There’s An A-Bomb Heading Mayor Mullet’s Way … And The Fallout Could Be Terminal.

That would be an A-dani bomb, and could expose the biggest cover-up since Gina Rinehart went kaftan shopping.

One of the most senior legal officials in Queensland, Louisa Lynch, the Right To information Commissioner, has ordered the mayor to release the tightly guarded secret document detailing the deal with Adani for funding an airstrip we would never own. And while the Commissioner didn’t mince her scathing words about council secrecy, ruling that claims of ‘commercial in confidence’ are utter bullshit – not an exact quote o course.  Now, a desperate Adani has now gone to court to have the order reversed. What are they hiding? The Magpie has the story so far (which, strangely, the Bulletin won’t touch).

But iditor Jenna Cairney has other problems … News Ltd HQ flew in the Holt Street hatchet squad from Sydney recently and they weren’t happy campers.

And who said there was no growth in the Townsville economy? Carey Ramm’s AEC deal for management of the Jamie Durie rort has just grown by about 100%, or in round figures, an extra $400,000, in no time at all.

Plus a couple of court matters of note for the diary, some brilliant and instant Pommy humour, a couple of laughs to relieve the tension (as if?) and our regular pictorial round-up from across the Pacific.

But first …

A Magpie note: The examination of the Information Office order for the release of TCC documents is a very long piece, but The ‘Pie believe it important enough to be recorded in some detail, since The Bulletin long ago stopped being our paper of record. But if it gets too much of a chore, just skip past, plenty of other stuff and a few laughs)

We DO Have A Right To Know … And That’s Official.

 

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practice to deceive.

Sir Walter Scott

Old Sir Wally didn’t know the half of it, not having encountered the Townsville City Council, it’s current mayor and it’s Crusty the Clown legal people.

The ‘Pie will lead you along the winding path of this unfolding story, but first, Bentley has little doubt how this will all turn out … he has his own big bang theory.

There are two major questions to be posed before we set out on our quest to uncover the truth behind one of the biggest rorts ever attempted by Jenny Hill.

The first and oft asked one is, why is the Townsville mayor so desperate to hide the terms of Adani airstrip deal she reached ostensibly on our behalf? And given that the Townsville City Council was ordered to release the details of the deal in an order handed down last March, why are we hearing about all this only now? Where was the Bulletin, the paper all for us, when this order was promulgated?

We’ll get back to all that, but here’s a brief chronology of what has gone down, followed by a thorough dissection of Commissioner of Information Louisa Lynch’s demolition of the Townsville Council reasons for secrecy, and then some of the questions that arise.

The Chronology

In March, 2017, Premier Palaszczuk led a delegation of Queensland regional mayors to enjoy the hospitality of billionaire businessman Mr Adani himself, with the express purpose of to convince him to go ahead with the Carmichael mine. (Any one-on-one talks with the great man in India have not be given a public airing, which leaves open some pretty interesting conjecture.)

In October 2017, unbeknownst to the general public and particularly the Townsville ratepayers, the Townsville City Council (TCC), the Rockhampton Regional Council (RRC) and Adani representatives all of a sudden signed a deal – officially known as a ‘term sheet’ – concerning the potential development of an airstrip servicing Adani’s proposed Carmichael Mine operations. The airstrip would be in a different local government area, 400kms from Townsville, but the hardly believable raison d’etre was that ‘hundreds’ of Adani mine staff would FIFO from Townsville and Rockhampton. No guarantees of workers locations were given, and no manner of policing where workers were from was announced. Perhaps because not being a police state and the existence of privacy laws, it would be impossible.

When this deal inadvertently became public knowledge, largely through both this blog and Peter Newey’s Facebook page he grandly terms the Townsville Residents and Ratepayers Association, public outrage was immediate. Mr Newey was the driving force behind a petition with tens of thousands of signatures opposing the deal, which he delivered to the council chambers in Walker Street.

The dismayed mayor then started prevaricating big time, back tracking and appearing to tell muddled stories about what had gone on with the deal, going back and forth on the highly unusual ownership of the airstrip, its construction and operation by the Wagner group, and insisted,  without believable evidence, that the petition was largely southern activists and only 600 or so signees were from Townsville. Then she went on ABC radio and made ambiguous statements about the ownership and the general tenor of the arrangement, at all times failing to be explicit and sometimes contradicting herself.

In was in light of these public inconsistencies that the ABC, through reporter Peter McCutcheon, applied to the Townsville Council under the Right To Information laws for the release of the ‘’Term Sheet”. The council promptly and persistently refused to do so, on the grounds it comprised exempt information (i.e commercial in confidence), and information, the disclosure of which would be ‘contrary to public interest’. This was patent bullshit, which The Magpie said loud and long at the time, asking how wanting to know how the mayor had concluded what she had done with $18.5million of OUR money was not in OUR interests to know. It was clearly not in HER interests for us to know.

