12/2107/021PUB06464 CREDO/SPICER PUBLIC 29/08/2014 pp 06464-6557 HEARING
COPYRIGHT
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
THE HONOURABLE MEGAN LATHAM
PUBLIC HEARING
OPERATION CREDO AND SPICER
Reference: Operation E12/2107/0821
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY
ON FRIDAY 29 AUGUST, 2014
AT 10.00AM
Any person who publishes any part of this transcript in any way and to any person contrary to a Commission direction against publication commits an offence against section 112(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
This transcript has been prepared in accordance with conventions used in the Supreme Court.
29/08/2014 6464T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just before we start, Mr Williams, could you come back into the witness box please.
THE COMMISSIONER: I just wanted to confirm that from Monday of next week we will be on level 21. Some arrangements have been made to 10 bring in at least an additional table but for technical reasons which I won’t bore you with there won’t be additional microphones so it will mean that when representatives come to answer questions or make an application they’ll have to approach one of the microphones if, if they’re unfortunate enough to be seated in the back row. The other problem which we’ve attempted to solve is that there are really only enough tables for Counsel who have a speaking part so if there are Junior Counsel or solicitors that are presently sitting with Counsel they’re going to have to remove themselves and seat themselves at the back of the room and provide assistance as and when they can but we don’t have room at the tables for every legal 20 representative of every person who is on the list next week or the week after. Now, yes, Mr Henskens. MR HENSKENS: Commissioner, could I just raise an issue with regard to the transcript at page 6375 and, Commissioner, it arises out of an exchange that occurred yesterday and the transcript at the moment doesn’t make sense because it seems as though something’s been deleted out of the transcript. THE COMMISSIONER: Just a minute. Yes. 30 MR HENSKENS: I’m sorry to interrupt Mr Moses’s - - - THE COMMISSIONER: No, where is it? MR HENSKENS: - - - cross-examination but I thought we should deal with this when it’s fresh in our minds. THE COMMISSIONER: What line? MR HENSKENS: Commissioner, at line 30 there was a number of 40 objections and then at line 30, Commissioner, you said, “Yes, thank you, that’s noted, Mr Henskens, go on, Mr Watson.” THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HENSKENS: Now my recollection is that Mr Watson then said words to the effect “It sounds like a lot of people are trying to stop the evidence getting out” and then Mr Izzo objected - - - 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6465T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HENSKENS: - - - and then Mr Moses objected and then Commissioner, you said at the bottom of the page, “All right, Mr Moses, it will be struck from the transcript.” Now instead of the usual fashion where there’s an asterisk put next to passages which are struck from the transcript. It seems as though the words that Mr Watson said have been completely deleted from the transcript. 10 MR WATSON: They’re there on mine, mine must be different to yours. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It’s not on mine. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, it is different. MR HENSKENS: It is different, it’s different from the transcript that seems to have been made available to the, to the practitioners. MR WATSON: I see. Well, it was (not transcribable) we’ll put it back in. 20 MR HENSKENS: It seems as though there are two versions of transcript floating around, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don’t know, I don’t know what the complaint is. I think the reference to the- - - MR HENSKENS: Well, it looks like – I mean as, as it reads without Mr Watson’s statement in, it reads for example, Commissioner, that Mr Moses and Mr Izzo were getting very concerned about what I’d said at line 28 and 30 29 without knowing the words that have been deleted so I think - - - THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, as I understand it, as I understand it there was something that Mr Watson said, and I think it was after Mr Izzo’s objection, wasn’t it- - - MR HENSKENS: No. THE COMMISSIONER: - - -and before Mr Moses said, “I object to that, 40 he should withdraw?” MR HENSKENS: No, no, I think it was- - - MR IZZO: Before my objection, Commissioner. MR HENSKENS: Yes. MR IZZO: That’s what I objected to. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6466T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) MR WATSON: Right. Sorry. We’ll fix it. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. We’ll, we’ll resolve it, Mr Henskens. MR HENSKENS: Anyway, I thought I should raise it, Commissioner, when it’s fresh in our minds. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So there should be a reference to Mr 10 Watson saying something after the words, “Mr Williams,” and then, and then the striking out of the transcript is referrable to that, is it? MR HENSKENS: I think, I think, Commissioner, after you said, “Thank you, that’s noted, Mr Henskens. Go on, Mr Watson,” I think then Mr Watson made a statement or a comment which was then objected to by Mr Izzo. MR WATSON: Sorry, Commissioner, we’ve got it, we can fix it. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR WATSON: It’s trivial. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR WATSON: We’ll fix it and- - - MR HENSKENS: It’s not trivial, it’s important that the record is correct. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: We’ll remedy it, Mr Henskens, we’ll remedy it. Yes, Mr- - - MR WATSON: Oh, sorry, somebody asked for it to be struck out, they’ve won on appeal getting it struck back in. THE COMMISSIONER: Well- - - MR WATSON: But can we move on and we’ve got to get through Mr Williams, it’s very important. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes, Mr Moses. MR MOSES: Yeah, I think if that’s struck back in, but yeah, that’s fine. O.K. Mr Williams, yesterday, or just Commissioner, yesterday about page 6462 line 40 I indicated I was going to take the witness to a meeting on 9 February, but we’ve reviewed the transcript overnight, Mr Williams, and I think on the last occasion at page 3271 of the transcript when you gave evidence on the last occasion, I think you said you didn’t recall attending a 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6467T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) meeting on 9 February at 14 Martin Place with National Party Ministers, so I’ll move on rather than take you to that topic?---Okay. Now, yesterday you were asked some questions about Mr Simmons, S-i-m- m-o-n-s?---Yes. And you gave some evidence yesterday that Michael Gallacher knew Mr Simmons. Do you recall giving that evidence?---Yes. 10 And this is the case isn’t it, that Mr Gallacher told you at some stage in one of your discussions over the years about a story involving Mr Simmons dating back to when Mr Gallacher came to be involved in the Hunter back in 2002/2003. And do you recall Mr Gallacher telling you that Mr Simmons who had been a former Labor Minister was a person who had approached him and encouraged him to have the Liberal Party run candidates in the Newcastle Hunter area?---Um, I don’t recall it, he could have told me that but I can’t recall it, Mr Moses. Okay. And do you recall Mr Gallacher saying to you that Mr Simmons had 20 said to him back in these early days that the only way Newcastle could move ahead and get things done with Government was if it became a marginal seat and was no longer taken for granted by the Labor Party? ---Um, he could have, it was a common, common view that the Liberal Party needed to be more active in Newcastle to- - - And was that a view that Mr Simmons had expressed to you?---Um, I can’t recall any specifics but he could have. Okay. Now, do you recall attending a dinner on 10 March, 2011 with Mr 30 Stoner?---Um, could you be more- - - At the Terrigal Crowne Plaza?---I don’t know the date, but yes, I did have a dinner there once. It was the night before the Great Debate on 11 March?---Oh, okay. I know I did meet him there once for dinner. Okay?---Yeah. 40 And do you recall – and please say so if you don’t – do you recall Mr Gallacher recounting that story involving Mr Simmons that night over dinner?---Um- - - That is encouraging the Liberals to run in Newcastle so that it wouldn’t be taken for granted?---Um, not that I can recall, not that I can recall. Is it possible he may have said it and you just can’t recall?---It was a, it was 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6468T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) a, I suppose a dinner that was, general politics was chatted about so it could have been. Okay. Thank you. Now, if I can take you to the next topic which is the Great Debate of 11 March, 2011. You were at that debate, correct?---Yes. And that was a debate that was hosted by the Property Council on Hunter issues?---Um, I think so, yeah. 10 And it’s your recollection that it was a lunch where a number of businesspeople and other members of the public were present? ---Oh, yeah, there was probably three or 400 people there. And it was a session – withdraw that. It was a luncheon type debate where the convenor would ask questions of both Mr Gallacher and Ms McKay, correct?---Um, yes. And there were topics that were discussed during that debate that were important to the Hunter area?---Yes. 20 Such as, Newcastle needing population growth to remain New South Wales second largest city?---Could have been. Do you recall there being discussion about public transport growth?---Every Newcastle function has that topic. Do you recall Ms McKay raising a lack of Federal funding as an issue?---I can’t recall it but it’s a common political theme for the States to blame Federal and vice versa. 30 And there was a discussion about the rail line in the CBD and the need for urban renewal?---Same, that’s discussed at every Hunter function. Okay. And there was a lot of discussion about the carbon tax and the Liberal’s getting rid of it?---Um, yes, it was another topic that was common in Newcastle. And there was a discussion about the Tillegra Dam T-i-l-l-e-g-e-r-a Dam and Mr Gallacher noting that it was clear to the Liberal’s no longer 40 supported that project?---Um, yes, yes the dam was a pretty big point at the time, yes. And do you recall Ms McKay making some personal criticisms of Mr Owen during that debate?---I can’t recall any comments but they were all at each other. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6469T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) Do you recall Ms McKay asking Mr Gallacher about where the Coalition sat in relation to the Hunter Development Corporation and Mr Gallacher saying that was a matter for the Planning Minister, not him?---Not specifics, no. And do you recall that there was a debate about Labor’s failures in the Hunter and Mr Gallacher making the point that Labor was past it’s used by date?---It’s quite likely that a comment like that was said, yes. And Ms McKay was critical of Mr Gallacher because she said that he did 10 not live in the Hunter?---Yes, I do recall that. And Mr Gallacher explaining it was his wife who made the decision about where the family lived?---Um, sort of - - - It’s probably a given but - - -?---Yes, you can’t get angry with the wife. And do you recall Ms McKay trying to justify that there had been substantial Labor Government investment in Newcastle?---Um, all politicians justify their existence, yes. 20 And do you recall Ms McKay conceding that it looked like Barry O’Farrell was going to win Government?---Um, she may have. And do you recall there was a debate about the future of coal in the Hunter, that was an issue that was raised at the debate?---Yeah, coal was raised, yeah. And do you recall Mr Gallacher making some statement to the effect that Hunter had coal as its strength and it should take advantage of it while it had 30 the opportunity and dismissing it out of sight was short sighted, do you recall him saying to that effect?---Oh he commented on I suppose a positive on coal, to the words to that effect, I’m not sure. And you recall Ms McKay saying that she wasn’t walking away from the coal industry but wanted more diversity on the Hunter Port?---Um, she could have, that was a typical political spin that she used, yes. Now, do you recall Mr Gallacher saying at the debate, that, and it was Liberal Policy, that the Liberal’s supported coal in the Hunter?---Um, I 40 don’t recall him saying that, I think that was in one of the articles I read. Okay. Thank you. And there was no discussion on the coal loader at the debate, is that correct?---Um, not that I can recall anything specific, no. Okay. Thank you. Now Commissioner, can the witness be shown Exhibit Z56, this was an email that you sent to Mr Sharpe after the debate and Commissioner the witness was cross-examine – I withdraw that. The 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6470T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) witness was examined about this at page, have I got it right or not? Yes, page 6371 to 6372.---Sorry Mr Moses, what page? Page 294 of Exhibit Z56 and I’ll just giving the transcript reference for the Commissioner’s benefit and your Counsels. So it’s page 294 of Exhibit Z56. Now, you’re of the view in this email that Mr Gallacher performed better than Ms McKay at the debate, correct?---Um, yes. And that is why, that is why you expressed the view that you did, that he 10 had smashed Ms McKay, correct, at the debate?---Um, yeah, I think he performed better, yes. Now can I then ask that you go to page 296 of that exhibit, Exhibit Z56, you were shown these messages by Counsel Assisting yesterday and that’s at page 6372 of the transcript, Commissioner. Counsel Assisting put to you that the debate was between 12.00 noon and 2.00pm and he said to you the following, “Even while you were there in Town Hall at 1.16 you sent a text message to Mike Gallacher.” Now if you look at the time for that message which is - - -?---Sorry what, sorry, Mr Moses, what page did you say? 20 Okay, page 296, do you have that?---Oh, yeah, sorry, yeah. Counsel Assisting put a question to you yesterday - - -?---Yeah. - - - where he said to you, incorrectly, that “Even while you were there in Town Hall at 1.16 you sent a text message to Mike Gallacher”, if you look at the message that he was referring to he actually should have said 2.16pm, not 1.16pm, do you see that?---Oh, okay, yeah, sorry. 30 Yeah?---Yeah. So it’s the case isn’t it that you sent that text after the function had ended and Mr Gallacher had left the function, correct?---Um, yeah, well, I misinterpreted that when I asked the original question. That wasn’t your fault, it was Counsel Assisting’s fault. So, so you sent that text after the function had ended, correct?---Um, well, if it finished at 2 o'clock, yes. 40 Yeah. And it’s the – and this is the case, isn’t it, did you observe Mr Gallacher leaving straightaway after that function - - -?---Um - - - - - - and not speaking to you after the function?---I don’t recall speaking to him so he possibly could of. Okay. And if you can go back then to page 296 while we’re there, Mr Gallacher’s response to you, “Hope Simmo was happy,” at 3.03 - - -? ---Yeah. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6471T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) - - - pm, I think yesterday, this is at page 6373 of the transcript, Commissioner, the effect of your evidence was that you did not know what Mr Gallacher was referring to there but you speculated that it may have been a reference at that time, you didn’t think that Mr Simmons and Ms McKay were seeing eye to eye?---I do recall I said that, yes, yeah. And that was an assumption that you made as to what Mr Gallacher may have been referring to, correct?---Yes. 10 Yes. But that is not something which Mr Gallacher said to you expressly, correct?---No, it’s just - - - Okay. And Commissioner, just so that you know in terms of the positive case of Mr Gallacher what Mr Gallacher’s evidence will be, it’ll be recounting back to Mr Simmons’ earlier statement to him when he first became involved in the Hunter that it would be good for Newcastle to become a marginal seat but I don’t think I should need to put that to the witness, it would not be fair to have to do that with him. 20 Can I then go to page 299 of Exhibit Z56. Yesterday you were asked questions by Counsel Assisting and the Commissioner about this email and again just for reference, Commissioner, that appears at pages 6358 through to 6360 of the transcript of yesterday, if I understand your evidence yesterday, Mr Williams, you have no recollection now of any conversation or discussion with Mr Gallacher on 15 March, is that right, 2011?---No, I, don’t, no, I couldn’t recall specifics. And in response to a question that was asked by the Commissioner 30 yesterday, and it’s at page 6360, Commissioner, to yesterday, you said that what you said may have been said that caused you to send the email was that Mr Gallacher may have something to you that he was ready to do what he could do as a Minister in order to support the proposal. That’s the evidence you gave yesterday when you were speculating about that? ---Yeah, I think so, yeah. And this is the position though, isn’t it, that you actually have no recollection of what Mr Gallacher may have said to you that day. Correct? ---Yes. 40 And what you – and you were speculating what you think may have been said. Correct?---Yes. But you agree with me don’t you that the words, “he is ready to go,” are your words, not Mr Gallacher’s words. Correct?---Yeah. They are your words?---Yeah. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6472T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) And what I want to suggest to you, that if there was any discussion with Mr Gallacher about Buildev’s plans at Mayfield, it would have been nothing more than him saying to you, I think as you recounted this as part of your evidence yesterday, that it would need to go through the planning processes within the new Government?---Yeah, it was always the intent that it had to go through the process. And I want to suggest to you that Mr Gallacher never told you that he supported the proposal or that he would be supporting it in Government or 10 that he would be doing anything to assist Buildev in order to sidestep the proper planning processes. Do you agree with that?---Yes, it always had to go through the process. Thank you. And what I wanted to also suggest to you is that you also assumed, did you not, at this stage that Mr Gallacher may have actually had some role to play in the consideration of the proposal as the Minister for the Hunter but you actually did not know whether in fact that was the case in terms of it falling within his Ministerial responsibilities. Would you agree with that? That is you just assumed this was part of his job as Minister for 20 the Hunter?---Yeah, it was more, yeah, for the Hunter, yeah. Thank you. And what I want to put to you is this, that – no, I won’t put this, Commissioner, but the positive case of Mr Gallacher- - - MR WATSON: Well, I object. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes. Well- - - MR WATSON: I’ve heard it a million times, shouldn’t be a commentary. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I, I- - - MR MOSES: No, no, I’m sorry. MR WATSON: I object. THE COMMISSIONER: No, I- - - MR MOSES: Commissioner- - - 40 THE COMMISSIONER: I understand, Mr Moses, you’ve told me that before, but- - - MR MOSES: Well, I think we’ve sought to tender documents that will demonstrate that Mr- - - THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right. Well- - - 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6473T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) MR MOSES: - - -Gallacher actually had no portfolio responsibility for this issue from a particular time, he actually divested himself of that portfolio responsibility. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, we know that from previously. MR MOSES: Thank you, thank you. Now, I’m just going onto the topic now of Nathan Tinkler. You were asked some questions yesterday in relation to page 297 of Exhibit Z56 by Counsel Assisting. You will see that 10 these are text messages relating to you trying to organise a meeting – have I got – just bear with me, Commissioner, have I got the right page? No. Just hold on before you go to that page, we’ll get you the correct page in a moment. Just give me a moment, Mr Williams, we’ll just turn up the correct page so we don’t have, we don’t have the associate having to run up and down. It’s page 279 of Exhibit Z56. Do you have that, Mr Williams? ---Yes. You’ll see that these are text messages relating to you trying to organise a meeting between Mr Gallacher and Mr Tinkler. Do you see that?---Yes. 20 And this is at transcript page 6357, Commissioner. Your evidence in relation to questions from Counsel Assisting yesterday was that you assumed that Michael would have had a willingness to meet Nathan as part of, these are your words, “I suppose building relationships, and Nathan I think would have liked to have met Michael.” Do you recall giving that evidence yesterday?---Um, yes. And of course that was an assumption on your part as to, as to Mr Gallacher’s position?---Um, oh, I assume that would have wanted to meet 30 each other, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And the fact is, is this not, to your knowledge, to the best of your knowledge Mr Gallacher and Mr Tinkler never met, did they? ---Um, no, not, not, not that I can recall. No. And if you look at the second and third texts on that page you will see that you were also trying to organise a meeting with Mr Tinkler and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr O’Farrell?---Um, yeah, I believe so, yes. 40 Did Mr Tinkler ever meet Mr O’Farrell to the best of your knowledge? ---Um, off the top of my head, not that I can recall. Okay. And if you look at the third text you will see that it says, “March 10 is confirmed with Stoner?”---Yes. And that’s referring to the dinner at the Crowne Plaza in Terrigal which was not attended by Mr Tinkler. Correct?---Yeah, Mr Tinkler didn’t go to that, no. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6474T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) And to the best of your knowledge did Mr Tinkler ever meet Mr Stoner? ---Um, I can’t recall a time that I was present at, no. Okay. Now, yesterday you were asked some questions – this is at page 6416, 6461, sorry, Commissioner, of the transcript yesterday. I asked you some questions about the dinner at Rockpool on 8 December, 2010. Do you recall me asking you some questions about that?---Yeah, yeah. 10 And you said that you were a guest. Do you recall that?---Yes. And you were a guest of Aston Resources?---Yes. Do you recall that Mr Tinkler was at that dinner?---Um- - - At which Mr Stoner was present?---Um, I don’t think he was. THE COMMISSIONER: You don’t think Mr Tinkler was present?---No, I don’t think so, no. 20 MR MOSES: Thank you. Now, the next topic I want to go to is the issue of contact or no contact with Mr Gallacher after he became a Minister. This is the final topic, Commissioner. After Mr Gallacher became the Minister, this is the position, isn’t it, that he was not accessible to you as he was when he was a Shadow Minister. Would that be correct?---Yes. And you had no discussions or dealings with Mr Gallacher after the 2011 State Election?---Um, none that I can recall, no. 30 And that includes any responses to the text message that you were shown yesterday that you sent to Mr Gallacher on his mobile phone – this is at, Commissioner, if the witness could be shown or the witness could go to page 303 of Exhibit Z56 and questions were asked about this by Counsel Assisting yesterday between pages 6362 to 6365. Thank you. Do you recall being shown those text messages- - -?---Yes. - - -to Mr Gallacher and Mr Hartcher?---Yes. Now, this is the position, isn’t it. You didn’t receive a response from Mr 40 Gallacher to that message, did you?---Um, I, I can’t recall getting one back and I haven’t seen one in any of this so I can assume yes. Yeah, well, what I want to suggest, what I want to suggest to you is that you didn’t receive a response from him. Do you agree with that?