ICAC? (formerly Lipson Estate - Gillman)

[stumpjumper]

Why is it so hard for Parliament, let alone the people whose land it is, to find out what the government and its private development allies are doing with our public spaces?

A public/private partnership is not a government/private partnership in the sense that the public, as owners of the land, have very right to know what is going on. Arguments for commercial confidentiality don't wash. Where, certainly after contracts have been let, is the need for confidentiality?

I'm with the Greens here. We're entitled to disclosure!

[Wayno]

I occasionally read articles by Malcolm King. Here's a couple that take the tenor of Stumpjumper's posts to a higher level. Warning: Deep & slow breathing is recommended prior to reading:

Part 1) http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?ar ... 296&page=0
Part 2) http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.as ... 326&page=0

Breaking the public from a 'collective lethargy' mindset isn't easy, and may actually prove impossible.

More from MK: http://onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4582

[stumpjumper]

I'm quite a fan of Malcolm King. It's too bad there aren't the media outlets in SA to make him more widely read, but then lack of choice in our media is one of the problems here, along with public apathy.

Meanwhile, the wheeling and dealing at Gillman is looking even dirtier. I showed the following, from InDaily, to a colleague. He shrugged and said, 'What do you expect, it's SA.'

'Doesn't it bother you?' I asked.

'Obviously not,' was his answer.

Obviously, we get the government we deserve.

Here's the piece that bothered me, at least:

The deal with Simon Brown’s company, Adelaide Capital Partners—the option to purchase the land at Gillman—was made on 18 December 2013. The following day, the settlement of brother Todd Brown’s lawsuit against the state government (for wrongful termination of the Newport Quays development) was reported, that is, 19 December 2013. According to The Advertiser, the case settled for around $8.4 million, which is a little more than the $5.9 million that was offered by the government but well short of the hundreds of millions in losses and potential losses that had been suggested.

Urban Construct and the Newport Quays consortium appear to have accepted that the termination was not wrongful and that it was not entitled to uncapped damages.
What conclusions can be drawn from all this? Ultimately, the select committee will need to hear from all sides, but one proposition that must be tested is whether the Gillman land deal is, in some way, a sweetener for Urban Construct settling its legal action against the government after the Newport Quays development was axed.

Here is the question: was the Gillman land deal part of an off-the-record settlement of the Newport Quays lawsuit? Or to put it another way, was the state government’s deal with Simon Brown’s company part of some informal arrangement or understanding that would see Todd Brown’s companies settle their court action against the state government for a relatively modest amount of compensation?

Sickening - both the implied crooked behaviour of the government in the paragraphs above, and the near total lack of interest by average South Australians I've spoken to.

Try it - find a sane, trusted colleague, and suggest that there is absolute proof that SA is governed by incompetent, dishonest rogues who would rip you off as soon as look at you and who are playing us all for fools with 40 sitting days in Parliament while spending the rest of the their time plotting and scheming to stay in power at any cost.

I guarantee, all you'll get in response is a shrug, a yawn, or perhaps even a comment, such as 'Who cares?'

For the tiny percentage of people interested in the way this state is being corruptly mismanaged into oblivion, read this from InDaily:

ADELAIDE | A Parliamentary inquiry should examine whether the State Government’s controversial Gillman land deal was a “sweetener” to encourage a development company to settle a long-running law suit, State Parliament has been told.

The Legislative Council last night supported a motion to establish a select committee to inquire into the deal to sell 400 hectares of government-owned land at Gillman to Adelaide Capital Partners (ACP) without going to tender.

InDaily has reported extensively on concerns by some members of the board of Renewal SA about the ACP deal. After initially advising the government that the land should go to tender, the board – minus a few members – eventually approved the sale.

Last night Greens leader Mark Parnell told Parliament the select committee should inquire into any possible links between the agreement with ACP and the Port Adelaide residential development, Newport Quays, which was being run by development company Urban Construct.

The companies were linked, he said, by two brothers – Simon and Todd Brown.

He said the deal with ACP, of which Simon Brown is a non-executive director, came one day before it was reported that the State Government settled a long-running court action with Urban Construct, of which Todd Brown was CEO.

