E12/2107/0821PUB04763 CREDO/SPICER PUBLIC 06/08/2014 pp 04763-4806 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 WEDNESDAY 6 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.
06/08/2014 4763T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: This public inquiry is being conducted for the purposes of an investigation of an allegation or complaint of the following nature, whether between April 2009 and April 2012 certain Members of Parliament including Christopher Hartcher MP, Darren Webber MP and Christopher Spence MP and others including Timothy Koelma and Raymond Carter corruptly solicited, received and concealed payments from various sources in return for certain Members of Parliament agreeing to favour the interests of those responsible for the payments and whether between December 2010 and November 2011 certain Members of 10 Parliament including Christopher Hartcher MP, Darren Webber MP and Christopher Spence MP and others including Raymond Carter solicited, received and failed to disclose political donations from companies including prohibited donors contrary to the Election Funding Expenditure and Disclosures Act of 1981 and whether Eightbyfive, a business operated by Timothy Koelma, entered into agreements with each of a series of entities including Australian Water Holdings Pty Limited whereby each respective entity made regular payments to Eightbyfive purportedly for the provision of media, public relations and other services and advice in return for which Christopher Hartcher MP favoured the interests of the respective entity and 20 the circumstances in which false allegations of corruption were made against executives of Sydney Water Corporation and the circumstances in which the 2011 election campaign for the seat of Newcastle was funded by the Liberal Party and whether funds were solicited and received from prohibited donors including Buildev Pty Limited, Nathan Tinkler, Jeff McCloy, Hilton Grugeon and other persons and companies associated with them and whether Members of Parliament including Christopher Hartcher MP and Michael Gallacher MLC solicited and received donations from prohibited donors for use in the Liberal Party 2011 State election campaign including in the seat of Newcastle and whether parties and persons including 30 Buildev Pty Limited, Nathan Tinkler, Darren Williams, David Sharpe, Jeff McCloy and Hilton Grugeon improperly sought to influence certain Members of Parliament by making donations during the 2011 State election campaign and whether Members of Pty including Christopher Hartcher MP and Michael Gallacher MLC used or attempted to use their power and influence improperly to confer or attempt to confer benefits upon donors to the Liberal Party in the 2011 State election campaign and the circumstances in which two campaigns were conducted against the sitting Member of the seat of Newcastle Jodi McKay MP, including the publication and distribution of misleading information and whether certain persons were 40 involved in organising or attempting to organise and/or funding those campaigns including Joseph Tripodi MP, Ann Wills, Nathan Tinkler, Darren Williams, David Sharpe and members of the Newcastle Alliance and whether Members of Parliament including Joseph Tripodi MP used or attempted to use their power and influence either to improperly confer benefits or attempt to improperly confer benefits upon certain parties and persons including Buildev Pty Limited, Nathan Tinkler, Darren Williams and David Sharpe in respect of a development of a coal terminal proposed at the Port of Newcastle and whether Members or associates of the Liberal
06/08/2014 4764T E12/2107/0821 Party of New South Wales used or attempted to use the Free Enterprise Foundation as a means of receiving and disguising donations from prohibited donors in the lead up to the 2011 election campaign and whether certain companies and persons including Buildev Pty Limited, Boardwalk Resources Pty Limited, Nathan Tinkler, Darren Williams, David Sharpe and Troy Palmer used or attempted to use the Free Enterprise Foundation as a means of making donations to the Liberal Party with the intention of attempting to improperly influence certain Members of Parliament.
10 The general scope and purpose of the public inquiry is to gather evidence relevant to the matters being investigated for the purposes of determining the matters referred to in section 13(2) of the ICAC Act. The standard directions issued in July of 2013 continue to apply to this hearing, relevantly the directions applying to the use and production of documents in public inquiries confirm the discretion vesting in the Commission to provide confidential electronic access to certain documents that are likely to be tendered as exhibits.
Whether that discretion is exercised is dependent upon a number of factors, 20 including the necessity to identify whether an application should be made for a suppression order. Other factors of an operational nature may militate against the grant of access. As the standard directions note as a general rule the Commission does not make documents or other material available in advance of a public inquiry. There are sound reasons for adopting this approach.
There are sound reasons for adopting this approach. The Commission is an investigative body not an adversarial adjudicative one. It is not bound by the rules of evidence and it has no power to determine questions of criminal 30 or civil liability. The extent of its obligation to observe the rules of procedure fairness and natural justice is directly related to its power to make findings that reflect adversely upon some persons. The two pillars of those rules are that the Commission base it findings on the evidence and that the Commission listens fairly to any relevant evidence conflicting with a proposed finding and any rational argument against that finding that a person at the inquiry whose interests may be adversely affected by it wish to advance.
Of course the ability to advance argument and conflicting evidence is 40 premised upon the relevant person being made aware of the risk of an adverse finding. That function is performed by the framing of the scope and purpose of the inquiry, the opening by Counsel Assisting the inquiry, by the nature of the questioning during the inquiry and by the submissions of Counsel Assisting at the end of the evidence. When a person at risk of adverse findings wishes to advance a positive case by adducing relevant evidence that opportunity will be afforded at every stage of the inquiry subject of course to the availability of a witness who may need to be recalled and subject to any document being given in advance of its use or
06/08/2014 4765T E12/2107/0821 tender to Counsel Assisting. The salient point is that the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness do not require the Commission to treat the inquiry as though it were a trial in a court of law.
To that end I will not entertain oral applications during the inquiry which seek access to documents or other material that has not been tendered as an Exhibit or placed on the restricted Website. Such applications take up valuable time that is needed for the appearance of witnesses. Any application seeking advance access to documents must be made in writing to 10 the Commission’s solicitor, Mr Roy Waldon. The applicant will be duly notified in writing of the outcome. It is proposed to place documents upon which Counsel Assisting intends to rely on the restricted Website by the end of this week. To enable that to occur without further delay the documents will be unredacted, therefore I make a suppression order under section 112 of the ICAC Act prohibiting publication of any information capable of identifying the private address, including email address, phone number and banking records of persons referred to in those documents. At an appropriate time the redacted documents will be placed on the public Website. 20 I MAKE A SUPPRESSION ORDER UNDER SECTION 112 OF THE ICAC ACT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY INFORMATION CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING THE PRIVATE ADDRESS, INCLUDING EMAIL ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER AND BANKING RECORDS OF PERSONS REFERRED TO IN THOSE DOCUMENTS
This hearing room is to be decommissioned on 29 August, 2014 in 30 preparation for the Commission’s move to new premises in September. If the inquiry is still on foot it will move to the hearing room on level 21. The inquiry will commence tomorrow at 10.30am and the inquiry will not be sitting on 20 August, otherwise the usual sitting hours will be observed.
At the conclusion of the opening I will take a short adjournment. Leave granted to Counsel for the purposes of the hearings in May of this year will continue to apply. I will take applications for leave to appear from other counsel after the adjournment.
40 Yes, Mr Watson.
MR WATSON: Commissioner, while I was opening or reopening this inquiry I was going to refer to documents, they‘ll be shown up on the screen in due course, but it’s better if I tender a hard copy, a bundle of those documents. There’s 75 pages in all. I’ll tender that now if I may.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The current tranche of the inquiry will adopt an Exhibit designation of Z to avoid confusion with documents
06/08/2014 4766T E12/2107/0821 tendered in the previous inquiry, the previous tranche of the inquiry. So that bundle will be Exhibit Z1.
#EXHIBIT Z1 - BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COUNSEL’S OPENING ADDRESS
MR WATSON: Commissioner, the public inquiry in Operation Spicer 10 adjourned to permit the Commission to undertake further investigation of matters which had been raised within the original terms of reference. Those investigations have been pursued and have proved fruitful. It has become necessary to expand the terms of reference and to expand the number of witnesses to be called.
This part of the public inquiry is complex and it’s appropriate that I outline where we expect the inquiry will go and highlight a few parts of the evidence already collected. This outline is in addition to the statement we made when opening the first segment of this inquiry. We have re-read that 20 opening and we stand by it. As always these opening remarks reflect our preliminary position as Counsel Assisting and they should not be interpreted as a position taken by the Commission or even a provisional view of the Commission. There will be a lot of evidence. Much will depend upon who is believed and who is not believed.
Before I descend into the detail it is appropriate that I identify five areas which this investigation will examine.
The first area of inquiry will look at the way that persons in the Liberal 30 Party conducted and funded campaigns for seats in the Hunter region in the 2011 State Election. Most of the time will be spend on the seat of Newcastle but there is also a need to look at events which occurred in the adjoining seat of Charlestown. The evidence acquired so far clearly shows serious irregularities in the way those campaigns were conducted and funded. Enough objective material has been collected so that we are confident in saying that it will be established that the Liberal Party campaign for the seat of Newcastle was partly funded from illegal sources.
The evidence is that there was a broad understanding that a number of 40 different prohibited donors would, acting under some subterfuge, provide the funds to keep the campaign rolling. The persons involved in this include, on the Liberal Party side, Hugh Thomson, he’s a lawyer who was the campaign manager for Newcastle, Josh Hodges, a Liberal Party figure who was brought in to co-manage the campaign, and the candidate himself, Tim Owen.
The developers who contributed to the off-books funding include Buildev Pty Limited, a company part-owned by Nathan Tinkler, Jeff McCloy, he is
06/08/2014 4767T E12/2107/0821 the Mayor of Newcastle, and Hilton Grugeon, a prominent property developer in the Hunter region. There were others as well.
There is also evidence that Michael Gallacher MLC was aware of these arrangements and in fact suggested some of them. There is other evidence that Christopher Hartcher MP was also aware and that he participated in some aspects of it.
A second area which will come under investigation is the conduct of two so- 10 called third party campaigns which were conducted in the Newcastle area. A third party campaign is one where some person or organisation other than a registered political party attempts to influence the outcome of an election. Sometimes third party campaigns advocate for or against a particular political party or candidate, sometimes third party campaigns focus upon a particular issue and remain non-political in a party sense. As you might imagine, third party campaigners are controlled under the Election Funding Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 and one of the key issues is that third party campaigners must be registered. Third party campaigns are subject to the restrictions and prohibitions reflecting those which control the behaviour 20 of political parties.
As I say, in the lead-up to the 2011 State Election for the seat of Newcastle there were two third party campaigns. Both were expensive and both were sophisticated. It is probable that both were effective. Both campaigns focussed on party politics, each was adverse to the Labor Party and to the sitting Labor member, Jodi McKay MP.
The first campaign was one which was touched upon during the earlier segment of this inquiry, the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign. The campaign 30 was conducted anonymously. There will be evidence that the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign was organised on behalf of Mr Tinkler’s company, Buildev, and funded by Buildev. Commissioner, Buildev will get quite a mention during this inquiry and I will come to its motives in just a moment.
A second third party campaign was titled Fed Up and it was conducted by a registered third party campaigner, the Newcastle Alliance. Although its terms were less strident, it too was ultimately a campaign to get rid of Jodi McKay. And although the Newcastle Alliance pretended that it had funded the campaign itself, the evidence is clear that it was nearly entirely funded 40 by Buildev.
The third area of inquiry will show that it was not just the Liberal Party who was involved in these activities, the Labor Party was, through a couple of its politicians, involved as well. The inquiry will examine the activities of two former Labor Members of Parliament, Joseph Tripodi MP and Eric Roozendaal MLC. The evidence gathered so far suggests their conduct was quite out of step with their Parliamentary or their Ministerial responsibilities and that each quite improperly took steps directly to benefit Buildev.
06/08/2014 4768T E12/2107/0821
A fourth area of inquiry will involve examining the activities of Buildev and its owners. I have mentioned Mr Tinkler but I should also mention Darren Williams and David Sharpe. Another executive associated with Mr Tinkler, Troy Palmer, has a role in all of this as well. As you will recall, all of these men gave evidence during the earlier segment of the inquiry and each of them will need to come back and answer some more questions.
Earlier I said I’d come to the issue of Buildev’s motives. The motive was 10 money. Buildev wanted to develop a coal terminal in the Port of Newcastle but this had received considerable opposition from the relevant authority, that is the Newcastle Port Corporation, and it was also adamantly opposed by the local MP, Jodi McKay. In the end Buildev’s plan was twofold – first acquire the preference of certain politicians, Labor and Liberal, secondly, get rid of Jodi McKay.
The fifth area of inquiry will be a return to something upon which I opened at length on the earlier occasion, the use of the Free Enterprise Foundation as a means of disguising donations from otherwise prohibited donors and 20 washing them so that they could be used in the Liberal Party campaign.
The purpose was to avoid the impact of Electoral Funding Laws. Some evidence on this issue has already been called. There will be more called in the current part of the inquiry and it will show that the conduct of some elements within the Liberal Party was systematic and deliberate.
Now, Commissioner, I threaten to descend into detail I’ll now deliver upon that threat. I’ll start with something by way of background, that is Nathan Tinkler and the coal terminal. Excuse me there’s quite a bit of detail but it 30 provides an extremely important context for everything which follows.
