The Premier’s dirt unit

The ‘anonymous’ four-page fax, as it was sent: Greens_Electoral_Disclosure_-_Aird_(2).doc

A political dirt unit run from the Premier’s office has been exposed following the public release of a document, which alleged that the Greens were operating a front company with the sole purpose of hiding electoral donations and to ‘minimise transparency’.

The revelation comes only days after Paul Lennon accused the Tasmanian Greens of conducting a ‘smear and innuendo’ campaign against him.

The saga began when Mercury columnist Greg Barns published an article on Monday March 6, claiming that the Greens needed to come clean about a company called Tasmanian Greens Pty Ltd and went on to list Peg Putt MHA and Tim Morris MHA as shareholders.

Mr Barns also alleged that the Greens had received around $750,000 in electoral funding whose source hadn’t been revealed.

Ms Putt’s response was that the total was amassed from multiple grassroots donations of less than $1500, which don’t have to be declared under the Electoral Act.

The first question to arise here …

Now … this is where things start to get very interesting.

An anonymous four page fax arrived at most media outlets Monday morning following the Barns article, complete with a set of dot points and questions that the author, as yet unknown, claimed should be put to Ms Putt and an easy reference table of disclosed electoral donations.

Jumping back to Mr Barns and I quote:

”Here are the facts that anyone can glean from reading Australian Electoral Commission returns and Australian Companies and Investments Commission extracts as the Labor Party has done in the past few weeks.”

The first question to arise here is just how did Mr Barns come into the possession of these figures and how did he manage to scoop the rest of the media?

His own words seem to imply that he obtained the records through the AEC and the ACIC, or was it through the Labor Party; he doesn’t say.

The four page manifesto at the same time as arriving at media outlets, was also doing the rounds within ALP circles and before too long a copy came into my possession.

The document’s properties

Upon opening the attached Microsoft Word document I proceeded to look at the document’s properties, which might reveal the source of the troublesome document.

There to my surprise I learned that this particular edition of Word was licensed to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and that last touch was from one Mr Rod Scott, the Premier’s Chief-of-Staff.

With this revelation one can only assume that the information was “leaked” to Mr Barns in order for it to appear in Monday’s paper with a follow up fax sent to other media outlets to ensure that they also picked up the story.

This raises several interesting questions: why didn’t Mr Barns seek clarification from the Tasmanian Greens prior to publication, as other outlets did, and why didn’t he feel it necessary to reveal in his column where the information came from instead of implying that he had contacted the AEC and ACIC?

Furthermore given the Premier’s continual complaining about “smear and innuendo” directed towards him why didn’t his chief-of-staff feel obliged to put a name or contact details on the document he appears to have circulated to the media?

Most journalists are only too happy to put their name to their work … I know I am.

In addition to undertaking full-time university studies Wes Young is also involved with the Tasmanian Greens election campaign.

That Barns column:

MON 06 MAR 2006

Greens need to declare

By: GREG BARNS

LAST week Tasmanian Greens Leader Peg Putt made a valid point about the secretive nature of the advertising campaign funded by “concerned Tasmanians” who want to ensure that the election delivers majority government.

“It is just unconscionable that there is this huge injection into trying to influence the election and its shadowy figures will not make themselves known,” Putt observed on ABC radio on February 28.

Quite right, except that Putt’s own party is also a little opaque when it comes to working out how its gets its money.

Here are the facts that anyone can glean from reading Australian Electoral Commission returns and Australian Companies and Investments Commission extracts, as the Labor Party has done in the past few weeks.

The Tasmanian Greens run a company called Tasmanian Greens Pty Ltd. Both Putt and Lyons MHA Tim Morris hold one share each in that company — not something that either has declared on the Tasmanian Parliament Pecuniary Interest register. They are under no obligation to do so but given the Tasmanian Greens’ fulminations about transparency in politics it would be wise.

A question here — why use a company to run your party? The company structure has, in law, certain purposes and being a political party is not one of them. It begs the question, what financial or electoral law advantages accrue from a political party being housed in such a structure? Tasmanian Greens Pty Ltd and in 2004/05 an entity called Tasmanian Greens have received a total of $1,036,982 over the period from July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2005. But only $267,548 of that income can be linked to individuals or groups ($145,000 is Australian Electoral Commission funding).

In other words, about three quarters of a million dollars in income has been received by the Tasmanian Greens in three years for which there is no evidence about the source. Are we to believe that this is made up of hundreds of donations of less than $1499? (Political donations of under $1500 don’t have to be individually identified.) This seems highly unlikely. It also seems unlikely that the sorts of fundraisers political parties hold in Tasmania could hope to raise anything like three quarters of a million dollars over this period.