The ABC then, to their great credit, applied to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) for an external review of the TCC’s decision.

Now the timeline doesn’t finish here, but things get a bit curious. The OIC did conduct a very thorough and balanced review (as you will see), which Information Commissioner Lynch handed down … on March 12, this year.

Searching as best he can, and The ‘Pie admits he is no whizz at such things, there has not been a word about this IOC decision in the Bulletin (no surprise there, too busy researching Townsville’s ten best shower-tilers bum cracks, or hamburgers, or some such, one imagines). Also, as far as can be discerned, there was nothing from the Courier, which is somewhat more on the ball with these things, and this would under normal circumstances, be a splash story by any measure in a state where councils and councillors are being hauled into court and jail by the cartload. Even stranger, nothing from the ABC, despite having a major win against political bureaucracy. Nor was there, as far as can be searched, a media release from the IOC itself, but The ‘Pie could be wrong about this. And most importantly, there doesn’t appear to be any sort of suppression order on the matter.

So How – Let Alone Why – Are We Hearing About This Only Now?

That question can only be partly unanswered, because The ‘Pie cannot speak for other parties would have been expected to be alert to these matters. However, we have been enlightened here because of an eagle-eyed blog reader, versed in legal matters, who came across this from last Tuesday’s Brisbane court list.

This was only a directions hearing, which means the matter will return to court at a later date, but The ‘Pie couldn’t understand why Adani would be taking the TCC to court, the two entities having been a series of chummy  meetings in the past, so chummy they stopped just short of wet kisses,  so The Magpie turned to his most valuable source of information, the Nest’s readers, and one promptly supplied this document, which more or less explained the conundrum.

So we now have the situation where Adani have been forced to argue against the TCC releasing information that the council doesn’t want released anyway. Seems what Jamie Durie doesn’t get lawyers in this matter will … Townsville ratepayers are the poor goofs that keep on giving. Since this decision was released, the mayor has spent public funds on FOUR desperate attempts to have the matter reversed, all to no avail.

The IOC document is 28 pages long, so The ‘Pie will summarise it for you shortly, but by all means go for the full version here,  if you enjoy reading legalese. (You will have to click on the link within the link.)

We have some pretty good citizen journalists out there in among The Magpie’s usual fancy dress fringe gabblers. The ‘Pie thanks you sincerely.

The Pivotal Quotes From The IOC Findings

A couple of explanatory matters. The first is very important and raises some questions in itself. When Commissioner Lynch approached both Rockhampton and Townsville councils about the matter, Rockhampton said it had no problem with the ‘Term Sheet’, the document held with demented Gollum-like secrecy by Jenny Hill,  if it was made public. Therefore they are not a party to this matter. That’s why they are barely mentioned, but their non-objection makes one wonder even more just what Mayor Mullet and Adani are trying to hide. Is there a hint that a separate deal was done during the Indian junket?

Even this summary is lengthy but The ‘Pie believes it is of vital importance and could have far reaching outcomes for the governance of our city. All quoted material is in italics. Please ignore the occasional stray number, which wandered into my computer from God knows where.

First and foremost, the final wash-up:

For the reasons explained below, I set aside TCC’s decision. I find that the Term Sheet is not exempt information under the RTI Act, nor would its disclosure, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. On that basis, the ABC is entitled to access the Term Sheet.

 

 1.In any event, there is in this case simply no basis on which a contractual obligation of confidence could exist.

 4. The difficulty for Adani, however, is the nature of the ‘co-owner’ it would seek to restrain from disclosing the Term Sheet: a local government authority, accountable to the public for its disbursement of public funds and the terms on which it proposes to make such disbursements. As I explained to both Adani and TCC during the review, I consider that this accountability should reasonably be expected to include disclosure of the details of proposals such as that recorded in the Term Sheet, that is, proposals to award public monies for the benefit of private interests, outside of TCC’s territorial jurisdiction.

5. I acknowledge the fact the Term Sheet is endorsed as confidential, contains terms as to confidentiality, and was considered by both local government signatories in closed session, reflective of shared intentions the information be kept confidential.

6. As stressed above, whether an obligation of confidence arises in a particular case depends on an assessment of all relevant circumstances. Having regard to the circumstances in this case, I am not satisfied that conscionable conduct would require TCC to keep the Term Sheet, embodying information jointly developed by it in conjunction with other participants, confidential from the community whose interests TCC represents and the local component of which, ultimately, will be required to fund any proposal, should it proceed. why should the ratepayers of TCC and RRC, and the public of Queensland, be denied knowledge of the terms on which these government agencies propose to disburse public resources, when it is the public who will bear the cost?

