12/2107/021pub06607 credo/spicer public 01/09/014 pp … · 2014-09-02 · at sydney . on monday 1...

12/2107/021PUB06607 CREDO/SPICER PUBLIC 01/09/014 pp 06607-6687 HEARING

COPYRIGHT

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION THE HONOURABLE MEGAN LATHAM PUBLIC HEARING OPERATION CREDO AND SPICER Reference: Operation E12/2107/0821 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY 1 SEPTEMBER, 2014 AT 10.05AM Any person who publishes any part of this transcript in any way and to any person contrary to a Commission direction against publication commits an offence against section 112(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. This transcript has been prepared in accordance with conventions used in the Supreme Court.

01/09/2014 6607T E12/2107/0821

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Watson. MR WATSON: Unfortunately the O’Mahoney plan on light didn’t work out but anyway. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it is apparently a problem, you can hear it going into overdrive as soon as the room heats up the air conditioning becomes unsustainable and then it, and then it just revs up to the point where it creates too much noise so we’re just going to have to try and keep some level of, some level of a constant temperature. Could I also just ask 10 whether or not – oh, no, sorry, I just need – what I need to do is indicate to people that because of the limited number of microphones when you need to address the witness or me you’ll have to move to a microphone adjacent to you and we’ll just see how that how goes but that’s the best we can do at this stage. MR WATSON: Could I warn you, Commissioner, that you’re not actually being picked up on your microphone? THE COMMISSIONER: I’m not? 20 MR WATSON: I think it’s working but it must just be that you need to speak into a bit more close. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Can - - - MR HENSKENS: I was just going to say, Commissioner, it is difficult to hear you and Mr Watson back here. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, all right. Okay. 30 MR WATSON: I’ve moved mine forward a little so I think I’m working now. THE COMMISSIONER: These are not so sensitive I think as the others downstairs. MR WATSON: Commissioner, before I recall Mr Tripodi could I tender that document which had been produced under a summons by the Newcastle Ports Corporation. It was up on the S drive, it was numbered pages 1 to 40, 40 I’ve provided a copy to your associate, Commissioner, for the purpose of marking it. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, those minutes of the board meeting on 21 October, 2010 will be Exhibit Z63.

01/09/2014 6608T E12/2107/0821

#EXHIBIT Z63 – MINUTES BOARD MEETING NO 161 HELD 21 OCTOBER 2010 MR WATSON: It may be necessary to show it to the witness so I’ll just provide a second copy of that and then there was a request that we ask the NPC for a copy of the advice that they received from Gilbert & Tobin. I’ll tender a response that we got to that, it’s a series of emails between Gilbert & Tobin and people at the NPC. That’s not up on the S drive yet. Mr Strickland in particular wanted a copy so I’ll make one available to him. 10 Mr Neil may need a copy so I’ll make one available him but otherwise people will just have to share. THE COMMISSIONER: So the email, excuse me, the email exchange - - - MR WATSON: Now, Commissioner, could I have suppression order, a partial suppression order restricting access to that last exhibit for the moment because it has commercially sensitive material within it. It’s naturally got to be released to those two persons most affected by it, that’s Mr Strickland’s client and Mr Neil’s client so at the moment if there be a 20 suppression order from anyone else apart from them and we’ll work out later exactly how we can distribute it more broadly. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, just for more abundant caution the email exchange between 29 October, 2010, 4 November, 2010 is Exhibit Z64 and that document is suppressed from publication other than to Mr Neil and his client and Mr Strickland and his client. #EXHIBIT Z64 – EMAIL EXCHANGES OF MICHAEL DOWZER 30 EXHIBIT Z64 IS SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLICATION OTHER THAN TO MR NEIL AND MR STRICKLAND, THEIR CLIENTS AND JUNIORS MR STRICKLAND: Could that include Mr Carroll as well, please? THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry Mr - - - 40 MR STRICKLAND: Could that include Mr Carroll as well? THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes, it includes your junior, yes. MR STRICKLAND: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (not transcribable)

01/09/2014 6609T E12/2107/0821

MR HENSKENS: Commissioner, I was just going to say that we can hear you much better but Mr Watson is still difficult to hear, I wonder if he could speak more into the microphone. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR WATSON: All right. Well, I’ll work on that and please I invite people telling me that they can’t hear me, it’ll be helpful. With that done could I recall Mr Tripodi. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, could you come back into the box, thank you. Mr Tripodi, the section 38 order that I made on Friday and the obligation to tell the truth prevails. You understand that? MR TRIPODI: Thank you, Commissioner, yes.