---Yeah, well, I can’t see one so it’s most likely. Yeah. And what I also want to suggest to you is that you never spoke to Mr Gallacher about the content of that text message. Do you agree with that? 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6475T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) ---Um, from what I can recall, yes. Yes, you didn’t speak to him?---Yes, yes, I didn’t speak to him, yeah. Yes, thank you. And, and you’ve also I think sent a similar text message to Mr Hartcher I think as we’ve set, as set out there at point 38. Correct? ---Yeah, that’s right. Was that sent to any other persons apart from those two individuals?---Um, 10 not, not, not that I can recall. Is it possible it could have been or you just can’t recall?---Um, unlikely. Okay. And if you then go to page 305 of Exhibit, of Exhibit Z19, if the witness could be shown Exhibit Z19, page 305. You’ll see here this is an SMS – just bear with me, Mr Williams, we’ll get to it, thank you. It’s page 330 I apologise, of Exhibit Z19. Page 330 of Exhibit Z19?---Yeah. That seems to be a text message from Mr Owen - - -?---No. 20 Do you have that? Do you have the wrong – yeah, are we in Exhibit Z19? Just bear with me. Yes, we have Exhibit Z19 and its page 330 on the top right-hand page or page 308 in the middle. MR WATSON: 308, page 308. MR MOSES: That numbering would appear in the centre of the page, page 308, Mr Williams, do you have that?---Hang on. 30 It says page 330 on the right-hand side and page 308 in the middle?---Yeah. Do you have that?---Got it. Okay. This, this seems to be a text message from Mr Owen but it refers there from DW, “Sorry, are you able to follow up with MG? Sorry, mate, been flat out.” And there’s a reference there, “Tim has been good to work with, mate, but disappointed we get no feedback or help from Mike G.”? ---Yeah. 40 Did you express disappointment at some stage that after the Liberals had got into power that you were unable to contact Mr Gallacher to anybody or was that - - -? MR WATSON: I object to that, that’s, that’s not what that reads. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think – no. I think the problem, Mr Moses, is that that message has to be read with the punctuation after the word - - - 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6476T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) MR MOSES: Yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: - - - “from” - - - MR MOSES: Yeah, I’ve got that. THE COMMISSIONER: - - - and the question mark appearing after the words “Mike G”. 10 MR MOSES: Got that. THE COMMISSIONER: The interpretation - - - MR MOSES: I might withdraw, I might withdraw the question, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR MOSES: I’ll withdraw the question. Those are the questions I have for 20 Mr Williams, thank you, Mr Williams. Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Henskens. MR HENSKENS: Mr Williams, I’ll just remind you again, my name is Henskens and I appear for Mr Hartcher. Mr Williams, there’s no document in evidence suggesting a diary entry or file note of any meeting between you and Mr Hartcher at any time after the March 2011 State Election. You agree with me that you had no face to face meetings with Mr Hartcher after the March 2011 Election. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, those two things are not necessarily connected, Mr Henskens, but in any event - - - MR HENSKENS: I’m putting a proposition. THE COMMISSIONER: I know but you don’t make a statement about the state of the evidence and then put the proposition if there’s no logical connection. The question is, Mr Williams, did you have any or rather do you accept Mr Henskens’ proposition that there was no face to face meeting 40 with Mr Hartcher after the election?---Um, not, not that I can recall, no. MR HENSKENS: Thank you. You agree with the proposition?---Yes. Thank you. I want to put to you that there was no exchange or there have been no exchanges of emails between you and Mr Hartcher at any time after the March 2011 State Election, do you agree with that?---Um, there’s none that I can recall, like just - - - 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6477T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES)/(HENSKENS) Right. Now could the witness – I withdraw that. There appear to be only four telephone records of any attempted communications between you and Mr Hartcher after the State Election in 2011 and I just want to take you to those. Could the witness please be shown Exhibit Z56. Could you turn to page 303 please. I’m taking you now, Mr Williams, to the four records of any telephone communications or possible telephone communications between you and Mr Hartcher and the first one is at page 303 and you’ll see that it is the text message of 9 April, 2011 which you were asked some questions about by Mr Watson, do you see that?---Um, yes. 10 That’s on 9 April. Now could you go forward two pages to page 305? ---Yes. This is a few days after, a text message sent by you to Mr Hartcher, “Mate, can you give me a call please, mate,” do you see that?---Yes. Now do you agree that that is the sort of SMS which you sent when you were having difficulty speaking to someone?---Um, from the, from the writing of that, he, he hasn’t contacted me since the last one. 20 Yes. And well, I’m suggesting to you that you haven’t spoken, do you agree with that?---Um, it appears that way, yes. Thank you. And – all right. Now, Mr Williams, after that text message on 12 April, 2011 there is no telephone record of you and Mr Hartcher having any further communications after that date to the present point in time, does that accord with your recollection of the fact - - -?---Oh - - - - - - that is that you never did telephone each other or send SMS messages to 30 each other after 12 April, 2011?---Um, from what I’ve seen here and to my recollection it appears that way. Thank you. All right. Now, can I just take you back to the preceding page which is page 304 and Mr Williams, the actual telephone numbers are blanked out on this page but at Exhibit S10 page 2827 I want to tell you that the phone numbers that are the subject of these calls is your mobile phone and Mr Hartcher’s mobile phone, will you accept that for me?---Okay, yeah. All right. Now going to the communication on 10 April, right, do you agree 40 with me that the length of 28 seconds, it is probable that you did not speak with Mr Hartcher and that he left a voice message on your mobile phone? ---Um, 28 seconds it could be. Well, it’s not likely or probable is it that you were able to speak to Mr Hartcher about the port matter which was the subject of your text at page 303 - - -?---Yes. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6478T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) - - - in 28 seconds, do you agree with that?---Um, no, not in 28 seconds, no, no. All right, so you agree with me that it’s probable that that records him leaving a voice message on your mobile phone? Do you agree with that? ---Most likely. Yeah. And if you go to the next call on 11 April that’s from you, your mobile phone to Mr Hartcher’s mobile phone?---Yes. 10 And, of 1 minute and 15 seconds. Taken with the text message on the next day which suggests, as you’ve already agreed with me that you were having difficulties speaking with Mr Hartcher, I want to suggest to you that it’s also probable that on 11 April you left a voice message for Mr Hartcher and didn’t speak to him. Do you agree with that?---Um, based on that, yes. Because again it’s not probable that you could have spoken to Mr Hartcher about the port matter in a minute, 15 seconds is it?---No, it’s most likely a voice mail, yeah. 20 Most likely a voice mail?---Yeah. Thank you. And that accords with your recollection does it not that you did not have any conversations of any with Mr Hartcher at all after the March, 2011 election until this day, doesn’t it?---Um, that’s what is shows, yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You mean until 11 April? MR HENSKENS: No. I’m talking about at any time from the March 2011 30 election until today you have not had a conversation with Mr Hartcher, have you? MR WATSON: It’s being put as an affirmative proposition, that’s - - - MR HENSKENS: Yes I am. THE COMMISSIONER: It appears that way. Yes. MR WATSON: Yes. 40 MR HENSKENS: I am?---Yes. You agree with that?---That’s the way it appears, yes. And that’s your recollection isn’t it?---Um, yeah. I can’t recall a specific discussion, so yes. Thank you. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6479T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) THE COMMISSIONER: It’s his recollection that he has no recollection?--- Yeah. MR HENSKENS: That seems to be – now, can I take you back to page 303 and the SMS message to Mr Hartcher. You were, you were asked this question at transcript page 6371, lines 8 to 10 by Mr Watson. “Well tell me why then were you contacting Mr Hartcher?” And you answered, “Um, because he had an interest in the, he, he was I suppose seeing a lot of merit 10 and benefit in the port proposal as well.” Do you remember giving that evidence?---Yeah, to that effect, yes. You agree with me that prior to this text message all that Mr Hartcher had expressed to you about the port proposal was that he saw the benefit of it being assessed on its merits through the usual processes. Do you agree with that?---Yes. And I want to put to you that to your knowledge after the March 2011 election Mr Hartcher did nothing to promote the BHP site proposal did he?-- 20 -Um, it appears that way, no. All right. Now, it’s now somewhat distant memory, Mr Edwards, but ah, Mr Williams, but two days ago you were asked some questions by Mr Watson about an allegation that Mr Hartcher had approached Mr Edwards as the Member of Swansea about an extension to Buildev’s option over some Crown Land at Swansea. Do you remember that?---Yes. And can I just read to you some of the questions and answers. Commissioner, it’s transcript page 6297. At about line 15 you were asked, 30 “Did you ring Mr Hartcher and ask him to intercede on your behalf with Mr Edwards?” And you answered, “No, not, no, not that I can recall. No.” And then you were asked, “Did, you said before that you were familiar with the fact that the term of the option had expired. Did Buildev want an extension of the option with the Crown?” And you said, “Oh, we, we wouldn’t have said no to it, Mr Watson, but it was a marginal project. It was here nor there.” Did you mean to say it was neither here nor there?--- Yeah. That’s what I meant, yeah. Yeah. And by that did you mean to communicate that it wasn’t a high 40 priority for Buildev, that project?---No it wasn’t. All right. Now, then at line 40 you were asked these questions, “Well can you explain to us about circumstances in which, if this evidence is true, circumstances in which Mr Hartcher approached Gary Edwards?” And you said, “I, I, I have no knowledge of why he did,” all right. And then you were asked, “Is that the sort of thing that you might have felt that you could ask Mr Hartcher to do on your behalf?” And you said, “I could ask him to do that, yeah.” And then you were asked, “Do you think it’s possible that 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6480T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) you did?” And you said, “I don’t recall, no, I don’t recall it at all.” And then Mr Watson said, “No, I didn’t ask you that.” And you said, “It’s possible, it’s possible but like I say I,” and then you were interrupted by Mr Watson. “It’s the sort of thing that you ask him to do on your behalf?” And you said, “Yeah.” All right. Now, I just want to ask you about that evidence. You’ve already agreed with me that you didn’t meet – I want to talk about the opportunity of you asking Mr Hartcher to get involved in that matter. You’ve agreed with me that to your recollection you never met with Mr Hartcher after the 2011 election. Do you agree with that?---Yes. 10 You’re not aware of any exchange of emails after the March 2011 election, do you agree with that?---Yes. And I’ve taken you to the only phone records and SMS records of any communications between you and Mr Hartcher, those four records I’ve take you to and you agree there’s no SMS message with regard to the Buildev Swansea project is there?---Um, not that I’ve seen, no. And you’ve agreed with me that the only two phone calls are most probably 20 voice messages between, left by you and Mr Hartcher on each other’s phones, you agree with that?---Um, that’s the way it looks, yes. Given that level of contact between you and Mr Hartcher after the 2011 election I want to suggest to you having had those records and that, those matters now brought to your attention you’d agree with me that you had no opportunity to ask Mr Hartcher to get involved in the Swansea project after the 2011 election did you?---Um, it appears that way but like I said I couldn’t, I can’t recall any contact with him. 30 Well, I want to, I want to put to you fairly, Mr Williams, that it’s really, given the absence of any contact between you and Mr Hartcher it’s just not possible that you asked him or made a request of him to get involved on Buildev’s behalf with regard to the Swansea project is it?---Yeah, it, it appears unlikely, yes. Well, it’s highly improbable isn’t it?---You could say that, yes. Well, if you didn’t speak to him how could you make a request?---Yep. You’re right, yes. 40 Thank you. And what I want to put to you, Mr Williams, is this, that after the 2011 election to your knowledge Mr Hartcher did nothing at all to favour the interests of Buildev did he?---Um, no. He didn’t speed any access to anyone in Government after the 2011 election did he?---Um, not from what I can see, no. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6481T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) And he didn’t intervene in any decisions on behalf of Buildev after the March 2011 election did he?---Um, no, not from what I can see. Thank you. Now, can I, can I take you to page 136 of Exhibit Z56, and I want to go to some questions that you were asked by Mr Watson in respect of page 136. This is transcript page 6356. Mr Williams, you were asked this – well first of all can I just go to page 136?---Yep. Of Exhibit Z56. Now, the two communications on that page between you 10 and Mr Hartcher are set out, they’re the fourth and fifth entries on the page. Do you see that?---Yeah. They’re actually highlighted?---Yeah. Do you see that? Now, again I want to tell you by reference, will you accept from me and by reference to Exhibit S9, page 2690, that the calls made by Mr Hartcher to you are both to your mobile telephone. Will you accept that?---(No Audible Reply) 20 Do you understand what I’m putting to you, Mr Williams?---Yeah, he’s calling my mobile, yes. He’s calling your mobile phone?---Yes. Now, first of all if we go to the second call, you agree with me that the four- second call recorded there does not indicate that you had any conversation with Mr Hartcher. Do you agree with that?---Yes, yeah. You weren’t in the habit of having four-second conversations with Mr 30 Hartcher, were you?---No, not a four-second, I don’t know. Or anyone for that matter?---No. All right. Now, if you go to the entry above that, again a 30-second communication I suggest to you is most probably Mr Hartcher leaving a message on your mobile phone. Do you agree with that?---The first one? Yes?---Yes, yeah, more likely 30 seconds, yes. 40 I mean it’s most probable, isn’t it?---Yes. Now, you were asked this at transcript page 6356 by Mr Watson at line 40. “Would you turn to page 136. I’m only showing you this because it seems as though it continues but here there are, there’s connections with Mr Hartcher’s office, see that, between you and Mr Hartcher?” And you answered, “Yeah.” And then you were asked, “And again can I ask you, what would that be, would it be a personal matter?” And you said, “No, it 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6482T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) would be Buildev-related.” Do you remember that evidence?---Um, yes, I do. Now, Mr Watson when he asked those questions didn’t draw to your attention the length of those communications, did he, the length of the connections?---Um, no, I don’t think he referred to the time, no. Yeah. And having regard to me now drawing those matters to your attention, you agree with me that you didn’t talk about anything, let along 10 anything Buildev-related. Do you agree with that?---Um, yes, going off the time, yes. Thank you. Now, I just want to ask you about the conversation that you did have with Mr Hartcher from time to time in the lead-up to the March 2011 Election. You agree with me don’t you that you frequently discussed the machinations of Macquarie Street and State politics with Mr Hartcher, didn’t you?---Um, yeah, it’s a common topic with most politicians, yeah. Yes. But you were actually a very knowledgeable person about State 20 politics, weren’t you?---Um, oh, I knew a bit about it, yeah. Now, for example do you agree with me that a few days before Nathan Rees was deposed as Premier, you told Mr Hartcher that that was about to happen, didn’t you?---Oh, I think most of New South Wales knew that was going to happen. And I suggest to you that- - - MR WATSON: He did give a press interview which was pretty celebrated. 30 MR HENSKENS: - - -you, you were – I’m talking about a few days. MR WATSON: It was a few days before. MR HENSKENS: You were the source – I suggest to you that you informed Mr Hartcher of that matter before it had hit public knowledge or become public knowledge. What do you say about that?---Oh, I think, I think a lot of people knew, but yes, I did tell him before it was publicly announced, yeah. 40 Yeah. Or speculated on publicly I suggest to you?---Yeah, it was a- - - MR WATSON: Commissioner, there’s a problem with that. I mean I know this for a fact because I’ve had to read it. There was speculation in the paper the very day after Mr Tripodi was removed from the, from the Ministry. THE COMMISSIONER: From the Ministry. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6483T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) MR WATSON: So unless- - - THE COMMISSIONER: I’m having a different problem with this, Mr Henskens. So what, what’s the relevance? MR HENSKENS: Oh, well, it goes to the sorts of matters that were being discussed. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: But what’s the relevance to this inquiry about the circumstances surrounding Mr Rees’- - - MR HENSKENS: Oh, no, Commissioner, it’s about the kinds of matters that Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams communicated. MR WATSON: Oh, then can we move to the point. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, well, well, you can- - - 20 MR WATSON: It’s about 5 to 11.00. THE COMMISSIONER: You can put to him- - - MR HENSKENS: Yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: - - -in general terms the kinds of discussions that he had with Mr Hartcher, but I mean whether or not he was privy to some inside information doesn’t help me. 30 MR HENSKENS: It was an example, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Go on. MR HENSKENS: I accept that. Anyway, I think he’s accepted the proposition, Commissioner. I’ll, I’ll move on. Now, you were asked some questions about the Wallarah Bay Recreation Club Shadow Cabinet. Do you remember those questions?---Yeah, yeah. And I can get the, I can get the document put before you but do you 40 remember that Mr Moses put a running sheet- - -?---Yeah. - - -in front of you yesterday- - -?---Yes. - - -which suggested, and I think you accepted, that at the time that Mr Stoner was being spoken to by the Buildev representatives, Mr Hartcher and Mr Gallacher had a different meeting?---I think- - - 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6484T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS) Do you remember that?---From, I think that’s what I said, and Mr Stoner I met by himself, yeah. Yes indeed. And what I want to put to you is that although Mr Hartcher greeted you on that day, you, he wasn’t present during the presentation that Buildev put to Mr Stoner, was he?---I don’t believe so, no. And also you didn’t give any separate briefing, that is the Buildev representatives didn’t give any separate briefing to Mr Hartcher on that day 10 with regard to the Port proposal?---Oh, not, not that I can recall, no. Those are the matters, thank you, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions of Mr Williams? Yes, Mr Strickland. MR STRICKLAND: Yes, Mr Williams, Strickland is my name and I appear for Mr Roozendaal. 20 MR WATSON: Microphone, please. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Strickland, could you just pull the microphone towards you. MR STRICKLAND: Certainly. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. MR STRICKLAND: Can you hear me? 30 THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR STRICKLAND: You’ve given evidence that you had a few meetings with Mr Roozendaal do discuss Buildev’s proposal for a coal terminal? ---Yes. And the thrust of those meetings was that you made a case to him that the coal terminal would bring economic benefits to the, to the Hunter region. Is that right?---Um, the Hunter region and the greater New South Wales, yeah. 40 Yeah. And that case that you put to him was that it would bring jobs and royalties, investment. Is that right?---That’s right. Is it true that it was an important part of that proposal that an easement in favour of Buildev be granted from the Intertrade Site across the Mayfield Site owned by NPC to the proposed coal terminal?---Ah, yeah, to access the berthing, yes. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6485T E12/2107/0821 (HENSKENS)/(STRICKLAND) Yeah. Now, do you agree that at all times before the March Election the Buildev proposal that you were putting to Mr Roozendaal was based upon the coal terminal the container terminal running in parallel, that is coexisting?---Well, they could, yes, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And in January 2011 do you recall speaking to Treasury officials about that proposal?---Um, potentially, yes. I beg your pardon?---Um, we had a few meetings so we may have, yes. 10 And you provided them documents. Do you recall that?---Um, we had presentations, we could have, yes. Now, you’ve known Mr Roozendaal for a number of years. Is that right? ---Um, yeah, a fair length of time. I beg your pardon?---A fair length of time, yeah. Now, you’ve discovered over that fair length of time that you shared an 20 interest in cars. Is that right?---Um, yeah. Something called Muscle Cars. Is that right?---Yes. Which are the big American cars made in the sixties and the seventies? ---Yes. Okay. Commissioner, could the witness please be given Exhibit Z10, page 71?---Sorry, what page, Mr- - - 30 71?---Yep. I just want to take you to the top text message. This is a text message from yourself to Ann Wills- - -?---Yeah. - - -on 16 February. And you have, what you have texted her is, “Need resident letter out Friday ASAP, Jody is pushing Eric to announce container terminal.” Do you see that?---Yes. And I think you’ve agreed before, Jodi is Jodi McKay and Eric is Eric 40 Roozendaal?---Yes. Do I take it that at the time you sent that text you did not know whether Mr Roozendaal was going to announce, make an announcement in favour of the container terminal?---Um, no, I didn’t know what he was going to do. They’re my questions, thank you. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6486T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND) THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr Williams? Right. Mr Williams, thank you. Oh, Mr Watson – sorry, Mr Izzo, I’m sorry? MR IZZO: No, thank you, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Watson, anything arising? 10 MR WATSON: Yes, I do. Could the witness be shown Exhibit Z56 for a moment and, Mr Williams, if you’d open this up at page 177, in context this is within some accounts which are there involving the Buildev group, yes?-- -Yeah. And this provides for the time which was spent by the special purpose vehicle Buildev Intertrade Consortium Pty Limited using the Tinkler Group helicopter, correct?---No, that was Buildev’s helicopter. Buildev’s helicopter was it?