the misappropriation report

© The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report

The Use of Taxpayer Revenue For Political Messaging & Smear Broadcasting

With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Affair

[Interim]

The Expendable Project

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Political Awareness 3. Screen Queensland 4. The Role Of Politicians 5. Censorship Of Information 6. Falling On Deaf Ears 7. Findings & Conclusions

[Introduction]

Expendable.TV Page 1 - 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The role of the Australian media, in adversely influencing public opinion against Schapelle Corby, is documented throughout The Expendable Project website. The range of propagandistic techniques employed extended far beyond news management and censorship, and included the wide scale use of selective terminology, regular opinion placement, abusive production engineering, and even dismissive ridicule of Schapelle Corby's deteriorating mental condition. However, one of the most blatant and damaging practices has been the use of paid-for fabrications and smears, and their subsequent presentation as credible, across almost every media platform. Fairfax Media were particularly active in producing this type of material, with a Fairfax journalist, Eamonn Duff, actually collecting the fabrications and presenting them as a book. This continued even after he had admitted in court that he made a payment to the family of the main smear source of his fictional material. Despite the immense catalogue of evidence proving that this damaging output was totally false, including direct interviews with many of those misrepresented, FremantleMedia and Nine Network sought to derive further revenue from it, by producing a telemovie based upon the fiction.

The damage this would cause to the welfare of Schapelle Corby was incalculable, particularly as her once-only parole application was in process when the project was announced. News of the plans themselves was widely and luridly reported in Indonesia. Nonetheless, behind the scenes, a huge financial contribution to support the project was already being arranged. The benefactor was to be the Government of Queensland, courtesy of taxpayer revenue.

http://www.expendable.tv/2012/02/eamonn-duff-allen-unwin-and-fairfax.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-am16_lApp6Y/UoPObbqs02I/AAAAAAAAAKs/kAeR8ciEUNM/s1600/DuffAdmitsPayment.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-am16_lApp6Y/UoPObbqs02I/AAAAAAAAAKs/kAeR8ciEUNM/s1600/DuffAdmitsPayment.jpg


[Political Awareness]


2. POLITICAL AWARENESS

The funding of a project of such direct political relevance was not an aberration or an oversight. It was wilful, taken in full possession of the facts. Those involved were familiar with both the nature of the planned production, and the political implications, both with respect to Schapelle Corby, the Liberal Party (federal and state), and a number of high profile individuals.

2.1. AWARENESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCTION The Liberal administration, which governed Queensland from March 2012, was well aware of the nature of Duff's work. Both ministers and MP‟s alike had been sent information on a number of occasions, by a variety of third parties. The matter was also well documented by the media.

The Premier, the Attorney-General, and other ministers, had even engaged in direct dialogue with Schapelle Corby's mother. On 12th November 2012, for example, the Premier of Queensland responded to a request to initiate criminal defamation proceedings against Duff and his publisher as follows:



The Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions responded also, similarly refusing the request, under the "dead men can't sue" provisions of Queensland and Australian law. The offending fabrications had been carefully channelled through Schapelle Corby‟s father, who had died of cancer in 2008. Read-receipts also confirmed the wide scale exposure to the nature of Duff‟s efforts amongst Queensland's MP‟s and politicians generally.



2.2. AWARENESS OF THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Similarly, the nature of the Schapelle Corby case itself was known, including the disturbing role of named Liberal politicians. The Premier, ministers and MP‟s were all repeatedly informed of instances of misconduct perpetrated by federal ministers in the Howard administration. This included receipt of copies of the actual cables and correspondence, which conclusively evidenced malversation and abuse. Again, evidential proof of familiarity with this disturbing material is provided through direct responses and read-receipts. For example, during the first quarter of 2013 alone, such items were exchanged at least a dozen times.

