ASIC probe on TCC

Wes Young, Crikey

… the TCC is under investigation by ASIC for alleged breaches involving board minutes. The TCC’s third director David Diprose, who was at pains to distance himself from the TCC’s recent activities, said that the company’s other two directors had hijacked the firm and literally locked him out. “I have been devoid of any input into the TCC for some time, but I know that ASIC is investigating because they have been in contact with me about it.’’ “They, the TCC, are under investigation by ASIC for not having any board minutes from since September 2004.’’ “ASIC have been poking around for a couple of months.’’ “If they haven’t had any board minutes since Sept 04 then the TCC isn’t legally allowed to accredit anybody.’’ “This is the most scandalous breach of the Corporations Act I have seen in 30 years of business.’’

“In addition to that there are issues involving a possible breach of the Government’s caretaker provisions if a new contract was formalised around the time of the election.’’

IF A week is a long time in politics then the past fortnight must have felt like an eternity for Tasmanian Deputy Premier Bryan Green.

The cause of much of Green’s woes has been a Hobart based company called the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation, TCC.

The TCC has an open-ended Government contract to accredit the State’s building professionals and charge whatever rate it deems appropriate.

Two of the company’s three directors are former Tasmanian and Queensland Labor politicians, John White and Glen Milliner.

The TCC entered into a new contractual arrangement with the Tasmanian Government just two days before the calling of the last State election.

The new agreement provided a compensation provision in the vicinity of $3m for a Government initiated breach of contract and required 12-months notice.

Mr Milliner has also been linked to Rengain Pty Ltd, which according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s website is under external administration with debts to the Commonwealth of around $8m, in addition to a firm called Knowledge Consulting, which administers several detention centres.

The Tasmanian Government’s Auditor General’s office has initiated an investigation into the conduct of the TCC.

Crikey.com can also reveal that the TCC is under investigation by ASIC for alleged breaches involving board minutes.

Embarrassment on ABC Talkback

The TCC’s third director David Diprose, who was at pains to distance himself from the TCC’s recent activities, said that the company’s other two directors had hijacked the firm and literally locked him out.

“I have been devoid of any input into the TCC for some time, but I know that ASIC is investigating because they have been in contact with me about it.’’

“They, the TCC, are under investigation by ASIC for not having any board minutes from since September 2004.’’

“ASIC have been poking around for a couple of months.’’

“If they haven’t had any board minutes since Sept 04 then the TCC isn’t legally allowed to accredit anybody.’’

“This is the most scandalous breach of the Corporations Act I have seen in 30 years of business.’’

“In addition to that there are issues involving a possible breach of the Government’s caretaker provisions if a new contract was formalised around the time of the election.’’

In the latest chapter of the ongoing saga Mr Green was yesterday subjected to two no-confidence motions from both opposition parties in response to his handling of the TCC contract, which he told Parliament “was a mistake.’’

Perhaps Mr Green’s biggest embarrassment in the TCC saga was on ABC talkback radio yesterday morning.

Two callers contacted the station to offer their support for the beleaguered Minister only to be outed by host, Tim Cox, as the brother and father of Mr Green’s chief-of-staff Matthew Sullivan, a former Tasmanian journalist.

Mr Green made the apology on the same day that the Government announced it had sold the struggling TT Line ferry Spirit of Tasmania 3 in a move that some opposition politicians labelled as an obvious diversion.
Peg Putt MHA

What the Libs reckon

Media Release

Tasmanian Liberal Leader

WILL HODGMAN, MHA

Thursday July 6, 2006

Deputy Premier still deceiving

The Deputy Premier intended to keep secret his agreement with Tasmanian Compliance Corporation until forced by Cabinet to reveal it.

This admission in Parliament today further highlights why this Minister should resign or be sacked.

And despite claiming he deserves some credit for admitting this mistake, Minister Green continued to cover up his actions today.

It would appear from the scripted statement of Minister Green in Parliament last night that he was aware of legal reservations about his secret deal, but he misled both the Parliament and the Premier about the matter.

Mr Green’s used semantics, saying this advice was not “placed before him”.

However, he’s confirmed that he received verbal advice about the agreement the day he signed it.

He’s also confirmed that he “did err in not accepting advice on some matters in the document.”

It is quite clear that Mr Green was aware about legal concerns relating to clause nine of the document.

But the Premier and Deputy Premier refused to clarify this today.

The Deputy Premier has kept secret what the “reservations expressed about clause nine of the document” that he referred to last night, were.

It is totally unacceptable for the Premier to maintain his confidence in the Deputy who should have resigned on Tuesday when he admitted that he signed this deal with TCC on the eve of the election being called.

The government’s deceit continued through Question Time when Mr Green said he couldn’t say whether TCC had implemented a number of measures relating to service delivery.

The Master Builders Association is saying these should have been conditions of authorisation from day one, yet the secret deal asserts that they must be put in place after it was signed.

“There’s just no way Mr Green could not have known whether TCC was complying if he inserted into the agreement a requirement these services had to be in place within a specified period after the deal was signed or it would be null and void,” Mr Hodgman said.

In addition, the Premier refused to explain why he never corrected the record after misleading Parliament with the claim that the “statement of principles” in the TCC document did not provide for compensation to be paid.

