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

When the people of New South Wales were told of a successful unsolicited proposal for a section of Darling Harbour foreshore land in 2007, this was what they were told the Barangaroo development would eventually look like:

Since then the approved development plan has undergone nine modifications until around a third of the total foreshore parkland area has been reduced to a “promenade” in order to satisfy the Packer family’s desire to build yet another private casino and hotel complex – this one 71 stories high at an estimated cost of $2 billion.

According to the Crown Resorts Limited website:

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

This is what that est. 33 per cent of public parkland in the plan is now expected to look like per the June 2016 NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) approval:

Millers Point Fund Incorporated has been formed by local Millers Point community groups and the matter is now before Justice Nicola Palin in the NSW Land & Environment Court with Minister for Planning Robert Gordon Stokes,  Barangaroo Delivery Authority, Crown Resorts, Lendlease, and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority as respondents.

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

Sue Higginson, the chief executive officer and principal solicitor at the Environmental Defenders Office, which filed the claim in the Land and Environment Court on Tuesday, said her client's argument was that the PAC had "fettered" its own decision-making.

"Basically we are saying the Casino Control Act doesn't dictate the planning decisions that are made in NSW," Ms Higginson said. "In fact the PAC really is required to make a decision about where a casino can and cannot be built based on planning law," she said.

Ms Higginson said the PAC's error was "so significant that its decision to approve the latest modification to the concept plan and approve the actual construction of the project is invalid and of no effect."

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

* Images from the Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald

The new Clarence Valley Council meets for the first time

Mayor Jim Simmons (standing) and Deputy Mayor Jason Kingsley (seated)

Shortly after 4pm on 27 September 2016 in an open (show of hands) ballot by the nine recently elected councillors, Cr. Jim Simmons of Maclean was elected Mayor of Clarence Valley Council and Cr. Jason Kingsley of Grafton was elected Deputy Mayor – both for a term of two years.

The new council wasted no time in flexing its muscle on an issue which had been a bone of contention for some time and, perhaps signalled that senior management’s days of almost unfettered ascendancy were drawing to a close and a more democratic balance of power between Council in the Chamber and local government administration was being re-established.

The Daily Examiner, 27 September 2016:

4.45PM: An urgent motion has been brought forward by Cr Andrew Baker, to scrap councillor training scheduled for next month.

Cr Baker described the training, to be held on October 6, as an imminent waste of money, and noted it needed to be debated today as the October meeting falls after that date.

A vote has been held to bring the motion onto the agenda and it is now being discussed.

5PM: IT HAS been revealed a perceived conflict of interest is behind the motion to delay or scrap scheduled councillor training.

The training provider, as well as providing training for councillors, has in the past investigated a code of conduct complaint for the Clarence Valley Council.

5.10PM: Councillor Baker says his stance on the training is about the ability of all councillors to access unbiased training.

"In particular and only from my point of view at this stage," he said. 

"I am unable to participate in any further training proposed by the training provider, simply because in the one and only training session I attended I was provided with advice I considered to be misleading at best."

Cr Baker said advice given in the same training session resulted in a code of conduct complaint against Cr Toms, which she acknowledged.

He added that the training provider was also the probity auditor for the depot project.

"We don't need to rush into training that I will be denied opportunity to go for," he said.

Cr Toms said on the case, a cross claim was dismissed in court in Sydney on Tuesday.  She also said she would not attend the training.

Opposing the motion, Cr Williamson called it a "stitch-up", and said he wouldn't be a part of it. Lysaught also spoke against the motion.

With the support of Novak, Toms, Baker, Ellem and Simmons, the motion was carried.

What this media report does not point out is that certain advice allegedly given to councillors during that training session would have contributed to a legal cost billable to Clarence Valley Council when the cross-claim was dismissed, which was hopefully fully covered by council’s indemnity insurance – otherwise a budget line item just grew in size.

During the meeting it was also heartening to hear Cr. Simmons in his acceptance speech admit that in recent years council’s track record with regard to community consultation had not been good and that this was a matter the new council needed to address.

NSW Political Donations & Election Funding: over the next six months watch for further mentions buried deep in mainstream newspapers

The Sydney Morning Herald on 30 August 2016 indicated that NSW voters may yet see a number of former state politicians fronting local magistrates in the near future:

Former NSW Liberal MPs have been issued letters of demand to repay potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations solicited before the 2011 state election.

As the corruption watchdog prepares to table its report into Liberal Party rorting of political donations laws on Tuesday, Fairfax Media can reveal the NSW electoral commission has issued the demand to some of those caught up in the Operation Spicer inquiry.