01/09/2014 6610T E12/2107/0821

<JOSEPH TRIPODI, on former affirmation [10.10am] MR WATSON: Mr Tripodi, what you were doing was actually pushing the barrow for the Buildev you were doing their bidding in trying to get this coal loader dealer off the ground weren’t you?---Commissioner, I was listening to what the representations were from Buildev and in the event that I agreed with it in the event that I didn’t agree what they were saying I would tell them. 10 Well you heartily agreed with it and you went then to do whatever you could do within your power to get an advantage for Buildev didn’t you? ---I’m sorry I don’t agree with your summation. Well don’t – I’ve got to put it you, Mr Tripodi. You see what you were doing was meeting with Buildev regularly weren’t you? Yes or no will do?---I met, I met with them a few times. And you were then taking information you’d acquired from Buildev to Mr 20 Roozendaal weren’t you?---Not, not to my recollection, no. And you were bringing Ian McNamara in to meet the people from Buildev weren’t you?---Sorry, I don’t remember that, sorry. What do you mean? And that business last Friday about you only having a vague idea what you were doing stepping onto the Buildev helicopter that was just a load of nonsense wasn’t it, Mr Tripodi?---No, it wasn’t. It was actual rubbish. You’d already been involved working with Buildev at 30 that stage for more than a fortnight hadn’t you?---I had, I had a couple of – I recall, sorry, I believe I might have had one occasion or maybe two I’m not sure. With whom?---I don't recall exactly with whom. Well what are you recalling then?---Um - - - What sort of conversations?---Yeah, that my opinion was asked for with respect to the ACCC authorisation before that meeting in November 19. 40 And who asked for that?---I don't recall exactly. Was it Ann Wills or was it a male?---Well I’ve given you my answer, Counsel. No. Can you remember whether the person was male or female?---No, I can’t recall who it was.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6611T E12/2107/0821 (WATSON)

And so now instead of getting onto the helicopter with only a vague idea of what Buildev was or what it wanted do you agree that you’d already been involved in advising?---I was asked my opinion about a matter and I wasn’t given much context when that question was asked of me. What, somebody rang out of the blue somebody you can’t now recall whether it was a male or a female and sought your opinion on the ACCC agreement and its effect on a new coal loader in the Port of Newcastle, is that what you’re telling us?---Commissioner, what I’m saying is - - - 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Can we just stop for a moment. I don't understand you to have said in what context you had received a request for advice on the ACCC agreement. Was it a telephone call or was it a face to face meeting with somebody?---Commissioner, I can't recall. You don’t know?---I can't recall. MR WATSON: Well I’ll help you recall. You dragged Ian McNamara into a meeting on 1 or 2 November 2010 a meeting that you were holding with 20 Buildev?---I don't remember doing that. Well do you deny that that occurred?---I said I don't remember doing that. You’ve tried, you’ve tried, Mr Tripodi, by the device of lying to try and put a distance between yourself and Buildev. Isn’t that right?---I’m trying, no, I’m trying to give you the best answers I can recall. Do you remember coming here before and being asked questions by Mr O’Mahoney in fact?---Yes. 30 Do you remember that? It was the 3 July 2014. Do you remember that? ---Yes. I’ll tender a copy of a compulsory or an extract from a compulsory examination of Mr Tripodi, Commissioner. It was on 3 July 2014. I’ll need a relief from the suppression order. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit Z65 and the suppression order that applied to the proceedings on that day is varied to the extent indicated by 40 the excerpt from pages 1565 to 1568, 1570, 1571, 1575, 1576, 1578, 1583, 1584, 1585 and 1603. Thank you. #EXHIBIT Z65 - EXTRACTS OF TRANSCRIPT OF COMPULSORY EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH TRIPODI HELD ON 3 JULY 2014