---Yes. 20 Well, sorry, this is an internal account within Buildev in that case?---Yeah, yeah. And we can see the meeting with Mr Tripodi is there, 19 November, 2010 and it’s allocated 3.1 hours and the allocated cost is $1,800 per hour? ---Yes. $5,580 in other words?---Yes. 30 Thank you. That’s all I have for Mr Williams. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Williams, you can step down, you’re excused. THE WITNESS EXCUSED [11.01am] MR WATSON: So I’m not sure, is there some fuss whether Mr Tinkler or 40 Mr Simmons is next? I was going to call Mr Simmons? THE COMMISSIONER: I think Mr Simmons is going to be reasonably brief isn’t he? MR WATSON: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Simmons, just come forward if you wouldn’t mind. 29/08/2014 WILLIAMS 6487T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) MR STEWART: Yes, good morning, Commissioner, Stewart, solicitor. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Stewart. MR STEWART: I’ve explained the provisions of section 38 to Mr Simmons and he’d seek the declaration and he would like to have an affirmation. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Just take a seat, Mr Simmons. Could I just ensure that you appreciate that the section 38 order protects you from the use of your answers against you in civil and criminal proceedings but does not protect you if it should be found you’ve given false or misleading evidence, you understand that? MR SIMMONS: Yes, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to section 38 of the Independent 20 Commission Against Corruption Act, I declare that all answers given by this witness and all documents and things produced by this witness during the course of the witness’s evidence at this public inquiry are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection and accordingly there is no need for the witness to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. PURSUANT TO SECTION 38 OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT, I DECLARE THAT 30 ALL ANSWERS GIVEN BY THIS WITNESS AND ALL DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PRODUCED BY THIS WITNESS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WITNESS’S EVIDENCE AT THIS PUBLIC INQUIRY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN GIVEN OR PRODUCED ON OBJECTION AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE WITNESS TO MAKE OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR ANSWER GIVEN OR DOCUMENT OR THING PRODUCED. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Can the witness be affirmed, please. 29/08/2014 6488T E12/2107/0821 MR WATSON: Are you David William Simmons?---Yes, I am. Previously you’ve been the ALP Federal Member for Calare?---That’s correct. That was between 1983 and 1996?---Correct. 10 You remained active in the Australian Labor Party after you left Parliament? ---Yes. You’re married to Kaye Simmons?---Yes. Kaye Simmons and yourself have got a business which trades under the corporate entity Daskay Pty Limited?---Correct. And Ms, Mrs Simmons is a skilful person in politics herself?---Yes. 20 She had for example been the campaign manager for Jodi McKay in the campaign for the seat of Newcastle in 2007?---Yes, she was and she was also on the campaign team in 2011. And since leaving Parliament at least part of your work has been that of a lobbyist?---Yes. You were registered under both the State and Federal schemes?---Correct. 30 And what’s the name of the firm under which you practise your lobbying? ---David Simmons Corporate Communications. And one of your clients has been Buildev?---Yes. When were they first your client, Mr Simmons?---2001. And in 2001 to the present day you’ve had different tasks that you’ve done for them on the lobbying front?---Yes. 40 Is one of those tasks related to Buildev’s proposal for a coal terminal at the Mayfield site in Newcastle?---Yes. Is another of the tasks in respect of a couple of proposals which Buildev had in the area of North Richmond?---Yes. And in respect of the coal loader project or coal terminal project with whom at Buildev did you have most contact?---Darren Williams. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6489T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And on the North Richmond project who at Buildev did you contact the most?---Ah, Darren Williams and Mark Regent. And from time to time on the coal loader project did you also speak to David Sharpe?---Yes. Or Ann Wills?---Yes. And on the North Richmond project did you also have any contact on that 10 project with David Sharpe?---Yes. Was Ann Wills involved in that?---No. And on the coal loader project, this is the Mayfield project, did you have discussions from time to time with Joe Tripodi?---Yes. And what about Mr Tripodi, was he involved at all in North Richmond? ---No. 20 All right. So - - -?---Well, not to my knowledge. Could I just go to now a little bit more detail about each of the separate projects, Mayfield and North Richmond, may I call them that and you and I will at least know what we’re talking about?---Yes. Mayfield. At Mayfield as you understood it Buildev had a project, they wanted approval for a coal terminal?---Yes. Now what was the benefit to Buildev?---In terms of the monetary value? 30 Well, that’s part of it?---I, I couldn’t give you the specifics of the monetary value but clearly being a major project it was going to be worth significant money to the company. And were there other aspects to it of which you were aware in relation to using that terminal as a means of exporting coal (1) from the mine at Maules Creek, were you told about that?---Yes. And what were you told about that?---Essentially that there were difficulties 40 with the Port Waratah Coal Service in terms of obtaining access for new players and therefore there was an opportunity with a new coal terminal to provide additional access for smaller players in the coal industry. Well, I don’t think Maules Creek in any sense was going to be a small player, I think it was planned as being the largest coalmine in New South Wales wasn’t it?---I’m not sure of the size of it but clearly I’m making the point that it was not like a BHP or a Rio Tinto. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6490T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) All right. Well, the point is that the – or the idea as it was conveyed to you, did that include that the Mayfield coal terminal could also service the needs of the Maules Creek Mine?---Yes. And who told you that?---It probably would have been both Darren Williams and also David Sharpe. Did you have any discussions at any time with Nathan Tinkler?---I met Nathan Tinkler only on I think two or three occasions in a helicopter ride 10 between Sydney and Newcastle, that was my only contact with Mr Tinkler and so any conversation in relating to the coal terminal would have been a very small conversation. All right. Well, what about Marke Vaile, we know that he was involved with Aston Resources Limited, that’s the company which owned Maules Creek, did you have any discussions with him?---No. Now you also mentioned – no, I’ll withdraw that. You would know Jodi McKay, she would have been probably pretty familiar to the Simmons 20 family?---Very well, very well. And I know that there may have been some tension in the household judging by one email that we’ve read about Ann Wills’ role with Jodi McKay as opposed to your wife’s role with Jodi McKay, is that right?---Yes. You did know that Jodi McKay had a strong view about the Mayfield coal terminal proposal?---Yes. And that was out in the public?---Yes, it was. 30 Was one of your tasks as a lobbyist in any sense, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with it, it’s what lobbyists do, was it one of your tasks to try to persuade Ms McKay to change her mind?---My task was actually to try and obtain a meeting with, with Jodi McKay on the, on the matter because we were in the process of briefing several other Ministers and obviously being the local Member and also the Minister for the Hunter I thought it totally appropriate that she should be also briefed on the project. And, Mr Simmons, how did that go, were you able to get such a meeting? 40 ---It was very unsuccessful. And did you know why?---I think arising from the fact that she was aware that Buildev was a major donor in her original campaign prior to Buildev being a prohibited donor subsequently and felt that there was potential conflict of interest, notwithstanding the fact that I indicated that I believed she should meet, I have an old-fashioned view that Members of Parliament should meet constituents and if there are issues of concerns that can be addressed with public servants available in that meeting. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6491T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) But in any event you couldn’t get a meeting with Ms McKay?---No. Now, you said - - -?---After several attempts. And you said that you were attempting to brief other Ministers. Who were they?---Minister Kelly and Minister Roozendaal. And Mr Kelly was the Minister for Planning?---Yes. 10 And Mr Roozendaal was the Treasurer and at a particular point in time the Minister for Ports, is that so?---Yes. At the time you were trying to see Mr Roozendaal was he only Treasurer or was he holding the two roles?---I can’t recall exactly. There were the odd ministerial changes during that period. There certainly were. The point was were you successful in getting in to see Mr Kelly?---Yes. 20 And the idea again was to what, solicit his support for the idea of a coal terminal?---We wanted to make sure that he was briefed because clearly um, in any, any Cabinet consideration of the issue the Planning Minister’s input and his department would have been important. Did you attend the meetings?---Yes, some meetings. Some. And do you know how many meetings were arranged for Buildev to meet with Tony Kelly?---Not exactly ah, but there would have been perhaps 30 two or three. And how many did you attend?---I would have been there for those meetings as I recall. And what was being laid before Mr Kelly in terms of documents, details of the proposal?---It was essentially the presentation that Buildev had developed for the proposed coal terminal that I was obviously familiar with, that they were using as a briefing document for key people. 40 Were you made aware as part of your brief, your general knowledge that you had to hold on the subject of the agreement, sometimes called the ACCC Agreement, sometimes called the Coal Framework Agreement, sometimes called the Coal Chain Agreement, did you know about that?---I wasn’t aware of the specific detail until a meeting we, we had with Minister Roozendaal where, where Mr Webb as CEO of the Newcastle Port Corporation provided that information. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6492T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) All right. Well, you didn’t have generally speaking as part of your background knowledge of this thing. Shall we call it the ACCC Agreement?---Yes. I’ll ask the question again. You didn’t have as part of your general knowledge or background for your brief knowledge of the ACCC Agreement?---No. And so the meetings with Mr Roozendaal, how many of those were there 10 that you attended?---As I recall I think there was only one that I attended. And - - -?---As a formal meeting. And that must have been the one with, where Mr Webb was also there?--- Yes. Well, we’ll come back to that. Do you know of other meetings which you organised or attempted to organise between Buildev and Mr Roozendaal?--- I can’t recall. 20 Well we’ve just heard from Mr Roozendaal’s barrister that Mr Roozendaal and Darren Williams had some pre-existing relationship and a common interest in muscle cars. Did you know of them having some pre-existing relationship?---Oh yes. And what do you say about that? Did you know what it related to?---Well, essentially it went back to a, a period of time when Buildev became a member of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party’s Business Dialogue Program and I’m not quite sure, but I think from my recollection 30 Minister Roozendaal at that stage was the general secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. That was an organisation which was essentially a fundraising wing of the Labor Party, is that right?---Yes. And what it was is that certain persons or businesses could take out a subscription - - -?---Yes. - - - and attend lunches which would be addressed by prominent Labor 40 figures?---Lunches, attendance at the annual conference of the Party, and various functions during the course of the year. And the subscription would cost different amounts depending upon the class of sponsorship?---Yes. But it could be several thousands of dollars a month?---Yes. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6493T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Do you know how much Buildev was paying, what sort of subscription it had?---Ah, they, they were a, a top level subscriber. I forget exactly what it was called but they were in the top category. Well these things get titles don’t they, platinum or gold and silver and whatnot?---It was - - - But whatever it was they were the top level?---They were the top one whatever it was called. 10 Did you know how much they were paying per month to subscribe?---Well, I have to do my mathematics but I think over the course of the year it was about, over the course of the year in total it was about $100,000. Now, so with that relationship was that something that you were able to build upon to get in to see Mr Roozendaal?---I’d known Mr Roozendaal from the very, long period of time going back to the time I was in Parliament and Mr Roozendaal was a young organiser at that stage with the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. 20 And what about with Mr Kelly, how was the introduction to be made there? No doubt your background in Labor politics would have been helpful?--- Yes. I’d known Mr Kelly since 1977. And was there any connection on a personal level or professional level between Buildev and Mr Kelly?---They had a very good cordial and professional relationship. Well, what I want to do is just show you some documents which relate to 30 each of – oh, so sorry, I forgot to ask you about North Richmond. Before I get there do you know a chap Ross Cadell?---No. I know of him. I forgot to ask you about North Richmond. North Richmond, what was your brief there?---Ah, essentially um, I was um, I was aware, aware of the project. I was aware that land in non-flood prone land was scarce within the County of Cumberland and a proposal was being developed by Buildev that could achieve the Government’s task of providing additional housing in western Sydney. And they had identified a site and I believed that that particular site had merit with the proposal that they had outlined to me. 40 Now, at your level of lobbying who were you lobbying?---At that stage ah, it would have been the um, the Minister for Planning. Right. That would have been Mr Kelly?---Yes. I think he was at the time. What were you lobbying Mr Kelly to achieve?---Well essentially, I think the, from my recollection the issue was clouded between the role of Hawkesbury Shire Council and the New South Wales Department of 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6494T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Planning in terms of those various organisations being the ultimate consent authority for any rezoning. But essentially there was a rezoning from a former agricultural land use in that site. Was there some perhaps suggestion that the proposal could be designated as State significant and lifted out of the Local Government into the State Government for consideration?---Yes. Did that happen?---I can’t recall the exact sequence. As I said there was a 10 role for the Hawkesbury Shire Council in terms of planning and I’m not quite sure from my recollection in terms of the interplay between those two consent bodies. So initially your job was to lobby, or arrange for meetings for lobbying to occur with Mr Kelly?---Yes. Also we were wanting to brief other Ministers who may have had other issues in terms of road access issues, water access, electricity supply to the area. So you’d know this area backwards, this whole idea of planning. There’s no 20 point having a big subdivision proposed in an area where, which can’t be served with infrastructure?---Correct. And by infrastructure I’m talking about the very fundamentals, roads and bridges to get to the land. Is that right?---Yes. Water and sewerage so that houses can be built there?---Yes. And a plan that the telephone would be going on in the area and that the electricity would be introduced to the area?---Yes. 30 It’s as clear and as fundamental as that, that without the infrastructure in place it’s just green fields?---Correct. And the area needed significant upgrade in basic infrastructure. One of the key issues here is, is that in terms of a Government, well I’m going to say a notional good Government’s planning for future development they look at designating particular areas as those where growth will be encouraged?---Yeah. 40 Residential growth?---Yes. The reason being is that there’s no point encouraging growth in West Richmond if it’s known that no infrastructure was going to go in for a long, long time?---Yes. Is that right? And so as I understand it the Government would then designate particular areas as those which within their overall planning strategy would be the areas which the Government would be providing the 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6495T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) infrastructure?---Yes. But also Buildev’s proposal included significant expenditures for upgrading a whole range of infrastructure for that proposal. Oh, that’s good. I’m just talking in the general, not Buildev?---Oh, I see. Just so that we – I mean, it’s as simple as this, that if all of a sudden a massive number of people are going to buy houses and live in a new suburb they might need a police station and the Government’s going to have to pay for it?---Correct. 10 Or a hospital. Or a school?---Yes. And so with that in mind the Government designates particular areas as ripe for development?---That’s correct. And one of the things is that the Government puts out a Master Development Plan from time to time which showed the designated areas? ---Yes. 20 Now, this is coming more back to the specifics of this instance. One of the issues was whether or not North Richmond could find its way onto the Master Development Plan. Is that so?---As I recall. I think that was one of your tasks, I’m not giving you a memory test, I’ll show you some documents in a moment related to trying to find out whether or not Mr Kelly’s office could get North Richmond into the Master Development Plan?---Yes. Because without that there wasn’t going to be the Government supply of 30 water, sewerage, hospitals, police stations, bridges or roads?---That’s correct, but except to make the point, Mr Watson, that part of the Buildev proposal was significant increase in infrastructure expenditure in their proposal. Were they going to build a school?---Not that I recall. Or a police station?---Certainly not. Now, that’s at State Government level. Did you also have a task to attempt 40 to make connections and lobby people at a Local Government level?---(No Audible Reply) This is North Richmond?---North, North Richmond. Um, I attended one meeting as I recall ah, involving the then Mayor in the early days of the development ah, I think also present was a planner, chief planner for the Council and also the general manager of the Council. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6496T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And was that a meeting with Bart Bassett, was that the- - -?---Oh, that, no, he wasn’t the Mayor at that stage. All right?---It was his predecessor. All right. So- - -?---A longstanding Mayor. And where did this meeting occur?---In the Hawkesbury Shire Council chambers. 10 And apart from that, you didn’t have any role in making connections or lobbying Local Government officials on the North Richmond projects. Is, is that the case?---As I recall there was ah, the, the Council was essentially a conservative-leaning Council with some Independents and I think one member of the Labor Party. And so you perhaps weren’t the right person to use as the entrée? ---Yes. 20 Could the witness be shown Exhibit Z10. Would you open this up at page 5, please, Mr Simmons. There’s been a little bit of reference to this document and I’m not going to spend must time on it, but it’s the sort of thing in which you could provide expert advice, that is who’s who in the zoo?---Yes. And then if you go to page 6 you’ll see that page 6 runs over to page 7. Now, it’s not your note, what it is, is a note made by David Sharpe, but at page 7 there’s in the second half of the page a section titled Strategy. Do you see that?---Yes. 30 And DS is going to meet with Ann and Simmo. You’re no doubt Simmo? ---Yes. And people call you that?---They do. And Ann is no doubt Ann Wills?---Yes. And you’ll see that there’s going to be a meeting between you and DS. Please assume that that’s David Sharpe?---Yes. 40 Now, you’ll see that there’s some reference here to DS is to arrange another meeting. Now, sorry, I should go back a step and tell you, the things I’m about to show you all relate to the Mayfield job?---Yes. You’ll see that DS is going to arrange another meeting with Andrew Stoner and Mike Gallacher and other Libs. Now, what did you know of Mr Sharpe or Buildev’s contact with those people, that is Mr Stoner, Mr Gallacher or other Libs, whoever they might be?---Not specific details but ah, in my 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6497T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) early days in working with the company I advised them, as any good lobbyist would advise their client, that today’s Opposition is tomorrow’s Government and they should establish good relationships with the Government and the Opposition, including Shadow Ministers. And it would probably be the case, given your background, that you may not have been used again as the battering ram to open Liberal Party doors for Buildev?---No. 10 But did you know that Buildev had acquired those sorts of links with Opposition figures such as Mr Stoner, Mr Gallacher and what’s described as other Libs?---I think that I was broadly aware of some relationships they had without knowing the specific details of that. Well, have a look at this because this is the kind of strategy which it seems that’s going to be discussed with you. You’ll see that there’s a reference there to, “Need to brief Joe and Eric so they can take charge of the situation.” And no doubt that’s Joe Tripodi and Eric Roozendaal. This is a time to ask you. What was Joe Tripodi doing in relation to this Mayfield 20 job as it related to Buildev? MR NEIL: Well, I object. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what’s the basis of the objection? MR NEIL: He could ask him what he saw or observed about it, but to ask this type of question invites speculation. MR WATSON: I’m not asking you to speculate, Mr Simmons. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: No, he’s not asking him to speculate. MR WATSON: I’ll make it clear. I’ll make it clear. I mean you told us earlier that you had met with Joe Tripodi in relation to the Mayfield task? ---I think I may have had a telephone conversation or, or two with him, I don’t think I actually met him face-to-face. Well, what did you see or hear or what were you told by somebody from Buildev that Mr Tripodi was doing in relation to the Mayfield job? 40 ---Ah, I understand, I understood that because of his contact with Ann Wills that she had briefed him on the, on the project and had sought his help. Now, just going back a step, we’ve spoken to Ms Wills earlier, you probably saw that in the paper, and we know that she had longstanding Labor connections herself?---Yes. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6498T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And you said because of Mr Tripodi’s contact with Ann Wills, or vice versa. What was that as you understood it?---Um, well, in terms of their factional links, they’d, they’d gone back a number of years. Well, and in context of Ann Wills, she was working for Buildev?