The State Government this morning rejected outright any connection between the Gillman deal and the Urban Construct settlement and accused Parnell of peddling a “conspiracy theory”.

Parnell told Parliament: “There is an old adage in politics that if you want to get to the truth you follow the money. I think this is exactly what this select committee should do and I have every confidence that it will.

“One aspect that I would particularly like the committee to investigate and report on is whether this land deal with Adelaide Capital Partners is connected in any way with the decision to axe the Newport Quays development at Port Adelaide.

“The possible link between these two developments derives from the links between the key players and, in particular, the Brown brothers—Todd and Simon. The potential link between the failed Newport Quays development and the Gillman deal is something that a number of people have raised with me and in particular a number of journalists who have joined the dots and quite reasonably come to the conclusion that this matter needs further investigation.”

A State Government spokesman told InDaily today: “”The assertions are simply another Green’s conspiracy theory, and when they are demonstrated to be false, we look forward to Mark Parnell retracting them.”

Parnell claimed that the government’s deal with ACP was done the day before it was reported that the government settled a lawsuit with the Urban Construct Group of Companies, the company behind the Newport Quays housing development at Port Adelaide.

“The deal with Simon Brown’s company, Adelaide Capital Partners—the option to purchase the land at Gillman—was made on 18 December 2013,” Parnell told the Legislative Council.

“The following day, the settlement of brother Todd Brown’s lawsuit against the state government was reported, that is, 19 December 2013. According to The Advertiser, the case settled for around $8.4 million, which is a little more than the $5.9 million that was offered by the government but well short of the hundreds of millions in losses and potential losses that had been suggested.

“This raises a number of questions. One question is whether this relatively low settlement is an acknowledgement by the Newport Quays consortium that their case was weak and it was unlikely to amount in more compensation if it went to trial. It is hard to know whether that is the case, but it seems that they were doing quite well in court up until that point.”

Parnell said the select committee should examine “whether the Gillman land deal is, in some way, a sweetener for Urban Construct settling its legal action against the government after the Newport Quays development was axed”.

“Here is the question: was the Gillman land deal part of an off-the-record settlement of the Newport Quays lawsuit? Or to put it another way, was the state government’s deal with Simon Brown’s company part of some informal arrangement or understanding that would see Todd Brown’s companies settle their court action against the state government for a relatively modest amount of compensation?

“This is why we need this select committee: to get to the bottom of these murky waters. If the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. I urge all honourable members to support this motion.”

Simon Brown would not comment on Parnell’s speech.

Mark Parnell’s full speech to the Legislative Council

The Greens are supporting this motion to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on the sale of government-owned land at Gillman. Like many in the community we believe that there are important unanswered questions around the decision by the government to not offer this land for sale by open tender or, it seems, by any other process that maximised its value to the community. None of the explanations offered by the government so far are believable and the community has a right to know what is going on.

The government has effectively said that no other credible proposals for the use of the Gillman land have been put forward and that the executive arm of government was quite within its rights to negotiate and strike a deal in secret with a single bidder. We know that a number of other proposals from different companies had been put forward over the years and rejected. There is an old adage in politics that if you want to get to the truth you follow the money. I think this is exactly what this select committee should do and I have every confidence that it will.

One aspect that I would particularly like the committee to investigate and report on is whether this land deal with Adelaide Capital Partners is connected in any way with the decision to axe the Newport Quays development at Port Adelaide. The possible link between these two developments derives from the links between the key players and, in particular, the Brown brothers—Todd and Simon. The potential link between the failed Newport Quays development and the Gillman deal is something that a number of people have raised with me and in particular a number of journalists who have joined the dots and quite reasonably come to the conclusion that this matter needs further investigation.

So how have people come to this conclusion that the two matters may be related? To explain the link we need to look at the main players and we need to look at the timing and, as I have said, we also need to follow the money. Let us start with Newport Quays. The Newport Quays development commenced in 2004 when a consortium of developers comprising the Urban Construct Group of Companies and Brookfield Multiplex Group signed an agreement with the state government through the Land Management Corporation. The LMC subsequently became the Urban Renewal Authority and is now known as Renewal SA.

The Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment Project Development Agreement was signed on 25 October 2004 and terminated seven years later on 31 October 2011. I do not need to go into all the reasons why the Newport Quays development was axed, but it is probably fair to say that it was a combination of economic, social, environmental and political factors. From the government’s perspective, these were euphemistically packaged up in the phrase ‘change of approach’.

Not surprisingly, the Newport Quays consortium were unhappy with this decision to axe their project, and they commenced legal action against the state government to recover damages. I should at this point note that my source for much of this information is an affidavit sworn by Todd Hamish Brown, the CEO of the Urban Construct Group of Companies, dated 9 December 2011. This affidavit forms part of the evidence considered by the Select Committee into Land Uses on Lefevre Peninsula—a committee which I chaired and which reported on 28 November 2013.

The affidavit was in support of the consortium’s claim for damages against the state government. Mr Todd Brown claims the government was ‘capricious’ and acted in ‘bad faith’. He alleges misleading and deceptive conduct and claims compensation for ‘economic loss, loss of use, loss of profit or loss of opportunity for what was to be a $1.5 billion project—perhaps even more. Mr Todd Brown puts forward a range of alternative rationales for the cancellation of Newport Quays by the government, including that the government did not advise Newport Quays of the potential impact of the proximity of Incitec Pivot or Adelaide Brighton Cement on certain stages of the Newport Quays project.

Todd Brown also believed that the popularity of the Newport Quays development was significantly impacted by media reports of the Texas fertiliser plant explosion, to the point where apartments in Port Adelaide were unsaleable according to real estate expert opinion. Todd Brown also suggests that the government had several ulterior motives for cancelling the development agreement, including their desire to win back public support in the lead-up to the Kevin Foley by-election.

I refer to the affidavit that was filed in court because it is the most comprehensive account of the consortium’s version of events and because it is already on the public record. In fact, I was surprised to get a guernsey in the affidavit myself, largely as a result of the Greens’ efforts to shine some light on the EPA’s misgivings about building new houses so close to noxious and dangerous industry. I am actually immortalised at paragraph 80 of the affidavit, for those who care to read it.

According to the original court documents, the legal claim by the consortium against the government was for unspecified damages; however, media reports refer to compensation of ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’. Sarah Martin, in The Advertiser of 15 December 2011, reported as follows:

Urban Construct is suing Patrick Conlon and the government over the $2 billion Newport Quays development.
The consortium behind the scrapped Port Adelaide project, comprising Urban Construct and Multiplex, has engaged senior lawyer Michael Abbott, QC, to take action against the Government and its development agency, the Land Management Corporation.
Premier Jay Weatherill last month retracted approval for the 50ha multi-stage development and said the developer would be paid $5.9 million in compensation.
But The Advertiser understands the consortium may be seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

So, that is Mr Todd Brown and Urban Construct. Let us now look at the business interests of his brother, Mr Simon John Brown. Simon Brown is a non-executive director of Adelaide Capital Partners, the successful (and it seems the only) bidder for the Gillman site. ACP is half owned by two companies: Gerlach Asset Development and ResourceCo Holdings.

Simon is also a director of ResourceCo. ResourceCo is wholly owned by ResourceCo Holdings, which is in turn half owned by a holding company called SJK Brown Investments Pty Ltd. Simon Brown is a director and owner of SJK Brown Investments. Up until 2004, so was his brother, Todd Brown. There may be other business connections amongst the dozens of companies involved in their various business interest, and I would be surprised if there is not, but this is a start. The Brown brothers are linked by business interests as well as by blood.

The story of Adelaide Capital Partners’ deal with the state government to buy 400 hectares of land at Gillman for $100 million has been outlined well enough by others and I do not need to go through it all here, but I would like to follow the money.

Among the issues to be determined by this select committee will be whether or not the value to be received for the sale of the Gillman land was appropriate, and this is a separate issue from the question of whether or not the process was sound and issues around the lack of any competitive tender. Most of the commentary suggests that the land has been grossly undervalued. If that is the case, why was the land disposed of so cheaply?