SUPPRESSION ORDER VARIED OF MR TRIPODI’S COMPULSORY EXAMINATION DATED 3 JULY 2014 MR WATSON: I have some, it’ll come up on the screen but I have some additional hard copies if people wish them. MR NEIL: Commissioner, could I make a request that the whole of this transcript be tendered not selected parts? 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Well you can request that, Mr Neil, but at this stage Counsel Assisting is referring to particular subject matters which I assume are being covered by the excerpt so we’ll see where we go. MR NEIL: Well perhaps we can keep it under review. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR NEIL: Thank you. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes, Mr Watson. MR WATSON: See, what I’d like you to do now is look at this record. Well, sorry, I should go back a step. When you came before ICAC on that occasion you remember being questioned by Mr O’Mahoney?---Yes. Did you think you were obliged to tell the truth?---I tried the, the best I could, yes. 30 You tried to tell the truth- - -?---Yes. - - -the best you could. Is that what you say?---The best I could recollect, yes. Well, answer my question. Did you realise that at that time you were under an obligation to tell the truth?---Yes, of course, and I- - - And you knew that the obligation was one which carried with it a penalty that if you didn’t tell the truth you could be punished. Correct?---Yes. 40 You knew it was a criminal offence not to tell the truth?---Yes. And you knew that it wasn’t just the truth, it was the truth and the whole of it. Correct?---To be best of my capability, yes. And have a look at page 1565?---Yes.


There are four questions and answers there that I’d like you to re-read? ---Yes. Well, that evidence was either deliberately untrue or your recollection was particularly faulty that day. Do you agree?---I, I think that’s the best answer – sorry, I thought I was answering to the best of my capability but- - - Well, let’s just have a look at it. At the time you told Mr O’Mahoney that your best recollection was that your introduction to Buildev came while you were already in Newcastle?---Well, Buildev as in the sense of the office 10 when I went up to the Buildev office. I, I’ve said that I’ve seen Darren Williams around many times at different functions. Had you forgotten when you spoke to Mr O’Mahoney getting on and travelling by helicopter, a Buildev helicopter, to see Buildev in Newcastle? ---Yes, I had forgotten that I went by helicopter. Is that the sort of thing that you easily forget, that you were introduced to Buildev, including an occasion when they flew you by helicopter? Really? ---Counsel, I forgot that I went up by helicopter. 20 All right. Okay. Well then let’s see what Mr O’Mahoney was able to get from you, the truth and the whole truth on page 1568?---Can I read it? That’s why I’ve given it to you?---Yeah. Your memory must have been shocking on that particular occasion, 3 July, 2014, don’t you agree?---Yeah, it was very bad, I agree, Counsel. Well, very bad recollection meaning that at the time this Commission was 30 led to believe that apart from one interaction organised through Ann Wills in Newcastle, apart from that you had no contact with Buildev over the coal loader. Correct?---I’m sorry, I, I think I corrected that later on. Well, just let’s have a look at this as it stood there now?---Well- - - The impression is created that you had no further contact with Buildev. Correct?---Which part of it are you referring to? The whole of it. Surely I don’t need to read it out loud to you?---I’m sorry, 40 I’m sure that later on I clarified this. Well, okay. Well, we can come to that?---Yeah. But what I’m looking at is this page?---Fine.


See quite a false impression was created by that evidence you gave there, wasn’t it?---Sorry, I’m sorry, it was to the best of my recollection in, in that questions and in the context of the questions I was asking and I think- - - You see- - -?--- - - -I clarified later on many times that it was possible that we had further discussions about the coal loader. Listen, Mr Tripodi, the fact that you ever say things later on, that there was a possibility, is only an example where you get later evidence and adjust your testimony to fit it?---Well, sorry- - - 10 Isn’t that right?---No. When I get more information I’m more capable of answering the question, I’m more informed and I’m able to answer the question to a better level of recollection. I put it to you, Mr Tripodi, that your evidence that I’ve just shown to you was false and deliberately so. Do you accept that?---No, I don’t. And what about your contact with Mr Roozendaal, Mr Tripodi, and I’m talking now about contact around 19 November, 2010, the day of that 20 meeting. Did you get in touch with Mr Roozendaal shortly after that meeting in Newcastle?---I can’t- - - I refer to the helicopter meeting?---I can’t recall. You can’t recall?---No, I can’t. Well, then would you accept that you may have?---It’s possible. All right. Well, let me just help your recollection, I’ll just show you a sheet 30 of paper?---Yeah. Just have a look at this for the moment?---Thank you. I’ve only got very limited copies of this and we’ve just come into it very recently. I’ve got one for Mr Neil and one for you, Commissioner. Other people will have to take me on, other people will just have to wait. Oh, sorry, if we’ve got a spare one, one should go to Mr Strickland. You’ll see here that we’ve got all known contact between you and Mr Roozendaal for a period of time, you’re in touch with each other than you see occasionally in 40 November?---Oh, I would, I, I was in touch with Mr Roozendaal all through the whole year and the following year. All right. But what we’ve done is we’ve tried to get facts, you see, hard, cold facts?---What you’ve done is you selected your facts. Is that right?---Yes.