---She was doing some work for Buildev but I wasn’t sure exactly what that work was. I was aware of some other work she’d previously done with Buildev on a completely different project. 10 That was something to do with Singleton or something was it?---Yes. Well, let’s put Singleton out of the picture and we’ll focus on Mayfield. In terms of Mayfield were you aware that Ms Wills was in contact with Mr Tripodi?---Yes. Was she telling you that?---Yes. And what was she telling you that she was doing with Mr Tripodi?---Ah, she was using her longstanding contact ah, to ask him for his support in the 20 project. And was he providing that on the reports that you were getting from Ann Wills?---I understand he was. And what sort of way did that manifest itself, was he providing documents or guidance or advice?---I don’t know that detail. You did have a conversation with him yourself?---Yes, I think he rang me or I was asked by Buildev to ring him on a particular occasion, so there 30 would be a telephone record of that. Yeah. About the Mayfield job?---Yes. And what about, what was the contact about, do you recall?---The contact was essentially about um, I think after the, the briefing with Minister Roozendaal that he was going to ah, use his best endeavours to push the case for Buildev. He being Mr Tripodi?---Mr Tripodi. 40 And you said after the meetings with Mr Roozendaal. Are you referring to Buildev’s meetings with Mr Roozendaal or Mr Tripodi’s meetings with Mr Roozendaal?---Ah, Mr – I think it was after Buildev’s meeting with Mr Roozendaal. And that Mr Tripodi was going to pursue this on behalf of Buildev? ---As I understand. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6499T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Why?---I don’t know. I presume that ah, there was some relationship that he had ah, with, with, with Buildev. You’ll see there that – and I appreciate this isn’t your document, but it does seem to be something which Mr Sharpe is preparing for himself to discuss with you that there’s a need to brief Joe and Eric so they can take charge of the situation. Can you shed any light on what that means?---(No Audible Reply) 10 Well, perhaps, perhaps I’ll let you read on?---Ah hmm. Have you seen this document before?---Ah, yes I have in the ah, the evidence. You’ll see that it goes on. There’s something about a plan for the amount of land and the number of berths necessary and then it’s said, “EOI process terminate may be a good thing.” Now, there was a, we’ve heard evidence of a strategy. The strategy was to prevent Newcastle Port Corporation from making any announcement that was going to do a deal with the consortium 20 called NSC. Do you, do you remember a strategy along those lines? ---Broadly. And the purpose of that was what?---I think so that ah, the Buildev case for the, for the coal terminal and particularly with the easement that was required from the Intertrade Site to the Mayfield Site ah, could be further considered. And the idea was to delay any announcement?---Yes. 30 Could I just ask you this, if an announcement had been made would that have damaged or set back Buildev’s chances?---An announcement about - - - Well, an announcement by the Newcastle Port Corporation that it was going to go into some direct negotiations with NSC?---I think that would have killed off the coal terminal idea. And so that had to be stopped – well, I’m stating as a strategy something had to be done to stop that from occurring?---Well, we believed the Buildev 40 case had merit and therefore we were pursuing that case. You’ll see in the last couple of paragraphs there’s a reference to Gary Webb?---Yes. Now Gary Webb you would know from NPC?---Yes. And the statement there, and I appreciate it’s Mr Sharpe’s statement, but I’m asking for your help if you can cast any light on it, is that if Gary Webb 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6500T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) frustrates Buildev the solution would be political. Can you tell us what that means?---I can’t tell you what Mr Sharpe meant by that but I can only put an interpretation on it. Well, would you mind doing that?---Well, my interpretation would be that Buildev would wish to pursue the matter further with the responsible Ministers. Mr Roozendaal?---Mr Roozendaal, yes, principally. 10 Could you just now have a look at page 15 and 16 for me. When you glance at 15 you’ll just see that it’s an introductory page but I show that by way of background. 16 are notes of a meeting which we know occurred when Mr Tripodi was flown by helicopter up to Newcastle to meet at the offices of Buildev and we can put a date on it, 19 November, 2010. Do you know whether you were present during that meeting?---I don’t think I was. You’d remember that sort of thing if Mr Tripodi - - -?---I think so. 20 - - - had come to town. Would you close that up, Mr Simmons, and could the witness be shown Exhibit Z56. Would you open Z56 to page 268. 268, I’m showing you that because that’s the end of an email chain, I really wanted to show you some things which figure at another point. Would you look at page 270. I want you to assume that at page 270 this is an email, a report, send by David Sharpe to Nathan Tinkler and under the heading, “Hunter Ports” I wanted to show you a couple of things. First of all Mr Sharpe starts out by referring to the NPC Master Plan going back out for public comment, do you remember that occurring? There was a plan which had been put for public exposure for ages?---Um, vaguely, yeah. 30 Well, I’m not really focussing on that so much, it’s the next line which has given us some interest here. “Jodi has supported it”, that’s the master plan one would think, “Jodi has supported the master plan so we’re going to use that against her, a letterbox is going out”. Do you know anything about the letterbox drops?---No. There were, you, you know now because you would have been following this in the newspaper no doubt, that there were some pamphlets issued called Stop Jodi’s Trucks?---I certainly do. 40 Well, were you brought into that tent?---Definitely not. Would you have a look at page 271. I’m leaping ahead here but it will save a little bit of time, time that we don’t – well, the time that we need. 271 there’s a heading “North Richmond”, do you see there?---Yes. Now the RSL deal is going well. Do you know what that was?---No. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6501T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) There was some evidence given yesterday that this project at North Richmond had a very large area of land but an approval was granted in respect of a portion of it for seniors, or a development for seniors?---Yes, yeah, 65 I think. And there was a bit of evidence yesterday which as I understood suggested that the project had been taken over by the RSL who were developing it for seniors, presumably ex-servicemen or the kind?---Seniors living, yes, yeah. 10 So mainly that’s the background. This is the part I wanted to ask you about. “DW is making great progress with New South Wales Government on rezoning.” Was there, what was the need for rezoning up at North Richmond?---With respect to the seniors living I don’t think that there was from my recollection a significant issue with that because as I, if I got the SEPP detail right SEPP 65 allowed that sort of development. The rezoning related to the further development of the adjacent land, the seniors living land. That would be – the, the seniors area was a portion almost in the middle by 20 the looks of it of the larger land that Buildev controlled in North Richmond, is that fair?---I can’t remember exactly where it fitted into the plan but it was certainly there. Whatever it was it was a portion of the larger - - -?---Yes. - - - and the, the rezoning was necessary in respect of the larger area, is that right?---For the housing. Well, what light can you shed on that? The DW I want you to assume is 30 Darren Williams, he was making great progress with the New South Wales Government on rezoning, would that be Mr Kelly’s office?---Yes, in our representations. And what was necessary – sorry, I withdraw that. You can see that the idea is that the rezoning would be able to occur before the election, do you see that?---Yes. And was that something which had been discussed with Mr Kelly’s office? ---Yes. 40 And so without that rezoning this was a pretty difficult project for Buildev, well, it couldn’t - - -?---It couldn’t proceed without rezoning, yes. It couldn’t proceed. And did the rezoning occur?---Ah, no. You’ll see that at page 269, perhaps I should have shown you, that Mr Sharpe is sending this email to Mr Tinkler on 13 February, 2011. What was the significance of getting the rezoning done before the State Election? 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6502T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) ---Obviously over a period of time um, the company had established good relationships with the, with the Minister and we believed that we had put a good case ah, for the matter to be progressed and obviously with a, an incoming new Government that was clearly going to take place at the, the forthcoming election it would inevitably delay any other decision on rezoning. I’m going to come back to the North Richmond issues in a moment but I’ll just leave it at that, it just saved time doing it that way. I hope I take you off 10 your game. I want to show you something else in Z56, this time at page 291. Do you remember the Great Hunter Debate during the 2011 Election campaign?---I certainly do. And then if you look over at page 292 you’ll see that there’s an email train and at 293 you’re marked down as one of the guests who’s going to sit on the Buildev table at the debate?---Yes. So you remember it going on?---Absolutely. 20 And the thing that I wanted to show you really figures at page 296. There’s an exchange of emails, I want you to assume that this is the case, sent by Darren Williams to Michael Gallacher and from Michael Gallacher to Darren Williams, it’s just the first three, Williams to Gallacher, quote, “Love your work”, unquote. Gallacher to Williams, quote, “Hope Simmo was happy”, unquote. William to Gallacher, quote, “Very happy”, unquote. Do you see all of that?---Yes. Can you help us translating that or what all that’s about?---After the conclusion of the debate as I walked out of the City Hall Darren asked me 30 how I felt the debate went. I indicated to him that (a) Michael Gallacher was being mischievous during the debate by making some glowing references to me in the time in which I was the Chief Executive of the, the Hunter Business Chamber to, to make a political point but secondly the point I made to Darren Williams was that Jodi was on a hiding to nothing, the Government was clearly going to face defeat at the forthcoming election and therefore clearly Michael Gallacher was the winner. All right. And so you think the reference to “hope Simmo was happy” might be the reference is made to you personally?---Yes. 40 All right. Tell me this, during that debate was there discussion of the Mayfield coal loader?---I can’t recall exact detail. I think there was a passing reference to it. Have a look at this same exhibit, Z56 at page 300 there’s a Newcastle Herald page, and it’s going to be almost impossible - - -?---My copy’s not very good. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6503T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) No, but I’m going to read it to you if that’s okay?---Okay. Yep. It says, “Coal loader not ruled out.” And then the text is, “Newcastle Liberal candidate Tim Owen has backed his Party’s Hunter spokesman Mike Gallacher in not ruling out a coal loader for the Mayfield former steelworks site.” That’s what it says. And then it goes on, it’s saying, “The Seat’s Labor candidate Jodi McKay called up on Mr Owen to make it known.” It then says, “There followed the head to head to with Mr Gallacher at a Property Council function at City Hall on Friday.” That was 10 the Great Debate of course wasn’t it?---Yes. And was, I mean, does that help you?---Yes. Well, I mean, was there a reference to the coal loader at the Great Debate?-- -Well clearly there was from that report. But there were several references to coal issues during the debate. All right. Now, I want to move to North Richmond. So if you close that volume up and if the witness can be shown Z10 again. Would you open up 20 page 178. These are text messages which are going in and out of the phone of Darren Williams and, you’ve got a mobile phone. And you’ll see in the second entry there’s a reference to you and your number for your mobile phone?---Yes. And there’s a reference to Mike Fleming. Mike Fleming was an advisor to Tony Kelly and - - -?---As I recall I think he was the Deputy Chief of Staff. Right. Okay. And this is the matter I said I’d return to. There’s nervousness upstairs in Keneally’s office regarding urban sprawl. That was 30 an issue wasn’t it, that the Government could not provide a strategy for just unrelenting growth into the west of Sydney because it couldn’t commit itself to the infrastructure expenditure, is that right?---Yes. And so when they talk about urban sprawl it is really a reference to the fact that the Government was unable to provide the infrastructure necessary to serve the houses which were being proposed by developers in those areas?-- -That’s a reasonable conclusion. And then there’s reference to Tony understanding about that. And it ends 40 with this, “Tony’s office wants to see it ticked off ASAP.” What is that, Mr Simmons?---I think from, from my memory it would be a reference that um, he was keen to see the development, or the, the, the rezoning proceed. And that’s the rezoning that Buildev wanted at North Richmond?---Yes. All right. If we go over to 179 we might in the middle of the page see a little more which casts light on it even though it’s not coming from you. You’ll see two references to Mark Regent?---Yes. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6504T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And he sends a text to Darren Williams, “Simmo said we’re not on hold.” That’s what you’re talking about?---Yes. And then the next one is, it got cut off you see. “Premier announcement on urban sprawl is now effecting us. Looks like it won’t be happening.” Do you see that?---Yes. I’m only showing you that as background because I want you to turn over to 10 180. You’ll see in the middle of the page Mr Williams has sent a text to Joe Tripodi. Now, I asked you before, and I’m not criticising you, Mr Simmons, I did ask you to whether you knew whether Mr Tripodi was involved in North Richmond and your evidence was you didn’t know about it?---That’s correct. Well I just want to show you this and see whether you’d been told about this. In the middle of the page it seems as though Darren Williams is texting Joe Tripodi, “Have you spoken to Tony Kelly about North Richmond?” Do you see that?---Yes. 20 And that MPD is the thing about which I was speaking earlier. “If you can your land on the MPD,” that’s on the Government’s long term strategy for releasing land for housing, correct?---Yes. So that would be a very valuable thing for Buildev’s plans in North Richmond if it could get its area on the MPD, correct?---Yes. And then Mr Williams is asking Mr Tripodi, “Have you spoken to Tony Kelly about those things?” And, “Mr Tripodi’s going to speak to him.” 30 You weren’t told any of this by Mr Williams I take it?---I don’t recall being told. And then down a bit further he is, that’s Mr Williams, he is writing to you and he’s asking about progress and you’re talking about getting back in touch with Mike. That no doubt would be Mike Fleming, is that right?--- That’s correct. If you go over to 181 you’ll see that a number of references here too, messages in and out of your phone. You’d spoken to Mike about the Part 3 40 application. Is that the thing about which we spoke briefly earlier, that is lifting it out of the Local Government and placing it into the Minister’s office?---Yes. And that’s, down there you can see the reference to Christchurch. No doubt a reference to the earthquake. You were in New Zealand?---I was. And now, the second last message is by you, “Tony’s keen but Keneally’s office is like a kangaroo in the headlights.” Were you speaking to Tony 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6505T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Kelly yourself or were you speaking to Mike Fleming to ascertain that?---I was talking to Mike Fleming and I think that, I can’t be 100 per cent sure but my recollection was that that was the, the words that may have been used by Mr Fleming to me which I relayed to Mr Williams. You’ll see over at 182 that Mr Williams, at the top is writing to you asking whether he can get what young people call face time with Mr Kelly and he’s willing to do it in Wellington where Mr Kelly lives. Do you see that?--- Yes. 10 And the reference to Sharon is a reference to Sharon Armstrong, the PA to Mr Kelly?---That’s correct. And so there’s plenty of messages going back in and out trying to promote this thing from Buildev’s point of view. Is that right?---Yes. Buildev was selling the North Richmond project, is that right? That was their intention?---I understood that they were in some negotiations with other partners. I wasn’t, I wasn’t aware of the specific arrangements for the 20 ultimate sale of that land. Could you close that up and could the witness just be shown Z59. Open it up at page 86 if you would, Mr Simmons. I’m just showing you a couple of things here. You’ll see at page 86 Mark Regent is writing to yourself and Mr Williams about the election of a new Mayor and Deputy Mayor out there at Hawkesbury. Do you see that?---Yes. Mr Regent was a principle operative on this was he in terms of getting this done?---He was a partner with Buildev. 30 All right. And I want to show you something at page 102 and just ask you about the significance of it. This is an email by Mr Regent to amongst others you and if you turn over you’ll see what he’s enclosed is the New South Wales Department of Planning’s guidelines on the disclosure of political donations and gifts?---Yes. And this is something which was operating at Local Government area, sorry, I’ll start again. This is something which was operating at Local Government level, this guideline, in tandem and concurrently with the other 40 restrictions which are placed at a State level. Is that right? MR HENSKENS: I object?---The changes - - - I object. MR WATSON: I thought that was uncontroversial. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6506T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) MR HENSKENS: Well there were no prohibited donors at this time at a State level if that’s what my learned friend’s suggesting to the witness. THE COMMISSIONER: Well I don’t think he is. I think he’s – sorry, I didn’t think the question was linked to that but - - - MR WATSON: It doesn’t matter, we’ll read it for ourselves, Mr Simmons. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR WATSON: I did want to – if you close that up I did want to ask you some other things just pretty briefly. I’ve asked you, you weren’t informed at all about Stop Jodi’s Trucks of course?---Certainly not given that my wife was on the political campaign with Jodi at that stage. And well, did you know about this thing called the Fed Up campaign, I mean from being in – do you live in Newcastle?---Yes, I do. 20 And you would have been interested obviously in anything that was going on politically, it’s, it’s your lifeblood?---Yes. Do you remember the Fed Up campaign being conducted by the Newcastle Alliance?---Yeah, broadly. And did you know anything about Buildev’s role in respect of that?---No. Mr Simmons, what do you know about the evidence which has emerged about the leaked Treasury document?---I know nothing. 30 Did anybody tell you about that?---No. You can’t shed any light on it for us?---No. Thanks, Mr Simmons?---Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Moses. MR MOSES: Yes, Mr Simmons, I act for Mr Gallacher. Mr Simmons, you 40 first had contact with Mr Gallacher back in about 2002, 2003 when you were the head of the Business Chamber in Newcastle, I think the Hunter Chamber, is that right?---I think well before that, Mr Moses. Thank you. And you introduced Mr Gallacher around to various business persons and community groups in the Hunter by bringing him along as a guest to various business group functions?---Yes, I did. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6507T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON)/(MOSES) And you expressed the view early on in your relationship with Mr Gallacher that you thought that Newcastle, if Newcastle was to become a marginal seat with political parties fighting over it would have more of an ability to get ahead and get Government investment and interest in the city?---We broadly discussed the political climate on the basis that for many, many years clearly the Liberal Party had taken Newcastle for granted and hadn’t put up serious candidates - - - Yeah?------and therefore it was seen as a safe Labor seat that they didn’t 10 worry about. And what you were doing as somebody who was interested in the development of the Hunter and Newcastle was to say that if Newcastle was not to be as it were taken for granted by other political party then they needed to show interest in it, that is both sides needed to?---Yes. Now can I ask you some questions about the debate of 11 March, 2011 which Mr Watson has already asked you some questions about. That was a debate which was hosted by the Property Council on Hunter issues between 20 the Minister Ms McKay and the Shadow Minister Mr Gallacher, that is the Shadow Minister for the Hunter?---Yes. And the format of that lunch or debate at which there was lunch being served was that a convenor asked questions of both the Minister and the Shadow Minister concerning issues of interest to the Hunter?---Yes. And those matters included the issue of population growth within Newcastle in order for it to maintain its position as New South Wales’s second largest city?---Yes. 30 There was a discussion about the need for more public transport?---Always in Newcastle. There was a need to deal with the question of the rail line within the CBD and urban renewal?---Every cockatoo in Newcastle is talking about the railway line. Thank you. Ms McKay raised a lack of Federal funding as an issue for the area. 40 MR WATSON: Commissioner - - - THE WITNESS: I think she may have. MR WATSON: - - - what’s the – we went through this with the last witness and it was pointless then, what, what’s the positive case, we just get a relist of issues debated, the railway line. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6508T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) MR MOSES: Oh, we’re coming, we’re coming to it, Commissioner - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Yeah, well, I know - - - MR MOSES: - - - but my learned friend opened up - - - THE COMMISSIONER: - - - but I don’t understand anyone to have challenged the general topics of conversation that were raised at the debate but if you want the - - - 10 MR MOSES: Thank you. Well, I can, I can move - - - THE COMMISSIONER: - - - if you wanted that a particular thing - - - MR MOSES: - - - I can move, I can move ahead then, thank you, Commissioner, for that. Now in relation to the question of coal do you recall that there was a debate about the future of coal in the Hunter?---Coal was certainly on the agenda. 20 And that Mr Gallacher made some statement to the effect that the Hunter had coal as its strength and they should take advantage of it while they had the opportunity and that dismissing it out of sight was short-sighted?---I’m sure he did. And that Ms McKay said that she wasn’t walking away from the coal industry in the Hunter but wanted more diversity on the Hunter port? ---That’s correct. 30 Now you were taken to Exhibit Z56, page 300 if the witness could be shown that, that’s the newspaper article?---What page was that, Mr Moses? Page 300 thank you. You’ll see under the – I’m sorry, Mr Simmons. You’ll see at the bottom of that newspaper article there is a heading called “Coal loader not ruled out”?---Yes. And you’ll see there attributed to Mr Owen is a comment that, it was along these lines, Mr Owen said Mr Gallacher made the matter clear, nothing is in and nothing is out, do you see that?