Australian Federal Election 2016: how Liberal Senator for Tasmania Eric Abetz is said to have become a millionaire in 2005

Another bona fide millionaire is discovered within Liberal Party ranks? 

This appears to be how Senator Eric Abetz made the grade when he was Special Minister for State in the Howard Coalition Government….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March 2016:

In early 2000, Abetz paid $100,000 for almost four hectares of government land adjoining his house block in the Hobart suburb of Kingston. In March 2005, the area was rezoned from "residential" to "business and civic". Four months later, Abetz sold both the house block and the adjoining land to property developer Robert Rockefeller's company, AAD Nominees, for a combined total of $1.9 million.

Here's where Abetz got lucky. For the big vacant block (3.8 hectares), Rockefeller paid him only $400,000. For the house block (0.6 hectare), Rockefeller paid $1.5 million – more than five times the government valuation. This meant the bulk of Abetz's proceeds from the two sales was not subject to capital gains tax (a person's residence is exempt from the tax). The enormous discrepancy in the two sale prices cannot be attributed to the value of the house, a six-room weatherboard construction which has since been demolished.

In 2014, the capital value of Abetz's vacant former house block was assessed by the Tasmanian Valuer General at just $470,000. John Hawkins, the columnist on the Tasmanian Times website who first drew attention to the land deals, believes an explanation is long overdue. Abetz's attitude is calmly dismissive. The house block had more road frontage than the bigger block, which enhanced its commercial value, he tells me. The whole thing was entirely above board.

The Tasmanian Times, 10 September 2010:

Snapshot of Document 1

Mr Rockefeller through his company AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has applied to Kingborough Council to build a shopping centre, car park and other facilities on the adjoining block of land with Channel Highway street numbers 163, 167, 191 and a section of 203 (Document 1).

Kingborough Councillors have recently knocked back the Development Application (Document 2) which had been approved by the Planning Department of the Council. Two of these lots, 191 and 167 have an interesting recent history, of which I became aware as a result of checking the residential address provided by Senator Abetz on his nomination forms for the 1998 and 2004 Senate elections.

Lot 191 (191 Channel Highway) appears to have been owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz and was their family home. The land area was 0.6206 hectares and on it stood a weatherboard house with an imitation tile roof with six main rooms built circa 1910. The property was acquired prior to the introduction of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) so was free of CGT when the Abetz family decided to sell.

An adjoining block, Lot 167 comprising some 3.894 hectares or approximately 10 acres, was purchased by E and MA Abetz from the Tasmanian State Government on 1 June 2000. Lot 167 was purchased for $100,000. The purchase price was $20,000 less than the Government capital valuation price (Cap) and I can find no trace of it ever being put out to tender.

Senator & Mrs Abetz were lucky with the rezoning of their land as a result of the completely new Kingborough Planning Scheme introduced in 2000. The Kingborough Council prepared a Report for an Amendment to its Planning Scheme, and the matter was referred to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). Lots 163, 167,  and part of 203 were rezoned from Residential to Business and Civic in March 2005. (Document 3)

The RPDC archives provide a good background to the matter but do not show who applied for the change of use. The Council Planning Officer, Andrew Goodsell, for some reason incorrectly describes the Abetz land as “167 Channel Highway in two titles (owner E Abetz) ….includes a small title of .3662 ha incorporating the house Lynden Rise” he continues and places emphasis on Lot 167 thus, “Of these lots it is this rear lot of 167 Channel Highway that potentially has the most potential, providing potential for facilities and services that interconnect with those of the Antarctic Division site”.

Interestingly Goodsell in this application reduces the land area of title 191 which gets no mention, only the house is named.

Lot 163, the adjoining house block on a larger land area 0.8232 hectares, had been purchased prior to the RPDC’s agreement to rezone from a Mrs V Wiseman on 10 December 2004 for $565,000 by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd. The Government valuation in 2004 (Cap) was $208,000 (the house was built in 1968). The Capital Value as of 1 March 2009 is $670,000 with a land value of $490,000.