A Small Sample of Correspondence (Insert: Random Read-Receipts, MP’s)

Not only was the Liberal administration, including its ministers and members of parliament, well aware that this politically damaging material existed, it was also aware that it was becoming increasingly visible to the public.

http://www.expendable.tv/2011/09/justice-customs-minister-christopher.html

http://www.expendable.tv/p/expendable-dossier.html

http://www.expendable.tv/p/expendable-dossier.html

http://www.expendable.tv/p/expendable.html



2.3. THE KEELTY CONNECTION One of those at the very heart of the original scandal, in 2005, was AFP Commissioner Michael Keelty. Keelty withheld a raft of vital evidence from Schapelle Corby and the Bali court, including information which revealed that her boogie-board bag was the only one not scanned at Sydney airport in transit, and that airport corruption was endemic, as documented by the Kessing Reports, for example. Even on the record, his interventions, particularly through the media, were immensely damaging. For example, just two weeks before the verdict Keelty told the press, "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states". Quite apart from the clearly false nature of this statement, the Law Council was damning in its response, stating that, “Mr Keelty would not be able to make such damaging comments in an Australian case because he would run a grave risk of being found in contempt of court”. This was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of his unhelpful involvement in the case, with many other examples documented on The Expendable Project website. Again, the Government of Queensland, ministers, and MP‟s, had been made well aware of this, via a lengthy series of emails and other correspondence. They had been informed, on record, on a multitude of occasions, of his disturbing role in the case. The Police Minister was no exception, with a number of read-receipts and auto-replies confirming this:

A Typical Auto-Response

http://www.expendable.tv/2011/09/australian-federal-police-commissioner.html



However, it emerged that, despite this, Keelty had actually been hired to head a Police review. He was in situ, in Queensland, when the decision to fund the FremantleMedia production was taken.

2.4. A CONVENIENCE OF TIMING As the federal elections of September 2013 loomed ever closer, the prospect of this information becoming public knowledge must have weighed particularly heavy for Liberal politicians in Schapelle Corby's own state of Queensland. The potential electoral damage of party association with such disturbing conduct is unlikely to have escaped the attention of party strategists and staff. The additional issue, of Michael Keelty currently heading a high profile review, must also have been obvious. The political benefit of maintaining the status quo, in terms of continued hostile media influence against Schapelle Corby, and the ongoing self-censorship of The Expendable Project documentation, will have been clear. The temptation for the Government of Queensland to fund or support some form of iteration of Duff's handiwork is therefore self-evident, both on political and personal levels. The decision to provide a substantial inducement to FremantleMedia, to film the smear story within Queensland, was formally announced in June 2013, and was accompanied by glowing references via the Queensland Government‟s proxy agency:

http://www.expendable.tv/p/media.html

http://www.expendable.tv/p/media.html




In terms of media coverage of this announcement, the proven nature of the story itself attracted no reference at all. The political advantage to the Liberal party, and the benefit to individual politicians and associates, of the broadcast of this material, was similarly omitted from reporting. The public remained oblivious to all these aspects. Nonetheless, the situation itself was clear. In full possession of the facts, the Liberal administration of the Government of Queensland, had committed hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars directly to the producers of the most contentious of propagandistic material, which would further blind the Australian public to the conduct of federal Liberal politicians and associates, including Michael Keelty. Further, this contribution was made in full knowledge that the victim was desperately seeking parole in Indonesia, and that the planned output could only negatively influence her prospects. In addition, the CEO of the Government of Queensland funded Screen Queensland, was visibly at work selling the production itself to the public, as “must-see”.

http://www.expendable.tv/p/anatomy.html



The public was not consulted, at any stage, regarding this huge investment of taxpayer revenue.

[Screen Queensland]


3. SCREEN QUEENSLAND

The proxy vehicle used for this investment was a quasi-corporate entity called Screen Queensland, which is funded by the Government of Queensland:

Screen Queensland Annual Report: 2011-2012

In July 2013, a member of the public undertook an analysis of the Terms of Trade of Screen Queensland, with respect to the planned production. The letter he wrote to Screen Queensland is self-explanatory: Dear Sir, I was recently copied into the correspondence sent to you by a Mr Langford, regarding the alleged corruption of Queensland Liberal politicians, in terms of a cover-up of the documented misconduct by federal Liberal politicians. As a follow-on, I took a brief look at your website, and the terms and conditions under which you purport to hand over such considerable sums of taxpayer money to third party corporations I refer to your web page, regarding incentives: http://www.screenqueensland.com.au/funding/incentives/production-incentive.html Let’s examine just a few examples from your own Terms of Trade.

http://www.screenqueensland.com.au/funding/incentives/production-incentive.html

[Screen Queensland]


EXAMPLE 1: APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY Shall we start with the initial eligibility of FremantleMedia?

Applicant eligibility

In their dealings with Screen Queensland, applicants and recipients of funding must always:

act in good faith;

exhibit the highest levels of propriety and high standards of probity;

be open and honest; and

not mislead or deceive Screen Queensland by act or omission.