Do you think that ICAC or some investigator at ICAC has doctored this do you, is that what you’re saying?---No, I’m saying that, that I was in - - - Well, what did you mean we’ve selected the facts?---Well, I - - - What did you mean?---Very, it’s very simple, Counsel. Yeah, tell me?---I – sorry, Eric Roozendaal were colleague, Eric Roozendaal and I were colleagues, we were in constant contact with each other. 10 You have a look at the contact between you which ramps up from 19 November, the date of the helicopter meeting, do you see that?---Yes. And have a look at this next document that I’ll show you which has got contact between 19 November and over the next few days before Mr Roozendaal called an extraordinary meeting with the people from the Newcastle Port Corporation, will you look at that?---Yes. What do you make of that?---Um, there was phone contact. 20 All right. There was phone contact on Friday evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, is that just normal stuff between you and Mr Roozendaal?---Yes, I’ve love you to tender all the, all the phone contacts between Mr Roozendaal and I - - - I can show you - - -?--- - - - for the whole year. I can show you on the first of those two pages what we have between you between 5 November, 2010 and before the helicopter meeting on 30 19 November, 2010, it’s not much contact at all?---I’m sorry, it ebbs and flows, Counsel, depending on what the - - - It ramps up, it ramps up at 19 November, 2010 after your meeting in Newcastle?---I’m sure there are other periods where it ramps up also - - - All right?--- - - - depending on what was happening at the time. Did you know that we can tie calls from you to Mr Roozendaal to calls by Mr Roozendaal to the people at NPC calling them in for meetings, did you 40 know that?---Show me, but I - - - Well - - -?---I mean, I don’t know what that’s got to do with anything. What I’m suggesting to you is that it was you who suggested that Mr Roozendaal had to prevent NPC from announcing a decision with the consortium, correct?---I have already answered that question, Counsel.


Answer it again. Are you denying it?---To the best of my, ah, to the best of my recollection I don’t recall raising this issue with Mr Roozendaal. Didn’t you bring in or telephone rather Ian McNamara to tell him about that very fact?---About what very fact? The one I just put to you, that you were organising for Mr Roozendaal to defer making any announcement in respect of the consortium?---I don’t recall that discussion, sorry. 10 Could you have done that?---I don’t recall the discussion. Could you have done that?---I don’t recall the discussion. Could you have done that?---Well, I don’t recall the discussion. Are you denying you did it?---I don’t know what happened in the discussion. Are you denying you did it?---I don’t recall the discussion. 20 Any you denying you did it?---I have given you my answer, Counsel. I’ve asked you three times on each, I’m putting to you now you’re deliberating evading those questions because you know they damage you, isn’t that right?---No. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, when you say you don’t recall raising this issue with Mr Roozendaal what issue are you referring to?---About the ah, Anglo issue going to the board of NPC. 30 Right. MR WATSON: See, you were doing whatever it took, whatever it took to assist Buildev, isn’t that right?---As I said to you, Counsel - - - Just answer, is it yes or no. MR NEIL: I object, I object (not transcribable) 40 MR WATSON: Oh, sorry, I’m so sorry, Mr Neil is right. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on. THE WITNESS: As I said to you, Counsel, they were asking me questions seeking my advice in essence, I expressed views to them, sometimes they were views they would want to hear, sometimes they were views they didn’t want to hear.


MR WATSON: But you’re not answering my question. Irrespective of all of that, you were doing whatever you could to assist Buildev in respect of its proposal- - -?---No, I don’t- - - - - -weren’t you?---I don’t accept that, Counsel. All right. Well tell us, why were you assisting Buildev in respect of the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign?---Sorry, why was I helping them? 10 Why were you assisting Buildev in respect of their Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign?---So my involvement there came as a consequence of Mr Fedele asking me some questions about what was the material he’d been given and I became involved ah, at that point in time. I, it wasn’t my idea, I didn’t commission the work, I wasn’t – when it was commissioned it was commissioned even without my knowledge. Good. You must have misunderstood my question. I want to know why you were assisting Buildev in their Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign?---Because ah, Mr – I became involved because Mr Fedele had asked me to help him 20 with his pamphlet, with the pamphlet that he was working on. But you’ve got to agree you were assisting Buildev in putting out the Stop Jodi’s Trucks pamphlets, weren’t you?---And then, and then what happened was- - - No, just answer my question?---I am answering your question if you’d let me finish. It’s yes or no. 30 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no, with respect he’s not answering the question because he’s trying to now tell us something that happened after that and we haven’t got an answer to what he was doing at the point in time where he became aware of the pamphlet, so we have to take it a step at a time. So, Mr Tripodi, you say do you that you only became aware of the existence 40 of the pamphlet through some conversation with Mr Fedele. Is that what you’re saying?---Mr Fedele told me that that was his job, that that was the job that was given to him. Well, yes, but how did he describe the job to you?---Well, he didn’t really know what the job was so he described it to me to some degree, he explained to me that this is what he was asked to do and ah, and he’d progressed it somewhat and then he came and asked me about some of the


