ICAC? (formerly Lipson Estate - Gillman)

[monotonehell]

...I've received a written response from the IPO, thanking me for my interest and assuring me that my complaint would be investigated with the utmost rigour.

I await results.

...and then Stumpy was never heard from again.....

[stumpjumper]

Sorry to disappoint...

So Weatherill has played the race card to protect Koutsantonis, and Koutsantonis' appointment to Treasurer, from criticism.

Of all the criticism of Koutsantonis, I suggest that it is least about his being of Greek origin, or having driven a taxi. Neither if those is a criticism. There are however, valid criticisms that can be made of Koutsantonis and his appointment. Here are a few:

- His experience for the position of Treasurer.

- His history of lying about his road traffic record.

- Possibly, his maladministration or worse in the Gillman land deal.

I'd like to see some defences of those charges from Koutsantonis or Weatherill.

[Aidan]

You have a point about the dodgy dealing that seems to infect all governments, Aidan, but you can't be suggesting that because it's happened before it's ok this time.

Correct. I'm saying that because it's happened so often before, we can laugh about it. And it's not uniquely South Australian. I'm reminded of a skit (from Fast Forward, I think) with the Vic and NSW premiers:
"We didn't break the rules, we bent them"
"If you're bent, you're in Sydney"
"If you're broke, you're in Melbourne!'

[stumpjumper]

OK, dodgy dealings with public assets is a good subject for humorous asides, but there is a very serious issue here.

Historically, many scandals have been associated with intervention into the free market by government, most notably with the “White Shoe Brigade” of developers in Queensland under the corrupt National Party premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and “WA Inc” under Labor’s corrupt Brian Burke in the 1980s.

Politicians are encouraged by industry to believe they can pick winners, by subsidising, protecting or otherwise preferentially dealing with selected companies. Once governments start meddling in the investment decisions of the market, they are only one step away from ministers picking winners to suit their own financial interests and associates.

A good question in relation to the Gillman deal, which appears to have cost the taxpayer several hundred million dollars, is not 'who benefits?' - that much is clear. Adelaide Capital Partners benefits. The questions are 'Did the government sponsor this deal through, given the opposition of the board of RenewalSA?' and 'If the deal was supported by the government, who on the government side was driving the process?'

If the second question is valid, the answer seems to be 'Tom Koutsantonis'.

There are serious implications if this deal was Koutsantonis' baby. He is now the Treasurer of the state. We have given him the keys to the safe.

The truth should be made clear. However, the government is doing everything it can to obstruct enquiry, and to protect Koutsantonis - eg according to Weatherill! criticism of Koutsantonis is racism. What transparent crap.

[how good is he]

What I find ironic is that this land has laid dormant for decades with the last (only?) significant mention of it was as the future MFP site when John Bannon was the premier....
it's almost laughable that there are people up in arms and an apparent bidding war/legal action for what appears to me to be a desolate wasteland...(my thoughts is the $25 per sqm price is fair considering the massive money needed to develop it and questionable demand and very large size/supply)....
So my question Stumpjumper or others is where were all these concerned or interested parties say in the past 20 YEARS?

[stumpjumper]

Since the collapse of the MFP project, the land in question has been owned by Adelaide City Council for future expansion of the Wingfield dump, and has not been for sale. That's probably why there has been no interest in it.

As to the 'massive money needed to develop it ', each square metre of the land will take about 3 metres deep of fill, for which the owner can charge dumping fees of about $150 at current rates, hence the current valuation of the land at bout $100 per sq m.

The government compulsorily acquired the land from ACC for $1 per sq m and has sold it on to Gerlach and co for $25 per sq m. ACC is suing the govt for compensation.

ACP popped up and offered to buy the land settling in a decade or so, but with the ability to realise the income inherent in the dumping potential,of the land, ie around $150 million, before the public sees one cent.

By then, the land could be worth several hundred dollars per sq m. As I understand it, ACP could sell it in buts along the way, or sell the lot in the future, all before settling for the few million they aid the govt so long ago.

The land is, or was, a publicly-owned asset. Can you see the problem?