What the Greens reckon

Greens Opposition Leader

Thursday, 6 JULY 2006

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF LABOR MATE TO LENNON GOVERNMENT?

Detail Sought on Paid Arrangements With Milliner

The Tasmanian Greens today believe that one of the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation Directors, Glen Milliner, has entered into other paid contractual arrangements with the Tasmanian Government through another company, Knowledge Consulting Pty Ltd, of which he is a principal and which is undertaking consultancy work on the new prison.

Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MHA has asked the Premier to provide Parliament with details of any past or present arrangements of a financial nature with the Crown, aside from the TCC matter, and as to whether there are any negotiations underway or arrangements in place for a future supply of services by Glen Milliner or companies with which he is associated.

“Given the TCC debacle it is timely and responsible to explore any other contractual or financial arrangements that TCC director Glen Milliner may have with the Tasmanian government, especially as it is our understanding that his business, Knowledge Consulting, has done consultancy work on the new prison,” Ms Putt said.

“I hope by the end of the day for a full account of the relationship between his government and this Labor mate from the Premier, in answer to my question today.”

And,

Peg Putt MHA

Greens Opposition Leader

Thursday, 6 JULY 2006

MORE DUCKING AND WEAVING FROM DEPUTY PREMIER

Contradictions and Excuses on Crown Law Advice

The Tasmanian Greens today are critical that the Deputy Premier has now evaded answering how he apparently ran such a disorganised, incompetent office that key Crown Law advice was not put before him.

Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MHA accused the Deputy Premier of blame-shifting onto an advisor for his failure to heed Crown Law advice on the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation which he claims would have caused him not to sign the Agreement, saying that the excuse was not credible, and cowardly.

“Subsequent to the no confidence motion in him, Bryan Green continued to evade Parliamentary questions over whether he sought and received Crown Law advice, finally resorting to the cowardly defence of blaming an advisor for not passing it on,” Ms Putt said.

“Are we seriously expected to believe that this Minister ran such a disorganised, incompetent office that key legal advice which he now says would have caused him not to sign the TCC agreement was never drawn to his attention?”

“The convention of Ministerial responsibility does not allow for someone else to be set up as the fall guy, but that is the only refuge left for this Minister.”

“Trying to get to the bottom of what Crown Law and Solicitor-General’s advice existed, who had it, who saw it, and what the Minister chose to ignore is like walking on quicksand.”

The Greens repeated their calls for the government to table the Crown Law and Solicitor-General’s advice.

Below: Hansard Transcript Excerpt: Minister Green’s response to Ms Putt’s question (which was actually asked of the Premier), Wednesday 5 July 2006.

ADJOURNMENT – Wednesday, 5 July 2006

BUILDING INDUSTRY – TASMANIAN COMPLIANCE CORPORATION

[8.02 p.m.]

Mr GREEN (Braddon – Deputy Premier) – Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to add further details to the answers that the Premier and I gave during question time today. In regard to the TCC, after checking details pertaining to those questions, I wish to advise the House that on 19 December 2005, Workplace Standards had a meeting with the Office of the Solicitor-General and the following questions were asked of him. This as the questions were asked:

‘I would like to discuss the issues surrounding any move by the minister to create security of tenure for the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation. Is there any precedence for such a provision?

How would it be best achieved, by contract or by condition of authorisation, Building Act S20(3)?

What would be a reasonable period of accreditation (accreditation of building practitioners is for three years)?

In your view, is the creation of a security of tenure to protect the Government by preventing the TCC to simply walk away sufficient grounds for such a move?

Should the Government require a bank guarantee to ensure against the TCC walking away?’

A precis of the Solicitor-General’s conversation with Workplace Standards was given to a member of my staff and read as follows. This is the Solicitor-General’s office, I should say, not the Solicitor-General himself:

1. It is normal to provide corporations with some sort of surety.

2. Provisions could be written in the authorised scheme and if necessary other provisions could be added into the letter served by the minister who authorises the TCC. A 3-year accreditation cycle is of no relevance but a period of three to five years would be appropriate.

3. Needs to be a period of time of six months before the end of the authorisation period where the TCC is entitled to ask the minister if he is going to reauthorise the company and to give the Government some comfort, the TCC will not walk away. I suggest a bank guarantee for $100 000 to be made in favour of DIER.

That was based on based on three FTEs for six months and was accepted as being reasonable by the Solicitor-General’s office.

Those are the answers to the questions as precis-ed by him. It is my understanding that subsequent advice from Crown Law to Workplace Standards on 9 February 2006 expressed reservations about the suitability of the document itself and that it should be prepared by the Crown Solicitor rather than the department. That document was never presented to me and I can assure the House that if it was I would not have signed the document. A copy may have been sent to one of my advisers but it was never brought to my attention. Nevertheless, advice received from an officer from the department of 14 February 2006 was that the document could be proceeded with, with some reservations expressed about clause 9 of document. The advice that it was okay to proceed was subsequently verbally confirmed to me by the officer of the department just before I signed the document on 15 February 2006. That advice was that the document would be formalised into the future by a subsequent document drafted by Crown Law. During this formal drafting process it may well have eventuated that the final agreement would include a whole range of different provisions.

The House adjourned at 8.05 p.m.