Lot 203 was subdivided from the Antarctic Division block already owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd.

In summary therefore the blocks owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz Lots 191 (although not specified) and 167 were attached to 163 and 203 then owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for the purposes of a rezoning in an application referred to the RPDC for approval.

Following approval by the RPDC on 24 Feb 2005, Senator & Mrs Abetz immediately sold 191 and 167, with completion on 18 July 2005, to AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for $1.9m with Abetz apportioning $1.5m to the family home, 191 Channel Highway, and $400,000 to Lot 167, the 10 acres purchased from the State Government for $100,000. It should be noted that the Abetz name does not feature on the Title to Lot 191 in this transfer; why?

Since the purchase, AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has obtained two reductions in the rated value on Lot 191 - the Abetz family home, now a land value of $430,000 and a capital value of $840,000. In a rarity for Kingston this loss of value over the past five years, must put a question mark over the assigned value of the Abetz residence in 2005.

Is it a case of Lot 191 having been overvalued by Abetz? This would reduce his capital gains tax liability on the adjoining 10 acre land Lot 167. Perhaps Abetz can elucidate further.

The Senate requires all Senators to maintain a “Statement of Registrable Interests”. This is kept at the Senate in Parliament House, Canberra.

Regarding real estate, the Register requires that the suburb or area is provided and makes a distinction between residential and investment property, and whether the property is used as a residence, as a holiday home, as a farm, or is held for investment or other business purposes. For all purchases or disposals of real estate, the date of settlement is to be considered the date of alteration of interests and notification should be made within 28 days of that date.

Senator Abetz’s information in his Statement of Registrable Interests for each of his terms of office reveals, in part, his real estate interests. The 1994 Register, his first in Parliament, gives his only property as ”Kingston Tasmania Residence”; in an alteration to Senators’ Interests (Document 4) he cancels his loans but he makes this addition to his interests, “Consultant to Abetz & Co in association with Shields Heritage”.

He declares the purchase of two investment properties at Gagebrook in 1995 and 77 Beach Road Kingston - a block of four units or flats overlooking the golf course - in 1998, with a sale in 1999.

There is no mention on the Register of Assets of the separate purchase from the State Government of Tasmania of Lot 167, yet he informed the Register: “My wife and I have contracted to purchase land adjacent to our residence through a nominee” possibly the Abetz Family Trust on 14 Feb 2000. He later confirmed the purchase but in joint names (Document 5) on 5 June 2000, with no mention of investment that would turn out to be financially beneficial. Eighteen months later, in Dec 2002, still no mention, but he informs the Register that he has paid out the loan.

Someone must have been looking into Erich’s affairs, for his former legal office Abetz Curtis at 83 Davey Street was the subject of Documents 6 and 7. It may be that Gagebrook, Beach Road and Davey Street should be subject to audit if a check is to be run over 167 and 191 Channel Highway.

The acquisition of 10 acres of land, Lot 167 Channel Highway, from the Tasmanian State Government, followed by rezoning from Residential to Business and Civic, must turn this transaction to a “property held for investment” and as such it becomes very much a “Registrable Interest.” This property as 167 Channel Highway has never been declared as either a purchase or sale to the Senate of Australia.

Abetz still gives, “Kingston Residence” as his only property even after 167 and 191 are sold with completion, 18 July 2005, yet he has to inform the Register within 28 days of sale. I ask why the delay? The sale was declared as Residential on 3/Jan/2006 (Document 8)

The sale of Lot 167 within five years, at a declared profit of $300,000 - but arguably an actual profit of approximately $1.3m - makes this a very good investment indeed. If this is so the capital gain is in excess of $1m and the Capital Gains Tax unpaid would be in excess of $200,000.

This begs the question, why did the Tasmanian Government not arrange itself for the rezoning in conjunction with the developer, so as to benefit the people of Tasmania rather than a well-connected Senator?

See http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/abetz-and-channel-highway-land-deals#sthash.zt9f3o5X.dpuf for document downloads.