This inquiry will look at activities which were initiated or sponsored by Nathan Tinkler, companies associated by, with Nathan Tinkler or persons who worked with or for Nathan Tinkler. To understand why that is so I need to explain something by way of background, that’s Mr Tinkler’s desire to build a coal terminal on an old BHP site at Mayfield.
For many obvious reasons the Port of Newcastle has been a principal place for the export of coal to the international market. Trains and trucks carrying 40 coal from the Hunter Valley and all points north and west in New South Wales usually wind up at the Port of Newcastle. As I understand it the coal is taken to a point called a coal terminal sometimes called a coal loader and when it’s lifted off the trains and trucks carried by conveyor belts and dropped into the holes of bulk carrying ships, the ships are turned around and sent on their way overseas. Without access to such a facility it is simply impossible to export your coal. For this reason a coal producer needs access to a coal terminal and enough access to be able to discharge all of the coal the mining company seeks to export.
06/08/2014 4769T E12/2107/0821
During the early 2000s the coal boom was brewing. There were three coal terminals in the Port of Newcastle and they were already heavily booked. Access to those coal terminals was valuable. The ownership of a coal terminal was extremely valuable.
To allow fair access to the existing infrastructure the Port of Newcastle and others had hammered out an industry wide agreement which bound amongst others the owners of the existing coal terminals as well as the coalmining 10 companies as to the allocation of the facilities. An agreement of this kind effectively controls the market. It divides access to existing infrastructure amongst existing industry players. In that sense it is anti-competitive, for that reason it could only be entered after it had secured a CCC approval.
The agreement was called the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Agreement. Sometimes because of the approval is had received the agreement was called the ACCC agreement. I’m going to call it the Coal Chain Agreement.
We have spoken to a couple of experts in the area who describe the Coal 20 Chain Agreement as one of the most important infrastructure agreements in New South Wales in recent decades. It solved an existing problem and it provided a plan for the future.
Part of the Coal Chain Agreement provided for the development of a fourth coal terminal which was given the title T4. The fourth coal terminal was already designed to be developed on land which had already been set aside. The land was on a deep waterfront in an industrial area in Carrington.
The Coal Chain Agreement even provided for the means of paying for the 30 costs of developing the fourth coal terminal, it would be by way of a surcharge on continuing coal experts, $1 or so per tonne.
As I say the negotiations leading the Coal Chain Agreement were fraught and keeping it in place was of critical importance to the whole industry and to the Port of Newcastle and to the people of Newcastle and for that matter to the people of New South Wales.
When BHP shut down its steelmaking operations in Newcastle large tracks of harbour side land became available for re-development. There were two 40 adjacent parcels of land in Mayfield. One was a 37 hectare site which adjoined the harbour. At that point the harbour had been dredged to 15 metres allowing access for the large ships, the ships with the draft sufficient to carry bulk loads and container loads. That 37 hectare site which was always known rather unimaginatively as the Mayfield site came to be controlled by a State owned corporation the Newcastle Port Corporation.
Adjacent to the Mayfield site was another block of 62 hectares. That block was land locked but it was right for development for mixed industrial use.
06/08/2014 4770T E12/2107/0821 In 2007 the 62 hectare site fell under the control of another State owned corporation called The Hunter Development Corporation or HDC.
HDC called for expressions of interest in developing the 62 hectare site. Buildev succeeded in winning with a proposal that provided that the 62 hectare site would be redeveloped.
Meanwhile the Newcastle Port Corporation or NPC was working on its plans in respect of its site the Mayfield site. That planning was undertaken 10 by a variety of experts with skills and experience in the areas covering Ports planning, environmental issues and local planning issues. Significantly there was a great deal of input from economists who were asked to look at the long term economic benefits for the Port, for the City of Newcastle and for the State of New South Wales.
Heading up the team at NPC was Gary Webb, he’s an expert in these matters. Mr Webb had been personally involved in the development of Port Botany which saw that container terminal grow from a small operation into the massive terminal of the present day. 20 One of the key issues which influences deliberations of the NPC was the preservation of the Coal Chain Agreement and the plan to develop the fourth coal terminal T4.
The NPC arrived at the view that the best solution was to use the Mayfield site as a container terminal, container terminal as opposed to coal terminal.
The Port of Newcastle had always principally been a bulk load handling port and its means of handling non bulk loads was outdated and inefficient. 30 Newcastle is an ideal location for an additional container terminal. There is no container terminal between Sydney and Brisbane and the Port of Newcastle had ready access to the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway which would allow easy distribution to the whole of the north and west of New South Wales.
The NPC calculated that over time a container terminal could grow into an important facility not to rival Port Botany but rather to compliment it.
The NPC’s planning took years of work. They had also engaged in 40 uncovering the most desirable contractors to bring the container terminal to fruit, and they were in advance negotiations with one particular contractor Anglo Ports. That’s a company with international experience in delivering port and shipping infrastructure.
By the second half of 2010 the NPC was ready to announce that Anglo Ports would be its preferred contractor. All that was needed was ministerial approval.
06/08/2014 4771T E12/2107/0821 There was however opposition to the NPC’s plans for the Mayfield site. Originally this came from Hunter Ports a company associated with Nathan Tinkler which was expressing a desire to access a portion of the Mayfield site. This became more pointed when Nathan Tinkler bought a substantial share of Buildev. From that time Buildev began to apply pressure upon NPC to change its decision and to designate the Mayfield site as the site for a new coal terminal.
There was additional pressure to incorporate Buildev’s 62 hectare site into 10 this new coal terminal project.
The experts at the NPC opposed Buildev’s proposal on a number of sound and solid basis. The most critical was that if Buildev’s proposal went ahead it fractured the basis of the ACCC approved Coal Chain Agreement.
The NPC took high level legal advice from the leading law firm Gilbert + Tobin. That advice was that if an alternative coal terminal was built it was likely that the ACCC would withdraw its approval yet Buildev pressed on. What was in this for Buildev? Well literally, literally hundreds of millions 20 of dollars.
We have evidence that as soon as the Mayfield site was approved for use a s coal terminal the land would explode in value. Buildev could have then sold the site and taken a massive profit. If Buildev did not sell and sought to develop the coal terminal itself then the project was worth even more.
There is also some suggestion that it was intended that the coal terminal would have provided services to the coal taken from a mine at Maules Creek near Gunnedah. The Maules Creek mine, which was the largest in New 30 South Wales, the Maules Creek mine was owned by Aston Resources Limited and a large shareholder of Aston Resources was Nathan Tinkler. It is safe to say that if Buildev had won the rights to develop a coal terminal on the Mayfield Site it would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Mr Tinkler and his co-investors.
A good deal of the facts of this inquiry will relate to determined efforts by Buildev through Mr Tinkler and some of his associates, mainly Darren Williams in pursuing their plan for a coal terminal on the Mayfield Site. Evidence already collected suggests an inappropriate interaction between 40 Buildev, Mr Tinkler, and Mr Williams, and politicians from the Labor Party, and politicians from the Liberal Party. Evidence already collected will suggest that these activities ultimately led to a manipulation of the State Election result in the Seat of Newcastle.
I’ll turn to another matter by way of background and that’s the matter of the campaign for the Seat of Newcastle. In 2007 the Labor candidate, Jodi McKay narrowly held the Seat of Newcastle for Labor. This was in the teeth of strong opposition from an independent opponent, John Tate. The
06/08/2014 4772T E12/2107/0821 narrow margin in 2007 meant of course that the seat was marginal in 2011. And actually the Liberal Party, at least originally only held out dim hopes for Newcastle in the 2011 election. It had only run third in the 2007 election. The Liberal Party’s candidate for Newcastle was Tim Owen.
Tim Owen was a Newcastle local with an outstanding military record. He served in the Royal Australian Air Force for 32 years, retiring in 2009 with the rank of Air Commodore. He’d served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2007 he was awarded an AM in the Order of Australia. After he retired from the 10 RAAF he took up a position as a chief executive of a substantial company and went to politics, he was taking a massive pay cut. He was an outstanding candidate.
But Commissioner, there is more to winning a seat than an outstanding candidate and from December, 2010 there were persons in the Liberal Party who connived with private interests to improve the prospects of winning the Seat of Newcastle. The public inquiry will attempt to uncover all of those involved in the connivance. ICAC investigators have been able to accumulate evidence which shows a well-planned attempt to fund the 20 campaign illegally. One part of this was to attract and use funds coming from prohibited donors, that is property developers.
You will need to bear with me because the scheme involves several different areas and the detail can get a little complicated. One part of the scheme involved Mr, funding Mr Owen’s campaign team. Mr Owen’s campaign manager was a local lawyer, Hugh Thomson. Now I can say as a matter of certainty that Hugh Thomson was right at the centre of the illegalities. I am able to say this because Hugh Thomson admits it. In the end Mr Thomson was offered an inducement by ICAC that in exchange for 30 providing a statement the statement would not be used against him in criminal proceedings in New South Wales except if he gives false or misleading evidence. Mr Thomson agreed and we have had his cooperation in investigating the matters which occurred during the lead-up to the 2011 State Election.
Mr Owen and Mr Thomson agreed to bring a more experienced specialist person in to assist in the management and that was a local Liberal Party identity, Joshua Hodges. Mr Hodges had been suggested by a Liberal Member for Port Stephens, that’s Craig Baumann MP. A meeting was held 40 at Mr Baumann’s electorate office on 18 December, 2010. Mr Hodges, and this is understandable, he wanted to be paid. Shortly afterwards an illegal scheme was concocted under which local property developers paid a small salary to Mr Hodges to get him through the campaign. The scheme appears to have been organised by Mr Thomson and Mr Owen. Mr Baumann may have been aware of it and what I’ll do is I’ll show the first of the documents I’m going to go to, I’ll have it shown on the screen now. Here are some emails which passed between Mr Thomson and Mr Owen and if we go to the second page first, because in the way of these things the chain of emails
06/08/2014 4773T E12/2107/0821 works this way, you’ll see there this is from Mr Thomson. It’s to Mr Owen and he’s, Mr Thomson has had a recruiting chat with Josh, that’s Josh Hodges, who was keen to be involved, and then at the end obviously the next chat is with Craig B, that’s Craig Baumann about paying for it. If I take you back to page one and at its foot Mr Owen responded, “Well done. I think he will be a good goffer for all the ops stuff,” and then he offers to speak to CB, that’s Craig Baumann, about remuneration. And then Mr Thomson responded, “It might be worth a chat with Craig Baumann. I guess there’s no point in dangling the carrot if we can’t make it happen at 10 his end.”
Commissioner, the scheme was crude but it was effective. Mr Hodges raised invoices purporting to charge for consultancy services. I pause there and say Mr Hodges has been helpful as well.
The invoices were a sham. No such services were provided. The payments were designed to cover the salary payable to Mr Hodges for his work on Mr Owen’s campaign. And now I’ll show as an example a false invoice raised by Mr Hodges to Saddingtons Pty Limited. You’ll see it there, it’s to 20 Saddingtons and it’s for consultancy advice, commercial premises, Wyong. Mr Hodges has told us that that was a sham invoice. Saddingtons is a company owned by a local identity, Bill Saddington and it’s a major hardware supplier. I’ll show another one. This is a false invoice raised by Mr Hodges to accompany Australian Decal Sales and Manufacturing Pty Limited. Australian Decal had provided services in Mr Owen’s campaign. They provide those sorts of stickers, you might see them on the sides of political candidates’ cars, that sort of thing. And you’ll see that here, that Mr Hodges was asked to make up a false invoice addressed to Australian Decal for consultancy advice and business plan. So that was sent on to 30 Australian Decal. And then I’ll show the next document because that sum, 7,000-odd to Mr Hodges was included in Australian Decal’s own invoice. The people at Australian Decal have assisted us as well. The $7,000-odd to Mr Hodges was included in Australian Decal’s invoice which they were told should be issued to Buildev. Buildev eventually paid that.
Commissioner, it was also agreed that Mr Owen’s campaign needed a media expert. A local radio identity, Luke Grant was available and with the assistance of Michael Gallacher, MLC Mr Grant was brought in to advise on the way that Mr Owen’s media campaign should be conducted. Now, Mr 40 Grant’s work was worthwhile and he was entitled to be paid for it. And there’d been an agreed sum, he was to be paid $20,000. An arrangement was made so that two local property developers paid for Mr Grant. Mr Grant too has been helpful. The idea was that Mr Grant would issue invoices to each of these property developers for $10,000, but not exactly $10,000 because a round figure might look suspicious.
I’ll show the next document. You’ll see that this is an exchange of emails. If you see down the bottom, Commissioner, there’s an email from Luke
06/08/2014 4774T E12/2107/0821 Grant to Hugh Thomson on the subject of invoicing and he was going to start organising himself and he wanted to know how he was going to charge. So if I take you up to Mr Thomson’s response, to Mr Grant, it’s, “Mate, I’ve got $20,000 lined up at the moment and they,” I’ll come to they in a moment, “And they will both be happy to pay in single instalments. Obviously I’ll leave it to your discretion but something just south of around $10,000 would be great. 9,986 or something random. Not the same as each other so it doesn’t look obvious.”
