Cabinet Secretary (Turnbull Government) Arthur Sinodinos¹, 24 March 2016: Statement - NSW Electoral Commission

It is a matter for the NSW State Division to respond to the matters raised by the NSW Electoral Commission in its statement.

I had no role in the NSW Division’s decision to decline to update information disclosed in that declaration, as was requested by the Commission.

For my part, my lawyers have written to the Commission to draw its attention to errors of fact in its statement in relation to me. I was not given the opportunity by the Commission to comment on its statement before its publication and I was not aware of the publication until shortly prior to its release.

The Statement already has been extensively cited by the media. In a number of instances, there has been erroneous commentary to the effect that I “concealed” illegal donations, and that my actions were somehow corrupt or illegal. That media commentary is a direct consequence of the NSW Electoral Commission’s flawed publication.

In light of these matters, my lawyers on my behalf have invited the Commission to immediately retract all references to me in the publication. The Commission has been invited to publish a correction to that effect on its website.

Those weasel words in the media

The Australian, 24 March 2016:

The party's NSW division says it had been waiting for the state's corruption watchdog to hand down its findings from hearings in 2014, but will comply with the commission's ruling.

"I have written to the commission this afternoon seeking their assistance in resolving any areas of uncertainty about the legal status of donors in the 2010/2011 period," a spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday evening.

"The NSW division has already publicly acknowledged and apologised to the people of NSW for these matters."

1. Senator Sinodinos was the Liberal Party (NSW Division) finance director and treasurer during the period in question. His name was mentioned twice in the Summary Of Facts Relevant To The Decision Of The New South Wales Electoral Commission: Liberal Party Of Australia (NSW Division) Claim For Public Funding. In both instances the mention was confined to words to the effect that evidence was given at ICAC hearings of the involvement of other senior Liberal Party officials constituting the Party's Finance Committee in arrangements touching the Free Enterprise Foundation, including Arthur Sinodinos as then Finance Director/Treasurer.

BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices,19 September 2014:

So what is this Free Enterprise Foundation of which they speak?

According to evidence before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and other sources, the Free Enterprise Foundation:

* Is listed by the Australian Electoral Commission as an associated entity of the federal divisions of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia.

* Was created by deed on 20 August 1981 as a $10 trust at the direction of Sir Robert Crichton-Brown, federal treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1973 to 1985.

* Has set out its objectives in the trust deed are as follows:

 * Original trustees were Anthony Joseph Bandle and Charles James Fox who comprised the trust’s original Council. The current trustees are Anthony Bandle and Stephen Francis McAneney.  Both of whom were also trustees of the Greenfields Foundation, an associated entity which was allegedly set up to hide from public view a 1992 $4.7 million political donation to the Liberal Party.

* Accountants are Bandle McAneney & Company.

*  Name was registered with the Australian Security & Investments Commission as a business name in 2012.

* Receives political donations which the trust directs onto the Liberal Party of Australia, the Liberal National Party of Queensland, other associated entities of the Liberal Party and, infrequently to registered charities.

In practice the Free Enterprise Foundation does not appear to fulfil all the prescribed purposes set out in the trust document, does not seem to operate independently of the Liberal Party of Australia and, has accepted political donations from prohibited donors in New South Wales which it redirected to the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division).

Rather disingenuously former NSW Deputy State Director of the Liberal Party and former Metgasco Limited executive, Richard Shields, stated during a 12 September 2014 ICAC Operation Spicer hearing in relation to the Free Enterprise Foundation, which had donated approximately $700,000 to the Liberal Party to fund its 2011 NSW election campaign:

I knew that it existed, I, I didn’t have a lot, a great understanding of it. I had heard, you know, I, I was of the opinion that it was an organisation that had political or philosophical 

allegiances with the conservative side of politics. 

News on the Turnbull Goverment-endorsed Death Star

Dutch-owned company Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd and its super fishing trawler Geelong Star are in the news and on social media this month…..

ABC News, 10 March 2016:

Seafood processing company Seafish Tasmania has been fined $40,000 for breaching the state's environmental laws.

The company pleaded guilty to dumping more than 1,000 truckloads of fish processing waste water from its Triabunna plant on a private property in the township in 2012.

Seafish has also admitted to dumping waste water at an unnamed creek on Tasmania's east coast three years ago.

The Magistrate's Court in Hobart has heard the company and landowners have conducted remedial work at a cost of $21,000.

Magistrate Chris Webster recorded a conviction on each charge and imposed the fine, together with court costs.

Tasmania's Environmental Protection Authority said the fine was appropriate…..