7. The above seems to me sufficient to dispose of any claim that requirement (c) is met in this case, irrespective of who is said to be owed any obligation of confidence, ie Adani, Wagners, or both. To the extent there may be any doubt, the community would appear to have a genuinely legitimate interest in obtaining information describing arrangements by which local government authorities propose to fund construction of infrastructure in a separate local government area, for the use and ownership of a private company – an interest sufficient to forestall the establishment of an equitable obligation of confidence binding TCC to withhold from the public information which it, a representative of that public, is ‘co-owner’. 

I cannot accept that such conduct would require it to withhold from the community it represents information of the kind contained in the Term Sheet, aspects of which I have touched on above and are again summarised below.

I also reject TCC and Adani’s complementary submission to the effect that, even if the ‘public’s legitimate interest’ in obtaining information about the affairs of government is accepted as relevant in evaluating whether requirement (c) is satisfied, the Term Sheet is simply not information of this kind, but rather ‘commercial information’ to which such an interest does not apply. A document describing the mechanics by which two local councils propose to contribute public funding toward the construction of an airstrip, such facility to be used, and ultimately owned,65 by private entities, in an area outside of each contributing council’s local government area, and in the expectation benefits will flow to the community governed by each, is in my view information squarely about the affairs of government, ie, TCC and RRC.

Breach of Confidence Exemption – ConclusioFor the reasons explained above, the Term Sheet is not exempt information under the Breach of Confidence Exemption.

TCC, Adani and Wagners submit that there are a number of considerations favouring nondisclosure in this case. In the decision under review, TCC found that disclosure of the Term Sheet could reasonably be expected to:

 cause a public interest harm through disclosure of deliberative process information

 prejudice a deliberative process

 prejudice business, commercial or financial affairs76

 give rise to the confidential communications public interest harm factor set out in schedule 4, part 4, section 8 of the RTI Act (the CCHF), and prejudice TCC’s ability to obtain confidential information;77 and

 disclose information considered in a Closed Council meeting, inconsistently with section of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) (LG Regulation).  On external review, TCC also contended that disclosure would prejudice its competitive commercial activities, and give rise to a public interest harm, because disclosure could have a substantial adverse effect on the financial or property interests of the State or an agency.

Wagners’ principal submission is the assertion that the Term Sheet contains ‘sensitive commercial information that is of value to Wagners’. As regards Wagners, the Term Sheet appears to disclose little more than what is publicly known.

I recognise the Term Sheet comprises an ‘agreement to agree’, reflecting a shared intention to proceed with negotiations to develop transport infrastructure, and does not itself impose binding obligations in this regard. It remains the case, however, that the transaction proposed in the Term Sheet entails the commitment of significant public funds for the benefit of private entities, a fact telling in favour of more, rather than less, transparency

Commissioner Lynch then shoots down the self-interest secrecy argument.

As regards TCC’s ‘ease of doing business’ arguments, it again seems salient that RRC appears to harbour no concerns that disclosure of the Term Sheet will impede its capacity to pursue commercial opportunities with private businesses in the future, given its total lack of objection to release

Additionally and in any event, the flip side of this submission is the fact that both TCC and RRC are, as local government authorities, duty bound to ensure they steward public monies prudently, transparently and accountably. Sophisticated commercial entities such as Adani and other similar proponents seeking potential public assistance would (or ought), in my view, appreciate that government entities such as TCC are accountable to the public regarding the decisions they make to allocate or disburse funds raised by imposts on the public. Such proponents would (or should) anticipate an appropriate level of scrutiny of their dealings with government as something which ‘goes with the territory’.

And here is a matter that applies equally to the attempts to get federal funding for the exclusive Adani rail line.

That fact is relevant, as the availability of such public funding is likely to mean that the entity, business or enterprise standing to benefit from same can conserve its own resources, as it does not have to draw on its own funds (or commercial funding markets), enhancing the potential for the generation of private profit.

Clearly TCC is in favour of stifling any debate on controversial thought farts of our mayor and her aerobics arm raising councillors. In simple terms, it is dead against public discussion and holding elected office bearers to account for their closed-door decisions.