The electoral commission has the power to demand repayment of illegal donations. If it is determined that an MP or candidate knew the donation was illegal, they can be forced to repay twice the amount.

An electoral commission spokesman would not release names of those sent the demand, but confirmed it had completed an investigation.

It had "formed the view that sufficient evidence is available to justify recovery action against some of the persons who have received or benefited from unlawful donations, loans or indirect campaign contributions," he said.

"Those persons have been issued with demands for payment. The commission reserves its right to pursue recovery action in the event of non-payment."

It is understood there is some uncertainty over whether the former MPs can be prosecuted under the Election, Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act.

The time within which prosecutions can be launched was extended from three to 10 years by Premier Mike Baird in October 2014, but the change only applied to offences committed after that date. The offences in question were committed in 2010.

But there is a question over whether the law could be applied from when they were uncovered by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2014 and therefore fall within the original three-year limit…..

The Australian on 31 August 2016 reported that the NSW Liberal Party is still short of funds due to donor identity issues:

The NSW Liberal Party could launch legal action against the NSW Electoral Commission ­if attempts to recover about $4.3 million in withheld campaign funding are unsuccessful.

The party’s state division has been forced to renegotiate millions of dollars in loans taken out from Westpac to cover the shortfall. It is understood division chiefs were hopeful that the findings of Operation Spicer — which found that few within the party’s hierarchy knew about the donations scheme run through the now-­defunct Free Enterprise Foundation — would clear the way for the return of the money.

Instead, it appears the NSW Electoral Commission is continuing to demand the party conduct an audit of all its donations to ­ensure there were no inappropriate third-party donations such as those made through the Free Enterprise Foundation, which took prohibited donations from developers including Brickworks and Elmslea Land Developments.

In a statement, however, the NSW Liberal Party said only that it “continues to work with the NSW Electoral Commission in relation to its 2010-11 return”.

A NSW Electoral Commission spokesman said there had been “no change in relation to the commission’s determination to withhold funding”.

“The party is ineligible for funding on the basis that it has not disclosed the identity of donors for the 2010-11 ­period,” he said. “The party’s eligibility for public funding is not ­related to the ICAC report. Eligibility is prescribed in the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.”

The Daily Telegraph on 22 September 2016 reported that the Liberal Party finally submitted the required donors names and one former Liberal MP has returned $10,000 of the $60,000 in unlawful donations the party received in 2011:

The Liberal Party will get the $3.8 million of the $4.4 million the Electoral Commission withheld from it because of its receipt of illegal donations during the 2011 state election campaign, the Commission has announced in a statement this afternoon.

The Electoral Commission had withheld the money pending what it believed was a proper declaration by the Liberal Party in relation to the illegal developer donations funnelled through the Free Enterprise Foundation and exposed by ICAC.

The Electoral Commission has also announced that it has received a $10,000 payment from former Liberal Charlestown MP Andrew Cornwell, which relates to money he received from developer Jeff McCloy during the 2011 election campaign.

“Following an investigation by inspectors of the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC), the NSWEC determined that a number of unlawful donations were made to endorsed candidates of the NSW Liberal Party in the lead up to the 2011 State election.” a statement from the Electoral Commission said.

“This investigation was informed by the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s Operation Spicer.

“One of the matters examined as part of this investigation was a AU$10,000 cash donation for the benefit of former MP Andrew Cornwell.

“That donation was subsequently paid into the account of the Charlestown State Electoral Conference, NSW Liberal Party.

“The NSWEC has the power to take legal action to recover the value of unlawful donations……

On the payment to the Liberal Party, the Commission said: “On 23 March 2016 the NSW Electoral Commission NSWEC determined to withhold almost AU 4.4 million in administrative and election funding from the Liberal Party of Australia, NSW Division (NSW Liberal Party) due to the party’s failure to disclose past donations.

“The donations were primarily made to the party by donors via the Free Enterprise Foundation in the 2010-11 disclosure period.

“On 22 September 2016 the NSWEC determined that a number of these and other undisclosed donations were unlawful and deducted the value of the unlawful donations from the amount of public funding payable to the party.

However ongoing political donation issues are not confined to New South Wales.  North of the Rio Tweed, the Queensland Liberal National Party was reported in the Brisbane Times on 25 September 2016 as having troubles of its own:

A special anti-corruption taskforce has been assigned to investigate claims of dodgy political donations that have embroiled Turnbull government MP Stuart Robert and a Liberal fundraising body he controls.

The investigation comes amid new questions about Mr Robert's connections to property developer Sunland and his support for the company's controversial $600 million plan for two high-rise towers on the Gold Coast.