Could it be then that this income is coming from international Green parties, foundations or environmental groups? It is important, if Putt wants to retain credibility on the matter of political transparency, that she lays open the books of the Tasmanian Greens so that we can all see where the money is coming from.

It should be noted there may be a perfectly satisfactory explanation for all this with which Putt can provide us. But it is a matter of record that the Greens around Australia do have some form on campaign income matters. Queensland is a prime example.

Last year Louise Dodson, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 26, revealed that while the Greens “have demanded more accountability and transparency from political parties in elections, it has not stopped some in their own party using complex and opaque methods to channel campaign funds”.

Dodson, an experienced Canberra journalist, alleged that the “Queensland Greens have had debts of $174,000 forgiven by an incorporated associated entity, the Queensland Environmental Consumers Organisation”.

“The group does not appear on any company register and has no website,” Dodson wrote.

Dodson’s article also revealed that the Queensland Greens leader and unsuccessful Senate candidate Drew Hutton had moved at a meeting of the Queensland Greens that: “We approve the donations be made to the Rainforest Information Centre who will re-route the money to the Queensland Greens.”

According to Dodson: “A leaked email four days later . . . cautioned against this being recorded in the minutes and they were removed.”

Apparently there was an agreement between the New South Wales and Queensland Greens to route donations through the Rainforest Information Centre — particularly, it seems, donations from developers.

According to minutes of the Queensland Greens management committee, released in the New South Wales Parliament last year by Labor Party frontbencher Eric Roozendaal, the New South Wales Greens were running a “we don’t take money from developers” state election campaign and asked the Queensland Greens to abide by this decision. The minutes then go on to state: “We have been asked to ask ecological sensitive developers to donate to the Rainforest Information Centre who will reroute the money to the Queensland Greens.” Thus Hutton’s motion.

The Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has denied that any donation was “laundered through the Rainforest Information Centre”. No doubt when Putt said on February 3 this year that she had heard “that there is rorting of the system by making repeated donations under the threshold to avoid disclosures and by donating via front group organisations” she wasn’t talking about her own party.

How Crikey covered it:

1. The digital fingerprints on Paul Lennon’s dirt-sheet

Margaretta Pos writes:

Last week Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon was complaining vociferously about a smear campaign against him. Now it appears that Lennon has his own dirty tricks department, masterminded by none other than his chief-of-staff, former Examiner editor Rod Scott, apparently aided and abetted by Michael Aird, Government Leader in the Legislative Council.

The plot begins with Mercury columnist Greg Barns, who wrote on Monday that the Greens were hiding bags of loot in a company called Tasmanian Greens Pty Ltd, which has Greens leader Peg Putt and Greens MHA Tim Morris as shareholders. Barns suggested the company had some $750,000 in the kitty, the source of which was secret. Saucy stuff indeed, especially as the Greens are great advocates of public disclosure of political donations.

Then, on the same day, media outlets in Tasmania were faxed an anonymous four-page document on the issue, with nine questions for journalists to put to the Greens. And it so happened that an electronic version, circulated in select circles, arrived in the computer of Wes Young – who worked as an Examiner cadet last year and now works for the Greens during the current state election campaign.

The thing is, young Wes knows a thing or two about computers. So when he did a bit of techno back-tracking he discovered some interesting facts, which he reveals on oldtt.pixelkey.biz today. To his surprise, he found “that this particular edition of Word was licensed to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and that last touch was from one Mr Rod Scott, the Premier’s Chief-of-Staff.” Moreover, the anonymous four-page fax, which was an attachment, was headed: Greens Electoral Disclosure – Aird (2) doc.

Crikey called Michael Aird this morning, leaving a message with his answering service, asking him to ring back. No luck. We then rang Rod Scott, but his secretary referred us to Matthew Rogers, Lennon’s media attack dog. Rogers was at a media conference and said he would ring back. Again no luck.

Crikey rang Greg Barns to ask if the story about the Greens secret stash was true. Barns snorted: “I’m a columnist, I write opinion pieces, I rarely get in touch with anyone. If I am wrong, they (people he writes about) can tell me or write a letter to the editor.” Barns added that there might be a perfectly legitimate explanation for the money, but the Greens hadn’t denied they had it.

Crikey then rang the Greens media adviser Cath Hughes, who said there was indeed a legitimate reason for the money. The Tasmanian Greens were registered as a company, as required under state law, and therefore audited. Hughes said the $750,000 was over a three-year period and covered all fundraising activities, a 5% tithe of salaries of members of the Tasmanian parliament, a 10% tithe of Senate salaries, and all the myriad donations under $1500.

So just when Lennon has been cleared of allegations that he helped his brother’s company, Global Value Management, get government contracts, he’s back in the thick of it, dishing it out. And it hardly needs saying that the Tasmanian Greens are in the Government’s sights, not the Liberals.