compliance issues about it and I said, “Well, I wish you wouldn’t be doing this job,” and he said, “Well, I’m doing it.” And I said, “Well, you know, I wish you wouldn’t.” And he goes, “Well, look, I’ve been given a job, I’m going to do it. And then I said, “Okay, well, fine.” MR WATSON: That’s tommyrot, isn’t it?---No, it’s not. You were assisting in the actual words used- - -?---Yeah, I’m sorry- - - - - -in the Stop Jodi’s Trucks pamphlet?---Well, I haven’t got to that stage 10 yet, Counsel. You should always let me finish my question. I will try and let you finish your answer?---Okay, thank you. You see you did, didn’t you, you did assist in the selection of the very words which were used, didn’t you?---So what happened ah, Commissioner- - - The answer’s got to be yes or no. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: You’ve got to answer the question, Mr Tripodi - - -?---I am. - - -otherwise, well, no, because you then went on to say, well, and then what happened was. You’re not answering Counsel’s question?---Yes. And unfortunately if you- - -?---Yeah, I- - - - - -don’t answer it he’s just going to keep putting it, so- - -?---I was going to answer it with some context, Commissioner. 30 MR WATSON: No, well, don’t. Just answer it?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Just, just answer the question?---The answer’s yes. MR WATSON: All right. Do you agree that the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign was potentially damaging to a sitting Labor Member?---I’ve already said that it would ah, be detrimental to her, yes. 40 And did you warn the sitting Labor Member that the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign was about to be launched?---No. Did you feel any sense of duty to the Australian Labor Party at that moment in your life?---Of course. Did you feel any sense of loyalty to Jodi McKay- - -?---No.


- - -at that part of your life?---No, none at all. None at all?---None at all. So that meant that you could assist, could you, in conducting a campaign which would be damaging for her, to her?---I’m sorry, Counsel, Jodi McKay was backgrounding the media against me and maligning me around the place, particularly to the media, on at least that I’m aware of two occasions so I felt no obligation to Jodi McKay. 10 So this was a deliberate conscious- - -?---No. - - -payback was it?---No, it wasn’t. Well then you’d better tell us about what she was backgrounding the media on?---Ah, well, she backgrounded the media on the ah, on the, on the meeting about John Tate in my office, I had media inquiries after that meeting and I, I had very strong reason to believe it was her, and also I had – I’m pretty sure, I can’t say 100 per cent definitely, but I’m pretty sure I was also contacted by the media when I’d had ah, when I’d met with Darren 20 Williams in Newcastle and asking me why. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr, Mr Tripodi, just from what you’ve said there were two occasions when Ms McKay you say on the information that you had simply made it known that you had two meetings and both of those things were matters of fact were they not?---Yes. Well in what way was she undermining you? She had simply informed someone if it was her of the fact that you had two meetings. What was the difficulty with that?---Well because she was – with the meeting with John 30 Tate in particular she was just, she was alleging that I was involved in a conspiracy with John Tate to, to encourage him to run against her when that was simply not the case. All right. Well - - -?---And it was implied and even in her statement it’s implied that I was having some untoward meeting with Mr Tate. Well let me just ask you this, no doubt there are many Members in the Parliamentary Labor Party in New South Wales with whom you don’t see eye to eye?---Yes. 40 And no doubt there are disagreements from time to time between you and other members of the Party?---Yes. And this was Newcastle that is a Labor seat where there was a sitting Labor Member and it was going to be as everybody knew a very, very tough election for your Party was it not?---Yes.