10 Commissioner, the two property developers were well-known Novocastrians, the Mayor of Newcastle, Jeff McCloy, and the businessman, property developer, Hilton Grugeon. Each of those men was a prohibited donor. Each of those men knew that they were prohibited from making donations yet both of them went ahead and did so.
To disguise their involvement more sham invoices were created. Mr Thomson created two invoices. He addressed one to Hunter Land Holdings, one of Mr Grugeon’s companies, and another to McCloy Administration Pty Limited which is one of Mr McCloy’s companies. Now I’ll just show how 20 this works. On the screen you’ll see Mr Thomson emailing Mr Grant, “Please send an invoice,” and there’s what was called a random sum, by golly that word random’s copped a hiding over the years but, “Please send an invoice for the sum to, for marketing consultancy to Hunter Land Holdings Pty Limited,” then if I show the next page it’s Mr Thomson to Mr Grant, “Whip up a draft invoice for Jeff,” that’s Jeff McCloy of course, “make it an uneven figure to McCloy Administration and then email it off. He’ll play with it if he needs to,” and there’s one of the invoices that Mr Grant sent off for marketing consulting to Hunter Land and here’s the next one, more marketing consulting to McCloy Administration. We’re grateful 30 Mr Grant has been very helpful as well.
Now, Commissioner, I understand that both Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon will deny any role in this or at least both will claim an inability to recall any role in this. We will try to assist them by showing them documents that suggest that each of them consciously engaged in a breach of the electoral funding laws.
There were other aspects of the Newcastle campaign which were illegal. For example, much of Mr Owen’s media campaign was designed and 40 printed with the assistance of a local advertising man, Shane Burrell. Mr Burrell was a friend of Mr Thomson’s and he had a business in Newcastle called Mezzanine-media. I’ll just pause there and say Mr Burrell too has been helpful, we’re grateful. Mezzanine-media did a lot of work on Mr Owen’s campaign. The cost of some of that work, actually a relatively small part of it, was correctly invoiced to the Liberal Party and paid by the Liberal Party. The greater part of Mezzanine-media’s accounts ended up being submitted to and paid by Buildev. Now I’ll just show here next on the screen the fake purchase order which was raised by Buildev to justify the
06/08/2014 4775T E12/2107/0821 payment to Mezzanine-media, so it’s a purchase order and you’ll see that it’s a marketing consultancy, Mr Burrell tells us that he or Mezzanine-media never had any relations of a business kind with Buildev but it’s there and you can see the sum, just under $13,000.
Commissioner, another part of Mezzanine-media’s was paid by yet another property developer, Keith Stronach. The evidence collected would suggest that it was actually Mr Owen who introduced Mr Stronach as a potential helper. Hugh Thomson then made contact with Mr Stronach, I’ll show 10 another email, because he then went on to tell Mr Owen, this is an email, Mr Thomson and Mr Owen, that the matter was under control. Mr Stronach, understandably, did not wish the invoice from Mezzanine-media to be issued to him personally and got in touch with Hugh Thomson so that the invoice would be redirected to one of his companies, a company called Newcastle Yachting Pty Limited. Mezzanine-media issued a fresh invoice which was paid by Newcastle Yachting, I have a couple of documents here. The first is, again an email chain, if we go down the bottom it’s from a personal assistant to Mr Stronach to Hugh Thomson, “Thanks for sending the invoice, could you arrange for it to be made out to Newcastle Yachting,” 20 and then if we go up the top of the page we have Mr Thomson forwarding that email on to Mr Burrell and Mr Burrell at Mezzanine-media did issue a fresh invoice, I’ll show it now, and this was sent to, as you can see, to Newcastle Yachting Pty Limited for marketing consultancy service for $5,000 and that was paid.
Commissioner, others were aware of the scam. When Shane Burrell confirmed to Hugh Thomson that he had sent an invoice to Keith Stronach as he described it for marketing consultancy Mr Thomson then passed that information on to Clint McGilvray, I’ll just have the email put up on the 30 screen, down the bottom you’ll see Shane Burrell to Hugh Thomson, Lizzy Drablow is another person at Mezzanine-media and it’s regarding Tim Owen, so there’s no doubt about it, I mean it’s regarding Tim Owen and it’s been sent on, you can read down and see it, Keith S, “I’ve sent it today,” and so then up the top is, I’ll just move it up the top, Mr Thomson sending it on to Clint McGilvray, that matter for his information and anybody reading that can see that in respect of a matter relating to Tim Owen the advertising people are sending the bill on to a property developer, Mr Stronach’s pretty well known. The significance of that is that at the time Mr McGilvray, who incidentally was very close to Michael Gallacher MLC on the evidence we 40 have, Mr McGilvray at that time was employed by the Liberal Party on the Central Coast and Hunter campaigns.
Now I’ll just deal with a matter of chasing up outstanding debts. Commissioner, one recurring feature in all of this evidence is that while Buildev was very willing to promise to pay money it was much less willing when it came to part with the cash and there were problems caused by Buildev failing to meet its obligations. For example, Josh Hodges, although he had worked on the campaign, he was left unpaid and was justifiably
06/08/2014 4776T E12/2107/0821 cranky about it, Mezzanine-media which had done a lot of work was left largely unpaid, the Liberal Party had actually paid them a little, Australian Decal was left unpaid and this matter lingered for months. There’ll be evidence suggesting that the concerns surrounding this were discussed between Hugh Thomson, Josh Hodges, Tim Owen and Michael Gallacher in an effort to get Buildev to pay those bills and there was documentary evidence to back up the other evidence that we have.
When Hugh Thomson could not get Darren Williams to return his phone 10 calls he asked for assistance from Tim Owen, I’ll have the matter shown, it was done by one of these SMS or text messages, this one we can prove was sent from the telephone of Hugh Thomson to the telephone of Tim Owen, “Mate, can you call DW.” Now, that’s Darren Williams at Buildev. “Mate, can you call Darren Williams about Mezzanine-media and Australian Decal. I’m getting abusive calls and he won’t respond to any of my calls, texts et cetera. I need you to lean on him. It has been promised for months.” I’ll just pause there and show you the date of that, Commissioner, it’s 28 July, 2011. The election’s long over, it was on 26 March, 2011 so these people have been left unpaid. If I go to the next, it’s a response from Mr Owen to 20 Mr Thomson, “Will do,” and then if I go to the next page, sorry, perhaps if I just go back, if you look at the time, Commissioner, it’s 6.10pm on 28 July and then if I go to the next page at 6.16pm on the same day Mr Owen spoke to Mr Williams on the phone for nine minutes 10 seconds and if I go to the next page, this is on the next day and this is from the telephone of Darren Williams and he has sent, these are text messages between Mr Williams and Mr Thomson so this is the day after Mr Thomson has implored Mr Owen to get the money paid that Mr Williams has responded positively. You’ll see he texts Mr Thomson, “Hugh, just paid Mezzanine-media but don’t have the details for Australian Decal,” and then Mr Thomson responds, “Gold,” and 30 then responds by sending along their banking details. In other words it looks as though Mr Owen had some sway which others lacked, sway over Mr Williams and Buildev.
Now, Commissioner, I’ll go into the detail now if I may about the third party campaigns in the seat of Newcastle. Sorry if this is repetitive but it’s important. In any election pressure groups and interest groups can have a say in supporting or opposing particular candidates. I said something briefly about this earlier, they are called third party campaigns. Third party campaigns can be very effective. There were two third party campaigns 40 conducted in Newcastle leading up to the 2011 election. Both were hostile towards Labor and Ms McKay. Both campaigns were by relative standards expensive and sophisticated. Commissioner, there’ll be some evidence that in an ordinary seat during that election funding for an ordinary seat might be $60,000 or a $100,000 for the whole of the campaign by one of the leading political parties and the sums at stake here are fairly substantial. Both these third party campaigns were funded by companies associated with Nathan Tinkler. Now there’s a need to separate the two. One was the campaign
06/08/2014 4777T E12/2107/0821 called “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” and the other was involving the Newcastle Alliance and it was a campaign titled “Fed Up”.
I’ll deal first with “Stop Jodi’s Trucks.” Commissioner, the “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” campaign is an especially malignant campaign. In the end it all comes back to one abiding driving motive, Buildev’s determination to get a coal terminal in the Port of Newcastle. Jodi McKay favoured the development of a container terminal on the Mayfield Site. The corollary was that she opposed the site being used for a coal terminal, but politicians 10 can be persuaded. Earlier in this inquiry there was evidence about how Buildev had made donations, they were substantial donations, to Ms McKay’s 2007 election campaign and how Ms McKay, when she became aware of this refused to meet Mr Tinkler or with Buildev in respect of their proposal.
Commissioner, you’ll recall I’m certain that Ms McKay gave evidence that Mr Tinkler offered her a further donation, one which would have been illegal as prohibited by the electoral funding laws. Now Commissioner, Mr Tinkler said that that was a lie and that Ms McKay was a liar. During 20 adjournment evidence has been obtained which would tend to support the accuracy of Ms McKay’s account.
In the lead-up to the 2011 campaign Buildev retained the services of a political strategist, Ann Wills. Ms Wills had a great deal of experience nearly entirely, and I think actually entirely on the Labor side of politics. Buildev, acting with the advice of Ms Wills conceived of a third party campaign hostile to Ms McKay and hostile to the container terminal. How do you do this? Well one of the most effective means of conducting such a campaign by a brightly coloured highly deceptive mail out. I’ll show you 30 the product, Commissioner. This is the cover page of a pamphlet that was issued and you can see “Stop Jodi’s Trucks in Mayfield,” we’ve put in general evidence. There were several suburbs around Mayfield which at least according to the blarney which appeared in this document could have been effected so that there was a similar one sent to the adjoining suburbs and they would merely read “Stop Jodi’s Trucks,” in whatever the name of the adjoining suburb. And the claim there you can it’s going to be 1,000 trucks per day and that’s going to go on 24 hours a day, and that’s going to go on 365 days a year. “Do you want container trucks in our streets?” Now, that’s pretty pungent stuff. 40 The pamphlet was published anonymously. It does refer on one of its pages to another organisation but that was not the organisation that was responsible. It was published anonymously. And the information, if that’s what it could be called, the information it contains is just ridiculous. We can work it out for ourselves, if 1,000 trucks were going to pass through the container, container terminal each day it would require each of those trucks to be serviced within nine seconds. The trucks it was claimed placed school children at risk. Well we’ve got evidence that coal, sorry the container
06/08/2014 4778T E12/2107/0821 terminal as planned would have been servicing only 30 to 40 trucks per day. And what’s more those trucks were going to enter and leave via a dedicated road, and the purpose of that road is unmistakable. It’s named “Industrial Drive.”
So Commissioner, school kids were never at risk. This was a baseless scare campaign. The pamphlet contained a pro forma letter which could be signed and sent to Ms McKay. And you can see it there, Commissioner. Letter to Jodi McKay. “My family and I, we do not want 1,000 trucks.” I 10 can sympathise with that. “We don’t want increased air and noise pollution. We don’t want more pedestrian danger for your children and the elderly.” And then there are quotes which suggest that her mind had been made up, “No, you should consult the public.”
We know Commissioner, we know who published this pamphlet. Ann Wills and another person, I’ll come back to that other person, Ann Wills and another person designed it and organised it for Buildev. Darren Williams at Buildev paid for it. As I say it was delivered to householders in Mayfield and several suburbs around Mayfield. 20 Now, who was the other person involved in organising and designing the “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” campaign. Well it was none other than Joseph Guerino Tripodi who at that time was the sitting Labor Member for the Seat of Fairfield. Yes, that’s right, Commissioner. Mr Tripodi, a senior Labor Statesman was directly involved in organising a campaign designed to destroy on of his own parliamentary colleagues. Now, there could be an innocent explanation for why one Labor Member was undermining another but it’s difficult to think of one. We think that the best explanation is, and I’ll come back to this, we think that the best explanation is that Mr Tripodi 30 was planning on his career post-politics. He’d already decided not to recontest the Seat of Fairfield and we have evidence that shortly after that it was suggested that he would be working for Buildev.
There is a more sinister side to all of this. We have evidence from the man who actually printed the pamphlets. His name is Vincent Fedele. A man who was, well at least previously a friend of Joe Tripodi’s. Thanks, Mr Fedele. He too has cooperated with us and he has told us that Mr Tripodi approached him, they were meeting at a coffee shop near his printing operation, and Mr Tripodi asked Mr Fedele not to tell anyone of Mr 40 Tripodi’s involvement in the pamphlet. It’s relevant to know that at the time that this was going on there was also a police investigation into this.
Now Commissioner, it goes without saying that attempting to influence a person to give false evidence is a serious offence.