[Waewick]

Not if you vote labor apparently

[Aidan]

Not if you vote labor apparently

Why not? I expect many people who voted Labor saw the problem but saw bigger problems with the Libs.

[stumpjumper]

Other than it being Labor's suits who were 'in the house' for this particular example of favouring private over public interest, I'm not sure this is a political problem. Sure, an Opposition of any colour will try to make political capital by blackening the Government with the sordid details, but isn't it more of a problem of governance generally? Both sides have form in this area, at different times and places around Australia.

What are needed are protocols or checks in dealing with the sale of public assets. There may be cases where tender or auction are not appropriate, but whatever the method of disposal, the public interest must be paramount. Usually, this would mean near certainty that the return to the public on the sale is maximised.

Koutsantonis is trying to say this was so, by declaring that the proposed outcome will be a boon to the public. Perhaps it will, but why couldn't the public have got market price for its land as well? In relation to public land, I suggest the government is in the position of a trustee for the public interest, and is bound to protect that interest. On the figures available, the government has failed in that duty, and should be accountable. Further, with proper checks and transparency, the deal should not have been possible on those terms in the first place.

[monotonehell]

Since the collapse of the MFP project, the land in question has been owned by Adelaide City Council for future expansion of the Wingfield dump, and has not been for sale. That's probably why there has been no interest in it.
...
The government compulsorily acquired the land from ACC for $1 per sq m and has sold it on to Gerlach and co for $25 per sq m. ACC is suing the govt for compensation.
...
The land is, or was, a publicly-owned asset. Can you see the problem?

IANAL but I thought compulsory acquisition was only legal for infrastructure, contamination or defence of the realm reasons... or is that a Federal Constitutional thing? Either way compulsory acquisition for the purposes of a financial windfall doesn't sound right. I'd say the ACC has every right to their day in court to regain their fair market value.

[stumpjumper]

Good point, monotone. There's often a high level of 'ministerial discretion' in these cases - a clause along the lines of '...or on such other terms as the Minister may from time to time determine', which effectively gives the government the ability to do what it likes.

The problem is not so much the government's ability to act freely; that can be very useful in an emergency, time of war etc, but there may be a problem of transparency and accountability if such powers are misused - as you say, to enable a windfall profit. In such cases, the public should be aware of the circumstances and the justification for the exercise of discretion.

I'm trying to get some informed advice on this point. I'll post here when I do.

I understand that as well as ACC's claim, the government is facing legal action from one of the alternative potential buyers which Mr Koutsantonis said didn't exist. Among these is Joe Borelli, CEO of Integrated Waste Services and Envirobale, who own land adjacent the the parcel in question.

The government approached Mr Borelli and other neighbours for consultation about a possible sale of the land, leading them to believe that they would be able to tender for it.

Then General Motors announced the closure of its Holden plant at Elizabeth, with the loss of thousands of jobs. The Weatherill government was alarmed, and in need of good news on the employment front.

Then along came Raymond J Spencer, chair of the state's Economic Development Board. He had been approached by Adelaide Capital Partners with their proposal for the Gillman land. Crucially, the proposal claimed to involve the creation of 6,000 jobs in the new venture, and the government went for it. The proposed sale by tender was out the window in favour of an exclusive deal with ACP.

The timing of all this was also ideal for the government considering that it was probably about to lose its Supreme Court case against ACP for damages resulting from the government's last f*ckup at Newport Quays.

Anyway, Koutsantonis's action in ditching the tender process provoked a legal action by Mr Borelli's company, which will be watched with interest by the other disappointed suitors.

From the point of view of maladministration, there are a few problems facing the government here.

First, there was no valuation of the property based on the proposed rezoning to Industrial. The land is presently zoned MFP, which means nothing in terms of value. But zoned for industrial use, the land has a definable value, and it's a lot more than the $1 per sq m the government paid to ACC, and also much more than the $25 per sq m the government agreed between the government and ACP.

Second, by agreeing to sell the land to ACP, the government has effectively created a monopoly for the disposal of waste for land fill close to Adelaide. Wonderful for ACP, but not good news for its competitors in the waste disposal industry or for anyone wanting to dispose of waste at a competitive price.