It is noted that as of 19 March 2008 the very expensively purchased house and land package known "Lynden Rise", 191 Channel Highway, Kingston remained undeveloped and only became the subject of a development application in 2014. While the larger but less expensively acquired Lot 167 appears to remain undeveloped to date.

Google Earth snapshot, 26 March 2016

In which Tony Abbott once again demonstrates why he was never fit to hold office

"Cautionary note concerning the publication of this report

Aspects of this research were only made possible by the involvement and cooperation of community leaders and stakeholders in West Cairns and Aurukun. Their co-operation was based on an understanding that the information provided by local people would be used to find effective solutions to the problems as described in this report. The project team in turn gave a commitment that we would do our best to work with these communities to make them safer, especially for their children. For our part, the present research was always seen as the first phase of a longer-term project that would involve the implementation and evaluation of interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and impacts of sexual violence and abuse in these communities.

Because the focus of this work is on specific communities, it has not been possible to present the report without identifying the communities. While we have done our best to avoid presenting information that could identify individuals within these communities, we are mindful that identifying the communities themselves nevertheless presents significant risks. Publicly naming these communities, particularly in the context of the present findings concerning sexual violence and abuse, risks damaging the relationships and community commitment upon which the success of future prevention efforts so fundamentally relies. Community tensions are very real in both communities, and especially in Aurukun. Insensitive media reporting, for example, even if well intentioned, could inflame these tensions. We fear that such attention would focus on the problems alone, and yet again the voices of those working toward a better future in these communities would not be properly heard.

We understand and support the Queensland Government’s commitment to openness and public accountability, and we are mindful that the present research was conducted with public funding. We understand that in the normal course of events the present report would and should be made available to the public. However we strongly urge caution with respect to the timing and circumstances of making this report public. We believe some delay may be warranted to allow a properly-considered government response to this report to be formulated, and perhaps for some positive outcomes to be presented. We believe we owe that to the members and leaders of these communities." [Smallbone, S. et al, (2013), Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun: Establishing the scope, dimensions and dynamics of the problem, p. vii, report released 12 March 2016]

Sacked former prime minister Tony Abbott and the mainstream media obviously paid no heed to Page vii of this report, when an opportunistic Abbott rushed to journalists with a simplistic, punitive and appallingly ignorant response.

Stop treating indigenous abuse differently: Abbott TONY Abbott has called for law and order to be enforced in indigenous communities as it is elsewhere.

Responding to an alarming government finding that sexual abuse of and by kids was "normalised" in some of the state's indigenous communities, the former prime minister said there needed to be consequences for any law-breaker - regardless of their background or age.

"Part of the problem often (are those who say) there should be different standards in different places," Mr Abbott (pictured) said. "That is not something that is acceptable. We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people - whether they are male or female, black or white." Mr Abbott said the response was required in the wake of the "utterly scandalous" government findings, in a secret report that was revealed by The Courier-Mail

AAP Bulletin News, 21 March 2016:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has urged authorities in north Queensland to arrest and charge alleged sex offenders as young as 10.

A Queensland report has revealed children are both victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse.

Asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun, Mr Abbott told the Courier Mail: "They should be arrested, they should be charged, there are juvenile justice systems."

He said it was not acceptable to have different standards in different places.

"We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people, whether they are male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim," said Mr Abbott.

The Cairns Post, 21 March 2016:

TONY Abbott (right) has controversially declared that Far North Queensland's 10-year-old sex offenders should be arrested, charged and forced through the juvenile justice system.

Commenting on an "utterly scandalous" report outlining distressing rates of child sexual assault, the former prime minister has demanded Australia end its different expectations for black and white communities, and law and order be enforced.

Many politicians remained floored by Professor Stephen Small-bone's The Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun report. But Mr Abbott, who has a strong record of engaging with indigenous Australians, including volunteering in Aurukun, said there needed to be consequences for any law breaker.

"The conditions are utterly scandalous and there needs to be a very strong response," he said.

Mr Abbott was asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun."They should be arrested. They should be charged. There are juvenile justice systems," he said.