In relation to third parties involved in funded projects, applicants and recipients of funding must always:

act fairly and reasonably in relation to third parties;

make payments to third parties when due; and

respect the rights of third parties, including intellectual property rights.

Failure to adhere to all these standards reflects on Screen Queensland and the reputation of the industry in the State and, where part of a course of conduct over time or projects, may render applicants ineligible to apply for further funding. Where an applicant is in default of any contractual agreement with Screen Queensland:

Screen Queensland will work with the applicant to rectify the default; and

Screen Queensland expects the applicant to remain in open communication with Screen Queensland until the default is resolved.

I am sure you can see immediately that the proposed payment to FremantleMedia, for production of a telemovie based upon offensive fabrications and lies, would be in absolute breach of these conditions. I refer you to the material on the following web page, which demonstrates precisely what the proposed telemovie is sourced from: http://www.expendable.tv/2012/02/eamonn-duff-allen-unwin-and-fairfax.html It is conclusive, isn’t it? It is self-evident that a story which by its very nature exploits the “dead men cannot sue” exception, which the police refer to as “laughable”, and which those misrepresented within in it are queuing up to dismiss it as damaging fabrication, can hardly be considered to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ with respect to third parties.


[Screen Queensland]


Certainly, Mr McHugh didn’t think so, when he issued a series of ultimatums and warnings against FremantleMedia, just before his violent death. I suggest that you read about this very carefully, including the call he made to FremantleMedia, and then to The Expendable Project: http://www.expendable.tv/2013/05/the-chronology-of-david-mchugh-deceased.html Perhaps he is now just another dead man who cannot sue. It sounds like he has plenty more to say from the grave though, in terms of the contents of those tapes that The Expendable Project apparently hold. And this is being funded through you! Are you suggesting that FremantleMedia is acting “fairly and reasonably in relation to third parties” with respect to this? Yes or no, please. I would like a straight answer. Then there are the courts. I refer to the recent copyright case, in which the judge found that the publishers of this collection of baseless smears had “flagrantly breached” the law: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450470028367797&set=pb.117859211628882.-2207520000.1375267993 Or in Judge Buchanan’s own words: “To the extent that the respondent did so through Mr Duff, I am satisfied that Mr Duff had no foundation for any belief that he or the respondent had a right to reproduce any of the photographs, or that he actually held any such belief”. And: “I am satisfied that the respondent acted in flagrant disregard of the rights of the applicants as owners of copyright”. Could you explain how you consider that basing a story upon the fiction published by them, respects “the rights of third parties, including intellectual property rights”? These are the sort of people Screen Queensland and the Queensland Government now appear to be in bed with. Bear in mind too, that a series of defamation cases are also in progress against the lies published. I am sure that FremantleMedia will have told you ALL about this. Or didn’t they? If they DID tell you, why are you funding this production given the manifestly clear breaches of your own terms, or more precisely, why is the Queensland Government funding this through you? If they DID NOT tell you, are they not in flagrant breach of this clause: “act in good faith; exhibit the highest levels of propriety and high standards of probity; be open and honest; and not mislead or deceive Screen Queensland by act or omission”? Yes, or no, will do. Again, I would like a straight answer.

http://www.expendable.tv/2013/05/the-chronology-of-david-mchugh-deceased.html

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450470028367797&set=pb.117859211628882.-2207520000.1375267993

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450470028367797&set=pb.117859211628882.-2207520000.1375267993

[Screen Queensland]


EXAMPLE 2: CHAIN OF TITLE Another example?

Chain of title: The applicant must be a copyright holder or have an option to acquire the rights in any and all works on which the project is based. Applicants with options over submitted projects must have available not less than two (2) years of the option period from the date a successful application is contracted. Initial options or rights payments must be paid by the applicant or deferred. Screen Queensland may pay for options or rights payments for further terms where such payment is a line item in the budget of a development investment by Screen Queensland. Copies of options and agreements must be supplied with the application, and an application cannot be assessed until all such documentation has been supplied.

With respect to this, please explain how FremantleMedia is the “copyright holder or have an option to acquire the rights in any and all works on which the project is based”, in the light of the information I have presented above. EXAMPLE 3: WHO MAY APPLY And another example?

Who may apply?