Mr Robert has admitted his Fadden Forum – a fundraising arm of the Queensland Liberal National Party – was used to secretly bankroll two candidates with $60,000 to run in the March Gold Coast City Council election.

Kristyn Boulton and Felicity Stevenson, who were given $30,000 each, were both members of Mr Robert's staff but ran as independents and did not disclose their Liberal links until after the poll. Ms Boulton was successfully elected while Ms Stevenson failed and returned to Mr Robert's employ.

Political rivals have accused Mr Robert and the LNP of seeking to stack the council by stealth with pro-development councillors.

The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission this month launched an investigation into the election and has assigned a "specialist team" with political expertise to spearhead the investigation.

It's understood the investigation will seek to examine the provenance of money donated to the Fadden Forum, including suggestions it came from property developers whose involvement was concealed.

One high-profile donor to the Fadden Forum has been Gold Coast developer lobbyist Simone Holzapfel, a former adviser to Tony Abbott, who gave more than $100,000 to the fundraising vehicle.

Pre-European contact stone walls discovered on North Lismore Plateau

Echo NetDaily, 23 September 2016:

Bundjalung elder Mickey Ryan in the area of the plateau where rockwalls are located. (Darren Coyne)

Archaeologists investigating ancient stonewalls and other sites on the North Lismore Plateau believe the area could be as culturally significant as Uluru.

Led by Bundjalung elder Mickey Ryan, the archaeologists from Tocomwall Pty Ltd visited the plateau yesterday as part of a survey of the area’s cultural landscape.

Mr Ryan has been leading the fight to stop a 1500 dwelling development proposed by the Lismore City Council and local landowners.

The council has rezoned the plateau for residential development and has said that development applications would be lodged before the end of the year.

A section of the rockwalls which archaeologists believe pre-date European contact. (Darren Coyne)

But Scott Franks, managing director of Tocomwall, an Aboriginal cultural heritage consultancy firm that provides archaeological, ecological and cultural heritage services across Australia, yesterday told Echonetdaily that such a development would be desecration.

‘I believe it’s as significant as Uluru. I’ve never seen anything like this and I grew up with my old people walking the country. I’ve been in the army and all over Australia and I’ve never seen anything like it … especially not in New South Wales,’ Mr Franks said.

‘I believe it’s highly significant and the council should be turning their minds to ways to protect this. If this area is cleaned up and managed properly, and the right protocols are put in place with the right knowledge holders, I think it could be an unbelievable teaching area for archaeology, and also for tourism.’

‘The council needs to get with it and understand what they’ve got here but it seems they haven’t got a clue.’

Tocomwall’s senior archaeologist Jakub Czastka, who trained at the Institute of Archaeology in London, said the site should be properly surveyed and protected.

‘What I’ve seen up there in terms of the wall alignments and the features most certainly do not conform to European or post-contact practice,’ he said…..

Mr Ryan has vowed to fight any plans to develop housing on the plateau, and has the support of the Bundjalung Council of Elders.

#CENSUSfail: so there was this little survey....

On 21 September 2016 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Almost 95 per cent of households have completed a census form despite an embarrassing website outage on census night and lingering political controversy over the national headcount.

The Bureau of Statistics says it already has sufficient data for a "high quality" census, ahead of the deadline for forms on Friday.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) also tries to pretend that refusal to complete the census form is the only civil disobedience it has to contend with when collating household responses.

However a little survey which was included in one submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into the 2016 Census indicates that the ABS may have other problems with reliability of the data it can subtract from some Census questions.

The possibility that false information has become a significant factor in Census data sets is buttressed by previous findings in the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey Research Report 2013.

Responses of the 1,000 participants in the OAIC combination fixed line/mobile 'phone privacy survey resulted these percentages:

More concerned about providing personal information electronically or online than were 5 years ago – 67%

Concerned about possibility of becoming victim of identity theft or fraud in the next year – 69%

Provided false personal details when completing online forms – 31%

Provided false name when completing online forms – 30%

Refused to deal with government agency/public sector organisation due privacy concerns - 23% 

At some time have refused to supply personal information – 90%.

Excerpt from that little submission to the current Senate inquiry:

---

Q4 If you did fill out the 2016 Census, did you include your real name and address?

This question was required and had 3 answer options from which respondents could choose only one: Yes, No and other.

A substantial majority (74%) of respondents either did not fill out the census form at all or responded in ways intended to frustrate efforts to share their information in ways that could identify them as individuals, match their census data to other data or track their census data from one census to the next. The commonly found terms below are not mutually exclusive of one another.