And - - -?---I’m sorry, I wasn’t, I wasn’t aware how tough it would be in Newcastle but the whole election, yes, tough, yes. Well I think what Counsel Assisting is driving at is why would you deliberately undermine a sitting Labor Member even if you were having disagreements with them?---I’m sorry well I, I wanted - - - That’s the question?---I wanted to get to it but - - - MR WATSON: Well get to it now?---You’re, you’re confining me to 10 answering yes or no, you know. THE COMMISSIONER: No, all right. Well now we’re giving you the opportunity. Why would you undermine a sitting Labor Member even if you had had disagreements with that person?---Well Mr Fedele had chosen to go ahead with the pamphlet I was concerned that somehow I would be implicated and, and, and discovered, as a consequence when he asked me whether I would help with him with the compliance issues in relation to that pamphlet out of concern for myself I agreed, so I did become involved in a pamphlet and I’m not denying that. Then what happened was Mr Fedele on 20 occasions would ask me questions about the pamphlet and I would say to him why don’t you just ring Ann Wills and he said look you’re here you know about it you answer it and I said well no, and there were a few occasions where I actually rang Ann Wills and said look this guy wants, Vince Fedele wants to talk to you about the pamphlet or I’d either asked the question myself of Ann Wills or I would actually put him on my phone and he would ask the question of Ann Wills. But what in effect happened over time and I regret it I became the default reference point for that pamphlet. Well that, that - - -?---And, and I don’t – I’m not – I’ve never denied that 30 and I regret it but that’s what happened. But, Mr Tripodi, with respect that answer gives us an account of what happened - - -?---Yes. - - - it doesn’t tell us why you would do that?---Because Mr Fedele had asked me and I was concerned about myself - - - No, no, no, no. You’re missing the point of the question. Why would you deliberately undermine a sitting Labor Member even if you had had 40 disagreements with that person?---Commissioner, I did not initiate it, I did not - - - But that, that doesn’t tell us why, Mr Tripodi - - -?---Well um - - - MR WATSON: Answer the question?---I am answering the question.


THE COMMISSIONER: But it doesn’t tell us why. Why did you not say to Mr Fedele and Ms Wills I don’t want anything to do with this pamphlet it’s a pamphlet that is against the interests of my Party?---I told Mr Fedele that that, that, sorry, I’ve told Mr Fedele that he shouldn’t do it he said look why someone is just going to do it instead and I said well look I prefer if you didn’t he said I’m going to do it and he pressed ahead with it. Still not an answer to the question, Mr Tripodi?---Well, I’m sorry I’m not doing the pamphlet, Commissioner - - - 10 But I’ve given you, I have – I’ve given you the opportunity to answer and that’s all we’re required to do. But I think we need to move on. Yes, Mr Watson. MR WATSON: Yes. You see again second time so far today Tommy Rot isn’t it?---It’s not Tommy Rot. You were giving words to Mr Fedele, words which were actually inserted into the pamphlet, correct?---Yes, that is correct. 20 The same pamphlet you knew would damage Jodi McKay’s re-election attempt, correct?---I’ve never denied it. Now the fact is that you say you assisted with compliance issues. Well you tell us what you did to see whether or not this pamphlet would comply? ---What did I do? I had, I had quite extensive knowledge about what complies and doesn’t comply. Great. That’s not what I asked you but it’s good to know because now you can answer the question by telling us what did you do to make sure these pamphlets comply?---I removed the – there was in some drafts there was a 30 political flavour to the pamphlet I removed the political flavour to that pamphlet. Really?---Yeah. What, the Stop Jodi’s Trucks?---Yes, that’s right. So they put that back in did they?---I’m sorry? Well, it says “Stop Jodi’s Trucks”?---I’m sorry, there’s no political flavour 40 to Stop Jodi’s Trucks. Oh, who was Jodi, I must have it mixed up?---Is there a mention of Labor? I thought it - - -?---Is there a mention of the Labor Party, is there a mention of the Liberal Party, is there a mention of an election? No, there’s not.


I’m so sorry, I thought Jodi was Jodi McKay, I must have been mistaken all these weeks. Is that right or wrong?---Of course it’s right. Stop Jodi’s Trucks?---Yes. How could you ever believe that that wasn’t directed at her?---She was the, she was the advocate for the, for the container terminal, it’s - - - And to the extent that these pamphlets succeeded they would whip up animosity toward Jodi McKay, correct?---In her advocacy for the container 10 terminal. And she would lose votes?---It was an invitation for residents to express their opposition. And she would lose votes?---Oh, well, look, Counsel, the majority of the pamphlets didn’t even go to her own electorate. And she would lose votes?---They didn’t even go to her own electorate so the majority - - - 20 And she would lose votes?--- - - - of pamphlets did not go to her own electorate. All right?---It was about the container terminal issue. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, it wasn’t just that she was advocating for the container terminal. At that particular time it was Government policy was it not? I mean, that was the whole point about her pressing Mr Roozendaal for an announcement, the announcement was scheduled to 30 be made before the election and Ms McKay could not get it done?---The content, the content of the pamphlet - - - No, don’t worry about the content of the pamphlet?---Well, well, how can I not answer that without referring to the content? No, I’m asking you to confirm or deny that the container terminal wasn’t just Ms McKay’s idea, this was at that point in time State Government policy wasn’t it? She’s not on a - - -?---Yes. 40 - - - frolic of her own?---Yes, yes. Thank you?---Yes. MR WATSON: And the point is that your idea of compliance was to allow the pamphlet to go out anonymously wasn’t it?---No, no, and I’ve said that. Well, come on, tell us?---I’ve said that in private too.