I’ll now turn to the Newcastle Alliance and the “Fed Up” campaign. The Newcastle Alliance is a business group comprising prominent Novocastrians who, as their charter would have it, “Encourage investment
06/08/2014 4779T E12/2107/0821 in Newcastle.” There’s nothing wrong with the organisation. The Newcastle Alliance would ordinarily be considered to be neutral in a Party political sense, although active politically if that was necessary to pursue its objectives. Again, nothing wrong with that. Amongst the prominent members of the Newcastle Alliance are Paul Murphy. Mr Murphy conducts a business called Churchills Carpet Court. There’s also a publican named Rolly de With, and a restaurateur, Neil Slater.
In the lead-up to the 2011 State Election there was a strong perception that 10 Newcastle was in a state of decay and it had been treated unfairly by successive State Parliaments. A local media organisation, Mezzanine- media, I spoke of them before. This is Mr Burrell again, had come up with a plan which involved a campaign to get better entitlements or more entitlements for Newcastle. And that campaign had a catchy title, “Fed Up.” In general terms the campaign message was that Novocastrians were fed up with the way in which they’d been treated and that change was required.
Well if change was going to come this required the removal of the Labor 20 Government and it required the removal of the sitting Labor Member, Jodi McKay. The Fed Up campaign was pointedly anti-Labor and specifically anti-McKay. Mezzanine-media offered the campaign to the local Liberal Party and it was considered by the Liberal candidate, Tim Owen and his team, including Hugh Thomson. In the end the Liberal Party would not endorse the Fed Up campaign. I say that but Mr Bosman who’s coming this afternoon, he’ll tell us something about that. But the Fed Up campaign was still considered to be a potentially valuable adjunct to winning votes in Newcastle.
30 Hugh Thomson was familiar with the leading members of the Newcastle Alliance and he took the Fed Up proposal to them, and by them I mean Paul Murphy, Rolly de With, and Neil Slater. But even though the Newcastle Alliance was relatively well-heeled for an association of this kind it did not have the money to bankroll the Fed Up campaign. An external funder was needed. An external funder was found. Darren Williams at Buildev who agreed to fund the Fed Up campaign. Now, this was quite illegal. Third party campaigners are subject to the same restrictions as the political party and third party campaigners cannot use donations from property developers. Those involved in organising this funding were engaged in an agreement to 40 circumvent the electoral funding laws. The principle players at Buildev’s end were Darren Williams and David Sharpe but it seems that both were acting under the control and with the knowledge of Nathan Tinkler.
We have been able recover text messages passing between Mr Sharpe, Mr Williams, and Mr Tinkler. And Commissioner, remember that I said that Paul Murphy owned Churchills Carpet Court? I’ll show some emails. Some of these have already figured but it’s worth showing them again. In the text messages I’m about to show Mr Murphy is the carpet man and
06/08/2014 4780T E12/2107/0821 “buying carpet” means making a payment to the Newcastle Alliance. This you can see is a text message sent by David Sharpe to Nathan Tinkler himself.
I make that point because as I understood the force of Mr Tinkler’s evidence on an earlier occasion was that he had actually no personal involvement in these matters but this is Mr Sharpe to Mr Tinkler, “Hi mate, we spoke before about helping Libs. There is a media campaign going to be done anti-Labor, need commitment $50,000. TV, newspaper run by Neil Slater 10 and Paul Murphy. Are you okay to buy $50,000 worth of carpet? Another Willy deal.”
Commissioner, there’s other evidence that Willy is the nickname of Darren Williams.
I’ll show the next page of text messages, these are a few days later. The number on the left, these are all in the top section of this, the top five are all between Mr Tinkler and Darren Williams. So Mr Williams to Mr Tinkler, “You okay, mate, if we get some more carpet?” Mr Tinkler, “Gees, how 20 much?’ Mr Williams, “You want her gone don’t you, 50.” I don’t suppose I need to do this but translating that into our language her is Jodi McKay, “You want Jodi McKay gone and it’s $50,000.” Mr Tinkler, “How much is Sharpey putting in?”, that’s of course David Sharpe, “How much is Sharpey putting in? Generosity starting to get tested but yeah”, and these magic words, “Whatever it takes.” And Mr Williams to Mr Tinkler, “One week to go hang in there, bud”, that’s the way that I would read it, Commissioner, I think that’s fair enough, “Matt K”, that’s an interesting person, that’s Matthew Kelly a journalist the Newcastle Herald, he’ll be called during the inquiry as well. “Matthew Kelly is dropping down the marketing stuff for 30 Honeysuckle.” I should tell you Honeysuckle was a major development in Newcastle post BHP, there were commercial buildings, industrial buildings and even some beautiful residential apartments. “Matthew Kelly is dropping down the marketing stuff for Honeysuckle. Are you at the office?”
Now these are on the page because they came from the same phone Mr Williams phone but they were directed to the political strategist Ann Wills and this is Ann Wills to Mr Williams, “When can we get Murph”, that’s Paul Murphy of Churchills Carpet Court and also at the Newcastle Alliance, 40 “When can we give Paul Murphy a cheque so that we can go ahead and lock in the ads and radio?” Mr Williams, “Monday.” Ms Wills, “Okay, I’ll let him know, thanks.”
I’ll show the next one. This is an email, sorry a text rather from Hugh Thomson to the publican Rolly de with, “Mate, Darren’s”, that’s Darren Williams, “Darren’s just offered another $50,000.” I’ll show the next one. This is from Ann Wills to Darren Williams, this is a few days later, “Guys, the Alliance ads start tomorrow, radio and newspaper. Also the website is
06/08/2014 4781T E12/2107/0821 up and running. Can we please get a cheque to Murphy made out to the Newcastle Alliance, thanks. It’s game on, I say bring it on.”
I’m not sure there might be another one as well. Can you just show the next page. This is, this is a few days later about a week later. That top one is from Darren, these, they all involve Darren Williams. The first one’s from Darren Williams to Nathan Tinkler, “Mate, can I talk to Troy”, that’s Troy Palmer, “Mate, can I talk to Troy about the carpet man to sort out the carpet man”, then Mr Tinkler, “Inside ALP polling said she is gone.” Oh so sorry, 10 so sorry, that’s Mr Williams to Mr Tinkler, “Inside ALP polling says she is gone.” Mr Tinkler back to Mr Williams about the payment to carpet man, “Again, done it twice already.” Mr Williams corrects that, “No, we haven’t done it yet”, and he’s quite right the cheque hadn’t been paid, “No, we haven’t done it yet, we only need to do one lot, we only said we would”, and then Mr Tinkler, “Are you happy then, thought it had been done”, and then Mr Williams, “No, mate, can you give”, that’s Troy Palmer, “Can you give Troy Palmer the okay I will direct him where to, thanks”, and Mr Tinkler sends back, “Have told him you will call”, and then the next exchanges are between Mr Palmer and Mr Williams. 20 Now in an earlier point in the inquiry I pointed these and said they may work in a different way but it’s pretty plain now following the further investigations that they work in the context of this finding of the Fed Up campaign, it’s Mr Palmer to Mr Williams, “Mate, do you want to come down now? Thanks. How’s the car going?” et cetera et cetera and let’s hope we get the changes in Newcastle that we need.
Just go a bit further, next page. Commissioner, there’s no doubt that Mr Tinkler and the others of Buildev were right after Jodi McKay. This email 30 was sent by David Sharpe to Darren Williams and it was also sent on you’ll see to Nathan Tinkler himself and this looks as though it was after seeing the way in which the Fed Up campaign was going to be framed and you’ll see that after looking at the materials the Fed Up materials that Mr Sharpe has said to Mr Williams, “Good start, Willy, kick the shit out of her”, again, again and I point out this is sent onto Mr Tinkler and the “her” of course is Jodi McKay.
Commissioner, the Fed Up campaign was comprehensive, it was conducted on the radio, on the TV and the Newspaper and there were hand bills 40 delivered to potential voters in the evidence when it gets put up you’ll see that there’s a photograph of this and it was even one of those things that you see up in the sky where a little airplane trails a banner promoting Fed Up.
What I’ve done is just half a dozen pages just showing elements of the Fed Up campaign and I’ll just get those flick through, “Fed Up about CBD decay” and “Have your say” et cetera. Don’t move that for a moment, “Make your vote really count” and it’s all about change it’s about getting rid of Labor it’s about getting rid of Jodi McKay. If you go on, and “Vote for a
06/08/2014 4782T E12/2107/0821 change, no more broken promises, more of the same is not a solution, change the way we vote.”
Now the Fed Up campaign, Commissioner, was being conducted in the last three weeks before the 26 March 2011 Election. It’s reasonable to conclude that it may well have influenced a number of voters.
Involvement of Mr Tinkler and his companies was disguised. When it came time to pay the Newcastle Alliance the payment was made by Serene Lodge 10 Racing Pty Limited, a company owned and controlled by Nathan Tinkler and somehow associated with that other company Patinack Farms. This is a record from, if you make it a little smaller, make it a little smaller on the screen, Serene Lodge Racing Pty Limited and then it’s in respect of the Newcastle Alliance and it’s $50,000 that’s the $50,000 of carpet that we’ve heard so much about.
The person responsible for drawing that money was Troy Palmer. He figured in the SMS messages you’ll recall but you may also remember that Troy Palmer gave evidence in the other inquiry or the earlier part of it about 20 large payments which had been made by another Tinkler company Patinack Farm to Tim Koelma at Eightbyfive and I’ll just bring back some memories for you, Commissioner. When he was doing that that was in respect of what was suggested to be invoices for consultancy services where Mr Koelma had provided at least on the evidence of Mr Palmer had provided no services. Although there was a conflict between Mr Koelma who claimed that he had but in any event in this instance if I go to the next page, the internal accountants, it’s hard to read this because they’re very close together but down there’s Kim Carles the payroll manager and she is sending an email to Troy Palmer, “Hi, you did a transfer of $50,000 from 30 Serene to the Newcastle Alliance. What was this for please?” and there’s Mr Palmer’s answer, “It was for a consulting fee.” So as best as I understand it Serene Lodge owns race horses and the claim is that it was providing a consultancy, or sorry that the Newcastle Alliance was providing some sort of consultancy to it.
Commissioner, the result of the Newcastle election, a point need to be made about the seat of Newcastle. I’ll just remind you. The Liberal Party had run third in 2007. Mr Owen received the benefit of a 26 per cent increase in the Liberal Party primary vote. That reflected itself in a 20 per cent swing on a 40 two-party preferred basis and even then he only won by 1,878 votes. Commissioner, given what went on a real question arises as to the validity of the result of the election in the seat of Newcastle.
I want to come back to two gentlemen I’ve referred to before, Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon and I want to refer to them in the context of things that they were doing in the seat of Charlestown. Commissioner, Andrew Cornwell is the Liberal Party Member for Charlestown. Mr Cornwell has given considerable assistance to ICAC. There are several disturbing things
06/08/2014 4783T E12/2107/0821 which emerge from the evidence or likely evidence of Mr Cornwell and there is now only the time and need to refer to two of them.
The first is an incident which occurred when Mr Cornwell was at work. In a previous life he was a veterinary surgeon in Cardiff. While in surgery Mr Cornwell was called out for an urgent meeting with Jeff McCloy. They sat in Mr McCloy’s car. Mr Cornwell thinks it was a Bentley. But anyway they sat in Mr McCloy’s car and Mr McCloy passed over an envelope containing a large wad of bills. Mr Cornwell says, and I think this is quite 10 understandable, that he was so shocked and embarrassed that he didn’t respond. Mr Cornwell says that he didn’t even count the money but from other means we know that it was $10,000. Mr Cornwell says he took the money home, he put it in his sock drawer or somewhere for a while and then later passed it to the president of the Charlestown branch Bob Bevan.
Mr Bevan was acting as a kind of, in this respect, a kind of de facto campaign treasurer. Mr Cornwell explained to Mr Bevan, we’ve got this from each of them, their evidence is perfectly consistent except in one respect, Mr Cornwell explained to Mr Bevan that it was a donation which 20 had come from a donor who didn’t wish his identity be disclosed. Mr Bevan remembered that it was Mac something, the name and, but that didn’t mean anything to him at the time but anyway Mr Bevan has told us that he could well understand a desire for anonymity in a small community. Mr Bevan took the cash and I might say this is the only point where the account of Mr Cornwell and Mr Bevan parts ways, Mr Bevan says that it was in the more traditional brown paper bag and not an envelope but anyway, Mr Bevan took the cash, he did count it, it was $10,000 in $100 bills. He banked it into a business account of his, a company called Harmony Hill Pty Limited and when the funds cleared Mr Bevan then 30 donated if that’s the right word, donated the money to the Liberal Party under the name of Harmony Hill.
Now I understand that Mr McCloy will deny that this ever occurred. It will be a matter for the Commission as to whether or not Mr McCloy is believed on that although it would seem a very strange story for Mr Cornwell and Mr Bevan to invent. If this exchange did occur, and especially if Mr McCloy continues to maintain that it did not, then the Commission would be entitled to draw an inference that the payment was made with malign intent.