This high number of people who have chosen not to complete the census or refused specific questions/ removed identifying information is directly relevant to the Inquiry Terms of Reference seeking feedback on impacts on data quality for the 2016 census.

blank false undisclosed persona name pencil postcode address necessary initials trackvariation

Click on the commonly used terms to explore responses or click here to display all responses alphabetically

54 comments provided under 'other'

9/1/2016 8:06 PM : address only.

8/30/2016 8:17 PM : Blank address- name The Householder

9/3/2016 2:05 PM : census not done. Not going to be done either

8/30/2016 11:44 PM : completed address- left names blank

9/2/2016 6:49 AM : created a new persona for street address

9/1/2016 5:19 PM : Current address was already on the form- provided suburb and postcode for other addresses.

9/1/2016 7:10 PM : False name

9/4/2016 11:04 AM : False name- address- and some personal details. Only what I consider relevant to stastical analysis was completed approximately accurately.

9/1/2016 9:25 PM : false name- correct address

9/1/2016 5:38 PM : Filled in address but gave name as UNDISCLOSED

9/1/2016 6:53 PM : First name only. Make the computer work that little bit harder.

8/30/2016 6:35 PM : Gave correct address- no name

8/30/2016 7:08 PM : Gave first name- not last

9/3/2016 5:04 PM : I cut out NAD and identifying bar codres before returning the form

9/3/2016 10:59 AM : I did- but am unhappy about having to do so under threat of a fine

9/2/2016 5:48 PM : I didn't put my real name

8/30/2016 8:17 PM : I do not intend to use my name or address

9/3/2016 7:07 PM : I included a false name for privacy and security reasons.

9/1/2016 8:42 PM : I included it in the palest of blue coloured pencil- so it could not be scanned but required dedicated effort AND inckuded cover letter saying it was complted under duress asnd in great anger at them compromising such an important process.

9/1/2016 6:25 PM : I intend to leave name and address blank

8/30/2016 10:03 PM : I intend to leave name- all addresses (both current and past)- and age blank- to frustrate creation of an SLK or any possible link to past census data

9/3/2016 2:04 PM : I left name blank but the address was already printed on the form

9/1/2016 5:49 PM : I made a statement of objection but I gave Postcode.

9/7/2016 9:09 AM : I made my address suburb only with previous addresses

8/30/2016 7:33 PM : I provided a false name but address and other details were true

8/30/2016 5:05 PM : I put in my postcode and suburb only.

9/2/2016 11:50 AM : I put not necessary for purpose of Census data

9/3/2016 1:54 AM : I redacted identifying information and competed the data section truthfully

9/1/2016 9:15 PM : I used a false name but real address. [This should be a category]

9/6/2016 9:55 PM : i will be using a false name

9/8/2016 5:08 PM : I will do it but am unhappy about it and have no wish to take it seriously again. I think the info will be used for any purpose the govt wants and fear lack of security.

9/1/2016 4:07 PM : I will fill in the Census form when asked to in writing by the Chief Statistician. When I fill it in- I will omit my name and address details.

9/2/2016 11:35 AM : I will leave blank space for my name on the paper form.

9/3/2016 1:12 PM : I will not fill in the form if this is required.

8/30/2016 8:02 PM : I would never provide my name. The ABS is only authorised to hold statistical dat!

9/3/2016 3:45 PM : I'll use false name if/when I do it

8/30/2016 7:08 PM : If I complete the paper form- I will be leaving off my name and address. Still debating whether to do this or boycott.

8/30/2016 7:49 PM : if instructed by chief ABS to complete form- I will not include my name and add

9/1/2016 6:04 PM : Just address as it was printed on the form won't get names though as I feel names make the census a data trawling tool.

9/3/2016 7:27 AM : Misrepresentation of the depth of data linkage-cross referencing and retention

8/30/2016 6:56 PM : No name. Correct address

9/1/2016 6:29 PM : Not in Aus

9/2/2016 8:11 AM : Put initials

8/30/2016 8:20 PM : Real address but a blank name

9/1/2016 5:18 PM : Real address- as it was printed on the paper- fake names.

8/30/2016 6:05 PM : Removed all tracking items on form

9/1/2016 5:30 PM : silent voter ...omitted name

9/1/2016 5:57 PM : Tossed up + in the end did a variation

9/7/2016 5:32 PM : Used a very runny ink from a fountain pen which might 'accidently' smear

9/1/2016 9:21 PM : used married name- which I don't use in real life

9/1/2016 6:21 PM : Yes I did- but reluctantly!!

8/30/2016 6:58 PM : yes- but i didn't really want to

8/31/2016 10:36 PM: Names and DOB blank

9/10/2016 2:44 PM : Stated suburb-postcode-age and gender.