I acknowledge that disclosure of parts of the Term Sheet – such as those detailing the proposed rebate mechanism intended to safeguard TCC’s investment of public funds – may give rise to public discussion as to the merits or adequacies of that mechanism and the proposal generally. Fostering public discussion of and participation in government decision-making are, however, key objects of the RTI Act, and I question as to whether furthering the very aims of this legislation, by allowing the community access to information concerning novel proposals to allocate its resources, could amount to a ‘prejudice’ within the meaning of the DP Prejudice Factor.

Certainly, insofar as these submissions purport to speak for RRC, they do not appear to reflect concerns shared by that agency, in view of its lack of objection to disclosure. Additionally, the fact that TCC’s local government partner in the proposed project – does not object to release of the Term Sheet tends to militate against any finding that negative public interest consequences of the kind posited by TCC could be reasonably expected to follow disclosure.

In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the fact137 that information concerning the proposal has been released into the public domain. What remains in issue, however, comprises important information concerning the proposed transaction, including information going to the very heart of the merits of that proposal, and the mechanisms by which the public’s investment will be protected. I do not think it unreasonable to anticipate that disclosure of the Term Sheet will better permit objective assessment of the merits of the proposal it records, and contribute to informed public debate as to whether it ultimately represents value for money for ratepayers in both TCC and RRC’s local government areas, and the Queensland community generally; helping, thereby, to:

 ensure effective oversight of expenditure of public funds,

 enhance levels of probity and propriety, and

 foster public trust and confidence in the proposed transaction, and each council’s participation in same.

To put it another way, any proposal by a local government body to contribute funding for the construction of transport infrastructure in the territory of another local government, for use and benefit of private entities, and in circumstances where the benefitting entity will, as noted, ultimately take ownership of the infrastructure, merits high levels of transparency and accountability. These public interests warrant disclosure beyond that of, say, the potential dollar amounts involved,139 but information as to the very structure and mechanics of the proposed deal, such as is contained in the Term Sheet.

 

And hoist on her own petard, giving the game away in the most basely stupid manner imagainable, viz:

As noted above, TCC itself recognises that the assistance proposed in the Term Sheet is not a matter coming within the ordinary course of council business; that it ‘does not…relate to Council’s core statutory or regulatory functions’. Given this, it should, in my view, be attended with a level of transparency beyond the ordinary. This will serve to ensure that the community can:

* scrutinise and appraise any potential deal,

* satisfy itself that TCC is negotiating on its behalf competently and judiciously,

* assess whether the potential benefits TCC expects to accrue from its expenditure represent a worthwhile investment of public monies; and

* participate to the fullest in public debate on the issue – an important point, given the proposal has been the subject of apparently vigorous community discussion.

And why is this important now, as the deal seems to be, if not abandoned, put in the deep freeze for now? Well, we again have the very definite answer to that from the Information Commissioner>

I have also taken into account the fact that the proposal particularised in the Term Sheet may have gone ‘off the boil’ somewhat, noting, for example, TCC’s re-direction of earmarked funds to other priorities, and Adani’s reported comments suggesting the project may not be critical to its intentions. As I understand matters, however, all parties remain prepared to pursue the proposal in the future, such that I do not think any current lull in negotiations diminishes the weight to be afforded each of the public interest considerations favouring disclosure discussed above. Additionally, even if the proposal had been completely abandoned, there still remains considerable public interest, in my view, in allowing the community access to the details of what appears to be a relatively unique arrangement.

 

AND THE END RESULT IS:

I set aside the decision under review. No grounds for refusing access to the Term Sheet have been established. The applicant is therefore entitled to access the Term Sheet, in accordance with the right of access prescribed in section 23 of the RTI Act.

 

Oh, and another matter while we’re around this bend in the river … perhaps an even more interesting document would be KPMG’s on which Mayor Mullet to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the Adani airstrip deal. But ludicrously, that report which guessimates the value of the airstrip up to 40 years in the future, is conveniently deemed to be commercial in confidence. Perhaps it is part of the Term Sheet?

The Bulletin Is Again MIA On This Issue

For reasons known only to herself, iditor Jenna Cairney has refused to touch this successful ABC FOI request, which has such ramifications for Townsville.

C’mon Jenna , you’ve got to be fucking kidding … one of the most explosive rulings about Freedom To Information, with council now spending a ratepayer fortune on lawyers to fight … and you think it is appropriate that you SAY NOTHING. You copped a thankless task when you got the job, we know, but there is surely some sort of buried journalistic pride and integrity under there somewhere. Your personal reputation in this town will not survive any continued silence on this, you will be totally suspect yourself, seemingly complicit on a an attempted mammoth rort.

But Ms Cairney Has A Few Other Internal Problems On Her Mind At The Moment.