Queensland based practitioners and independent production companies or other production companies substantially engaging with Queensland based practitioners. Industry organisations and independent events may apply to the Screen Culture Funding Programme. The following applications are NOT eligible: 1. Projects that have been rejected and have not substantially

changed; 2. Applications for retrospective funding; 3. Applications for commercial videos, advertisements, current

affairs, sport, interstitials, educational or training programmes; 4. Applications from secondary students and tertiary

undergraduates; and 5. Applications for school or tertiary course work.

This production is at least partially “current affairs”, and indeed, it is even being promoted as factual and current on national television and elsewhere! Furthermore, after nine years, Schapelle Corby still languishes in a squalid overcrowded Indonesian prison cell, and its broadcast may well sabotage her only chance of release before the end of 2017. Yet it isn’t “current affairs”? I suggest that it is, and that you are well aware that it is. Why did you ignore this clause? Can I have another straight answer please?

[Screen Queensland]


These are just a few examples of the obvious breaches of your own terms and conditions. So obvious and clear are they that I find it difficult to see how the grant could possibly have been approved for anything other than political reasons. I would ask you to reply with respect to them all, in depth, and provide copies of the Producer’s Report, all submissions, and any other relevant material, so that I can investigate this aspect further. Given the sums involved, the police may also take an interest. I would also request a copy of all correspondence with Queensland Government politicians and ministers. In other words, those who furnish you with grants, and mandates I will continue to investigate these matters, but look forward to receipt of all the information I have requested. D.M. Corbett Media Research

The letter directly and conclusively evidenced that the grant to FremantleMedia was in direct breach of Screen Queensland’s own Terms of Trade, indicating a clear misappropriation of public funds. In many respects, it is simply not tenable to suggest that Screen Queensland was unaware that its Terms of Trade were being breached, particularly with regard to the Corby family, who, despite the „dead men can’t sue‟ exemptions, was fighting a high profile defamation case against the publishers of the source material. Mr Corbett sent his letter to Screen Queensland, the Premier and ministers of the Government of Queensland, and all MP‟s. He did not receive a single reply from any of these parties. He subsequently wrote separately to Queensland Police, the Queensland Integrity Commissioner, and the Crime and Misconduct Commission Queensland.

[The Role Of Politicians]


4. THE ROLE OF POLITICIANS The involvement of politicians is central to the serious issues discussed in previous sections. As demonstrated, ministers and MP‟s were well aware of the nature of the planned production, and were also aware of the issues surrounding the original scandal, from 2005, involving Liberal politicians and the commissioner of the AFP, Michael Keelty. It is clearly unrealistic to believe that they were not aware that a production, which would smear and abuse Schapelle Corby and her family, would simultaneously dissipate concern about the role of their political colleagues, and, even closer to home, Keelty. The latter was now, effectively, on the payroll of the Government of Queensland. The political and personal advantages will have been glaringly obvious. The central issue is of awareness of the use of taxpayer revenue to fund these smears, via Screen Queensland, and the timing of such. There is no doubt that ministers were well aware of this prior to its announcement, as one of them, Arts Minister Ian Walker, was quoted in the announcement itself.

The announcement had, of course, been approved by his own department.



Subsequently, Schapelle Corby‟s sister, Mercedes Corby, wrote to Mr Walker, Premier Campbell Newman, and a number of other relevant parties. Despite receiving no reply, she persisted. She eventually received a response on 28th August 2013. This confirmed that the funding was for the sum of $567,000.



Through this letter, Walker clearly sought to distance himself from the decision, stating that, “all Screen Queensland investment decisions are made independent of this office”. He made no reference to the fact that the decision was actually in direct breach of Screen Queensland’s Terms of Trade, despite the fact that he had received a copy of D.M. Corbett‟s letter explaining this weeks earlier. Nor did he mention that read-receipts evidenced that he had received and read an entire series of emails which explained the disturbing political issues with respect to the Schapelle Corby case, and the nature of the material which the production was to be based upon. The presence of Michael Keelty, on the Queensland Government payroll was also not referred to. Mr Walker was also approached by a member of the public, who asked the following questions: “Please could you inform me of the precise date, or approximate date, on which you were first aware that FremantleMedia had submitted an application for a grant via Screen Queensland to film a production related to Schapelle Corby. Could you also inform me of the date or dates on which you discussed this with Screen Queensland or any other party”. Walker‟s office responded promptly, promising a direct response “in due course”:

Unfortunately, a direct response was not forthcoming. Instead, three weeks later, Screen Queensland provided a reply, which evaded the very clear questions entirely:



Edward Middleton subsequently asked why a question submitted directly to Mr Walker, regarding his personal situation, was answered by a third party agency:

At the date of publication of this report, no response has been forthcoming.