Was there any indication on it as to who had published the pamphlet?---It was before the period required the authorisation and in the work that Mr Fedele had given me there was no authorisation in there. Was there any indication on the face of the pamphlet which would allow the reader to know the author?---When I was involved it was not required. The answer’s got to be yes or no?---No, the answer’s no, you know that. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Whether it was required or not there wasn’t anything on the pamphlet?---That’s correct, we know that. Thank you?---We’ve seen the pamphlet. MR WATSON: Well, surely in those circumstances you, interested as you are in ports policy, should have emphasised the importance that the reader of the pamphlet would know from where the information had come wouldn’t you?---I’m sorry, Counsel, this is not my pamphlet. 20 Oh, Mr Tripodi?---And, and, and the, and to the extent that I had made any contribution to it, it was in consultation with Ann Wills in discussing with her, with her what, what should be the content of the pamphlet. All right. Well - - -?---I didn’t sign off on it, I didn’t commission it. Giving your abiding interest in ports policy what do you think, do you think it would be better if the reader of that pamphlet had known from where it came?---The pamphlet focussed on the, the detriment - - - 30 Just answer my question?---- - - - the detriment that was created by the truck movements for the local community. Thank you. Given your abiding interest in ports policy do you think it would be better if the reader was able to find out the source of the information? ---Ah, the source of the information as far as I knew was - - - You won’t answer the question?--- - - - the website. The website was the source of the, of the information plus - - - 40 THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn’t – Mr, Mr Tripodi, look, I really think you have to focus on the question. It had nothing to do - - -?---I have - - - No, just a minute?---Ah, yeah. It had nothing to do with where the information came from. The question was did you not think it would be better from the point of view of the reader


of the pamphlet for the reader to be told what the source of the information was?---Well, Commissioner, it was, there, there was a reference to the website and that’s what I looked at, at the time and, and - - - MR WATSON: Well, that’s Mr Hayes’ website?---Yeah. But it had information which was markedly different to that which was published in the pamphlet?---Well, my understanding is that fact sheet was on the website and I remember seeing that fact sheet at the time, to the best of my recollection I’m sure I saw it. 10 So what did you do to verify whether the assertions made by Mr Hayes and his action group were accurate or inaccurate, Mr Tripodi?---I’m sorry, I looked at the website, I saw what his representations were - - - You must have misunderstood my question?---- - - - and I’m, and I’m answering your question. The website actually made reference to 11,000 trucks a day now - - - Yes. Well, why did you put 1,000?---Well, because obviously I thought 20 11,000 was – well, look, 11,000 definitely covers 1,000 doesn’t it? So the pamphlet, the pamphlet - - - So you did have a conscious thought, you looked at 11,000 on the, Mr Hayes’ website and you thought well, I won’t use that, I’ll use another number. Yeah, I can’t remember whether it was on the, on the paper I was given or on the website but I’m pretty sure I looked at the website also and - - - 30 Does that mean you thought Mr Hayes had published information which was not accurate?---Ah, no, I didn’t say that. Well, why didn’t you put it on?---Well, I looked at the Website and it said something like 3,650 container trucks a day and then it went as high as 11,000 a day ah- - - And you thought that was ridiculous, didn’t you?---No, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t form a view. All I knew was, was it was definitely more than 1,000 which was what was in the pamphlet. 40 All right. Well, we’ll move on. Tell me this, why did they need a PO box away from Ann Wills and away from Buildev, why was that?---Which one are you referring to? Well, you must have seen that evidence by now. If the witness could be shown Exhibit Z10?---I thought there was two PO boxes.