Let’s consider the facts as best we know them. The deal with Simon Brown’s company, Adelaide Capital Partners—the option to purchase the land at Gillman—was made on 18 December 2013. The following day, the settlement of brother Todd Brown’s lawsuit against the state government was reported, that is, 19 December 2013. According to The Advertiser, the case settled for around $8.4 million, which is a little more than the $5.9 million that was offered by the government but well short of the hundreds of millions in losses and potential losses that had been suggested.

This raises a number of questions. One question is whether this relatively low settlement is an acknowledgement by the Newport Quays consortium that their case was weak and it was unlikely to amount in more compensation if it went to trial. It is hard to know whether that is the case, but it seems that they were doing quite well in court up until that point.

On 23 March 2012, the ABC reported that, at a preliminary hearing, Mr Michael Abbott QC, on behalf of the consortium, told the court that the government ‘terminated this for the purpose of dealing with someone else and getting a higher price. He said, ‘They have used their discretion to line their own pockets.’ Mr Abbott also said that the Port Adelaide by-election may have been another political reason behind the termination.

This argument seems to have landed on fertile ground because, on 31 May 2012, Judge Lunn, a master of the Supreme Court, ordered the government to hand over a range of documents that relate to the LMC’s deliberations and communications in respect of, and the reasons for, the termination of the Newport Quays agreement. So, at that point, the consortium was about to get access to the real reasons Newport Quays was being axed. Judge Lunn said, at paragraph 28 of his judgement:

There had been a groundswell of constituents in that electorate who were not happy with the development. There is a reasonable possibility that the termination was linked to the forthcoming by-election and that, if so, it would have been capricious on the part of the LMC.

The judge also noted:

There is no explanation about why the termination was first publicly announced by the Premier and the second defendant rather than the LMC [the second defendant being Patrick Conlon].

From mid-2012, there is very little on the public record until the case settled on 19 December 2013, some 18 months later. Effectively, Urban Construct and the Newport Quays consortium appear to have accepted that the termination was not wrongful and that it was not entitled to uncapped damages.
What conclusions can be drawn from all this? Ultimately, the select committee will need to hear from all sides, but one proposition that must be tested is whether the Gillman land deal is, in some way, a sweetener for Urban Construct settling its legal action against the government after the Newport Quays development was axed.

Here is the question: was the Gillman land deal part of an off-the-record settlement of the Newport Quays lawsuit? Or to put it another way, was the state government’s deal with Simon Brown’s company part of some informal arrangement or understanding that would see Todd Brown’s companies settle their court action against the state government for a relatively modest amount of compensation? This is why we need this select committee: to get to the bottom of these murky waters. If the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. I urge all honourable members to support this motion.

[Wayno]

I find all this very interesting from a public psychology perspective. My opinion is the apathy in SA exists because our majority demographic is reliant on govt welfare.

SA receives a hand-out of something like a billion bucks a year from the rest of Australia (GST fiscal horizontal equalisation). Also our two largest population groups, middle income families & retirees, are both welfare recipients (family tax benefits, child care, pension, etc).

Point being the alleged scandals & rorting are perceived as merely taking cash from the same bottomless magic bucket that Australia has stashed under the Parliament House buildings in Canberra and each state. Who cares as long as I keep getting my hand out! Same principle extends to why our ICAC has no teeth.

Welfare clearly breeds dependency & apathy, and insidiously a general 'it's some one else's problem' mentality.

Stumpjumper, I enjoy reading your posts, but what you're missing is the 'sell', a way to galvanise & catalyse the populus. This will only happen if you push on their 'care about' buttons. No use lamenting this fact. Take the furore over the Frome St cycle lane as an example; it was almost the end of the world in the minds of many. Capture that ill-directed passion and we'll have an effective ICAC faster than a property tycoon can transfer funds into a secret slush account.

[stumpjumper]

I appreciate your point, Wayno, but my strategy, right or wrong, is to try to lay out the facts as i see them with the idea of letting the facts do the convincing. Doing it that way prevents, I hope, people just thinking I have a certain view that I'm trying to convince others to adopt for some political or personal reason.

But, as you, and Malcolm King observe, 'the facts' don't seem to count for much in SA.