OTHER POLITICIANS Ian Walker was not the only minister or politician aware of this situation, however. In addition, a number of senior civil servants, across multiple departments were also involved, in a variety of capacities. Given the sensitivities in play, and the substantial sum involved, it is extremely likely that the issue will have been discussed at cabinet level, at the very least, informally. Whether formal debate or discussion was undertaken is not known, as a Right to Information request to access this data was refused. POST-ANNOUNCEMENT Immediately following the public announcement of funding, the entire political establishment of Queensland will have been well aware of the situation, and the serious issues involved, courtesy of public reaction. Emails were sent by citizens from across the state, and beyond, and again, digital receipts evidence that they were read. Internal correspondence also refers to the wide spread circulation of some of these emails:



Shortly after this, the email which identified Screen Queensland’s breach of its own Terms of Trade, from DM Corbett, was similarly circulated. What did the Government of Queensland do in the face of this? Did the Minister, or Premier, make a statement regarding the public allegations of corruption? Was an investigation, or public enquiry, launched into the matter? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is „no‟. Indeed, instructions were issued internally to effectively operate a „lock-down‟ policy:

Public complaints were largely ignored, without even acknowledgement. Where responses were made, “min reply” was indeed the order of the day. The Government of Queensland was visibly closing ranks around those responsible for donating $567,000 of taxpayer money for the production of politically advantageous fabrications, protected under the „dead men can’t sue’ defamation exemption. Screen Queensland’s public response was to issue a statement, through the Government of Queensland, which equated to a „hard sell‟ of alleged benefits of the production. No reference was made to the breach of Terms of Trade. No reference was made to the nature of the production. No reference was made to the political aspects.



With respect to the Government of Queensland, ministers, politicians and proxy agencies, a policy of generic silence was clearly now in place. Despite issues of a most disturbing nature being in play, with evidenced allegations of malversation and misappropriation being openly made on social networks, the government was in lock-down.

[Censorship Of Information]


5. CENSORSHIP OF INFORMATION

Whilst the pattern of events was already clear, on 19th July 2013, a Right to Information (RTI) request was submitted to the Department of Science, Technology, Innovation and the Arts, the department headed by Ian Walker.

It was understood that most interaction of a sensitive nature will have been verbal, and unrecorded. However, the dates of formal correspondence, and the contents of submissions and official debate, would shed further light on some of the most disturbing developments. Following a number of delays, on 28th August a number of documents were identified as relevant. On 1st October 2013 the formal decision was finally provided, via a letter from the Assistant Director-General of the department, Mike Burnheim. This informed the submitter of the degree of censorship which was to be applied to the data within scope. Its scale was substantial, as indicated by the following page from the schedule of documents:



The most central and critical information was exempted from disclosure. The reasons cited, however, are perhaps revealing in themselves. Most were censored from disclosure under the provisions of deferment and parliamentary privilege.



DEFERMENT On receipt of the submission, the Government of Queensland had approached both FremantleMedia and Screen Queensland. Both these organizations objected to the release of information. On the basis of this, 34 documents were “deferred” and not provided:

Whole swathes of information were withheld, including data related to the provision of the grant itself, which, as detailed in an earlier section, directly breached the Terms of Trade of Screen Queensland. Even discussions relating to complaints made by members of the public were held back, under the blanket of deferment.



PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE Given the public allegations of parliamentary corruption with respect to these matters, including to the extent that some of the exempted documents refer to these allegations, the use of „parliamentary privilege‟ to prevent transparency is surely disturbing.

One Of Many Pages Redacted Under Parliamentary Privilege



Further, the citing of „public interest‟, in a situation in which the misappropriation of public funds is evidenced, is clearly a matter of serious concern. The RTI response expressed these provisions as follows:

Statements, such as the following, perhaps evidence the priorities in play:

The real context, of taxpayer money being used, in breach of the Terms of Trade of Screen Queensland, to produce a politically advantageous (to the Government of Queensland) production, comprising of fabrications and smears against a Queensland family, appears to have been completely overlooked.