---Ah, my copy’s not very good but I 40 take it your copy’s better. No, but I eat carrots but it’s – you can take it from me it does say that? ---I’ll accept that. Okay. Was that something which you recall was said at the debate or was that – or you don’t know?---I’m sure if it appeared in the Newcastle Herald it must have been correct. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6509T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES) No, I understand but this is actually not referring - - -?---One of the great newspapers of the world, Mr Moses. It is, it is indeed but the actual article isn’t actually saying that it was referred to at the debate, I’m just asking you this, I’m just asking the question as to whether you can recall it being said at the debate?---Yeah, it was clearly a reference to the coal issues and I’m sure the - - - 10 The coal issues?------the coal loader would have been there. When you say you’re sure it must have been can we assume that you’re speculating about that issue?---Yes. Yes, thank you. Are you, are you aware that there actually was a debate between Mr Owen and Ms McKay as well? THE COMMISSIONER: You mean, you mean as part of the – that was the Great Debate wasn’t it? 20 MR MOSES: No, no, there was a separate debate that occurred between the two candidates, do you, do you recall there being a debate that was held between Ms McKay and Mr Owen as candidates for the seat of Newcastle? ---I think there would have been, I can’t recall the actual debate, I don’t think, I’m not sure if I was even there. Okay. Thank you. Just bear with me. Thank you, Mr Simmons, there are no further questions, thank you. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Wood. MR WOOD: Mr Simmons, my name is Wood, I appear for Mr Regent, do you understand that, Mr Mark Regent?---(No audible reply) Mr Simmons, during your time as a lobbyist in connection with Buildev did you have a role in lobbying Mr Bassett?---No. And did you have a role in lobbying anyone in connection with the North Richmond project that Buildev was conducting?---Yes. 40 And in connection with that role I think you told Counsel Assisting that you had some contact with Mark Regent, is that right?---Regular contact. And was Mr Regent’s role one of a lobbyist as well?---That’s your, your term, he was a development partner with Buildev. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6510T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES)/(WOOD) I see. And tell me if you agree with this, that Mr Regent’s role involved him dealing with members of local council in order to manage the consent process, do you agree with that?---Yes. No further questions, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Anyone else has any questions of this – yes, Ms Tibbey. 10 MS TIBBEY: Ms Tibbey for Mr David Sharpe. Just a couple of questions. On the North Richmond project isn’t it the case that on one side of that Buildev project there was existing residential development in North Richmond and on the other side there was existing rural but also residential development so that this proposed project fell squarely in the middle?---Yes. And it was what they call an infill project to connect the areas?---Interstitial infill I think the term is. 20 Thank you. And can you tell us, the MPD which was referred to earlier, that is quite an extensive process isn’t it, to get on the MPD is not an easy thing and it involves a process with the Department of Planning. Isn’t that the case?---Yes. And it’s a fairly extensive process?---Takes a lot of time. And a number of forms and submissions to fill in?---Yes. Thank you. Nothing further. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions, Mr Strickland? MR STRICKLAND: Yes, thank you. Yes, I appear, my name is Strickland and I appear for Mr Roozendaal. Mr Simmons, you were a Minister in the Hawke-Keating Government, weren’t you?---That’s correct. You were the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel- - -?---Yes. - - -at one stage- - -?---Yes. 40 - - -and then for Arts Tourism and the Territories?---Yes. And for Family Support?---And Local Government. And Local Government. You say that you attended a meeting with the 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6511T E12/2107/0821 (TIBBEY)/(STRICKLAND) Treasurer, Mr Roozendaal, and Buildev representatives and Mr Webb from the NPC. Is that right?---Sorry, what was the last bit? And Mr Webb?---But you said something else about an M? Mr Webb of the Newcastle Port Corporation?---Oh, sorry, yes. I’m sorry?---Sorry. 10 And is that, is that the case?---Yes, it is. And in your considerable experience, did Buildev present a reasonable case to the Treasurer that the proposed coal terminal would bring economic benefits to the Hunter and New South Wales?---I think it was a very strong case. And you held that belief, did you, notwithstanding any expressions to the contrary made by Mr Webb at that meeting. Is that right?---Yes. 20 And did you convey that belief to Mr Roozendaal at the meeting? ---I made some comments but most of the discussion was led by as I recall Mr Williams. THE COMMISSIONER: Led by who, sorry?---Mr Williams. Mr Williams. MR STRICKLAND: Was it your opinion that the Buildev project was consistent with the New South Wales Port Policy in so far is it allowed for 30 Newcastle to be the next major container port in New South Wales?---Yes. And was that view conveyed to Mr Roozendaal at the meeting?---It would have been. I take it that you thought it was entirely appropriate for the Minister to meet with Buildev and Mr Webb. Is that right?---Of course. And why did, why did you think that?---Well, I think any organisation that requests a meeting with Ministers are entitled to put a case. That’s what’s 40 happened over many years with, with Government and ah, representations to Government. And in your view that’s exactly what happened at this meeting. Is that right?---Yes. Yes, nothing further, thank you. 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6512T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND) THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Simmons, can I just ask you, in the context of that meeting where Mr Webb was present, did he explain why a coal loader in that particular location would most probably undo the Coal Chain Agreement in Newcastle, did he talk about the policy reasons why he thought the coal loader would be detrimental?---Yes, he did. He did. And that didn’t persuade you that there was a need to revisit the project?---No. 10 Did you know anything about the Coal Chain Agreement?---Not a lot. So from your perspective Mr Webb’s opposition and the advice that he had was, if I could put it this way, based on matters of policy, would that be fair?---Yes. Right. And Buildev’s position was disregarding that as a policy it was, there was nothing that prevented them from developing another coal loader? ---I think that’s a, that’s the case, yes. 20 Right. Thank you. Sorry, who – Mr Neil. MR NEIL: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr Simmons, my name is Maurice Neil and I appear for Mr Tripodi. I just want to ask you something quite short. You’ve mentioned having either a phone call or phone calls with Mr Tripodi. Do you recall that evidence?---Yes. And can you say whether it was one or two calls or, or what number? ---I think, I think it may have been two calls. They were very brief. 30 Yes. Can you put any timeframe on them?---Not specifically but I would think it would probably be in the um, latter part of 2010 or certainly February 2011. And can we take it that you’ve got very little memory of the content of these discussions?---Yes. Were you first brought to think about these phone calls by something raised with you by the ICAC staff?---By the ICAA? 40 This Commission’s staff?---No. Well, you hadn’t been thinking about it for the last three years, can we take it?---Certainly not. And ah, the – can we take it that as far as you were concerned you had no improper purpose in relation to those phone calls?---Can you repeat the question? 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6513T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL) You had no improper purpose in talking to Mr Tripodi?---No. And as far as you were concerned can we take it whatever was discussed there was nothing improper discussed with him?---No. You mean you agree with my proposition?---I agree with your proposition. Yes, thank you. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions of Mr Simmons? Anything arising, Mr Watson? MR WATSON: No, thank you, Commissioner. MR STEWART: No questions, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 20 Thank you, Mr Simmons, you may step down, you are excused. THE WITNESS: Thanks, Commissioner. THE WITNESS EXCUSED [12.06pm] MR WATSON: I’ll call Nathan Tinkler. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Koops, I take it you’ve explained to Mr Tinkler the effect of a section 38 order? MR KOOPS: Yes, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: And he wants to make use of one? MR KOOPS: Yes, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tinkler, I just want to confirm that you 40 appreciate that the order protects you from the use of your answers against you in civil and criminal proceedings but does not protect you in the event that it’s found that you’ve given false or misleading evidence before this inquiry. You understand that, don’t you? MR TINKLER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to section 38 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, I declare that all answers given by this 29/08/2014 SIMMONS 6514T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL) witness and all documents and things produced by this witness during the course of the witness’s evidence at this public inquiry are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection and accordingly there is no need for the witness to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. PURSUANT TO SECTION 38 OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT, I DECLARE THAT 10 ALL ANSWERS GIVEN BY THIS WITNESS AND ALL DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PRODUCED BY THIS WITNESS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WITNESS’S EVIDENCE AT THIS PUBLIC INQUIRY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN GIVEN OR PRODUCED ON OBJECTION AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE WITNESS TO MAKE OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR ANSWER GIVEN OR DOCUMENT OR THING PRODUCED. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you wish to be sworn or affirmed, Mr Tinkler? MR TINKLER: Sworn. THE COMMISSIONER: Can we have the witness sworn, please. 29/08/2014 6515T E12/2107/0821 MR WATSON: Are you Nathan Tinkler?---Yes. Mr Tinkler, what do you know about the Fed Up campaign?---Um, ah, that was a ah, I supported it, I was a ah, one of ah, a whole bunch of businessmen in Newcastle that were ah, were supportive of ah, getting some change for Newcastle. 10 Right. Well, what do you know about its organisation, you weren’t involved in its organisation I take it?---No, I wasn’t. You were involved however in its funding?---Yes. And so how did you come to be introduced to it, who introduced you to it? ---Ah, Darren Williams had explained it to me. And so what were you told that it was going to do?---I was told it was a 20 bunch of ah, ah, businessmen um, that were ah, getting together to ah, um, you know, make sure that there was some change in Newcastle, to make Newcastle a marginal seat. I used the words Fed Up. Were you told by Mr Williams that that was the name of the campaign?---No, it was ah, the Newcastle Alliance I knew it as. All right. So did Mr Williams give you any detail of what was involved in it or show you what the fruits of it were?---No, I ah, I knew ah, Paul Murphy was the, the man that was put up to me as ah, as running it and um, I didn’t 30 have any more details other than that. And so how much money did you commit to the campaign?---Ah, I believe it was ah, $50,000. And what do you know about the Free Enterprise Foundation?---I don’t know anything about the Free Enterprise Foundation. Last time you were here I asked you about this, you had intended to make some donations to the Liberal Party and I showed you cheques made out to 40 the Free Enterprise Foundation?---Yes. Have you since you last gave evidence been able to get to the bottom of how that occurred?---Oh, to my knowledge that was always for the Federal Liberal Party. Well, since you last gave evidence here surely you pursued why donations you had wished to be directed to the Liberal Party were made out to the Free 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6516T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Enterprise Foundation?---Once I’d paid the money it went to the, went to the ah, Federal Liberal Party. That was it. Well no, I’m asking about your inquiries. I mean, we were here last time and my recollection, I might be wrong - - -?---Yeah. No I haven’t. - - - is that you were a bit surprised to see that donations which you thought were to be made to the Liberal Party in fact were passed to the Free Enterprise Foundation?---Yes I was. 10 What have you done since then? Did you take it up with Troy Palmer? ---Ah, yeah. I spoke to Troy. What did he tell you?---That that was the Federal Liberal Party. And did he tell you how he knew that?---No, that was what he was talking to Phillip Christensen and Marke Vaile about. THE COMMISSIONER: Just before we go any further when you say Mr 20 Palmer said, “That was the Federal Liberal Party,” was he meaning to convey that the FEF was the Federal Liberal Party was he?---Yeah, that’s right. That that was the, the Federal Liberal Party that I’d told him to donate to and that he was told by um, whoever to rank that to the Free Enterprise Foundation. MR WATSON: Could you speak into the microphone, Mr Tinkler? ---Sorry. That’s all right?---Yep. 30 Now, so Troy Palmer told you that. But did he tell you who he got that information from?---Um, no. We have information which would suggest that of the $53,000 which was donated by Boardwalk Resources Pty Limited $35,000, a specific sum, came back into the account associated with the campaign of Tim Owen. Will you assume that for me for the moment?---Okay. Can you explain that?---No, I, I have no knowledge of that. No, that was a 40 – Boardwalk Resources was donating to the Liberal Party campaign and Boardwalk had sort of projects, you know, in Queensland, New South Wales and ah, that donation was in support of that. We’ve got some information that suggests that there were two cheques in fact, one for $35,000 which found its way back to Mr Owen’s campaign, and another cheque for $18,000 which found its way back to the campaign of a man, Bart Bassett. Can you explain how that could come back to Bart Bassett’s campaign?---I have no idea Bart Bassett was. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6517T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Well what were the discussions – sorry, I just withdraw that. And I’m not being critical but I guess they’re not very formal occasions the board meetings at Boardwalk Resources?---No. But what discussion was there about making donations to the Liberal Party? Had somebody raised it with you or suggested it to you?---Marke Vaile was the, the guy that had always ah, asked me for donations for the Liberal Party. 10 Well let’s be careful. I didn’t know but was Mr Vaile connected with Boardwalk Resources?---Ah, no. I know Mr Vaile through Aston Resources. Right?---And ah, I believe they’ve made similar donations. I’m going to get you to speak into the microphone again?---Sorry. I know it’s a bit awkward, and I’m not having a go at you. The point is this 20 is that at the time that a decision was made to write out cheques on the account of Boardwalk Resources what would that have had to do with Mr Vaile or Aston?---(No Audible Reply). Could, could the request have come from Mr Vaile are you saying?---The request would come from Mr Vaile and he knows Mr Christensen who was running the, running Boardwalk Resources. And it was Boardwalk Resources that made the donation so um, I believe Mr Christensen was the contact for all of that. I thought that was all Federal Liberal Party. 30 But you had a say so in the actual making of the donation?---Yes. Yeah. And - - -?---I was aware of the donation to the Federal Liberal Party, yes. And the, what I’m trying to ask is did you initiate that idea or did somebody else in the Tinkler Group come up with the idea that this donation should be made at a particular point in time?---No. We were, we were asked to make a donation. Right. And, now, searching your memory by whom were you asked?--- 40 Philip, Philip Christensen come to me. Well, we’ve got some sworn testimony. I think I’ve got to get you to comment on this. I was hoping not to have to call Mr Christensen but we’ve got some sworn testimony from him to the effect that he didn’t know anything about the Free Enterprise Foundation. He didn’t know anything about these particular cheques either?---Yeah, I, I would ah, I, I think he absolutely knew about the cheques um, and I ah, um, he, he may have been the one ah, that give Troy the direction. I’m not sure, I didn’t, Troy didn’t, 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6518T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Troy couldn’t tell me that. But ah, I will say that, you know, I’ve never had anything to do with um, you know, any of the people that were listed on the ah, Mr Paul Nicolaou or something, I seen a letter from him. I don’t know that person. Right. So to the best of your recollection if somebody had requested you to make, or initiated the idea to make these donations to the Liberal Party are you saying it was Mr Christensen or it might have been Mr Christensen?--- Yeah, no, it’s a combination of Christensen and Marke Vaile. 10 Right?---They were quite close. Was it at any time explained to you that they were going to be used by specific Liberal Party candidates?---Certainly not. And can you explain why the cheques came to that rather unusual sum, $53,000?---No I can’t. Do you remember how much was discussed as the donation, was it put in 20 round terms of - - -?---$50,000 and I thought it would be in one cheque. There was a, there was a campaign donation made to the National Party which did come to $50,000 in round terms in March, 2011. I’m just concerned that I give you the chance, you’re not confusing these events which relate to the Free Enterprise Foundation with that are you?---No I’m not. Would Mr Vaile who was well-known as a person from the National Party, would be also from time to time suggest that donations be made to the 30 Liberal Party?---Yes he would. What do you know about the mail outs? There’s been plenty of publicity about them. I’m sure you’ve seen it. The mail outs which were so negative to Jodi McKay?---Nothing. Do you know a chap named Ross Cadell?---Um, I think may have met, I remember the name from um, the Newcastle Knights ah, some time ago. And I may have met him through that back in, many moons ago before become involved with the Knights. 40 Did you have any idea then or since that Mr Cadell was somehow linked to the National Party?---I had no idea. All right. Well I’ll just get you shown some documents now. Could the witness be shown Exhibit Z7. Would you open that up, Mr Tinkler, to page 76. Now, I want you to assume that this a text message which we were able to take from the telephone of David Sharpe?---Ah hmm. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6519T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Sending an SMS message to you. You can see the date of it?---Yes. I just want to look at the parts of it. Mr Sharpe says that you’d spoken before about helping the Libs. Do you see that?---Yes. Could you tell us about that?---Um, yeah, that would, that would have been in regards to um, some sort of donation. Right. Was that something you’d just discussed with Mr Sharpe, him alone 10 or was that something which was discussed more generally?---No, Mr Vaile would have been involved in that. David Sharpe was the one who introduced me to Mr Vaile. Right. And so there had been some discussion about helping the Libs? ---Yes. By way of donation I take, by payment of some sum of money?---Yeah, that’s right. 20 And excuse his spelling but Mr Sharpe goes, “Oh, there is a media campaign which is going to be anti-Labor.” Do you see that?---Yes. Was this, the idea behind this that, the idea that you wanted Jodi McKay out of the Seat, you wanted Labor gone from Newcastle?---Oh, we wanted change in Newcastle and to make it marginal so I don’t think anyone really thought that ah, that would happen. Well, if you look at it, “It’s going to be anti-Labor.” So I mean - - -?---Sure. 30 - - - there’s nothing inconsistent with that?---I understand. And helping the Libs. “And the commitment’s to $50,000 run by Neil Slater and Paul Murphy. Another Willy deal.” We know that’s Darren Williams. This is the start of - - -?---Yes. - - - what I’ve called Fed Up?---Okay. Do you agree with that, I’m really asking it?---Yeah. I think that refers to, you know, with the comment there to the carpet I think that refers to the 40 Newcastle Alliance. Going to page 89 if you would. This time they’re text messages in and out of the phone of Darren Williams and the top ones you’ll see, you’ll recognise the number there?---Sure. Your, your phone?---Yeah. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6520T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And these refer to discussion about carpet and 50,000. Now, it could well be that there’s a cross purposes here that you thought you were being asked for a second lot of $50,000. You weren’t actually. It was only one - - -?--- Yeah. - - - but you were getting it from two sources. So don’t let that trouble you. But what I want to ask you about this is, “You want her gone.” That’s got to be a reference to Jodi McKay doesn’t it?---Yes. 10 Would you then close that up and could I show you Exhibit Z10. Just keep that volume, however, with you for a moment because I’ll come back to it in a moment. Open Exhibit Z10 to page 145 please Mr Tinkler. No it’s pointless it’s exactly the same document, I thought it was slightly different, but it’s not. So close that up and we’ll go back to Z7. Open up Z7 now at page 105 you’ll see at 105 it’s an email sent to you by Darren Williams, Mr Sharpe also gets a copy, and it refers to radio script concepts. See that?--- Yes. The title of it is, “I’m Fed Up,” and it refers to the fact that this is going on 20 the radio.---Okay. Do you remember getting this?---No, I don’t. Look at page 106 and you’ll see that 106, 107 and 108 all relate to the, they’re the annexure, they’re the radio commercials for Fed Up.---Okay. Did you understand that this is the campaign for which you were paying the $50,000?---Yeah, this was the Newcastle Alliance. 30 Right. And so it’s this campaign, which I’m showing you now did appear to have the title Fed Up?---Yes. And it was overtly politically – I mean it was designed to influence the Newcastle campaign, you’d accept that wouldn’t you?---Yes, I would, yes. Have a look at page 109, I’ll just stop there briefly, it’s Mr Sharpe comment on it but he includes you. Then, at 110 there’s a follow up two days later by Mr Williams and he’s directing your attention to a website for Fed Up. You accept, I understand, from your evidence that this is the campaign to which 40 you understood your money was going?---Sure. Now, have a look at page 115 now I’m sorry, I know we’ve looked at some of these things on an earlier occasions so I’ll make it quick. At 115, you’ll see that there’s an exchange between yourself and Mr Williams and he’s asking, that’s Mr Williams, for your permission to sort out the carpet man, no doubt that’s Paul Murphy - - -?---Sure. - - - and the Newcastle Alliance and Troy is no doubt Troy Palmer.---Yes. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6521T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) And then this is where you can see you’ve already given approval, you think you’ve already approved it twice, it was actually only one payment of $50,000.---Yes. So you gave the approval for Troy Palmer to pay it, is that right?