(cont)
“Unfortunately, it’s a private foundation ... I can’t comment at all except to say it will make fairly significant contributions to charity,” he said at the time. “The Greenfields Foundation will make substantial contributions to organisations such as those that look after blind children.”
The AEC began investigating, and, after a lot of public pressure the then party treasurer Ron Walker insisted he had lent the money himself. He’s clearly a patient lender. According to the Liberal party’s latest return, almost 20 years on the Liberal party still owes the foundation $3.45m.
Back in 2000 then Labor Senator John Faulkner assessed Walker’s involvement in Greenfields during a Senate debate.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
“It all began back in 1994-95. We had a situation where the national office of the Liberal party was in financial trouble ... The National Australia Bank requested the title to Menzies House (the Liberal party’s Canberra headquarters) as security for the Liberal party’s substantial overdraft. They had run up quite a debt in the 1993 federal election. The treasurer of the Liberal Party at the time, one Mr Ron Walker, was given the task of remedying the situation ... What occurred was that, at least by Mr Walker’s own admission – we have no proof of it – he came up with $4.7m himself in the form of a guarantee over the debt ... and then apparently assigned his debt to the mysterious Greenfields Foundation, a so-called ‘charitable foundation’, some time in mid-1996.
“You have to ask yourself: why would Ron Walker want to avoid disclosure? Surely if he is putting $4.6m you would think he would be proud of it. You would think he would be a hero in the Liberal Party. But, no, the official Liberal party’s treasurer ... hid his light under a bushel.”
In Faulkner’s assessment, it was all a “cover-up” and “the Greenfields Foundation was just the Liberal Party’s old fundraising arm, the old Free Enterprise Foundation, reborn in a new impenetrable form. So up until 1995, the Free Enterprise Foundation donated huge sums to the Coalition but was not required to reveal the donations it received. The then Labor government closed the loophole in the Electoral Act. The Liberal party, it seems, felt that it had to find another way to conceal its fundraising. Enter the Greenfields Foundation.”
The AEC tried its best to get to the bottom of the Greenfields story, and, as Faulkner told the Senate, “in January 1999 ... served Greenfields with a notice under section 316 of the Electoral Act to produce documents. That was a serious step for the AEC to take. Failure to comply with such a notice is a criminal offence and the fine is hefty. In June 1999, such was the concern at the AEC over its Greenfields investigation that the AEC briefed senior counsel to advise it on the Liberal party’s use of the Greenfields loophole and its apparent failure to disclose. At around this time, the AEC also started closely consulting the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to Greenfields.”
But the AEC never did unravel the mystery, and, despite years of effort, nor did Labor.
In a 1998 report on Greenfields, after a lengthy investigation, the AEC noted that “it is apparent that a person, or in certain circumstances a corporation, who wished to avoid full and open disclosure could do so by a series of transactions based on the Greenfields model.”
And it recommended that “the simplest and most effective way to close this loophole is for the Act to deem the payment of a guarantee to be a donation.”
But nothing was ever done about that either.
The difference between what happened after the revelations concerning the two foundations appears to be entirely due to the powers that Icac has to force the disclosure of documents and information, and the lack of anything similar at a federal level.
It is possible the NSW Electoral Commission’s stance will force change to all such trusts and foundations, if the NSW party has to concede that the FEF is not actually an independent freedom-minded charitable donor. It has already highlighted, yet again, the need for a federal anti-corruption body.
And that just happens to be exactly what the Senate crossbench is demanding be considered before it will allow the re-establishment of the building and construction industry corruption watchdog – a goal Malcolm Turnbull says is so important that if the Senate refuses it necessitates taking the whole nation to a double-dissolution election.
I came across this word the other day. Zemblanity. It was coined by novelist William Boyd to be an antonym for serendipity. With the NSW Electoral Commission donations stand-off and the Senate stand-off reaching a crescendo at about the same time, I think it’s kind of fitting.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/02/a-tale-of-two-charitable-f...