40 The second incident involved Hilton Grugeon. Mr Cornwell and his wife had given Mr Grugeon a Christmas present, a painting by the artist Rex Newell. Mr Grugeon declined to receive it as a gift and he said I insist that I buy it and then he said I insist upon buying it for $10,120. Now I might say, and this is not a deep survey, but from looking at the internet that is a sum which is likely to be grossly in excess of the true value of the painting. Mr Grugeon actually asked for an invoice and he paid out on the invoice. Mr Cornwell was embarrassed by the receipt of money and at first told his wife don’t bank the cheque. He then sought advice and look it’s,
06/08/2014 4784T E12/2107/0821 Commissioner, not the most independent advice, he sought advice from his father and from his mother, both of whom were lawyers by training. Each looked at the electoral funding laws and each told him that there’d been no breach and eventually the cheque was cashed and it was used in the Charlestown campaign. The Commission might find that this was an attempt by Mr Grugeon to circumvent the electoral funding laws.
I want to say something now about Andrew Cornwell and about Tim Owen. Both Mr Cornwell and Mr Owen were outstanding candidates for 10 Parliament, each had a lucrative career and each was making a sacrifice in seeking political office. Neither was a career politician, they were not party machine men and they were being enlisted by the Liberal Party because they were outstanding candidates. One can see how the experience of each made them susceptible to being manipulated by wealthy individuals who wanted political preferences, especially if those wealthy individuals had pre-existing support of elements within the Party machine.
Mr Cornwell has been helpful to ICAC. He has given cooperation. His actions may have been unwise but it would seem to us, this is just an 20 expression of opining between Mr O’Mahoney and myself, but it would seem to us that those actions may have been the product of a degree of inexperience in the face of high pressure tactics from some pretty determined characters. I should add that there is no evidence which suggests that Mr Cornwell actually gave any preferences to Mr McCloy or Mr Grugeon.
Mr Owen might be in the same class. It remains to be seen the extent to which he cooperates with this inquiry. Mr Owen was brought into the campaign late, he was surrounded by persons whose motives were not pure. 30 There is hard evidence of misdeeds in the campaign in Newcastle and the Commission expects and is entitled to expect that it will get the full cooperation of Mr Owen.
I’ll now turn to another character who’s centrally involved and that is Joe Tripodi, the role of Joe Tripodi. The story is well known, I barely need to repeat it. Mr Rees, the Premier, had removed Mr Tripodi as a Minister in November 2009. In 2010 Mr Tripodi made it known that he would not be recontesting the seat of Fairfield in the 2011 State Election. But Commissioner, that did not mean that he ceased to be a public official nor 40 did it relieve him of his obligations which are not only legal but if you like moral as the State Member for Fairfield, these obligations would continue until a new Member was elected for that seat on 26 March, 2011. Despite that we expect the evidence will reveal that Mr Tripodi was spending a good deal of his time involved in matters which could benefit Buildev.
A little bit of history is important here. Mr Tripodi had been the Minister for Ports from 2006 to 2009, indeed, it was while Mr Tripodi was the Minister for Ports that the Coal Chain Agreement was put in place. Mr
06/08/2014 4785T E12/2107/0821 Tripodi could have been rightly proudly of that agreement and he should have regarded it as his principal political achievement. In any event, it is very clear that Mr Tripodi was advising Buildev on their proposal for a coal terminal at Mayfield as early as October 2010. I’ll show this on the screen. It’s an example of some of the material that we’ve been able to find.
We’ve been able to recover an email created by David Sharpe and in the way that these things are sometimes done Mr Sharpe has preserved it by sending it to himself. It’s dated 31 October, 2010. I’ll just get it flicked 10 through because there’s three pages of it, so that’s the first page, that’s the second page and third page is uninteresting, it’s the signoff. But it’s the second of the three pages that I want to focus upon for present purposes. Could I say this, the whole of this document is very important but just for present purposes I would look at one line on the second page. You’ll see there there’s a heading “Strategy”, Commissioner, I’ll be coming back to this a little later in another context. The third entry is “Need to brief Joe and Eric so they can take charge of the situation.” Now, Commissioner, Joe is Joe Tripodi and Eric is Eric Roozendaal, at that time the Treasurer of New South Wales and at that time the Minister for Ports. I’ll come back and say 20 something more about Mr Roozendaal. For now back to Mr Tripodi.
Commissioner, you might wonder why Buildev was involving themselves with a backbencher who, presumably, was tied up fighting for his constituents in the seat of Fairfield. Buildev had a meeting with Mr Tripodi on 19 November, 2010, I’ll just have this email shown up on the screen. We had seen it – if you go down the bottom it’s details with Joe on Friday and the idea is that they would fly him up at 11.30, lunch, fly him back and we’ve got other information from Mr Sharpe that the flight was being taken in a Tinkler-owned helicopter. 30 Now, we’ve been able to recover – sorry, I should just point something out. If you look at the dates, that’s Monday, 15 November, 2010. The Friday would be 19 November, 2010. That’s when they’re going to fly him up. If I show you now, we’ve been able to recover an email which includes notes made as a result of Mr Tripodi’s meeting with Buildev. If I show you the first, “Joe notes, 19 November, 2010,” and they’ve probably been typed, go back to it for a moment, probably been typed up by Kellie Lowe for David Sharpe. We’ve been able to get it. If we’re, Mr Sharpe’s been helpful. I, whether he’s yet to be completely helpful we will see. But he has been 40 helpful to a degree. And we’ve got this.
If we go over to the next page there are very fascinating features on this page. There are bullet points – I wanted to pause now on all of them, but virtually all of them are important. You’ll see the first one is “Gary Webb provided legal opinion from Tobins but argues that ACCC Agreement would be compromised.”
06/08/2014 4786T E12/2107/0821 Now Commissioner, you’ll understand why I, perhaps in boring detail gave that description of what went on, the background because you’ll recognise that Gary Webb, he’s the CEO at the NPC, the Newcastle Port Corporation. He was the head of it at the time that a legal opinion was obtained by, from Gilbert and Tobin. The reference to the ACCC Agreement is of course the thing that I’m calling the Coal Chain Agreement. So we know “Joe’s notes” are here talking about this critical project, Buildev’s desire to get a coal terminal at Mayfield. And then the next entry is interesting. “Both Joe/Ian say argument put forward are unfounded. I believe ACCC Agreement 10 allows what we are planning.”
Well Commissioner, Joe of course is Joe Tripodi but it’s the Ian that we’re presently interested. Commissioner, we believe that Ian is Ian McNamara. Mr McNamara was previously a president of Young Labor and he was and maybe still is very close to Joe Tripodi. In fact I notice from one of the newspaper reports that he’d been given the nickname, it’s quite clever whoever came up with this, they called him – it’s hard to pronounce – “The Triprotege.” The Triprotege.
20 Anyway, Mr McNamara’s presently on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Robertson. Mr, Joe’s notes as they’re called go on. I’ll just go down a little bit further. Sorry, “Gary Webb proving to be stubborn.” Well, we’re going to call Mr Webb and what’s more I think he’s going to be flattered when he hears that he was regarded as stubborn in respect of his position on the container terminal.
And the next entrance, entry is that, “DS will try and get Libs/Nats to call him and tell him they support our proposal as well.” DS of course is David Sharpe of Buildev. We’ll ask Mr Sharpe in due course who were those Libs 30 or Nats that he intended to contact. The notes continue, and this is a particularly interesting one, “Joe,” this is what Mr Tripodi’s going to do, “Joe is going to get Eric to stop Anglo deal going to board this Thursday.”
Commissioner, you recall that I set out the background. Anglo Ports had been brought in. They were the person with whom the NPC wanted to do the deal but it required Ministerial approval. The relevant Minister here was Eric Roozendaal and Mr Tripodi was going to get Mr Roozendaal to stop the Anglo deal going to the board. What’s more, and you never know, this might be just a pure coincidence, the Anglo deal didn’t get to the board. 40 Now, I won’t dwell on some of the other things there. I’ll just go down a little bit lower, about halfway down the page, Commissioner, you’ll see “Jodi is not supporting us.” That’s obviously Jodi McKay.
And then there’s this, there’s a reference to two people with whom ICAC is familiar. The entry, “Buildev will contract Tony Kelly to make sure that he is still onside. Buildev shall do the same with Warwick Watkins.” Now, ICAC is aware of Tony Kelly. He was, he’s a former politician, former
06/08/2014 4787T E12/2107/0821 Labor politician and at the time the Minister for Planning. And Warwick Watkins and Mr Kelly well, they’re known to ICAC for all their work on the sale and purchase of Currawong back in 2011. In fact it was happening just around about the time this note was made.
Now, to finish it off, some of these other things will make sense in due course but I don’t want to drag this out forever. Just to finish it off I’d like to show that note that’s there on the screen now near the foot of the page. “Meeting Eric and Gary,” Eric Roozendaal and Gary Webb. And 10 Commissioner, around about this time Gary Webb was called to a meeting with Eric Roozendaal and it’s suggested that there are going to be two options. One, I’ve met Mr Webb. This is never likely by the way. The first one was, this is pie in the sky, but Gary would roll over. In other words he’d see Buildev’s, the beauty of Buildev’s proposal. But then, this is the disturbing part, “In the event that Gary does not roll over,” this is the plan, “Eric takes the land of NPC,” the Newcastle Port Corporation, “And gives it to HDC,” the Hunter Development Corporation, “With the instructions to do the deal with Buildev.”
20 In other words – I’m sorry, I should pause there. There’s been evidence about this already. You’ll recall the evidence that has come in about the circumstances, limited circumstances in which a Minister might give a direction to a state owned corporation. There would be power for Mr Roozendaal to do this. The proposal is that he’s going, if Webb won’t surrender he’s going to take the land right away from Mr Webb and pass it over to the Hunter Development Corporation with instructions.
And then the third note there, sorry, the next note is something I just need to explain. “At this rate we are 50/50 to get AFL,” we have asked and Mr 30 Sharpe helped us with this, AFL means agreement for lease. “At this rate we are 50/50 to get an agreement for lease before Christmas.”
It goes on. You’ll see that the next one is that, “Eric has a fear,” so this is Mr Roozendaal that Mr Webb may go public with a smear campaign. “And that’s why we need the Libs onside.” In other words we’ve got one of those rare instances of, in New South Wales politics where there’s apparent intersection or bipartisan support of a project. “Get the Libs onside to hose down the NPC and to say that the Government is right on this occasion.” And then finally, “Whilst progressing our bid negotiations we need to slow 40 or derail Anglo.”
Well Commissioner, those four notes contain the elements of a strategy. As Treasurer Mr Roozendaal had the power to issue directions to both of the state owned corporation, the NPC and the HDC. The notes show that Buildev had the advantage of knowing that the Treasurer, Mr Roozendaal was going to step in. If Buildev got its way Mr, sorry, unless Buildev got its way Mr Roozendaal was going to take the land away from NPC in order that the deal be done with Buildev.
06/08/2014 4788T E12/2107/0821
There is more to this. There has been clear Treasury advice over the years which supported the position taken by the NPC and to the point of ridiculing the idea that the Mayfield Site be used for a coal terminal. Now under circumstances which are not presently clear, but I promise we’ll try and get to the bottom of this, under circumstances which are not presently clear Mr Roozendaal insisted that Treasury redo their advice and produce a further advice. These notes are still under investigation as we speak. The present evidence that we have is that Treasury – I use that way here generally – 10 some, somebody or something which called itself Treasury did produce a new advice. Now I’ll just have it show on the screen. This is just the cover page. This is it. “Review of proposed uses of Mayfield and the Intertrade lands.” They’re the adjoining block.
All of a sudden we’ve got a new advice and here’s a page from it page 10, all of a sudden and effectively for the first time these sorts of matters are being raised, “Treasury hasn’t been provided with a rigorous analysis.” We’ve got, had two people who have said that is just factually wrong, had never been asserted before. Then the second point is that although the NPC 20 had identified a potential demand the was doubt over that and again we had two people who would know who said that is just wrong and thirdly somebody’s gone back to a 2003 study to look at these sorts of problems and identified what they see as being a problem involving Port Botany, a problem which had never been identified before and in fact in according to the people, to whom we’ve spoken it’s not a genuine problem at all.
Well we want to try and get to the bottom of why and how that new Treasury advice came out and, Commissioner, you can understand an advice of that kind was extremely important because it gave Buildev traction in 30 respect of its proposal.
A Treasury advice of this kind is an extremely confidential Government document. Someone leaked this Treasury advice to the Newcastle Herald.