It’s reported that everyone is on edge at The Astonisher, with sales figures down the toilet, and not one of the advertising staff meeting sales targets since early this year. The Magpie has learnt this dismal state of affairs brought some fire-breathing top brass from Sydney into town just recently. They were very mightily pissed off with print performance, and particularly the very low uptake of digital subscriptions. Which adds a rather pathetic air of desperation to this little bit of hokum during the week.

So quick, better hurry, folks, only about 6000 to go before the big prize goes off. (The usual contra deal of a couple of ‘epic’ nights at the The Ville – yippee skip.)

But Hey, Time To Stop Brickbats …

… and offer a rare bouquet to the Bully for two matters. First, a big thumbs up for a genuinely clever and apt front page headline today, about a police officer dobbed in by his fellow officers for fudging a breath test by his ex-missus.

Neat … and for a change, actually tells the story.

And kudos to Madura ‘Teabag’ McCormack and her editor’s editorial  for going in boots and all on the out-and-out rort of Jamie Durie’s contract doubly when it was awarded to Carey Ramm’s AEC group.

The paper also didn’t pull any punches about the council’s engagement of Brisbane consultants Rowlands after the floods, and intending to pay them out of disaster relief money. The official council line that their staff couldn’t cope after the disaster because they were too tired or personally affected doesn’t wash in light of the 600 nor so staff sacked in the crippling Adele Young/Jenny Hill/Nous Group purge of council ranks.

A commenter with inside experience added an interesting dimension to the Rowland story.

From my time with Brisbane City Council, the Rowland Group always had a very strong relationship with ALP. When ALP was in power either in Brisbane City or Queensland they won every job they wanted, had cash pouring into their offices. Whenever ALP lost power they appointed ex-Ministers and their minders into senior “Advisory” roles until they found something better or moved back into government. Rowland was then hired by every ALP-aligned council and agency until they could come back in from the cold.

Apart from the jobs for the boys I’ve always wondered what other ways the money flowed back to ALP when needed.

I suspect what we have just seen in Townsville is Jenny indirectly paying back some money to her George Street masters through a trusted intermediary. Much like she has banked a bundle of cash with the “Bank of AEC” against future needs.

Certainly this isn’t confined to the left side of politics, and the LNP has their own pets and bankers. Pity it’s all done with our money.’

Watch List

The ‘Pie has been told by JCU that the university has now filed an appeal against the judgment in favour of climate denier Peter Ridd. The matter is awaiting court dates.

But in a separate matter …

… fraudster Craig Gore will finally face a jury to answer charges of ripping of millions from investors. During the week, a very pissed-off judge, noting Gore’s continually seeking adjournments because he’s changing lawyers yet again, or he’s not well, has had enough, and told Gore during the week, that he WILL appear for trial on January 27 next year – even if he has to represent himself. Is a striped suntan imminent?

Comments Comedy

We have great fun with comments throughout the week, and there was a nice little exchange during a discussion on airlines.

Rainbow Airways

September 15, 2019 at 11:58 am  (Edit)

Maybe they will jointly address their obsessive need to promote their airlines as being LGBQT compliant? Rainbow flags on planes, diversity speeches, emails and campaigns internally at the airlines. It never ends. The incessant push of gay rights has blown out of proportion and consumes everything that people do these days.

Reply

• The Magpie

September 15, 2019 at 12:32 pm  (Edit)

So you would say they’re too airy-fairy?

Which made for unfortunate timing from the Astonisher, when Qantas boss Alan Joyce chose careless words about airports.

There is a lot of funny people jumping into the comments section, that’s just a tiny sample. Even if you don’t want to join in, there’s a lot of good larfs in there, try it.

Overseas, Laxative Sales Have Dropped Dramatically

… Brexit is doing the job for the whole country for nothing. First there was BoJo Johnson’s mega wimp out, without warning deciding not to show up for a media conference in Brussels, because some protesters had been ‘beastly’ to him.

… which brought out the best in the Guardian’s Ben Jennings …

And you can’t beat the Poms for instant humour from absurd and galling moments in public life. This picture of toffee nosed wanker Jacob Rees-Mogg arrogantly lounging in parliament during the Brexit debate, caused great anger in the country

…. but it rebounded on him quick smart with the advertising boys lampooning him cleverly within a couple of days on billboards all around the country..

In Canada, Trudeau Instantly Got His Over His Blackface Episode

 

But In Trumpsylvania, Each Week Brings New Delights

…at least from this distance. There was a timely and telling message for all those who think Trump is doing a good job.

………………………

That’s just some of what’s been going on this week, let us know what’s on your mind, comments run 24/7. And you’ll be excited to know that donations are also accepted 24/7, if you’re like Rees-Mogg, and areso inclined. The donate button is below.