The public interest is surely to provide transparency in such matters, and to ensure confidence in the probity of elected representatives, public servants, and public and proxy agencies. The narrow financial interests of a taxpayer funded agency, which has breached its own Terms of Trade in contributing taxpayer revenue to such a disturbing project, should not usurp these legitimate expectations and demands. This perhaps illustrates the core issue of balance, between the wider public interest, including trust and expectation of integrity and transparency, versus the interests of those entities seeking to run a profit from a project which many consider to offend public decency. Further, the wilful withholding of material, which may constitute evidence or supporting evidence, of political and financial impropriety, and misappropriation, could also be considered to constitute the suppression of such evidence. CONTEXTUAL TRANSPARENCY With a context which involves the most senior of elected politicians and ministers, anything less than full transparency of such material must be of considerable concern, not only to the public of Queensland, but to the entire nation. The evidence presented to all relevant parties is extremely clear, and the need for disclosure and openness could hardly be more obvious. All doors, however, appear to be closed, and, as the next section reveals, this includes those agencies and organizations directly charged with responsibility to uphold the highest levels of integrity and probity within all sectors of government. .

[Falling On Deaf Ears]


6. FALLING ON DEAF EARS

With his letter to Screen Queensland, and to all relevant parties within the Government of Queensland, having been completely ignored, D.M. Corbett submitted a series of complaints to appropriate agencies and organizations.

6.1. THE QUEENSLAND OMBUDSMAN The website of The Queensland Ombudsman states that, “The Queensland Ombudsman independently reviews the actions of state government agencies, local government and some universities”. This office was therefore approached for guidance and assistance. The initial response was as follows:



Mr Corbett quickly returned for further help:

In response, a further suggestion was forthcoming:



Mr Corbett explained the difficulty with this idea:



Unfortunately, the office of the Queensland Ombudsman offered no further assistance, closing down any further avenue of help:



6.2. THE CRIME & MISCONDUCT COMMISSION Mr Corbett approached the CMC as follows:

A formal response from the CMC was forthcoming a couple of days later:



Mr Corbett explained diligently that the scope of the complaint did, in fact, embrace a unit of public administration:

On 20th August 2013, the CMC responded with the following:



Mr Corbett provisioned the following explanation:



Unfortunately, this too fell on deaf ears.



The CMC again claimed that activities within, and through, Screen Queensland, were out of scope. Further, it misrepresented Mr Corbett‟s correspondence, in which he had referred to a Screen Queensland board member, simply as a potential example in a footnote. The final substantive statement, however, appears to be particularly revealing: “it is apparent that the allegations raised in your complaint, even if they were within jurisdiction, do not raise a reasonable suspicion of official misconduct against any particular person”. When presented with clear and unambiguous breaches of the Terms of Trade of a quasi-government entity, in handing over $567,000 of taxpayer revenue to produce material, which would be politically beneficial for a political party and a former police commissioner, the CMC declared that there was no reasonable suspicion of misconduct. This declaration was made without any investigation, any interviews, any request for evidential information held by Mr Corbett or The Expendable Project. Whilst claiming throughout that there was no role for the CMC in the matter, the final statement clearly indicates an attitude and opinion which could not have been formed on the basis of evidence or of investigation. It is not unreasonable to assume that this opinion was held from the outset, and framed the decision to avoid any involvement, regardless of what was to be presented, or what factual and material evidence may exist.



6.3. QUEENSLAND INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Queensland Integrity Commissioner was approached as follows:

The Integrity Commissioner stated that he had no role in the matter:



Mr Corbett sought clarification with respect to the politicians involved:

No help at all was forthcoming, with no assistance offered:

The Queensland Integrity Commissioner tersely refused to initiate any form of

investigation, or to provide any guidance whatsoever.



6.4. QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

Mr Corbett approached Queensland Police, and the Commissioner of Queensland

Police, on 8th August 2013:

As no response was forthcoming, he sent a reminder on 19th August 2013:



On 24th August he furnished the Commissioner with the same additional explanation

that he had provisioned to the CMC:



Whilst no response was forthcoming to any of the correspondence, digital read-

receipts confirmed that the complaints had, in fact, been read by a number of police

officers, including the Commissioner himself:

To date, and despite continued efforts to solicit due diligence and assistance, no reply

has been received.