Commissioner, you’ll remember that I earlier recounted how Buildev had retained an experienced political strategist Ann Wills. Here are a string of text messages which passed between Darren Williams of Buildev and Ann Wills at the time the document was leaked. I’ll just get it enlarged a little. I’ll just get you to make it a little smaller actually ‘cause I need to see who’s 40 talking to who but, I’ll read it out. This is all from Darren Williams phone and he’s sent a text message to Ann Wills, “Call me Joe is panicking the document has been leaked.” Now he’s then sent seven minutes later another text, “Ring Matt”, that’s Matthew Kelly of the Newcastle Herald, “Ring Matthew Kelly and tell him not to give anyone a copy ASAP.” So Mr Williams knows that Matthew Kelly has got a copy and he knows that Ann Wills is in a positon where she can direct Matthew Kelly not to distribute it.
06/08/2014 4789T E12/2107/0821 And then there’s a going on about, “Did you talk to Joe? And now he’s happy. Sharpey nearly had a heart attack for no reason, I can’t wait to hear our new nicknames.”
Well, Commissioner, again and this is the expression of Counsel opinion and Counsel Assisting only, it’s our opinion that the inferences available from these and other records that’ll come into evidence that Eric Roozendaal or perhaps Ian McNamara provided the Treasury advice to Joe Tripodi, Joe Tripodi provided confidential document to Buildev that 10 Buildev gave it to Ann Wills who gave it to Matthew Kelly at the Newcastle Herald, and, Commissioner, this was of course very destructive of Jodi McKay’s position.
The document is being leaked only six weeks before the election and Ms McKay tried to strike back, she gave an interview to the Newcastle Herald and she gave it to Matthew Kelly and here is an article based upon that. Apologies to Ms McKay, distorts her image a little but it’s the words which are important and Ms McKay spontaneously accused forces within her own Government. 20 The text of this is important because of some text messages which follow up. There’s a second page to it, people can read it in their own time but it’s all about this Buildev issue.
Go to the next page. And then you’ll see there Ms McKay challenged the Treasurer to announce the successful tenderer.
Now this led to an exchange of text messages between Darren Williams and his special advisor Ann Wills. I’ll have those shown now. This is at the 30 top, this is the same day that that article is published in the Newcastle Herald it’s early in the morning and this is from Ms Wills to Mr Williams, “Just had a thought please don’t mention anything to Simmo about the Herald story.” Now Simmo is David Simmons, he was a lobbyist retained by Buildev. Got a bit of information about Mr Simmons, we’ll call him to give evidence in due course and ask him a couple of questions and then there’s a reference to K, at the moment we don’t know what that means and then you see, “Don’t say anything about the Herald story” and so Mr Williams has responded jokingly, “What Herald story?” and then Ms Wills, “Ha, ha, ha. Matt”, that’s Matt Kelly, Matthew Kelly the journalist, “just 40 called and it is now at page 3 and more about how she has called on Eric to announce the preferred proponent and I showed you that before the bitch.”
Now in the course of this you’ll see a tremendous amount of personal animosity betrayed in the messages sent especially from Ms Wills but also from the other people, we’ve already seen they wanted the shit kicked out of her. This goes on, and so what the disappointment here is is that it’s off page 1, what’s page 1 Ms Wills, “I don’t know, too pissed off to go there”, and then Mr Williams, “Relax not as pissed off as she”, that’s Jodi McKay,
06/08/2014 4790T E12/2107/0821 “will be”, and then Ms Wills, “Yeah, I know Matt that’s the journalist, yeah I know Matt said the story doesn’t do her any favours but it shits me that she can get away with this stuff”, and then Mr Williams, “Does it still say if it’s not proven by Treasury”, move it up just a little because there’s – if you can, no. No go back. And then that’s of course this idea about the treasury advice and I’m sorry this is small so I’ll read it to everybody there’ll be people not near a screen, this is from Ann Wills to Mr Williams about the Treasury issue, “Not sure but I doubt he would leave that bit out. Said she had a blow up with Eric he will be ecstatic over that comment and then this 10 is important for a reason I’ll show you, “So this will stop any announcements.” Now that, Commissioner, is a reference, “This is going to stop any announcements which could be favourable to Anglo, stop any announcement that NPCE wanted, and if we turn over the page the text conversation continues. “Probably not cause both her and Eric say that two things run in parallel. You should probably talk to Joe after you have read the paper.” Now that’s obviously Joe Tripodi. This is the open line of communication that Buildev, Mr Williams had with Joe Tripodi. “You should probably talk to Joe after you’ve read the paper, we need to discuss in the morning Eric is a dumb bastard.” 20 Now, Commissioner, I did say a little earlier that I would come back to Mr Roozendaal. We’ve collected evidence from a person with expertise in the area that from the time he assumed responsibility for the Ports portfolio Mr Roozendaal did everything he could to stall the container terminal and he did everything he could to advance Buildev’s proposal for a coal terminal. There will be evidence of Mr Roozendaal meeting with the representatives of Buildev and somehow, I didn’t put them on the screen I probably should have but somehow documents provided by Buildev wound up as annexures in the remade Treasury advice. 30 There will be evidence that Mr Roozendaal took numerous and pointless objections to the NPC proposal and that when he was doing so he was using technical language with which he was obviously unfamiliar but it was also technical language which given his experience with which Mr Tripodi was familiar.
Ian McNamara was also involved. He was present at the relevant meetings although nobody can explain why. Apparently Mr McNamara took a position similar to Mr Roozendaal. His only contributions were to spear the 40 container terminal and to support Buildev.
I’ll now return to Mr Tripodi. He maintained a keen interest in Buildev’s proposal. We’ve recovered an email and I’ll get it put on the screen, you’ll see that this is an email from – no, if you just go back up the top. Darren Williams to David Sharpe and the attachments are JT loader and so it’s been discussed in Buildev, if you go further down the page you can see that this has been passed onto those two by Ann Wills and then if we turn over we
06/08/2014 4791T E12/2107/0821 can see what the annexure was, and this is written you can see, “To Darren” and at the foot, “From or by Ann.”
“Joe is going to put together dot points.” One wonders what the Member for Fairfield was doing putting together dot points on his weekend for the steps that needed to be taken for Buildev’s Development Application for the coal loader, but Joe is going to do it. “And here is the basic information that Joe and I have discussed. The submission would go to Maritime New South Wales. Steve Dunne is the CEO and a decent person.” Can I reminder you 10 – I probably don’t need to remind you, Commissioner, but Mr Dunne is another public servant with whom the Commission is familiar for his work on the restaurant leases down at Circular Quay. “Steve Dunne is the CEO and a decent person and it should take about,” a period of time. Second bullet point, cabinet agenda item. “Cabinet recommend to Budget Committee,” that’s the Budget Committee of cabinet, we’ve heard all about this during the Australian Water inquiry, the evidence of which is evidence here. “And then it goes to the Budget Committee for approval. Joe thought it would be a good idea for Warwick Watkins” – we’ve heard of him before – “to have carriage of the process. I’ll talk to Joe over the weekend and get 20 a more comprehensive document to you on Monday.”
Commissioner, the State Election was held on 26 March, 2011 and Mr Tripodi was now out of Parliament. Sorry, I should go back and just show you something, Commissioner, go back to a page as well. All of this was being done – go back a page again, you’ll see this, this is before the State Election, this is, I want to make it clear, while Mr Tripodi is still the State Member for Fairfield. Anyway, the State Election was held on 26 March, 2011. Mr Tripodi was now out of Parliament and a free man. He wasted no time in getting a new position. We’ve recovered a Buildev email which is 30 dated 20 April, 2011, so if we just go forward a little to page 52. And this is from someone named Ross Cadell, addressed to Ann Wills and to Joe Tripodi and to David Sharpe and to Darren Williams, and it’s a scope of work on Hunter Ports. And this again is a pretty important document and I hate bypassing it, but it speaks of Mr Tinkler’s vision for the Hunter, his wonderful work in supporting the Newcastle Knights and it’s down there, there’s a dream world where in the second week of October the Knights have just won another Grand Final and the team lands at Newcastle Airport on the way to the brand new sports club at Hunter Venues to celebrate the win with fans. From the airport they drive past Hunter Ports’ coal facility 40 where two more ships are getting ready to ship another $22 million worth of Hunter coal off to the world. And if we go over, let’s have a look at the dream team who is going to put this together. Next page you’ll see outline sheet, project principals, Mr Sharpe and Mr Williams, and then there’s the project face, the advisory team is headed by Joe Tripodi, Senior Advisor.
We’ve been able to recover a couple of other documents, this isn’t all, but a couple of other documents created by Mr Tripodi while he was still a State MP when he was providing advice to Buildev on a block of land in
06/08/2014 4792T E12/2107/0821 Edmondson Park. I’ll have it put up on the screen now. You’ll see that up the top it’s from Darren Williams to David Sharpe, and what he’s doing is he’s attaching – this isn’t the whole of the email, it has got extensive annexures, but if you go down the bottom you’ll see that originally it was sent by Joe Tripodi to Darren Williamson (as said) and I’m sure that John Edmondson VC would be horrified if he’d seen that mis-spelling of his name, but if we go over we can see what Mr Tripodi was proposing to Mr Williams. This is some of the scattered detail of one of the sites I mentioned to you. This is while he’s a State MP and also perhaps a 10 freelance real estate agent. The owner of one block wants this, it’s about five acres, it’s next to the planned train station at Edmondson Park, it’s currently rural. So it’s hard to imagine its future, but Landcom are in the midst of matters buying and consolidating the farms to begin development. It is a strategic piece of land which Landcom will probably come knocking to buy as part of its consolidation. It goes on and you can see just down the foot the Government’s position on the railway line was attached and the Opposition policy was similar, and Mr Tripodi, while he’s a Member of the New South Wales Parliament, while he’s the sitting Member of Fairfield and while he’s also assisting Buildev in its campaign and Stop Jodi’s 20 Trucks, was also willing to put aside Wednesday and Thursday mornings to introduce the people at Buildev to the owners of the property. As I say, some kind of freelance real estate agent.
I’ll now move to a new subject, Nathan Tinkler or “the big man.” The story that I’ve attempted to tell so far is complex, varied and diverse, but a number of the threads tie back to one person, Nathan Tinkler. When Mr Tinkler returns to give evidence we’ll be pointing out to him that there does seem to be a body of evidence which indicates that it was he who had ultimate control over several of these measures and that it was he who made 30 the decision to fund the illegal activities.
There is other evidence implicating Mr Tinkler in making large payments for use by the Liberal Party and this involves Mr Gallacher and Mr Hartcher. Now, part of it is contained in a text message exchanged in December 2010 which spoke of a $120,000 payment which was going to come from “the big man.” I’ll put it up on the screen. This is a text message sent by Hugh Thomson, remember him, campaign manager for Mr Owen, sent by Hugh Thomson to Michael Gallacher. Now, Mr Thomson says it was Mr Gallacher who had told him of the existence of a large scale 40 donor who Mr Gallacher referred to as “the big man,” or “our big man” or “the big fish.” You’ll see there that there’s a reference to, “How’s our big man going with the $120,000?”
Now, Commissioner, there are others who may have been aware of this arrangement as well. We can prove a lot of telephone traffic between Hugh Thomson, Tim Owen, Chris Hartcher, Michael Gallacher and the State Member for the seat of Londonderry, Bart Bassett, all occurring on 15 December, 2010, right about the time that some events follow. On that
06/08/2014 4793T E12/2107/0821 same day if we look at it next, at 3.39pm on 15 December, 2010, Tim Owen sent Hugh Thomson a message, “Hugh, the 120 was split three ways as suspected. May want to speak to MG,” Michael Gallacher. Now, if you go to the next one Mr Thomson responded, “Do you know who between?” That’s the split of the $120,000. And Mr Owen responded to that, “No, just he rang and said nothing more.” The timing and other evidence that we’ve got makes it pretty clear that the “he” to whom Mr Owen was referring was Chris Hartcher.
10 Now, the next email – I need to use this carefully, because this came from Mr Owen to Mr Thomson and it refers to the split. They didn’t know because they hadn’t been told who the other beneficiaries apart from Mr Owen were. This is Mr Owen’s guess, he suspects RP and AC. I’ve got to be very careful here, please hear me out. RP we think is likely to be Robyn Parker who was in the seat of Maitland, running for that seat, and AC is likely to be Andrew Cornwell from the seat of Charlestown. Now, this is what I want to add. ICAC has been through the materials relating to Mr Cornwell and Ms Parker and it suggests that Mr Owen’s speculation on this issue was wrong. In particular I wish to make it clear that ICAC has not 20 turned up any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Robyn Parker.
But we have been able to trace some of the money donated by “the big man,” and actually this intersects with that part of the inquiry which will look at the Free Enterprise Foundation. On 13 December, 2010, Troy Palmer drew two cheques on the account of a company owned by Mr Tinkler, Boardwalk Resources Pty Limited. Each was made out to the Free Enterprise Foundation. I’ll have them shown actually, they’re very bad copies but if you believe me when you see it in its best position, that says, “Free Enterprise Foundation, 13 December, 2010.” That date is important. 30 $35,000. It’s drawn on Boardwalk Resources and it’s signed by Troy Palmer. And I’ll show the next one. Both of them become relevant. Same thing, cheque to the Free Enterprise Foundation, same date, same company, same signatory, but this one for $18,000.