---That’s right. Now I’ll show you page 190 which is a record from the accounts of Serene 10 Lodge Racing Pty Limited, do you see that?---Yes. Serene Lodge Racing Pty Limited we understand is owned by Les Tinkler?- --Yes. But is that the fact or is that in fact one of your companies?---No, it’s, yeah my dad’s racing - - - It’s your dad’s company?---Yes. 20 It looks as though your father had paid the Newcastle Alliance $50,000, can you explain that?---No, I can’t. Did you give permission to Troy Palmer to do that?---Ah, no, I don’t recall that, I don’t ever recall discussing with him what entity would be used. Right. Well, we’ve got some evidence from Troy Palmer that he did have a conversation with you and you may contest this, but I’ve got to put it to you, you see, Troy Palmer said that on this issue of paying the Newcastle Alliance you spoke to him and you said, this is his best recollection, words 30 like this, “we need to right a cheque out for Darren Williams.” Would you accept you might have said something like that?---Yes. That sounds pretty likely actually.---Mmm. Because you understood the payment was for Darren Williams- - -?---Yep. - - - then to go on. Can you explain the use of this company Serene Lodge?- --No, I can’t. 40 If you look at 191 we’ve got two emails that are very compressed. The bottom one is from Kim Carles, we know who she is - - -? ---Yes. - - - to Troy Palmer about this payment and Troy Palmer represents to Kim Carles that the payment was in respect of a consulting fee. Did you give any instructions to Troy Palmer to pass on that information?---No. I mean, it’s plainly untrue.---No. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6522T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Sorry, what Mr Palmer is saying on what you’re saying today is plainly untrue. There was never any consulting fee between the Newcastle Alliance and Serene Lodge.---No there wasn’t. MR KOOPS: I object. I don’t know whether this witness can answer that question. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let’s see if he can. 10 MR KOOPS: Well, it’s a state of mind of Mr Palmer - - - MR WATSON: I’m sorry. What I’m trying to get at here is a pretty simple thing Mr Tinkler, no trick or trap in it, there’s no suggestion that Serene Lodge - - -?---Yeah, sure no I didn’t - - - - - - was paying Newcastle Alliance for a consultancy, is that right?---Yeah, I agree, it was a donation. Then I want to take you to something else, if you just close that up for a 20 moment. I’ve already raised some of these things with you about the detail of the FEF or the Free Enterprise Foundation. Whoever it was who came to you and requested the donation for the Liberal Party, why was it drawn on Boardwalk Resources rather than, for example, if it came from Mr Vaile Aston Resources or if it came from Mr Christensen Aston Resources, why was it drawn on Boardwalk Resources? MR KOOPS: I’m sorry there, there seems to be confusion in the question. Mr Christensen was with Boardwalk Resources. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we know that but I think the question is - - - MR WATSON: Yes, I’ll put it again and I’ll put it better, again, no trick, no trap. All I’m saying is this, is that if the suggestion was coming, let’s just limit it to this, if it was coming from Mr Vaile, why wouldn’t the donation be drawn on Aston Resources Limited rather than Boardwalk Resources Pty Limited?---I think they had also done that. MR KOOPS: I object, just a minute. I object. Mr Tinkler’s evidence was that he was approached by Mr Christensen to make the donation. 40 MR WATSON: I don’t think that’s right. I’m sorry - - THE COMMISSIONER: No, I think he said it was a - - - MR KOOPS: Combination. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6523T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) THE COMMISSIONER: - - - combination of Mr Christensen and Mr Vaile but in any event, if he doesn’t know why he can say why but he can be asked why, in his view, it was drawn on that account can’t he? MR KOOPS: Yes, but in my submission the question was unfair because it was put, if Mr Vaile came to see you about the donation, why was it drawn on Boardwalk Resources. That’s unfair in my submission. The evidence wasn’t - - - 10 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well anyway, regardless of, Mr Tinkler, regardless of whether it was either or Mr Vaile or Mr Christensen, do you know why it was drawn on Boardwalk Resources?---Um, Boardwalk had donated in its own right, I thought that was in support of Boardwalk, I was shocked that it went anywhere else. MR WATSON: Is, if we look back and have a look at that other paper that I’ve just shown you about Serene Lodge. Amongst that group of companies were there, were the funds of each company treated as some kind of general fund?---They were all funded from the Tinkler Group, yes. Boardwalk 20 Resources as its own, it was its own standalone entity with its own investors outside of the Tinkler Group. Boardwalk Resources was?---Yes. And who were they?---Bunch of Asian investors. Right. Were they were aware about the donation or the intention to make the donation?---Yes, no, it was Board, Philip was the CEO it was to the Federal Liberal Party, I was a shareholder in Boardwalk. 30 We’ve been unable to find a minute which covers that, would you use whatever power that you’ve got with those people who’ve got the records to try and find that us for us.---Well, Boardwalk was sold so all those records would be with - - - That might be why we couldn’t get it.---?- - - Aston and Whitehaven now. Well, I would ask the witness be shown Exhibit Z13.---Yep. 40 What I’ll do is just get you to glance at a couple of things so that it’s fairer to you by way of background. Look at page 4 you’ll see the specific cheque that I referred to for $18,000, do you see that?---Yes. Look at page 6 and you’ll see the specific cheque for $35,000 to which I referred. Do you see that?---Yes. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6524T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Now we’ve got some evidence that these cheques somehow or another got away from the desk of Troy Palmer and into the hands of Chris Hartcher. Did you know that we’ve got that evidence?---No, I didn’t. Do you know Chris Hartcher?---Never met him. Do you have any idea how that could have occurred, that the cheques got off the desk of Troy Palmer and into the office of Chris Hartcher?---Ah, not, I can’t explain that. To my knowledge I don’t think Chris, I don’t think Troy 10 knows Chris Hartcher either. Yes. Well, you see, we’ve then got information that Mr Hartcher got somebody in his office to send them by post down to the New South Wales Liberal Party, do you know anything about that?---No. And then we’ve got evidence that a gentleman at the New South Wales Liberal Party called Paul Nicolaou sent them on to the Free Enterprise Foundation, I’ve shown you this before but you can see it at page 29. Do you see that?---Yes, I do. 20 And then you can’t shed any light on this for us?---No, I can’t. Did anybody suggest to you that the idea for making this donation actually came from Darren Williams at Buildev?---No, that hasn’t been suggested to me. All right. Well, I’ll show you some records which were made at the time which would seem to suggest that?---Okay. 30 I’m not suggesting these are things which were run past you but they were statements made at the time. At page 40 it’s an email train, the second half of the page is Alan Wigan, we know who he is, he’s writing to Troy Palmer?---Yes. And he’s asking for some help about donations to Nationals and Liberals? ---Ah hmm. And the reason why Mr Wigan wants to know about it is to see whether they’re tax deductible and up the top Troy Palmer sends back to Mr Wigan 40 and says, “The National Party dinner was organised by Marke Vaile and Philip”, that’d be Philip Christensen of course?---Ah hmm. Do you agree?---Yes. And then these words, quote, “The other donations were organised by Darren Williams on Nathan Tinkler’s behalf. I will try and get some details for you”, unquote?---Sure. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6525T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) What do you know about that?---Um, yeah, the Boardwalk Resources one I, I wasn’t aware Darren was involved in that if that’s what this is referring to. Well, it does seem to be it because if you go to page 43, these are discussions in house at various members of the Tinkler Group, right in the middle of the page Matthew Page is writing something that he’d already given to Aimee, that’s Aimee Hyde, we know her, and he’s referring to the two donations, you see separating the National Party donation and the Free Enterprise Foundation donations?---Sure. 10 And then if you go forward to page 49 we can see that at the foot of the page Alan Wigan is writing to Aimee Hyde, it refers to the National Party donation and the others he said he thinks the Liberal Party donation’s organised by Darren Williams. Can you explain the background to that? ---No, I can’t, no. Page 60, if you just have a look there, these are some internal records that we’ve got with original handwriting on them inside of Boardwalk Resources where there’s $63,000 in donations which you’ll notice - - -?---Ah hmm. 20 - - - means 10,000 to the Nationals and 53,000 are the other two cheques? ---Sure. And against it it said “Mainly donations organised by Buildev”. Do you know, can you explain that?---No, I’ve can’t, I’ve got - - - Is there somebody - - -?---I just wasn’t, I just - - - No, I - - -?------wasn’t close to this stuff. 30 MR KOOPS: Can he just be allowed to finish? THE WITNESS: I just wasn’t ah, I just wasn’t close this stuff, if they said they were giving 50,000 to the Federal Libs I’d say okay, sure, but I, I never took care of the detail of that and how those cheques got delivered or left the office or whatever. MR WATSON: Well, I’m just looking for your help. Do you know – for example, can you recognise that handwriting next to the $63,000?---No, I 40 don’t, no. Well, I asked you before, you can’t shed any light on how $35,000 came to be in Tim Owen’s campaign account, is that right?---No, I can’t, I can’t even explain the split, I thought it was 50,000 to the Federal Libs, I don’t know why those cheques were drawn 35 and 18. You see, if you go back to page 22 of Exhibit Z13 this are emails you’re not involved in, Mr Tinkler and just we’re trying to get to the bottom of this? 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6526T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) ---Yeah. And you can see that there’s an email from a gentleman Hugh Thomson sent to a couple of people, just assume they’re at the Liberal Party and he’s saying that he’s confirming discussions that a cheque committed to the Newcastle seat has been sent by Chris Hartcher, do you see that?---Yes. And if you notice the date of it, 15 December, 2010?---Yeah. 10 It’s all about this donation by the looks of it, you can’t explain it?---No, I can’t and I don’t know anyone on that, on that email except ah - - - Tim Owen you’d probably know?------Tim, I’d met Tim, yeah. Page 31 we can see there, this is a Liberal Party internal record - - -?---Ah hmm. - - - that about the same time as that email, the day following, somebody in the Liberal Party’s entered $35,000 to go into the seat of Newcastle, do you 20 see all of that?---Ah, okay, yeah. Yeah, I acknowledge that. Well, I can show you at the same time that the seat of Londonderry, we’ve got evidence that of the money there, that includes the $18,000 that came from your direction but you can’t shed any light on it?---Yeah, no, I was very disappointed to read that, I don’t know anything about that. Well, could I ask you, who were the sort of people who were in a position to organise this kind of thing? I mean who in the Tinkler Group could have put together this?---No, no one, no one in the Tinkler Group is politically 30 connected or knows anyone, the only – the Buildev people were the only ones that were ever, that dealt with Government, we never ah, we never did and never have. Well, just in particular in these, these matters where we can show a connection between – well, let’s call it your money, your money being sent to Tim Owen and to Bart Bassett, you can’t explain it from your point of view?---No, I cannot. MR DICKER: I object, I object, the evidence doesn’t show it went to Bart 40 Bassett. MR WATSON: Oh, really, that’s tiresome. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, we know – okay, we know it – we know it’s not his personal account. MR WATSON: Dear me. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6527T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) THE COMMISSIONER: We know that it goes into his campaign account, it’s just being used in a shorthand fashion but at the end of the day we, we’ve been through this objection before, it’s noted and we understand the limitation on the question. Yes, sorry, Mr Tinkler you were saying, you were saying - - - MR KOOPS: I think he answered the question. THE COMMISSIONER: - - - you, you can’t shed any light on it?---Yeah, 10 no, I can’t. Right. MR WATSON: Did Darren Williams have the ability the speak to Troy Palmer about making payments?---Yes. In terms of those people who you knew, they may not have been in the Tinkler Group as such but I’m including Buildev?---Well, Buildev was never part of the Tinkler Group. They didn’t run out of our office, I was a 20 minority shareholder and I had nothing to do with the day to day management of that company, I was an investor, an investor I deeply regret now. In terms of who might have put together these payments so that they went as looks to be the case into the campaign accounts associated with Tim Owen and Bart Bassett, could the source of that be Darren Williams?---It could be, yeah. Can you think of anybody else?---Him or David Sharpe. 30 Him or David Sharpe?---Buildev was the only politically active business I was associated with. Well, in terms of Bart Bassett we know that he’s got a connection with work being done down at North Richmond, did you know anybody who had a connection with Bart Bassett except for the people from Buildev, nobody in the Tinkler Group for example?---No. Nobody at Boardwalk Resources?---I’d never heard that name before 40 yesterday. There’s an email which suggests that big money, $120,000, is going to come from somebody called the big man, do you know anything about that?---No, I don’t. You would have seen that in the press?---Yes, I’m having a ball with it, yeah. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6528T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Can you cast any light on it?---Pardon? Can you cast any light on that?---No, I, I can’t, I cannot. One, one thing that’s become apparent to me through ah, through this whole inquiry is how many people have used my name to ah, whether that be including Buildev for their own advantage to ah, to move around so I’ve, I’ve no idea, all these people that I don’t know trading on my reputation. THE COMMISSIONER: MR Tinkler, just following on from that can I just 10 ask you was there ever any discussion with you with anyone about providing $120,000?---Never. MR WATSON: Could you close that one up and could you get Z10 back. Mr Tinkler, would you open it up at page 19. This is going, I’m moving to a new subject. This is about the idea of pamphlets being used against Jodi McKay. Now, on page 19 of Exhibit Z10 there’s an email, David Sharpe to yourself, and there’s a section toward the bottom titled Hunter Ports, and it starts with a reference to NPC, we know that that is and Jodi, we know who that is, and Mr Sharpe says a letterbox drop is going out?---Yes. 20 Do you see that?---Yes. And then if you look at 134, this is a little bit of background?---Mmm. There’s some messages there between David Sharpe and Ann Wills?---Yes. And Ann Wills and he are discussion about what’s called a follow-up plan. Just notice that. I want to show you what’s on page 135 in particular. In terms of that follow-up plan, Mr Sharpe sent a text message report to you 30 - - -?---Ah hmm. - - -that they were going to do research on Jodi’s disclosures, skeletons in her closet?---Ah hmm. And then you’ve said, “LOL,” that means laugh out loud, doesn’t it? ---Yes. “I feel a letterbox drop coming on?”---Yeah. 40 Now, what did you mean by that?---It was a joke about the previous one. Well, you must have known that there was going to be some publications put out there about Jodi McKay?---I didn’t know anything about the ah, the content of the, the content of the ah, letterbox drop, nor did I, nor was I part of it, you know, it’s a, putting something in someone’s letterbox is hardly a big deal, plenty of people do it to me. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6529T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Well, what point I’m trying to make is this. You know about it in general terms at least?---No, I didn’t know the content of it and so I thought it was more an election thing rather than a specifically targeted thing against the ah, the container port. Well, but you must have realised, looking at that email or text message rather that you sent to Mr Sharpe that it was directed at Jodi McKay? ---Yes. 10 Have a look at page 142. Now, this is the end of an email chain. The start of the email chain is on a slightly different subject. It’s on issues responding to the queries of a journalist, Michelle Harris?---Mmm. That’s all at page 143. But what you’ll see is at 142 Tim Allerton, we know who he is?---Yeah. Is sending to amongst others, you, an excerpt from the Newcastle Herald and it’s Jodi McKay complaining about the, the leaflet, we know it’s called Stop Jodi’s Trucks?---Ah hmm. 20 Do you see that?---Yes. So you must have known by then that it was going on?---Oh, well, it become pretty big news, yeah. And did you know you were paying for it?---Oh, I wasn’t paying for it, how did I pay for it? Well, we’ve got some evidence that Darren Williams is paying for it out of 30 Buildev?---But Buildev is now me. I own nine per cent in Buildev. All right. Okay. Well- - -?---How do I have a, how, how does that become me? Well, could, could, okay. Well, did you know that Buildev – don’t – we’re getting along so much better today?---Oh. Have you noticed that? 40 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It might have something to do with the evidence. MR WATSON: I’m not sure what my learned friend meant by that, but what I wanted to put to you is this. Did you know that Buildev was paying for it, the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign?---No, I didn’t. I thought it was more a Newcastle Alliance-type thing. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6530T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Did you, they tell you, that’s Ann – sorry, did they tell you, that’s David Sharpe or Darren Williams, about this person they’d retained named Ann Wills?---Never heard of Ann Wills before this inquiry. Did they tell you, that’s David Sharpe or Darren Williams, about their relationship with Joe Tripodi?---No, they did not. And I’ve never met Joe. Well, he’ll be here later this afternoon if you want to hang around? ---Excellent. 10 I want to ask you something else now. If you’d close that up. It’s going back to some old material but I need to do it again. Could the witness be shown Exhibit Z56?---Thank you. Would you open that up at page 72?---Yes. Now, that’s the first, will you just notice that, that’s an email?---Yeah. It’s not to you?---Mmm. 20 Then if you look at 73 you’ll see in response to the question, David Sharpe had said ask Nathan?---Mmm. I think it’s best to come through Patinack. Of course we know that’s Patinack Farm?---Sure. And then if you just look at page 79 for me, Mr Sharpe down the foot of the page is saying, “Should I ring Troy or Nathan?” And Mr, at the top of the page Mr Sharpe is saying, “Ring Nathan.”?---Yeah. 30 I showed you last time we can show that Mr Sharpe did call you within a couple of minutes?---Sure. Now, since you were here last occasion have you spoken to anybody about this?---No, I haven’t. Can you explain what all that is about?---No, I’d, I’d never given permission for Patinack to be used for anything like that. 40 Well, you know what this is about, you know this is where Patinack was used to pay this so-called consultancy to Eightbyfive?---Yeah, I’d never heard of them either. Well, surely since you were here last time you must have taken that up with Darren Williams or David Sharpe or with Troy Palmer or somebody to try and get- - -?---I haven’t spoken, I haven’t spoken to David or Darren for ah, since this inquiry started. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6531T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) Well, Troy Palmer you have?---Troy I’ve spoken to about it, yeah. Surely you’ve asked Troy Palmer about how it came to be that Patinack Farm was pouring out that fortune to Eightbyfive?---Troy was just trusting the directions he was being given by ah, Buildev. So you did talk to Troy about it?---Yes. What did he tell you?---Um, just that. 10 Well- - -?---He was told to do it through Patinack Farm because ah, you know, Buildev were ah, told that it had to come from somewhere else ‘cause they couldn’t do it. Meaning they were a prohibited donor?---I guess, yes. Well, I mean did you take that up with Darren Williams or David Sharpe? ---No, I didn’t. 20 Well, did you take it up with Troy Palmer?---Oh, no, Troy was just doing his job, you know, these are senior, you know, business, business partners that we thought were acting in our best interests, not trying to ah, not trying to set us up and use us as a scapegoat. Well, did Troy Palmer say anything to you, did Troy Palmer try and tell you for example no, it was, this was a legitimate agreement between Patinack and Eightbyfive?---No, no, he didn’t. What did he say?---He said he was told to organise that for, by ah, through 30 Buildev. All right. Thanks, Mr Tinkler. That’s, they’re the questions I have for Mr Tinkler. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, before we go any further, Mr Tinkler, I gather that you’re quite anxious to get away. Have you made any travel arrangements for this afternoon?---Yes, I have. And what time are you planning on leaving?---5 o’clock, or 4 o’clock, yeah. 40 4 o’clock be at the airport. 4 o’clock from here?---Yes. MR WATSON: Well, we should sit on then. THE COMMISSIONER: I think so. Mr Leggat, can you please be – Mr Leggat was the first to stand. Can you please be succinct? Thank you. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6532T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON) MR LEGGAT: Yes, certainly can. Mr Tinkler, my name’s Leggat. I appear for the Newcastle Alliance and for Paul Murphy?---Sure, thanks. In 2010 and 2011 it would be correct to say, wouldn’t it, that your political views were generally consistent with the political views of the Alliance? ---Um, yes. I think we all wanted ah, we all wanted um, ah, change for Newcastle. And in 2010 and 2011 it would be correct to say that you were keen to 10 support the Alliance financially because you liked its views and you liked its work. That would be fair enough, wouldn’t it?---Well, the only person I’d had any contact with was Darren Williams in regard to the Alliance. I’ve never attended any of the – I don’t even know if they had meetings so - - - But you liked the views, you liked what you saw of the Newcastle Alliance? ---I liked, I liked the idea of trying to make Newcastle a marginal seat so it would get ah, so it would get some ah, some attention from the State, yes. 20 Yeah. Now, when the $50,000 donation was made, you didn’t make it a condition or say this money has to be spent on Fed Up and only on Fed Up, did you?---No, I didn’t, no. No. You were happy weren’t you for the $50,000 donation to be used by the Newcastle Alliance to support its day to day ongoing work, weren’t you?---Yes, and I thought there was a number of other people donating along the same lines. Thank you. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Neil? MR NEIL: I was actually rising, Commissioner, just to ask if, through you if there’s likely to be any meaningful time for Mr Tripodi this afternoon? THE COMMISSIONER: Oh yes, I think there will be. MR WATSON: Yeah. Yeah. 40 MR NEIL: All right. All right. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR NEIL: Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Definitely. Any other questions of Mr Tinkler? MR OATES: Yes, your Honour. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6533T E12/2107/0821 (LEGGAT) THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Oates? MR OATES: Mr Tinkler, my name’s Oates and I act for Ms McKay. MR WATSON: Oh, so sorry. There’s something I should have done in chief to be fair to Mr Tinkler. THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr Oates. 10 MR WATSON: Mr Tinkler, Mr Koops is your lawyer. He put a very serious allegation to Jodi McKay. You know that don’t you?---What was that? Well he, he suggested that Jodi McKay actually solicited from you, solicited from you money for the conduct of her campaign. Did you know Mr Koops had put that? THE COMMISSIONER: In 2011. 20 MR WATSON: This is in 2011?---Oh, she was looking for, she, she come to see me to see if she - - - Well you, no, you better tell us what you say your side of that story is, Mr - - -?---Oh, she come to see me to see if she had my support. And I said she didn’t. You - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, you said she - - -?---Come to see me to see 30 if she had my support. Yes. And you said?---No. And when was that conversation?---Um, it was sort of leading up the election. I’m not even sure if ah, Tim Owen was even a candidate back then. This is more specific than that. It was suggested to Ms McKay that she had actually sought money from you. Is that, is that what you’re saying?---Well 40 by support I took that to mean money, yes. All right. Well you, I’m going to put to you, Mr Tinkler, that that’s just wrong - - -?---Okay. - - - and you’ve made that up. All right?---No. Haven’t. So sorry. I had to ask that. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6534T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Oates? MR OATES: Mr Tinkler, again my name’s Oates. I act for Ms McKay. Mr Tinkler, it’s fair to say isn’t it you consider yourself to be a good corporate citizen?---Yes I do. And you consider your organisations to be organisations which operate ethically?---Yes I do. 10 I think you said on the last occasion you were here that you don’t engage in corrupt practices?---That’s right. That’s why you were surprised to find that you were down at the ICAC?--- Very much so. And when you say you conduct yourself and your businesses ethically I assume you mean according to the rule of law and without dishonesty?--- That’s right. 20 Do you say that my client, Ms McKay in some way propositioned you for a, a donation to her campaign in 2011?---She never directly asked me for cash but she was looking for support in Newcastle. Of course had you believed that she was attempting to solicit a donation from you that would have been a very serious matter wouldn’t it?---I had not even realised that that was a, that that was illegal. You knew didn’t you that Ms McKay gave evidence on 1 May this year?--- Oh, I’m not sure of the date but I knew she give evidence, yeah. 30 You knew that before you gave evidence in May that she’d given some evidence prior?---Yes. And at a statement she made was tendered as an exhibit?---Okay. Correct?---Yes. In that statement and in her evidence she said that she met with you on probably three occasions in relation to the Knights?---And the Jets, yes. 40 She was a supporter of your involvement in those projects wasn’t she?--- Initially, yes. You arranged those meetings because you wanted her support for your involvement I assume?---No, I think Darren Williams had organised those meetings. I, I’m not sure ah, if I ever directly organised one. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6535T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) She said that in one of those meetings, the second she was approached by you at the end of the meeting and you attempted to raise the coal loader with her. Do you remember that evidence?---I don’t remember that evidence, no. No. But that’s the case isn’t it, at the end of the meeting you attempted to raise the coal loader with her?---I remember speaking to her about the coal loader. I can’t remember the timing of it. Yes. You raised it with her, that’s the point?---Probably. 10 Yes?---The coal loader, yes. And you raised it with her because you wanted her support as the Minister for the Hunter, as the Minister for the Development Corporation and as the Local Member?---I think as, yeah, a major piece of infrastructure for, for the state in her electorate that she should be interested in having that property assessed. You wanted her support for that project didn’t you?---Um, I, I didn’t, I don’t 20 know whether I really felt that I needed her support but ah, um, I thought it was the right thing to do that she should know about the plans, yes. And you would have liked it had she supported the project, true?---Um, I don’t, I think everybody knew that she was ah, on the way out so we weren’t really ah, looking at her as being lynch pin in anything. So your view was, I think to use your terminology on the last occasion you gave evidence she was dead in the water?---Exactly. 30 But back to what I was talking about a moment ago you raised the coal loader with her in that meeting, or at the end of that meeting?---Yeah, possibly. Now, you knew by that time didn’t you that Ms McKay felt constrained about speaking to Buildev directly concerning the coal loader?---Um, I’m not sure that she felt constrained. I don’t know. Are you suggesting that neither Mr Williams or Mr Sharpe or any other executive of Buildev told you prior to that meeting with Ms McKay that she 40 wouldn’t meet with Buildev because of their donation to her 2007 campaign?---I don’t, I don’t recall ah, being made aware of that, no. Yes. My question is more pointed. Do you say you did not know about it?- --I don’t - - - You definitely did not know about it?---I was aware Buildev supported their campaign but then why wouldn’t she ah, why wouldn’t she meet with them. I don’t understand the, the issue, because I wasn’t Buildev. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6536T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) But you were a substantial investor in Buildev weren’t you?---I was an investor in Buildev, yes. Yeah. Why did you raise the subject with her then at a Knights meeting?--- Which subject, the - - - The subject of the coal loader?---We were just talking generally about ah, about Newcastle, the, I think we actually spent most time talking about the 10 rail line and um, I was, I was supportive of having the rail in Newcastle cut and I thought she’d blown a big opportunity to do that. Yeah. Why did you raise the coal loader though, then, in the context of that meeting about the Knights?---It was a billion dollar piece of infrastructure in the middle of Newcastle that was going to bring great benefits for the community and thought she should know about it. She was in the paper talking about something that she really had no clue about. Ah hmm. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: But she was talking in the paper in the context of opposing the coal loader wasn’t she?---Um, yes, possibly. Yep. Yep. So you’re conversation with her was, was in that context namely she was an opponent of the coal loader so you wanted to put her straight on that issue?-- -I thought she should maybe get some facts rather than ah, just running off. MR OATES: Why didn’t you leave that to the executives at Buildev to do? They were the company weren’t they, you were just the investor?---Because 30 they, because they don’t, the arguments that were against Hunter Ports were ridiculous. You know, it was a, it was a piece of land in Newcastle that would have got rid of a lot of rail restrictions and it was a, it was a very good development. And to say that it doesn’t fit into the coal chain is ah, is ridiculous. Yes. Why did you raise it as a minor investor in Buildev rather than leave it to the executives of Buildev, Messrs Sharpe and Williams?---Because I wanted an open access port and Newcastle Port is a monopoly. So Port Waratah and, and ah, NCIG are both monopolies. If, if any independent 40 producer or exporter wants to come to Australia and invest in the coal side well they’ve then got to go to BHP and Rio and Glencore and ask for permission to have access. And that is not very forthcoming. So Hunter Ports was an open access port to break that monopoly. THE COMMISSIONER: Just - - - MR OATES: But you must understand that’s not an answer to my question, Mr Tinkler?---Yes it is. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6537T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) Why did you as a minority shareholder in Buildev feel it necessary to raise with Ms McKay the coal loader and not leave it to those people you said were running the company - - -?---Because they didn’t, they don’t know about the coal industry like I do. Well, they couldn’t raise it with her because she wouldn’t meet with them. That’s the case isn’t it that you - - -?---Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. 10 You recall on the last occasion, or I beg your pardon, in May when Ms McKay gave evidence she also said that you had another meeting with her concerning the Knights and you offered to support her campaign?---Did she. Yeah. Are you aware of that?---I’m aware of that. And she said in her evidence that she told you that you couldn’t do that because you were a prohibited donor?---No. Never discussed anything like that. 20 Ah hmm. And she also, she, you then said to her that, “Well, there’s ways around that,” or something similar, “I have other employees. It can be done that way.” That was the inference?---That’s ridiculous. That is ridiculous. Ah hmm. Do you say that it was the other way around, that Ms McKay wanted money from you?---Yes, that’s right. What, what - - -?---Or wanted my support - - - 30 Yes?------for her campaign. Why didn’t you raise that when you gave your evidence to The Commission on the previous occasion?---I didn’t think this - - - MR KOOPS: Well, I object. There was a legal issue about that. THE COMMISSIONER: No there wasn’t. I don’t recall there being any legal issue about it. 40 MR WATSON: No, there was actually. THE COMMISSIONER: Was there? MR WATSON: There was a - - - MR KOOPS: I hadn’t put it to Jodi McKay and it consequently I was precluded from pursuing that line of question. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6538T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) MR WATSON: You weren’t precluded but there was a problem with it, I do concede. MR KOOPS: I think I was precluded. I think that’s the only proper categorisation that can be put on what took place. MR WATSON: He wants to sustain an argument out of nothing this bloke. Commissioner, I’m agreeing that the, with Mr Koops - - - 10 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. All right. All right. Anyway - - - MR WATSON: - - - despite the fact that he is Mr Koops. THE COMMISSIONER: If Mr Koops says there’s a reason for why that’s done and I’m accepting Counsel Assisting assurance in that regard so your question probably doesn’t have a basis. MR OATES: My understanding of the transcript – before that. My question to Mr Tinkler was not why his Counsel didn’t raise it - - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: It was why he didn’t raise it? MR OATES: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR OATES: There was some discussion at the end of his evidence - - - - THE COMMISSIONER: That’s right. 30 MR OATES: - - - about whether the question should be asked. THE COMMISSIONER: That’s right. He didn’t volunteer it at any point in time during his evidence. MR OATES: Let me come at it a different way. Mr Tinkler, you must have been seriously concerned about any allegation that you offered to provide funds to Ms McKay in the 2011 election?---I never offered to support Jodi McKay at any time. 40 You must have been quick concerned about that allegation by Ms McKay that you had done so?---I thought it was ridiculous. You must have been quite concerned about it though because you would not want your reputation upon which your business, businesses rest to be sullied, true?---True. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6539T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) Why didn’t you say to The Commission, rather than the words that’s ridiculous, or in addition to those words, that’s all wrong, she didn’t, I didn’t offer her money she came to me seeking money. That was your perfect opportunity to say that, why didn’t you say it?---All the evidence is there again, and I’ve acknowledged that I wasn’t supporting Jodi McKay at all through the election. Just to go back to the question, I’m sorry Mr Tinkler, are you finished, finished your answer?---That’s it. 10 I’ll just go back to the question. Why did you not tell The Commissioner, when you said in response to that allegation being put to you that it was the other way around, that Ms McKay had attempted to solicit money from you?---Because I didn’t really want this thing to drag on further and further which it has. So you’re saying that for the sake of convenience - - -?---I put the what, my side of the story forward, that was it. 20 But you didn’t put your side of the story forward, did you Mr Tinkler, you, you’re now suggesting that it’s the other way around. You had an opportunity when you gave evidence initially to raise that with The Commissioner and you didn’t do so?---Okay. What reason could there be other than the fact that Ms McKay was correct?- --She was not correct I’ve said that many times. You didn’t keep any notes about the conversation, I assume?---There was never that, never anything worth note taking in any of the meetings with 30 Jodi. The answer to my question then is no.---No. That’s not the answer then?---No, I never took any notes. When’s the first time that you turned your mind to the suggestion that you had made an inappropriate offer of support financially to Ms McKay?---I guess when this hearing come about. I’d never, I’d never ever been close to Ms McKay, I don't, I wasn’t a supporter of hers, it’s ridiculous. 40 What do you say to the proposition that you were to use an vernacular, taking the ball up on behalf of Buildev with respect to the approach you made to her at the second meeting when you raised the coal loader with her?---I was not acting in Buildev’s interests. Even though you raised the coal loader with her, it wasn’t in Buildev’s interests?---Well, that was, I guess that was in Buildev’s interest to get that, 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6540T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) get that assessed or approved but that was um, was also about the coal chain. My core business is coal. And what do you say to the suggestion that having been told, in no uncertain terms that she would not discuss the matter with you.---That’s your side of the story, I never remember her saying that. THE COMMISSIONER: I think the witness has already said that he was not aware that she would, that she had declined to meet with Buildev. 10 MR OATES: Yes, your Honour, yes Commissioner. If you considered there was an inappropriate offer or suggestion being made to you, why didn’t you report to it the authorities, Mr Tinkler?---I just said I didn’t even realise that it was illegal. Did you tell Darren Williams about it?---No, I half expected that’s what she was coming to have a chat about because nobody had, nobody had supported her. As I said, there’d been a group of businessman in Newcastle 20 get together to put funding together to go for change. I think that says it all, I don’t think I was alone. You said she was dead in the water at the time that - - -?---Yes, I did again, fucking idiot. - - - did you really believe that?---Yep. But later on you put a lot of money into a campaign to ensure she wasn’t re- elected.---I think um, I think that was just about Newcastle Alliance helping 30 find a good candidate, I didn’t think anybody was going to run against Labor in Newcastle and there’s never ever been a non-Labor candidate and for that to happen it was going to take, it was going to take some funding. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tinkler, that’s not the question. You see the question was, if you thought she was dead in the water at the time that you had this discussion with her, why would you then put money towards a campaign which was essentially intended to oust her and just let me remind you, that the Fed Up campaign occurred after Mr Owen was selected as the Liberal candidate, so there was an alternative candidate at the time you 40 donated the money to the Alliance. Mr Oates question is framed in that context. Do you have an answer, if you thought she was dead in the water when you had the discussion, why was there a need to donate to the Newcastle Alliance?---Newcastle has been, doesn’t matter who the Labor Party presents, they win. So that was going to take funding to get that message out there to make that, to get that point across. Same as I just answered the question. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6541T E12/2107/0821 (OATES) MR OATES: Let’s suggest that we agree with you, that funding’s required for political parties Mr Tinkler and you’ve said that before. But my question was more pointed than that, it was this. Why, having formed the view that she was dead in the water when these discussions took place in the context of meetings over the Newcastle Knights, did you later put the substantial sum of $50,000 into an overtly political campaign being conducted by the Newcastle Alliance to prevent her election, that’s the question?---To prevent her what, sorry? 10 To prevent her re-election? You see the conflict in those two positions don’t you, Mr Tinkler?---No, I’ve said here all along that I didn’t support her campaign. So you can ask me twenty different ways, I still don’t support her campaign, I did not support her campaign, I donated to the Newcastle Alliance so that they would have a shot at making Newcastle a marginal seat. It has never since Federation had a non-Labor candidate. I’ll just try one more time. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere Mr Oates, I don’t think he sees the contradiction. MR WATSON: If anybody objects to this, but I think Mr Oates is free to put the submission. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think you are. It’s a submission that you can put Mr Oates at the end of the day in terms of the contradiction between those two positions. 30 MR OATES: Yes. I have nothing further Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Anyone have any further questions? Yes, Mr Dawe. MR DAWE: Yes, very short Commissioner. William Dawe is my name and I appear for Nathan, rather I appear for Slater, Neil Slater.---Okay. Now have you ever met Neil Slater?---No, I don’t actually know who that is, sorry. 40 I take it you’ve never spoken to Mr Neil Slater?---No. Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions of Mr Tinkler? Yes, Mr Strickland. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6542T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)/(DAWE) MR STRICKLAND: My name is Strickland, and I appear for Mr Roozendaal. Mr Tinkler, you have an intimate knowledge of the coal industry in Newcastle, don’t you?---I’d like to think so, yes. You’ve had that over many years?---Yes. You gave evidence just a bit earlier that you said that the notation that the 10 coal terminal, the Buildev coal terminal proposal would not fit into the coal chain agree was, to use your words, ridiculous, do you remember saying that?---Yes I do. MR WATSON: I object. THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, that wasn’t it. MR WATSON: I also object to this. I don’t know what this, this kind of quasi expert evidence who said to make zillions of dollars out of the 20 proposal, it’s hardly, non-biased. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Strickland, we know where all of this is going but at the end of the day you have to acknowledge that anything that Mr Tinkler says about the merits of his proposal have to be judged against what he stood to gain from it and we’ve gone through this with Mr Williams, I mean, Mr Williams wanted to sing the praises of the coal loader terminal as well. It, it has very little weight at the end of the day but I mean - - - MR STRICKLAND: This is, this is - - - 30 THE COMMISSIONER: - - - it’s a bit of a Dorothy Dickson, Mr Strickland. MR STRICKLAND: This is a specific question in relation to the Australian Chain Coal Agreement. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, before you go there just let me ask a question. 40 Mr Tinkler, did you know anything about the content of the Australian Coal Chain Agreement, the ACCC agreement?---Ah, yes, I do, yeah. Did you know that the agreement was formed only after it was signed off by the - - -?---Monopolies. - - - the Monopolies Commission?---Yeah. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6543T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND) So that they were content with, with the fact that it had certain trade advantages that overcome the general prohibition against monopolies, you understood that?---For them, yes, it does. And did you also understand that the head of Newcastle Ports Corporation, Mr Gary Webb, had a firm view that any coal loader in your, such as your proposal which lay outside the parameters of the ACCC agreement would effectively undo the ACCC agreement, did you know of his views in relation to that?---I had heard that was his belief, yes. 10 You heard it was his belief?---Yeah. Did you at any stage have any discussion with Mr Webb about the basis for that belief?---Ah, no, I haven’t met Mr Webb. Did you get any briefing from anybody about the basis of Mr Webb’s belief as to the Coal Chain Agreement’s fragility in the event that your coal loader went ahead?---No, I didn’t. 20 Yes, Mr Strickland. MR STRICKLAND: Did Buildev receive legal advice that the Coal Chain Agreement would be consistent, whether the coal terminal would not be inconsistent with the Coal Chain Agreement? THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, Mr – no, Mr Strickland. You see, this is the problem and I keep coming back to this, the legal advice that was obtained from Corrs Westgarth - - - 30 MR STRICKLAND: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: - - - simply says in one paragraph that there was nothing in the ACCC agreement that prevented the construction of another coal loader. That’s all it says. MR STRICKLAND: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Webb would have probably said the same thing, it wasn’t about whether or not the ACCC agreement allowed for 40 the construction of another coal loader, it was whether or not the ACCC agreement would be effectively undone, that is, that people would walk away from the agreement if another coal loader was built, so they were questions of policy underpinning Mr Webb’s view, not a question of whether or not legally the ACCC agreement allowed for another coal loader so I think we’re coming at this issue from two quite disparate points. MR STRICKLAND: I understand, I’ll put it a different way, I’ll put another proposition, another question. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6544T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND) Given your intimate experience in the coal industry over many years was it your opinion that the ACCC would withdraw its approval if Buildev pressed on with the coal terminal idea?---No. MR WATSON: I object to that. THE COMMISSIONER: And again, Mr Strickland, that’s not – no one’s suggested that at all. It’s not a question of whether or not the ACCC 10 agreement would lose its protection, it was a question of whether or not the signatories to the ACCC agreement would have commercial confidence in it in the event that a fourth coal loader was built outside the terms of the agreement, that was the problem. MR STRICKLAND: Well, what I was putting was a quotation from Counsel Assisting in his opening, that is this, “that that advice was, this Counsel Assisting, “that if an alternative coal terminal was built it was likely that the ACCC would withdraw its approval if Buildev pressed on.” 20 MR WATSON: Yes, could I just say something? MR STRICKLAND: That’s what I put. MR WATSON: My objection is on the grounds of it’s just ridiculous to ask the proponent of the coal terminal about this. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I have another problem with it, I don’t know that Mr Tinkler has the expertise to answer that question but anyway, go on, Mr Strickland, if you want to ask him – as I said, an opening is an 30 opening. At the end of the day the proposition may not be established but look, my understanding from the evidence is, and I’m relying principally on Mr Webb and Mr Crosby’s evidence, is that it really had to do with the commercial viability of that agreement in the event that somebody simply went around the agreement and built another coal loader. MR STRICKLAND: I understand that but Commissioner, the thing is there is an alternative narrative about this. This witness who in my submission must have considerable expertise - - - 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think his expertise has to be coloured and I think it’s a question of weight but go ahead and put the question, Mr Strickland. MR STRICKLAND: I will. Why – would you like me to put it again?---Yes, please. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6545T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND) Sure. I think you said that you disagreed with the proposition that if an alternative coal terminal was built it was likely that the ACCC would withdraw its approval from, in relation to the, if the coal terminal was built the ACCC would withdraw its approval?---I don’t believe that to be true. And why don’t you believe that?---It was a strong development so the, the whole, that coal handling, the whole Coal Chain Agreement is built on the ah, you know, basis of how people have to work together because of the 10 restrictions in the, restrictions in the system and the system needs upgrading so ah, while other countries have grown ah, their exports 500 million tonnes over the last five years um, Newcastle has, had hardly grown so ah, it’s um, you know, I would think that ah, the ACCC agreement would stand on an expanded network. And it was your opinion was it other large players who were part of this Coal Chain Agreement would be supportive of that proposal, is that right? ---Oh, no, I think ah, I think there’s a lot of new entrants to the market, I think all new entrants would have been supportive of the proposal but I 20 think the existing ah, the existing producers were ah, particularly the larger, the large companies are very happy with the monopoly they have at Newcastle. THE COMMISSIONER: In other words the answer is that the signatories to the ACCC agreement would not have been in favour of your proposal? ---I guess, yes. MR STRICKLAND: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Does anyone else have any questions for Mr Tinkler? Yes, Ms Tibbey. MS TIBBEY: Yes, Ms Tibbey for Mr Sharpe, Mr Tinkler. Mr Tinkler, isn’t it the case that when you invested in Buildev you initially invested through Oceltip, O-c-e-l-t-i-p, Property Pty Limited, and you purchased nine per cent of the shares in Buildev, Buildev Group Limited and you also had a further interest in that you had convertible notes up to a value of 49 per cent when you first invested, isn’t that the case?---Ah, yes. 40 And then in, by 2010 that interest was an approximately 49 per cent interest in the shares through Oceltip wasn’t it?---I’m not sure of the, the timing. Well, I suggest to you that by 2010 it was approximately 49 per cent of the shares through Oceltip?---Okay. Which was your company?---I’d have to check that. Which was your company wasn’t it, Oceltip?---Yes, Oceltip, yes. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6546T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND)/(TIBBEY) Yes. And isn’t it also the case that Tinkler Corp entered into a management deed in about October or November, 2008 intended to give you an equal, a 50 per cent say, in the decision-making of Buildev, isn’t that the case?--- Um, I can’t, don’t recall that, no, perhaps. Well, I suggest to you that was the case, you say you don’t recall?---I never controlled Buildev so ah, yeah, it wasn’t something I sat on. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tinkler, whether you controlled it or not you’ve been saying throughout this section of your evidence that you were merely an investor in Buildev?---I was. What Ms Tibbey is pointing out to you is that at the relevant time not only did you have 49 per cent of the shareholding but you were a 50 per cent decision-maker in the company so that’s what’s being put. Now are you able to deny that or are you able to accept it?---I’ll accept the 49 per cent, I’ll, I’ll never agree that I was a 50 per cent share, ah, 50 per cent ah, control of the company. 20 MS TIBBEY: 50 per cent decision maker - - -?---Yeah, no. - - - through the management agreement that you entered into?---Okay, but - - - You accept that?---No, I don’t accept that, no. Ah hmm. And isn’t it the case that you were very much involved in the decisions and, and the running of Buildev from 2008 on, that’s the case isn’t 30 it?---That is not the case. Well, I suggest to you that you required reports from the Buildev executive about what was happening, particularly on the Mayfield coal loader, isn’t that the case?---Oh, I would, I would get a report every quarter or something like that, yes. Well, I suggest that it was much more frequent than that and in fact there were verbal reports as well as written reports?---Okay. 40 And that’s the case isn’t it?---No, a report is one thing. Yes?---Yeah. And I suggest that it wasn’t just quarterly reports, that it was much more frequent reporting than that both by, on the phone to you, by email and in person, that’s true isn’t it?---No. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6547T E12/2107/0821 (TIBBEY) And it is the case that you gave instructions to both David Sharpe and Darren Williams about matters involving Buildev projects, didn’t you? ---Oh, if I was being required to put money in, yes. Yeah. And you gave instructions to them about what Buildev was to do, didn’t you?---No. If, if, if we were – they wanted to make an investment as a, as an investor, then yes, I had to ah, I had to say yes I would put money in or no, I wouldn’t support it. 10 And you were, you were fully involved in what Buildev was doing at that time from about 2008 onwards?---I knew of their projects, yes. I suggest to you that it went way beyond just knowing of their projects, that you were involved in the day-to-day progressing of the projects and you were intimately concerned and interested in the progress of those projects. That’s the case, isn’t it?---No, it is not. And it is the case I suggest that you gave instructions to both David and Darren Williams about the progress of those projects, didn’t you?---No, I 20 did not. They reported to me. They reported to you?---They reported, they reported to me on the update of the projects. That was all I got. I didn’t have a- - - And you then gave them direction about what to do next and guidance, quote guidance??---No. They sent me a report. I’m not a property developer, that’s not what I do. I can’t add any value to it so I really, they send me a report which is an update on where they were progressing with things. I don’t have any, I don’t have any expertise or knowledge to add to 30 that ah, to what they do. Well, I suggest that you demanded control of Buildev Group, Buildev Group Pty Limited and this culminated in an email that you sent to David Sharpe on 21 May saying, “There can only be one chief.” Do you recall that email?---Um, no, I don’t explicitly recall it. Sure, I accept that I would have sent it. Nothing further, Commissioner. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tinkler, when you say that you weren’t a property developer and all that they did was report to you on the state of the projects, it was always intended that Buildev itself would build the coal loader, wasn’t it?---They would build it? Yes?---No. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6548T E12/2107/0821 (TIBBEY) They weren’t going to build it?---No, they, they don’t have the balance sheet to build a, to build a coal loader, they were there to um, I guess um, ah, manage an assessment and approval, that’s their- - - So that’s all they were going to do?---That’s their skills and expertise, they - - - All right?---That’s a, that’s a big project, it would have been a Leighton’s or a Lend Lease or somebody like that build it. 10 All right. So they were going to – essentially their job as far as the coal loader proposal was concerned was to get it to approval so that you could start construction on the coal loader?---Yeah. Well, that was your pet project, wasn’t it, getting a coal loader there? ---That, that would have been a, that would have been a good outcome, yes. No, no, no, it’s not just a good outcome, that was, that was your absolute number one priority at that time, wasn’t it, getting approval for the coal 20 loader?---No, I had ah, I had plenty of other things to do. I’m sure you did?---Mmm. But you had a mine that couldn’t get its coal to market unless you had a coal loader?---I had a mine that didn’t have an approval. Well, but it’s the same thing isn’t it, without the coal loader there was no- - - ?---No, it’s a different thing. 30 - - -there was no, no market for your, for your coal. Is that right or not right?---I needed an approval. No, that’s not right. It’s not right?---No, that’s not right. They’d already signed up with, management of Aston had already signed up with Port Waratah and ah, and also um, NCIG, it had capacity. So there was nothing to prevent your coal from being exported through Newcastle- - -?---No, there wasn’t. 40 - - -under the existing ACCC agreement?---No. And did that mean as at 2010 onwards?---Yeah, I would say, yeah, that’s right. Does anyone have any other question of Mr Tinkler? No. Mr Koops? 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6549T E12/2107/0821 (TIBBEY) MR KOOPS: Mr Tinkler, might the witness be shown Z13. I won’t be very long. Z13, please. Mr Tinkler, this is in relation to some questions you were asked about donation to the Liberal Party that ended up with the Free Enterprise Foundation. If you could go to page 32, please. I think your evidence, Mr Tinkler, was that, that the loan to the Liberal Party, as you understood it, that donation was requested of you by a combination of Mr Christensen and Mr Vaile. Correct?---That’s right. And Mr Christensen was the Chief Executive Officer of Boardwalk 10 Resources Pty Limited?---Yes, he was. And if you have a look at page 32 and 33 of that exhibit, that’s a letter, the first is a letter from the Free Enterprise Foundation in Canberra, well, it’s got a GPO box in Canberra, to Mr Christensen. Correct?---Yes. Of Boardwalk Resources Pty Limited?---Yeah. And that is thanking Mr Christensen for the donation of $35,000. Correct? ---Yes. 20 Now, in the next letter on page 33 you’ll see a further letter from the Free Enterprise Foundation?---Yes. Same date, 18 January, 2011?---Yes. To Mr Philip Christensen?---Ah hmm. Thanking Mr Christensen for the donation of $18,000 made by Boardwalk Resources. Correct?---Yes. 30 You have, you have no knowledge, I take it from your evidence, as to why the $50,000-odd was broken up in that way?---No. No. Yes, thanks, that exhibit can be returned. Can the witness please be shown Exhibit Z7. And could you turn to page 89, please, Mr Tinkler. That’s a series of text messages from Darren Williams. And if you go to the fourth text message, that’s a text message from you?---Yes. 40 “How much is Sharpie putting in?”---Yeah. That’s in relation to the donation that you wished to make to the Newcastle Alliance. Correct?---Yeah. And you said, “Generosity’s starting to get tested.” The statement there that you made to Mr Williams, “How much is Sharpie putting in,”- - -?---Yeah. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6550T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) - - -that was, you were seeking to get from Mr Williams information as to how, that was a genuine request asking as to whether Mr Sharpe was putting money in as well?---Yeah, that’s right. Correct?---Yes. And you apprehended I take it that Mr Sharpe was probably also donating to the Newcastle Alliance. Is that correct?---I was, I was told he was. He’s a wealthy guy in his own right. 10 You can return that exhibit, please. Commissioner, I asked Mr Williams yesterday about the contents of two contracts. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR KOOPS: I’d like to show Mr Tinkler those two contracts, please. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR KOOPS: Mr Tinkler, just putting this as briefly and as simply as possible, there were contractual documents that were prepared by your attorneys in relation to the arrangements between your company, Hunter Ports Pty Limited, and the Buildev companies with respect to the respective roles and responsibilities to be undertaken in respect of obtaining approval for the coal loader. Correct?---Yes. They were very, it was a very extensive suite of commercial documents. 30 Correct?---That’s right. And Freehills were your interests’ attorneys in relation to the preparation of that contractual documentation. Correct?---Yes. Yeah. And if I could just – if you just – do you recall those, these are two documents taken from that large suite of contracts. Do you recall this Development Approvals Agreement?---Ah, not ah- - - Not specifically but generally?---Not, not in, not in a lot of detail, but yes. 40 Yeah, yeah. And the copy which you have in front of you, Mr Tinkler, is one of the counterparties to the contract which you signed- - -?---Yes. - - -and Mr Christensen signed. Is that right?---That’s right. Yeah. And the Share Sale Agreement which is part of this, these contractual arrangements dovetailed, if I can put it like that, into the Development Approvals Agreement, or the other way round?---Yes. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6551T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) And if I could draw your attention, sir, to clause 7 of the Development Approvals Agreement you’ll see set out there the obligations and responsibilities which were cast on Buildev in respect of obtaining approvals for the coal loader, correct?---Yes. Yeah. And there’s documentation, schedules attached to the back of that document which for example contain engineering diagrams and representations and the like with respect to the coal loader facility, correct?- 10 --Yes. And if I could put it this way just to characterise the structure of this arrangement would you agree with me that under these contractual arrangements Mr Sharpe and Mr Williams through the Buildev entities assumed responsibility for obtaining the coal loader approvals? MS TIBBEY: I object to that question in light of the, the structure of the company which I’ve already put to the Commission. But that’s a completely misleading way to put that question. It’s not just Mr Sharpe and 20 Mr Williams. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well in any event, you’re only basing it on these documents I take it, Mr Koops? MR KOOPS: Yes. I’ll put it another way. It’s certainly correct is it not, Mr Tinkler, that management of the Buildev entities were responsible under these contractual arrangements for obtaining the coal loader approval?--- Yes. 30 That being the commercial objective of these contractual arrangements?--- That’s right. With the Commissioner’s leave, or through Counsel Assisting I’d seek to tender, or have Counsel Assisting tender those two contracts. MR WATSON: To prove what? MR KOOPS: I beg your pardon? 40 MR WATSON: To prove what? MR KOOPS: To tender these two documents. MR WATSON: No. To prove what? MR KOOPS: To prove the contractual arrangements between the Buildev entities and Hunter Ports Pty Limited - - - 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6552T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) MR WATSON: But we just went through a whole lot of evidence about that, Commissioner. MR KOOPS: This is some more evidence. MR WATSON: Right. MR KOOPS: Yes. 10 MR WATSON: I don’t mind doing it but I don’t know why we went through those questions if then we’re going to tender the documents. But anyway, I don’t mind doing it. MR KOOPS: Well - - - MR WATSON: It’s another few trees die. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Exhibit Z60. 20 #EXHIBIT Z60 - DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AGREEMENT – DEED (NEWCASTLE PORT) AND SHARE SALE AGREEMENT MR KOOPS: Nothing further, thank you Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Watson? MR WATSON: Could you just have a look at this, Mr Tinkler. It refers to 30 a ride and the recipient is David Sharpe and I think it’s a fact that you and Mr Sharpe are both motorcycling enthusiasts?---Yes. Have a look at it and have a look at the date. It seems to suggest that you were getting an appointment to meet with Mr Stoner?---Okay. It’s dated soon after the State Election in 2011?---Okay. What was that - - -?---Oh, after the State Election? 40 Yes?---Okay. By the looks of it April, 2011 just after the State Election. What were you meeting with Mr Stoner about, was it the Mayfield Site?---I never met with ah, I think I met with Mr Stoner well before this time when he was opposition. It was a, just a general chit chat. I had set up by Marke Vaile an introduction to – that was it. I’ve never discussed the coal loader with him. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6553T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) All right. Well what’s that email about then because you’re going to meet with Mr Stoner and you’re telling Mr Sharpe that you’re going to use time to put together a presentation. What is it about?---I don’t know. I don’t know. Well can you help us at all, I mean - - -?---No I can’t. I don’t know - - - I mean, what other - - -?------what that was, what that would have been about. 10 Mr - - -?---I never spoke to Stoner about, Mr Stoner about the, the coal loader. Well what have you spoken to Mr Stoner about?---Um, just general Newcastle what, what it needs, the Hunter Valley, coal. Well so were you putting together a presentation with Mr Sharpe about the Hunter Valley?---Ah, no. 20 Well, have a look at the email. It’s you writing it. What’s it about?---It would have been about Gunnedah. Gunnedah?---Yeah. Right?---Would have been about Maules Creek. Maules Creek. And what about Maules Creek?---It just would have been the Maules Creek approval and just the assessment process we’re going through and stuff like that. 30 Rightio. Okay. I tender that, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit Z61. #EXHIBIT Z61 - EMAIL FROM DAVID SHARPE TO NATHAN TINKLER RE: RIDE DATED 1 APRIL 2011 40 THE COMMISSIONER: That was, sorry, that was page - - - MR WATSON: Not, it’s just a loose document. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, sorry. All right. MR WATSON: There’s no copy of it available. That’s, they’re all the questions in re-examination of Mr Tinkler. He can be excused. 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6554T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Tinkler. You can step down, you’re excused. THE WITNESS EXCUSED [1.34pm] MR KOOPS: I have an application to make, Commissioner. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR KOOPS: There’s been a great deal of press just yesterday and recently about Mr Tinkler’s financial fortunes and business demise. Mr Tinkler, since this Commission has proceeded in respect of this inquiry has been endeavouring to pursue his legitimate commercial objectives including in particular endeavours to raise many hundreds of millions of dollars on financial markets overseas to pursue his coal mining commercial interests. He has done this as legitimate commercial endeavours as a private citizen. When - - - 20 MR WATSON: I thought that was an application. THE COMMISSIONER: So what’s the application? MR KOOPS: The application I intend to make is that Counsel Assisting withdraw immediately all allegations of corrupt conduct which have been levelled against Mr Tinkler on the basis that there is no evidence or so, or evidence so insubstantial and inadequate to form a basis for the allegations that have been made against Mr Tinkler of the most extraordinary and 30 damaging kind. Mr Tinkler has been said to have initiated a corrupt- - - MR WATSON: We know the application, we don’t need to hear grounds. THE COMMISSIONER: No, we know, we know what all of this leads to, Mr Koops, but at the end of the day I can’t make a finding in relation to whether or not any of the allegations made by Counsel Assisting are ultimately going to be arrived at until all of the evidence is in and we don’t know what is yet to come. 40 MR KOOPS: Yeah, well- - - THE COMMISSIONER: So I’m sorry but I think the application is might I say premature at best. MR KOOPS: Well, I, I, I, I accept in, in, in a sense that the correctness of that clearly in terms of the process that is gone through and there is further evidence. In the meantime the damaging to Mr Tinkler’s commercial interests are vast. He goes to Wall Street- - - 29/08/2014 TINKLER 6555T E12/2107/0821 (KOOPS) MR WATSON: Sorry- - - MR KOOPS: - - -next week with an endeavour to raise half a billion dollars - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Koops - - - MR KOOPS: - - -and they say to him you are a corrupt businessman- - - 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Koops- - - MR KOOPS: - - -running a Tinkler Scheme to bribe politicians- - - THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Koops, nobody- - - MR KOOPS: - - -in the state of New South Wales- - - THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Koops, nobody’s- - - 20 MR KOOPS: - - -and they show him the door. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Koops, nobody’s entitled to say that to him because there has been no finding. MR KOOPS: Oh, with respect Commissioner- - - THE COMMISSIONER: And well- - - MR KOOPS: With respect. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: And if you were to be successful in that application I think I’d have about 30 such applications to follow all seeking the same kind of assurance and I simply can’t give it. Mr Tinkler is just going to have to stand on his own merits and rebuff any suggestion that there’s been any finding of corrupt conduct. MR KOOPS: Well- - - THE COMMISSIONER: He strikes me as someone who’s quite capable of 40 doing that. MR KOOPS: Yes, but he can’t control what’s said about him in the press and it emanates- - - THE COMMISSIONER: And neither can I. MR KOOPS: - - -it emanates- - - 29/08/2014 6556T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: Neither can I. MR KOOPS: - - -from the bar table, statements like Tinkler Scheme and circumventing the laws and setting up an operation to pay off and put money into slush funds, the Tinkler Scheme is what we have heard since the beginning of these proceedings and it has completely destroyed this man’s ability to continue to conduct his legitimate affairs as a private citizen in this country and around the world. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The- - - MR KOOPS: That’s my application. THE COMMISSIONER: The application is noted and it’s refused. Mr Strickland, I’m conscious of the hour. We have to adjourn for lunch. MR STRICKLAND: All I was wanting to say was after lunch I wish to make an application for access to- - - 20 MR WATSON: I hope it’s not the same sort of one. THE COMMISSIONER: For what, sorry? MR STRICKLAND: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear Counsel Assisting? THE COMMISSIONER: We’re asking for what, an application for what? MR STRICKLAND: For access to certain documents. I’ve given my learned friend, Counsel Assisting, some submissions, I’m happy to give 30 you, Commissioner, some- - - THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if it’s the submissions that I’ve been copied in on, Mr Strickland, by way of those communications- - - MR WATSON: I’m not sure, Commissioner, but I’ll make a copy available to you. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I’ll look at them over lunch, Mr Strickland. 40 MR STRICKLAND: After lunch. That’s all I was, thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Quarter to 2.00. Sorry, it’s quarter to 2.00 now. I’ll say half past 2.00, thank you. LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.39pm] 29/08/2014 6557T E12/2107/0821