For example, surely it's too much of a coincidence that Todd Brown of Urban Construct lets the government off the hook, it seems, regarding multi millions of damages which it appeared likely the government was going to have to pay Urban Construct as a result of the government pulling the pin on the Newport Quays development - THE DAY AFTER the government effectively GAVE a company associated with Todd Brown's brother similar multi millions in the world's friendliest land deal.

In fact, the Gillman/Adelaide Capital Partners deal looked inexplicable without such a motive. There were several parties keen to buy the land, the board of RenewalSA was aware of their interest and recommended making them bid competitively for the land via tender.

Then the government stepped in, and ordered the board of RenewalSA to recommend sale of the land at a rock bottom price to Todd Brown's brother's outfit.

Why would the government do that?

What has now been revealed in Parliament by Mark Parnell looks like quid pro quo. The important part is that the government would have had to pay court-ordered damages out of general revenue. The payment would have appeared on the books.

This way, the government still 'pays' the Browns their multi millions, but the money is hidden as a deep discount on a land sale and the huge future profits which the Browns and their partners will make out of their waste disposal monopoly.

Yet the government's response to this scenario is the same one many powerful regimes use against their critics: they shout 'Conspiracy theorists!', which is exactly what they are doing now.

So much for setting out the facts as I see them.

Putting it simply, the government has manipulated the outcome of judicial process in order to hide a huge damages payment which resulted from the government's ill-advised venture into commercial development in Port Adelaide.

That it was necessary to use RenewalSA as the means of effecting the deal is the weak, possibly fatal point for the government.

The charter of RenewalSA (ie Land Management Corporation) requires that body to do everything it can to obtain the highest price for the disposal of public assets such as the Gillman land.

Very clearly, given RenewalSA's knowledge of other keen buyers who were not given an opportunity to make an offer, and given RenewalSA's failure to seek a proper valuation on the land, RenewalSA has patently failed in its obligation to seek the highest price for the land, and as a result, it looks very exposed.

At least four members of the RenewalSA board felt exposed enough to resign rather than agree, as ordered apparently by Minister Koutsantonis, to the disreputable deal. The deal as it stands seems likely to cost the public several hundred million dollars which could have been spent on much better things than compounding the fiasco of Newport Quays by paying huge, hidden damages to its developers.

It looks as though the people of SA have been ripped off by the very same government which is supposed to protect their interests.

ICAC has all this information. It will be interesting to see what it does with it.

[stumpjumper]

Hansen contradicts key Weatherill/Koutsantonis claims

In an astounding development at the Select Committee inquiry into the Gillman deal, both the Premier, Mr Waetherill and the Treasurer, Mr Koutsantonis, have lied to the enquiry, according to former RenewalSA Chief Executive, Fred Hansen.

Mr Hansen today contradicted significant parts of Premier Weatherill and Treasurer Koutsantonis’s defence of their controversial Gillman land deal.

Mr Hansen, the first witness to give evidence to the Legislative Council Select Committee into the deal, confirmed the Renewal SA Board had either not supported or voted against Board papers recommending the Adelaide Capital Partners (ACP) proposal at Board meetings on the 13th and 20th of November 2013.

Contrary to Mr Koutsantonis’s claim he hadn’t tried to lobby the Board and they had asked him to come to a Board meeting, Mr Hansen said that wasn’t correct and in fact Mr Koutsantonis had asked to meet the Board.

Transcript from ABC891 radio interview 31/3/2014:

Bevan: “...but you actually addressed the board and they told you...”
Koutsantonis: “I answered their questions... they’d asked to speak to me, and I went into the board and spoke to the board...”
Bevan: “...and they told you and you went into that meeting knowing that they had rejected unanimously bar one member of the board... the deal.”
Koutsantonis: “I didn't know that they had rejected it then...”

Mr Hansen also contradicted Mr Koutsantonis’s claim that the Board meeting on 28 November 2013 had approved a significantly different ACP proposal than the one they had rejected on 20 November 2013.

Mr Koutsantonis told a press conference on 11 February 2014:

“What Renewal SA was saying was if the Government was considering accepting the proposal as was before it was amended then it should have gone to public tender. Fundamentally different, there are all sorts of issues that are different – for example, one is about exclusivity over the land and who can enter it. The Government did not accept the proposal that the board were not happy with.”