Now we know that those two cheques came into the possession of Chris Hartcher and we know that on 13 December, 2010, he or in effect somebody in his office, Aaron Henry, mailed the two cheques to Paul Nicolaou and the Liberal Party State Head Office. There’s a reason why I said the date was important, the closeness in time, the cheques are dated 13 December, the 40 same day they’re in the hands of Mr Hartcher, the same day they’re sent on.
Now those cheques might have arrived the next day but whatever, Mr Nicolaou seems to have got them on about 16 December, 2010. Now when they were received someone, and we obviously can’t immediately saw who, someone, it might have been Mr Nicolaou or it might have been Simon McInnes who was the Finance Director at the Liberal Party and I might say Mr McInnes has been helpful as well, someone, and it might have been Mr Nicolaou, it might have been Mr McInnes, someone immediately made
06/08/2014 4794T E12/2107/0821 entries in the Liberal Party accounts as to how that money was to be credited. The money was credited for the benefit of two politicians, the $35,000 cheque was credited against the fundraising account of Tim Owen and the $18,000 cheque was credited against the account of Bart Bassett in the seat of Londonderry, I’ll put it up on the screen. This is a Liberal Party record. Listing the seats in alphabetical order, so if you bear with me have a look at Newcastle first. You’ll see that Newcastle has on 16 December, 2010, please bear that date in mind, 16 December, 2010 its, his account has $35,000 which is via Free Enterprise and then just glance up and see 10 Londonderry. Now it’s got an earlier date but there has been other money which was in that account earlier which had been transferred from B&C, I’ll just – Mr Bosman will help us this afternoon with what that means. But what happened was the $18,000 was added to that and that gave Mr Bassett a sum in excess of $25,000, a magic figure to which I’ll return.
But at the moment I want to focus on the mystery which arises here because you can see that on 16 December, 2010 that entry has been made, put against Mr Owen’s seat of Newcastle via the Free Enterprise, the mystery being this, how could the Liberal Party know this? The cheques were made 20 out to the Free Enterprise Foundation, not the Liberal Party, the cheques were made out to the Free Enterprise Foundation, not Tim Owen. It must have been that someone in the Liberal Party, whoever makes the entry, knew at the time the cheques were delivered to the Liberal Party that that money was going to come back from the Free Enterprise Foundation and they knew that before they’d even had a chance, as I’ll show you in a moment, Commissioner, they knew that even before they had a chance to send it on to the Free Enterprise Foundation and someone in the Liberal Party knew exactly where that money was to be used, the two people who were to use it, to get the benefit of it. 30 I’ll show the next document. This is Mr Nicolaou’s letter to Mr Bandle, you might remember he gave evidence on an earlier occasion, I’m afraid I think we need to have Mr Bandle back to answer one or two more questions. You’ll see it’s addressed to Mr Bandle at the Free Enterprise Foundation and you’ll see that there’s a date up the top, please accept from me, Commissioner, that 14 April, 2014 is some sort of thing that happens when this was printed off the machine. This letter was dated 16 December, 2010 and you’ll see that it, it’s signed at the bottom by Mr Nicolaou. “Attached is a cheque for $53,000 from Boardwalk Resources,” pausing there, it wasn’t 40 really, there were two cheques, one $35,000, one $18,000 totalling $53,000. I don’t suppose those matters. “They”, Boardwalk Resources, “they would like the trustees to consider donating the contributions to the Liberal Party New South Wales and, and if it’s approved and accepted please send the receipt to Philip Christensen at Boardwalk Resources.”
We’ve spoken to Mr Christensen. He will tell you he’s got no idea what any of this is about and he never approved it. He didn’t get the receipt, one was sent but he didn’t get it and his evidence at least from where Mr
06/08/2014 4795T E12/2107/0821 O’Mahoney myself were when he gave it seems compelling in its honesty and accuracy, he had nothing to do with it. But Commissioner, another one of the mysteries is that soon after this was sent to the Free Enterprise Foundation what do you know, the Free Enterprise Foundation in an exercise of its independent discretion donated the $53,000 back to the Liberal Party.
This, with respect, has elements of sham about it. Mr Tinkler has already given evidence that he thought these donations were being made to the 10 Liberal Party and the records kept within the Tinkler group of companies suggest that that is how they’re treated, I’ll have this shown, the next page. You’ll see this is an exchange of emails, Alan Wigan is the chief financial officer at the relevant time of Boardwalk Resources and this is an important time because they were trying to work out how they make a declaration in respect of political donations and it was being explained, and you’ll have to accept this from me for the moment, but where it says “The others I think are Liberal Party donations that were organised by Darren Williams”, that’s a reference to the $53,000 and I’ll show the next document which are the working notes for Boardwalk Resources where you’ll see that there are 20 some handwritten entries next to numbers, the top one is the one that we’re interested in, it’s $63,000. There was some money given to the National Party and then the handwritten entry there is “Mainly donations organised by Buildev”. So the $35,000 was provided by Boardwalk Resources or in reality by Buildev and that, Commissioner, was used in Mr Owen’s campaign to buy into a head office funding package, remember I said there was a magic about the $35,000. For $35,000 a candidate could purchase assistance from Head Office and Mr Bosman’s going to help us with that this afternoon.
30 Well, in other words that money was directly useful and directly used in Mr Owen’s campaign for the seat of Newcastle and it came from a prohibited donor. The $18,000 which was provided to Mr Bassett in the seat of Londonderry was also used to buy into the Head Office funding package. We have not yet spoken to Mr Bassett. This information which I might add has come to us relatively recently means the Commission will need to hear from Mr Bassett.
Commissioner, I just want to go now to something about the motives of Buildev. It is quite clear that Buildev was providing money in the 40 expectation that its interests would be preferred. As I described earlier a lot of money was at stake. Earlier I went into some detail about Buildev’s relations with the Labor Party. Buildev had been a donor to the Labor Party and when it suited it Buildev had donated substantially to Labor’s campaign in the seat of Newcastle in 2007. Meanwhile Joe Tripodi had developed his unusually close relations with Buildev. Whatever be the case it’s very plain that Buildev was getting preference from the Labor Party in the second half of 2010 and before the 2011 election. After all the hard work that had been put into developing the Port of Newcastle plans an announcement regarding
06/08/2014 4796T E12/2107/0821 the container terminal should have been made at the latest by late 2010. But of course if that occurred it would have wrecked Buildev’s plans. The executives at Buildev regarded a deferral of the announcement of the container terminal as critical and we know that Eric Roozendaal deferred and deferred making the decision. A deferral was important because Buildev fancied their chances of persuading the incoming Coalition Government to support its plans for a coal terminal.
By 2010 it was anticipated that there was going to be a change of 10 government and this would have provided the motive for the people at Buildev to improve their relations with the Liberal Party and the National Party and this was always part of the plan. I said earlier that I would come back to that list of notes prepared by David Sharpe in October 2010, I’ll do that now. Again it’s the second page of the three-page notes and you’ll see again the heading “Strategy.” If we go to that and enlarge it you’ll see that under the heading of “Strategy” that DS, that’s of course David Sharpe, is to arrange another meeting with Andrew Stoner and Mike Gallacher and other Libs and then there’s the reference to Joe and Eric taking control and there’s a discussion, none of which is irrelevant but the second last entry is one I 20 want to draw attention to.
“The risk still remains that Gary Webb is clearly working against us in the background doing everything he can to frustrate us and the only way to be successful will be political.” Now Commissioner, I’ll show another page because on 13 February, 2011 David Sharpe told Nathan Tinkler, this is a report given by Mr Sharpe to Mr Tinkler, that in respect of the plan at Hunter Ports – it’s about, under that heading “Hunter Ports” about halfway down – “I am meeting with Mike Gallacher this week to go through timing steps to achieve AFL form new Government.” Now I’ll just translate that. 30 I’m meeting with Mike Gallacher this week to go through the timing steps to achieve an agreement for lease from the new Government, from the new Coalition Government. Agreement for lease of course is a fundamental step toward getting the coal terminal.
I’ll say something else, the new Member for Newcastle, Tim Owen proved to be something of a disappointment to Buildev. We have evidence that each of Mr Owen, Mr Sharpe, Mr Tinkler are motorcycle enthusiasts and that they had been at least on one occasion out riding together. They enjoyed that sort of thing. Mr Sharpe was arranging for another ride that 40 was going to take place in May, 2011 and here are a series of text messages passing between the three men. This is from Mr Sharpe to Mr Owen, “Are you up for a bike ride this Saturday? Nathan has said he would come.” And then there’s a discussion. But I want to go down to the one fifth from the top and this is actually Mr Tinkler calling in and cancelling the ride. And why, “Canning it, mate. Not convinced he is onside.” That’s of course why you go on a motorcycle ride with a friend, to enjoy the motorcycle and to see whether or not he will give you a coal terminal.
06/08/2014 4797T E12/2107/0821 But anyway, “Canning it, mate. Not convinced he’s onside. He’s a fence- sitter like his deadbeat leader. Will drive through Stoner and Tim can read about it in the papers like his boss.” I don’t want to tread on Mr O’Farrell’s toes but I think he may have been the leader referred to. But, “Okay, mate. We can still catch up,” and then there’s a cancellation.
Here is a text message that Darren Williams sent to Hugh Thomson on 5 July, 2011 expressing his disappointment in Mr Owen. “We’ll have all the stuff sorted by Friday and we’ll be getting them paid soon.” I’ll just remind 10 you people are still asking for the money which had been promised. But that’s not the point of it. He’s going to pay, and that’s despite this, “Tim has been good to work with, mate, but disappointed. We get no feedback or help from. Mike G?” Now, I’d suggest that that could be read that well, Mr Owen’s proved to be a disappointment, we can’t get any help from him. Should we turn to Michael Gallacher. If we look at the next page Mr Thomson knew what it meant.
Perhaps I should just go back a page and just show you something, Commissioner. That message being sent through, it’s from Mr Williams to 20 Mr Thomson, I may not have explained that, “Go ahead.” What we’ve got is Mr Thomson, and this is Clint McGilvray, and by this stage Clint McGilvray was a member of Mr Gallacher’s staff. “Hey mate, can you please have Michael Gallacher call Darren Williams at Buildev at his earliest convenience. Michael Gallacher knows who he is and I’m happy to discuss if need be.”
Commissioner, you recall – this is moving to another related area but you will recall that an earlier part of this inquiry there was the detailed evidence about Eightbyfive. And you’ll recall that there was evidence which allowed 30 us at the time to contend that a former staffer of Chris Hartcher named Tim Koelma had set up a business, Eightbyfive and that Eightbyfive was issuing sham invoices to different commercial entities. The money was then funnelled back to Mr Koelma and two Liberal Party candidates, Chris Spence and Darren Webber and they were free to campaign for the Liberal Party in seats on the Central Coast. Whether our contention is to be accepted is yet to be decided by with respect we think we can now take our contentions a little further. The same evidence suggested that Mr Koelma had an arrangement with Buildev but to disguise the relationship Buildev had arranged for Mr Koelma to issue his sham invoices to yet another 40 company associated with Nathan Tinkler, with, I’ve mentioned it earlier. It’s called Patinack Farm Pty Limited. “Thanks for the further investigations. We can now better understand what it was that Buildev expected to get in return for the payments.” It all comes yet again to Buildev’s proposal to put a coal terminal at Mayfield. In the earlier proceedings Mr Koelma had sent an email to Darren Williams enclosing his paperwork. I’ll have it put up on the screen. There was reference to this in the evidence on an earlier occasion. And you’ll, Commissioner, you’ll
06/08/2014 4798T E12/2107/0821 remember that paperwork was some sort of word of code or something like that. It was the way in which they described the sham invoices.
And so you’ll see down the bottom Mr Koelma is emailing Mr Williams his paperwork then, and he’s referring to a proposed meeting. And then, there’s a bit of urgency about getting this money. Mr Williams sends it on to Troy Palmer who is responsible for making the payments at Patinack Farm. “Troy mate, can you get this sorted please as he is getting some meetings sorted this week for us re: the port.” Again, it’s all coming back to the same 10 thing. “Thanks,” – sorry, I withdraw that. In other words the payments to Mr Koelma and Eightbyfive may be explained as the purchase by Buildev of a political preference and that preference was to get it’s foot in the door in respect of its coal terminal.
Now, this example is even more instructive. Commissioner, you may know that on the old Pacific Highway there’s a bridge which crossed Lake Macquarie to join the towns of Belmont and Swansea. In about 2010 Buildev had entered into a contract with the Department of Lands under which if approvals were, were granted Buildev would acquire beachfront 20 and lakefront land to develop a major commercial and residential project with a marina near the Swansea bridge.