The Liberals and the independent John Darley are pushing for a Select Committee into this piece of poor governance. No doubt the government will resist that. Whatever your political persuasion, you'd be hard put to defend the government on this. The deal should be rescinded, despite any costs of doing so, and the disposal of the Gillman land conducted in a proper, open manner that ensures the sale of this publicly owned asset at current value and results in better outcome than the creation of a monopoly which can only increase unnecessarily the cost of development in this state.

[rev]

Isn't there a thread in the Pub section for stumpjumper to do all his anti-Labor bitching in?

[Phantom]

This is what comes to mind to me.

(Sorry for bad Photoshop skills, I've not used it for a long time..)

... Even "Gillman Plains" would be better...

That's too similar to Gilles Plains, surely? Hahaha. I do recall as a kid always having issues with Goolwa and Gawler. Hahaha.

Whenever a vision or a proposal comes in of this magnitude, I love seeing renders and like general floorplans. Does anyone know if any exist as a public thing, or am I thinking that the pictures are drawn way before they actually are?

[Aidan]

This is what comes to mind to me.

(Sorry for bad Photoshop skills, I've not used it for a long time..)

... Even "Gillman Plains" would be better...

That's too similar to Gilles Plains, surely? Hahaha. I do recall as a kid always having issues with Goolwa and Gawler. Hahaha.

It seems to be a tradition - we've also got Devon Park and Davoren Park, Thorngate and Northgate, and Morphettville and Morphett Vale. Do developers think they can gain prestige from having similar names to more prosperous suburbs?

Still, we're not as bad as Sydney which has Rozelle, Roseville, Rose Hill and Rouse Hill!

[stumpjumper]

Rev wrote: Isn't there a thread in the Pub section for stumpjumper to do all his anti-Labor bitching in?

This is not about Labor or Liberal, rev. It's about people in power misusing that power to cut friendly deals against the public interest. Whatever colour of politicians do it, they should be called on it. To let them get away with it only reinforces the idea that the public interest can be disregarded with impunity.

If this deals goes off as its perpetrators have planned, a consortium with privileged access to the government will become very rich indeed from the deal, thanks to an income stream from a government sanctioned - and assisted - monopoly. The income stream will extend far into the future, and it's no accident that the younger generation of the privileged families who are party to this business have been involved. They'll be reaping the rewards decades from now.

As well as being complicit in this crooked deal, the government, and the Liberals because I am sure they know all about it as indicated by Steven Marshall's rabbit in the headlights response to questions on it, will have created a virtual monopoly on waste disposal in this state. Well done to them.

As an aside, in Australia the maximum financial penalty for white collar crime, which I suggest this is, is about $200,000 dollars. In this case, that's not enough to scare anyone compared with the millions of dollars of cash to be reaped from the public via this deal. In the US, where white collar crime becomes a federal issue, the penalty is a fine of THREE TIMES THE YIELD OF THE DEAL. In SA, we can't even set up an ICAC worth the name, even after a decade of public demand for one.

So the government wants to bury the unsavoury terms of this arrangement. The Liberal Opposition won't go near it. Only the Xenophon Party's John Darley, a former state valuer-general who knows exactly how much the Gillman/Adelaide Capital Partners deal stinks, is prepared to have a go - probably because unlike the government and the Liberals, he has less to lose.

Remember, too, that five members of the board of RenewalSA resigned rather than be party to this deal.

I'm in favour of a government which acts in the public interest, and an Opposition which holds the government to account when necessary. In this case, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, we appear to have neither.

Our ICAC has not made a single 'arrest' since its inception in 2012, despite having over 750 cases referred to it. Perhaps it's doing an extraordinary amount of background work. Perhaps it answers to the very people it is asked to investigate.

The Gillman deal may sink without trace in the hands of SA's secretive and to all appearances inert ICAC, despite the opinion of Geoffrey Watson SC, counsel assisting the highly active and transparent NSW ICAC that "Even a schoolboy can see that the Gillman deal needs to be investigated by an ICAC."

Compare the websites of our ICAC and its NSW counterpart. Look carefully on our website for anything but a lot of pious words.

Our ICAC: http://www.icac.sa.gov.au

The NSW ICAC: http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au