In fact, Mr Hansen stated the ACP proposal had not changed significantly at all between both of those board meetings. What did change was the drafting of the recommendations put to the Board.

Mr Hansen also contradicted Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis’s claim that they couldn’t go to an open tender process without revealing any intellectual property associated with the ACP bid.

“If we had invited tenders this proposition, this opportunity for South Australia of someone going out and having to raise many tens of millions of dollars to spend their money in developing a piece of land that has to be built up about three metres before it’s actually even development ready, would disappear.”
(Premier Weatherill, ABC891, 13/2/2014)

Mr Hansen said it was possible to construct an open tender process and still protect the intellectual property of any individual bidder.

[stumpjumper]

In Daily today reports former Renewal SA board member Theo Maras saying that the government's disposal process for the Gillman land was flawed because it was not backed by a valuation.

The sale of the land is currently the subject of a parliamentary enquiry.

Note to mods - IMHO, this thread should be returned to the 'Metro Developments' section.

[monotonehell]

...Note to mods - IMHO, this thread should be returned to the 'Metro Developments' section.

The topics under the "development discussion" banner are supposed to be restricted to construction news (not opinion or politics), while the "topical discussion" area is more open in content. This thread is definitely in the correct place.

[stumpjumper]

Fair enough, monotone.

Here's some news:

MLC and former valuer-general John Darley, who thinks the Gillman deal stinks, has been able to have the enquiry elevated from a parliamentary enquiry to a judicial enquiry.

The main reason is that people can be forced to attend a judicial enquiry. There was every chance that Weatherill, Koutsantonis et al would simply not appear before the parliamentary enquiry.

That doesn't mean that they won't be afflicted with the well-known memory lapses which seem to bedevil people in powerful roles who misbehave.

[monotonehell]

I was about to PM you Stumpy as this is all blowing up ATM.

We need a fully toothed, Federal ICAC ASAP OMG BBQ.

[stumpjumper]

I'm right on it, mono.

I've amended my complaint to ICAC to include the matter of a possible copnnection between the agreement to sell to ACP in 18th Dec 2013 and Urban Construct settling on 19th December 2013 their case against the government for a fraction of their claim.

So my complaint, which alleged maladministration, is now alleging corruption. Because Mr Lander is obliged to investigate any complaint put to him, at least to the stage of deciding if there are grounds, he can no longer claim that he is 'only investigating claims of maladministration'. At least until he throws out my allegation of corruption.

Bastards.

[Wayno]

Would be good if the press somehow heard a corruption submission was made.

No need to share details...

[stumpjumper]

It's hard to ensure that, Wayno. You're assuming that our highly secretive ICAC is itself a straight shooter, or not under duress.

There is a great deal at stake here. Apart from the commercial interests of the Brown, McMahon and Gerlach families who are behind Adelaide Capital Partners, Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis could lose their highly paid, powerful positions over this business!

An indication of the pressure Weatherill and co are under is Weatherill's amazing response to the allegation that what he did was 'irrational and unlawful'. He didn't deny it, but assured us that if that deal made us gasp, we hadn't seen anything yet. That is the defence of a desperate man. A 'Hail Mary' defence.

I've asked the Premier's Department for some substantiation of Weatherill's claim that the ACP project will yield '6,000 jobs'. These jobs will supposedly be in an 'oil and gas hub' which will be built on the site once its remediated by fill.

Here's an encouraging headline in relation to any oil and gas hub: "San­tos last month said it would cut 2015 cap­i­tal spend­ing by $700m..." - From this weekend's Australian.

I was told that the figures and any information on the supposed 'oil and gas hub' were, you guessed it, 'commercial-in-confidence'.

How often was that phrase heard before the collapse of the State Bank?

I suggest that there is no 'oil and gas hub' project except as a vague notion floating around the Premier's Department, and the figure of 6,000 jobs has more to do with the announcement a few days earlier that GM Holden was closing with the loss of 6,000 jobs.

Weatherill, Koutsantonis and their goons will be putting absolute maximum pressure on everyone concerned to contain this story. That includes the media and ICAC.