6.5. THE MINISTER FOR POLICE Short of any other avenue to pursue the issues further, Mr Corbett sent an email to the

Minister for Police, Jack Dempsey MP:

Unfortunately, yet again, no response was forthcoming.

Note that, at this point in time, Mr Corbett was unaware that the Minister of Police

was in direct dialogue with, and a professional colleague of, Michael Keelty (see

previous reference).

[Findings & Conclusions]

Expendable.TV Page 7- 1

7. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this investigation are listed below:

1. Ministers, MP‟s and senior civil servants were aware of the disturbing nature of the proposed telemovie well in advance of any decision being taken on funding. Indeed, direct correspondence with Schapelle Corby‟s mother had been engaged, as she sought criminal defamation proceedings against the author of the source material for the production.

2. Ministers, MP‟s and senior civil servants were aware of the political issues

surrounding the Schapelle Corby case itself, specifically with respect to allegations and evidence regarding malversation of federal Liberal politicians, and the former Commissioner of the AFP, Michael Keelty.

3. The Government of Queensland engaged Michael Keelty to head a high profile

project in full possession of information and evidence regarding Keelty‟s role in the original Schapelle Corby scandal in 2005.

4. Ministers, MP‟s and senior civil servants were aware of the potential party

political and personal advantages of the broadcast of the proposed production.

5. Screen Queensland manifestly breached its own Terms of Trade in granting funding to the production. Indeed, it is likely that phrases such as, "act fairly and reasonably in relation to third parties" and, "respect the rights of third parties" were originally inserted into the Terms of Trade specifically to prevent taxpayer support for such contentious and disturbing productions.

6. Awareness of this breach must have been known at the highest levels of

Screen Queensland. Whilst it is highly likely that this was discussed with ministers, there is currently no formal written evidence available to substantiate this.

7. Ian Walker, Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation, and the Arts, was demonstrably aware of the funding of the proposed telemovie prior to its announcement.

8. Ministers, MP‟s and senior civil servants were made aware of the breach of

Screen Queensland’s Terms of Trade shortly after the announcement of funding, yet no action was taken regarding suspension or revocation of the funding. Equally, no investigation or public enquiry was announced.

9. In the formal announcement of funding, approved at ministerial level, Screen

Queensland directly sold the production itself to the public, even using terms such as „must-see” to describe it.

[Findings & Conclusions]

Expendable.TV Page 7- 2

10. When confronted with complaints from the public regarding the breach of its „Terms of Trade‟, Screen Queensland failed to respond.

11. When confronted with allegations and evidence of political malversation with

respect to the project, by members of the public, ministers and politicians failed to respond. Internal documents evidence the introduction of a „lock-down‟ policy on information, thus preventing public scrutiny and transparency.

12. When confronted with allegations regarding the employment and influence of

former AFP Commissioner, Michael Keelty, by members of the public, ministers and politicians failed to respond.

13. In response to a Right to Information request, wholesale censorship was

applied. Alarmingly, some of the most central and critical information, which may have evidenced parliamentary misconduct, was exempted under „parliamentary privilege‟. Other sensitive information was deferred at the behest of Screen Queensland and FremantleMedia.

14. Without exception, every agency approached to investigate the issues

identified in this report, evaded any responsibility, or failed to respond. These included the Queensland Police Service, the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman, the Queensland Integrity Commissioner, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and the Minister for Police.

It is clear that a significant number of senior politicians were aware of the disturbing issues described in this report as they developed. As such, there is little doubt that the activities, and the subsequent inaction and silence, of a number of central individuals, were both wilful and self-serving in nature. This renders the matters raised here, to be issues of the utmost importance, in terms of the integrity and probity of office, and of the Government of Queensland itself. The censorship of RTI information, and the refusal by all relevant agencies to investigate matters of such gravity, is also a significant concern. The close relationship of some of the parties, with the politicians involved, and with former AFP Commissioner, Michael Keelty, is equally disturbing. This also renders the involvement of any of these parties, in any future investigation or enquiry, to be inappropriate. Given the unresolved issues regarding the Schapelle Corby case at federal level, it is recommended that a full and transparent investigation is undertaken under the auspices of an international agency.

End of Report

the misappropriation report

Documents

political awareness

political implications

welfare of schapelle

direct political relevance

schapelle corby affair

schapelle corbys mother

fairfax media

premier of queensland