Gary Edwards was a Liberal politician who was the surprise winner of Swansea at the 2011 election, and he was a local and he was adamantly opposed to Buildev’s proposal. He spoke out on the issue and here for example is part of a newspaper report which appeared in the Newcastle Herald on 11 May, 2011 and you’ll see that, the first two paragraphs are enough. “One of Lake Macquarie’s most attractive areas will be spared from development if Gary Edwards has his way. Mr Edwards is opposing 30 Buildev’s plan for a marina and tourist development on Crown Land.”
Now, Mr Edwards’ opposition to Buildev caused Hugh Thomson some grief and this is a, it’s quite remarkable, quite a remarkable email which Mr Thomson sent to Tim Owen and Andrew Cornwell the very next day. “Not sure if you guys feel up to reminding Gary who paid for the lion’s share of his campaign? Picking a fight with Buildev is not a smart move particularly if he hasn’t engaged with them privately.” And that attachment is the article I’ve just shown.
40 I want to make something clear, ICAC has investigated and found no contribution by Buildev into Mr Edwards’ campaign and we have no evidence that Mr Edwards had done anything wrong. Now, Mr Edwards, we’ve met him, he’s a plain speaking man. He will give evidence that some time after his election he telephoned, he received a telephone call from Chris Hartcher and in that call Mr Hartcher sought Mr Edwards support on behalf of Buildev to get an extension of Buildev’s contract with the Department of Lands. Now, Mr Edwards’ response to Mr Hartcher was characteristically blunt. I was going to actually say what he said but it’s
06/08/2014 4799T E12/2107/0821 been censored and, but in any event let’s put it this way, Buildev’s proposal lapsed.
Now, I’ll just move on to the last issue and I’ll be very brief about this because we dealt with it in detail on the earlier occasion. During the course of opening the earlier segment of this inquiry we said that during 2010 and 2011 Members of the Liberal Party of New South Wales used the Free Enterprise Foundation as a means of washing and rechannelling donations made by prohibited donors. We said that this was clearly done for the 10 purpose of avoiding the impact of the Election Funding Act and that the purpose was to disguise the true source of the money.
Further investigations have been undertaken and the result of those further investigations confirms that what we said on the earlier occasion is accurate. There is evidence that the use of the Free Enterprise Foundation in this fashion was known at high levels in the Liberal Party.
It seems that the Federal Party was willing to allow itself to be used in that way. We’ve been able to obtain an email sent on 23 July 2010, it was sent 20 by Simon McInnes who at that stage was the Finance Director the New South Wales Liberal Party and it was sent by Mr McInnes to Colin Gracie who at that stage was employed by the Federal Liberal Party, I’ll put it up on the screen.
Mr McInnes’s inquiry was in respect of a donor was not a property developer but Mr Gracie’s response is telling. If I just go down the bottom. First email is to Mr Gracie, “We have a potential donor who wants to donate towards the New South Wales campaign Banks for the Federal election but don’t want to be disclosed under New South Wales disclosure laws not a 30 property developer.” Under Federal law they can donate up to $11,500 et cetera, “Would the Federal Division be able to process donation.” There may not be anything wrong with that but the answering is telling, “Hi Simon, Brian Loughnane has agreed that for the time being the Federal Secretariat will operate on the policy set out in the attachment. In effect there is no benefit for a New South Wales donor to donate via the Federal Secretariat”, and these are the words, “unless they are a property developer.”
Commissioner, in this part of the inquiry the Free Enterprise Foundation part of the inquiry we will be calling a number of witnesses including 40 donors and beneficiaries in particular we will be examining most or all of the Members of the Liberal Party State Finance Executive. Thank you, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I’ll take a short adjournment. Thank you.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.11pm]
06/08/2014 4800T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: It may be necessary for persons who haven’t previously appeared in this inquiry in May to seek leave to appear, even if they have filed a Notice of Intention to Appear, it’s nonetheless necessary for transcript purposes that they announce their appearance and that leave be granted. Is there anyone who falls into that category?
MR MITCHELL: Your Honour, I seek leave to appear for Rodney Michael Bosman.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR MITCHELL: Surname Mitchell.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Mitchell, yes. That leave is granted.
MR NEIL: Commissioner, my name is Maurice Neil. I seek leave to appear with my learned friend, Mr Matthew Tyson, for Mr Joseph Tripodi. I’m not aware of any conflict of interest but if any should arise I would advise. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Neil. That leave is granted to you and to your junior.
MR NEIL: Thank you. I think Mr Tyson may already be covered by leave.
THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, well- - -
MR NEIL: But if not I’ll ask for that.
30 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes?
MR GRIFFIN: Commissioner, Patrick Griffin, instructed by Horton Rhodes Solicitors. I seek leave to appear for The Honourable Anthony Kelly.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Griffin, that leave is granted. Anyone else?
MR PATTERSON: Commissioner, my name is Patterson and I seek leave to appear on behalf of Robin Beaven. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Patterson, that leave is granted.
MR NOTLEY: Commissioner, my name is Notley, N-o-t-l-e-y. I appear with, I’m instructed by Norton Rhodes, I appear for Mr Craig Baumann.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes, Mr Notley, that leave is granted. And?
06/08/2014 4801T E12/2107/0821 MR CHALMERS: Good morning, Commissioner. Chalmers, solicitor. I seek leave to appear for Hugh Thomson.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Chalmers, that leave is granted.
MR CHALMERS: Thank you.
MR TASSELL: Commissioner, my name is Tassell, solicitor. I seek leave to appear for Brien Cornwell. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Tassell, that leave is granted.
MR OATES: Commissioner, my name is Oates. I seek your leave to appear for Ms Jodi McKay.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Oates, that leave is granted.
MR NAGLE: Commissioner, my name is Nagle and I seek leave to appear for Hilton Grugeon. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Nagle, that leave is granted.
MR NAGLE: Thank you.
MR STEWART: Yes, good afternoon, Your Honour. Stewart, solicitor. I seek leave to appear for David Simmons.
THE COMMISSIONER: David?
30 MR STEWART: Simmons.
THE COMMISSIONER: Simmons, yes. That leave is granted.
MR STEWART: Thank you.
MR HEARNDEN : Commissioner, Hearnden, I appear on behalf of Luke Grant and seek leave to appear.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Hearnden, that leave is 40 granted.
MS CLUSS: Cluss, Your Honour, for Eric Roozendaal. I seek leave to s appear.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that leave is granted.
MR HARRIS: Commissioner, my name is Harris.
06/08/2014 4802T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Harris.
MR HARRIS: Seeking leave to represent Tim Owen.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Harris, that leave is granted.
I should indicate for the transcript that Ms Cluss appears for Mr Roozendaal.
10 Anyone else seek leave? And you are?
MR MAKUCHA: Paul Makucha, M-a-k-u-c-h-a.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Makucha, we’ve been through this before. You don’t have any standing and I don’t understand you to be involved in the current inquiry.
MR MAKUCHA: Ah, that’s not quite correct because - - -
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I didn’t hear your name mentioned during the opening.
MR MAKUCHA: You may not have, but as a result of the last time I appeared on 20 May where I stated to the Honourable Megan Fay Latham that under the ICAC Act you have the authority to investigate judges and also the Governor of the state and contained in this bundle is a few words to be handed up to you and also- - -
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Makucha, if this is a complaint that you wish 30 to be investigated by the Commission, the appropriate course is to send it to the Commission under cover of a letter and it will be referred to our assessments division and then the question of whether or not an investigation will be taken up will be carried out in the usual manner, but this is not the venue for lodging a fresh complaint that’s unrelated to the current inquiry.
MR MAKUCHA: It’s not, it’s not a fresh complaint. I have, I have written to the Commission and on two separate occasions and I never ever got a decent reply and however um- - - 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is that a decent reply as opposed to a reply?
MR MAKUCHA: (No Audible Reply)
THE COMMISSIONER: Did you get a reply?
MR MAKUCHA: I got a reply which said nothing and the people about who I made complaints have appeared before the Commission and it
06/08/2014 4803T E12/2107/0821 appears that what I complained about has been validated. Now, upon that basis it’s not likely that I’m going to get much of a fair go. Now, what I’d like to do is give it to you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr, Mr Makucha, I am not going to take possession of documents within the scope which have no bearing on the scope and purpose of this inquiry.
MR MAKUCHA: Can I just say this too, may I, may I speak too? That 10 your belief your erroneous beliefs that you did not have standing to investigate judges is not correct and contained in here are the copies of the ICAC statements which confirm that you do have the authority.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Makucha, I don’t dispute that there is jurisdiction. What I said to you on the last occasion was if you have complaints they should be directed to the Judicial Commission of New South Wales. You can also - - -
MR MAKUCHA: I’ve been to the Judicial - - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: You can also direct the complaints to the Commission as I said under cover of letter but I am not going to divert this inquiry - - -
MR MAKUCHA: It’s not diverting. Can I just say this to you, can someone quieten this fellow down so I can speak without being interrupted.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Commissioner, I’m going to have to, I’m going to have to ask you to finish your submission because we have more 30 important matters to deal with.
MR MAKUCHA: This is even more important and it’s important for the following reasons, there are some people who have gone to the Supreme Court to seek judicial reviews about the decisions which have been handed down. The majority of the judges of the Supreme Court have a problem in terms of the fact that they are fake judges, they are not judges.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, we’ve had all this before, Mr Makucha, we’re revisiting the complaint you made on the last occasion and as I said 40 these are not complaints that are within the scope and purpose of this inquiry.
MR MAKUCHA: Excuse me, you stated erroneously, Commissioner, that you did not believe that ICAC and yourself had the authority to investigate judges. Now all I have done here is to seek to hand up – can someone stop this person here interrupting - - -
06/08/2014 4804T E12/2107/0821 THE COMMISSIONER: No, can you, can you please get on with it, Mr Makucha, I’ll ask an officer of the Commission to take possession of the documents, I’m not going to myself take possession of them they can be taken by an officer of the Commission. MR MAKUCHA: Yeah, but hold on. I know why you want to do that even though I’m not a lawyer I do understand if you, you don’t want to touch the documents that’s, that’s the problem. Now please don’t do that because the problems I have - - -
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Makucha, I don’t want to take possession of documents because it’s not my role or my place to do so directly. They go to a specific part of the Commission for assessment. Now if you want to hand them up you may hand them to an officer of the Commission. Can someone please take possession of the documents, take them to the appropriate place and Mr Makucha, will you please sit down so that we can continue - - -
MR MAKUCHA: Just one final point.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: - - - this inquiry.
MR MAKUCHA: I need to swear this affidavit and the one in there. I have a bible here if you can speak to - - -
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I’m not doing that you better go and find someone who can. There’s a, there’s a solicitor’s office on this floor I’m sure if you go around and knock on the door someone will help you - - -
MR MAKUCHA: I’ll go to the Supreme Court but, but this affidavit here is 30 about McDougall who heard the case down at the Supreme Court in relation to having the issue - - -
THE COMMISSIONER: That’s the previous inquiry which is closed and it’s being reported on and I, and it’s not, has nothing to do with me.
MR MAKUCHA: Look ten more words, just be patient with me I’m not a fool. Now when it comes to this affidavit it sets out why the decision by McDougall in the court, Supreme Court is without standing.
40 THE COMMISSIONER: That’s your ten words, Mr Makucha. Can you please sit down, hand the documents to an officer of the Commission and let me get on with the inquiry and - - -
MR MAKUCHA: I, I will.
THE COMMISSIONER: Please, Mr Makucha, if you don’t, let me be clear, if you don’t you are at risk of committing a contempt in the face of the
06/08/2014 4805T E12/2107/0821 Commission and I will have you removed, so please consider your next step carefully.
MR MAKUCHA: Do you understand what I’ve told you (not transcribable)
THE COMMISSIONER: I do understand, I understand perfectly.
MR MAKUCHA: Do you understand - - -
10 THE COMMISSIONER: I understand perfectly.
MR MAKUCHA: - - - that he operations and legal system or the judicial system have a problem because if I am correct and I believe I am correct that the judges have no standing. I will give these documents to the officials of ICAC but I will go to the Supreme Court to have them witnesses because they’re under oath, it’s, it’s an affidavit.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. You do what you need to do, Mr Makucha, you’ve made your point. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Anyone else seeking leave to appear? No, have we dealt with that. Can I just indicate before we go any further, Mr Watson, I think there was some preliminary matters to you wish to address before we start the evidence formally but as I understand it Mr Bosman won’t be available ‘til 2.00pm in any event.
MR WATSON: Mr Bosman’s coming in at 1.45. We were going to take that traditional lunch break but - - -
30 THE COMMISSIONER: We were, we, we were going to take the lunch break at quarter to 1.00 for the obvious reason, it’s impossible for this number of people to get out of the building if we leave it ‘til 1 o’clock.
MR WATSON: Yes. At the moment I’ll just ask you to adjourn until 1.45, thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well we’ll reconvene at quarter to 2.00, thank you.
40 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.36PM
06/08/2014 4806T E12/2107/0821