The ICAC 'system' is interesting. In my opinion, it allows a fair bit of room to sideline an unwanted complaint.

You make your initial complaint not to ICAC but to the OPI - the 'Office of Public Integrity'. That office then assesses your complaint and may recommend it to ICAC.

In my case, my complaint against the government was made about a year ago, and is still as far as I can find out, 'under assessment' by IPO. The IPO is unable to discuss my complaint with me for reasons of 'confidentiality and privacy'.

So my complaint may never reach the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption. It may never even be 'assessed', for all I know.

I'll try to keep this board informed, although at some risk. A breach of Section 56 of the ICAC Act means a $30,000 fine for me:

56—Publication of information and evidence
A person must not, except as authorised by the Commissioner or a court hearing proceedings for an offence against this Act, publish, or cause to be published—
(a) information tending to suggest that a particular person is, has been, may be, or may have been, the subject of a complaint, report, assessment, investigation or referral under this Act; or
(b) information that might enable a person who has made a complaint or report under this Act to be identified or located; or
(c) the fact that a person has made or may be about to make a complaint or report under this Act; or
(d) information that might enable a person who has given or may be about to give information or other evidence under this Act to be identified or located; or
(e) the fact that a person has given or may be about to give information or other evidence under this Act; or
(f) any other information or evidence publication of which is prohibited by the Commissioner.
Maximum penalty:
(a) in the case of a body corporate—$150 000;
(b) in the case of a natural person—$30 000.


The requirement that all complaints must first be assessed by IPO, which has no investigative powers, makes the passage of a complaint through to the Commissioner less than certain.

Further, there is no requirement for ICAC to act within a certain time, or even in a timely manner. There appears to be nothing to stop ICAC or IPO from sitting on a complaint forever.

Together, the secrecy surrounding the IPO and ICAC and the apparent flaws when looked at closely as described above, may contribute to a general public doubt that the ICAC is effective.

Compare this situation with the NSW ICAC, which operates in the glare of publicity, published transcripts and practically has heads on sticks outside its door. Everyone knows that the NSW ICAC is exposing villains. They are named and shamed regularly. By contrast, our ICAC keeps a very low profile.

It's interesting that the Commissioner has felt that he has to 'break cover' in order to tell the public that he is investigating maladministration (not corruption, he stressed) in the Gillman case, where there have been many calls for an investigation. This could be an indication of the low level of confidence, or at least of awareness, the public has about ICAC. Here's what the Commissioner said:

"I am investigating the matter to determine if there is any evidence of maladministration. This is not a corruption investigation. However, should I find any evidence to suggest that there has been conduct that falls within the ICAC Act’s definition of corruption, then I will pursue it."

I'd rephrase that. I suggest that where there is a likelihood, or even a possibility of corruption, he should 'pursue it'.

For example, a company doing well in court suing the government for unspecified damages over one project settles out of court for a fraction of their likey compensation, one day after being sold a government asset well under true value.

There's a likelihood of corruption for you.

[stumpjumper]

InDaily reports that Planning Minister John Rau can't provide details of the so-called oil and gas hub that is going to make the 'irrational and unlawful' Gillman deal worthwhile. He'd love to help, but...

"My advice is that it is potentially a breach of our obligations under the deed of agreement for me to provide certain particulars about that part of the agreement.”

The key word is 'potentially'. So he continues protecting the arses of Weatherill and Koutsantonis while he is looking like a good guy who really, really wants to tell us what is going on, but dammit, he's prevented by a 'potential' breach of the government's obligations.

What crap. Rau is the Attorney-General. Who is he taking his legal advice from?

Doesn't the government have certain obligations to the community it represents to tell that community why it burned at least $100 million of public money in selling the public asset of the Gillman land cheaply?

This is what happens when government gets too cosy with the development industry. The government starts to see itself as a player in the development business, and its priorities start aligning with those of private developers. I thought we'd seen the last of that with the spectacle of former treasurer Kevin Foley strutting around arm in arm with any developer who could put up with him.

The government's priority is the people it represents.

[Waewick]

This is the reason Labor wanted a ICAC that wasn't particularly clear I assume.