The more reasoned response of the report:

BACKGROUND

The Courier Mail, 19 March 2016:

AURUKUN is again in the news and though the news is not new, it is not good. A report by researchers from Griffith University, led by Professor Stephen Smallbone, on youth sexual violence in Aurukun sat idle through three years of the Newman government before being released by Treasurer Curtis Pitt last weekend.

Ostensibly, then-premier Campbell Newman did not release the report because Aurukun Mayor Derek Walpo objected on the basis it would compromise the confidentiality of the children and families involved in the research. This may have been understandable but the failure to respond to the report is appalling. It was provided to the state more than two years ago.

How did things come to this tragic state? Many readers will think this is just the way things are in Aurukun. But it has not always been this way. In fact, things were once very different and how and why things deteriorated so badly is an important backstory.

We can talk about the many proximate causes of the crisis in Aurukun (grog, welfare dependency, unemployment) but its ultimate explanation lies in government violence starting with the Aurukun Takeover in 1978 by the Queensland government under then-premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The takeover resulted in the Presbyterian Church being kicked out of Aurukun and replaced by the Queensland government. The Smallbone report is the bitter harvest of this original violence at the hands of the state.

Before the takeover respectful kinship relationships meant everything to the Wik people of Western Cape York. A hybrid of traditional and missionary authority and paternalism gave an order to the Aurukun mission that was shattered, and not replaced. Child neglect, homicides, suicides, violence and abuse were virtually unknown before 1985 when then local government minister Russ Hinze finally forced a canteen to open up against the objections of elders.

The first instalment of the state's takeover was the imposition of the local government structure. The second was the imposition of the canteen. This story of state violence began when Bjelke-Petersen's government seized control of the Aurukun's extensive bauxite reserves in 1975 and gave it to a French multinational, Pechiney. The Church supported legal and political campaigns by the Wik people against the state's actions. This is why Bjelke-Petersen and Hinze removed the Church and took over Aurukun.

Aurukun was no longer a mission. It was now a shire. But what was a shire? A shire needed revenue. The only viable source of revenue was to convert unemployment benefits received from the Commonwealth Government into canteen revenues for the shire council. The bodies of the Wik people would be the means through which this conversion of Commonwealth funding into state revenue, would take place. The young bodies and brains of infants would be victims of this money laundering.

Minus the paternalistic protection of the church, the Aurukun people were powerless to resist the shire council's introduction of a wet canteen. This was opposed by many in Aurukun, particular by a strong group of Wik women, but the battle was lost.

The rivers of grog started to flow and they flowed for two decades. The painful story of the collapse of family and clan relationships was now set in train. Serious assaults became commonplace. There were nine homicides in the five years after the opening of the local canteen. The Four Corners report by David Marr in 1990 declared the crime rate at Aurukun far worse than notorious American cities.

The actions of Bjelke-Peterson and Hinze were a form of state violence. The cycle of abuse and neglect that followed the grog chaos from 1985 was imprinted on the young children who were born in its wake……

It’s important to not let the scale of the problem obscure the fact that there are many upstanding individuals and families in Aurukun. The parents who send their kids to school every day, families that nurture and support their children, people who are seeking out a better life for their families, the very parents and grandparents that now stand proud as their children graduate from high school and university. Among them are strong natural leaders in Aurukun. And female leaders are the key.

This active leadership should buoy us and this ground-up movement must not be squashed by bureaucracy and service delivery jargon. These women, with the right support, are Aurukun’s last best hope.

The history that I name as state violence should stand as a reminder of what happens when governments take over and smother local leadership and structures. The colonisation of service delivery has not worked to date and will not work in the future.

Fiona Jose is executive general manager, Cape Operations, at Cape York Partnership

Don't even have an election date yet but already the sheep are getting nervous....

Quote of the Week

“As of November 2015, labour force under-utilisation (the unemployed plus the underemployed) was 14.3%. This is the real picture of unemployment in Australia.” [Shadow Minister for Families and Payments and Shadow Minister for Disability Reform & Labor MP for Jagajaga Jenny Macklin in The Guardian, 16 March 2016]