Well, sorry, don’t bother opening it up?---Yeah. You thought there were two PO boxes?---Yeah. Tell us what you know about that, why did they need two, two PO boxes? ---My, my- - - Don’t open it up, just concentrate on the question, it’s hard enough?---Okay, yeah. 10 You tell us. You said you thought there were two PO boxes?---Well, isn’t there one in Wetherill Park and isn’t there one in Mayfield? Well, what did you know about all that, Mr Tripodi?---Um, ah, Mr Fedele asked me what would the ah, reply paid address be and I said, “Well, I don’t know,” and I, either I or Vince, I, I, together I think we rang Ann and I said, “Ann, what’s the replied address going to be, Vince wants to know?” And she said, “I’ll get back to you.” And she got back to me with this PO box. All right. Well- - -?---And then I gave that to Mr Fedele and that was the 20 end of my involvement. And was the actual PO box, was it Buildev’s PO box?---I didn’t know at the time whose it was. Well, who did you think was paying for all of this?---I didn’t know, I didn’t ask. You didn’t know?---No. 30 What, so it could have been the Nazi Party?---It could have been Jodi McKay’s for all I know, I don’t know. And you would have been working, putting your shoulder to the wheel of the Nazi Party for all you knew? MR NEIL: Oh, come on (not transcribable) THE WITNESS: Oh, come on, this is getting ridiculous. 40 MR WATSON: Well, sorry, it’s just an extreme example. You don’t know?---Oh, really, really? MR NEIL: Commissioner, I object. My learned is the Counsel Assisting and he shouldn’t be using extreme examples. Really. MR WATSON: All right. Well, there’s, all right, I won’t use extreme examples. It could have been the Liberal Party for all you knew?


---You’ll have to ask Ann Wills. No, I’m asking you actually, unless you haven’t noticed?---She gave me, she gave me a PO box, I didn’t question it, I just passed it on to Mr Fedele. You did not know who was going to pay for the brochure?---Sorry? At some- - - Are you saying you did not know who was going to pay- - -?---At some point I’d learned about it, yes. 10 But when you were drawing up and assisting with compliance, for all you knew it was a publication by the Liberal Party. Correct?---Ah, no, no, I knew Ann Wills was involved, I don’t know- - - Well, you said you didn’t know who was behind it?---When did I say I didn’t know who was behind it? About 30 seconds ago?---I said at some point I’d learned who was behind it. No, sorry, behind, sorry, I don’t know, I don’t think that’s right. 20 Sorry, did you know who was behind it?---And if it’s the case I would withdraw it. I don’t remember doing that. Oh. So who did you think was behind it, Mr Tripodi?---Behind what, Counsel? Sorry?---Behind what? THE COMMISSIONER: The pamphlet?---The pamphlet. 30 MR WATSON: We’re in a parallel universe. THE WITNESS: Ann Wills and then I learned it was Buildev. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Ann Wills I don’t think at any stage represented to you did she that this was something, this was an idea of hers that was unrelated to her employment at Buildev?---Not, not specifically, no. 40 Well, what do you mean not specifically?---She didn’t specifically say. Well, she, but you know that, you know that she didn’t pay for the pamphlet, don’t you?---Sorry, when I first heard about it I didn’t know who was going to pay for it.


MR WATSON: That’s what I’m asking you. I mean it could have been the Liberal Party. Is that what you’re saying?---I don’t know what Ann Wills’ relationship with the Liberal Party would have been so I don’t know. But you did know that Ann Wills had a relationship with Buildev, didn’t you?---Yeah, I did know, yes. And you knew that her relation with Buildev related to the coal terminal, correct?---Yes. Counsel, I also knew that Ann Wills had, had, had a- - - 10 No, just answer my question unless the rules have changed?--- - - -had a shocking relationship with Jodi McKay. So did you think that this was just being done by Ann Wills just for no other reason than spite against Jodi McKay. Is that what you were thinking? ---I learned very quickly in conversation at some point- - - Answer my question? MR NEIL: He’s answering. 20 THE WITNESS: I am, I am answering. MR WATSON: It’s not an answer. Commissioner, it can’t be an answer. THE WITNESS: It is. MR WATSON: I’ll ask it again?---Yes. Did you think that this pamphlet was generated by nothing more than Ms 30 Wills’ spite for Jodi McKay?---That was a thought that crossed my mind when I first saw it and then when in discussions with Ann Wills I’d learned more. Well, what did you learn?---I’d learned that Buildev was involved. Right. So when was that, was that before or after the election?---Sorry, no, it was before the election. All right. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Did you become aware that Buildev was sponsoring the pamphlet at the point in time when you were making these alterations to the content of the pamphlet?---Sponsoring the pamphlet, sorry, what do you mean by sponsoring the pamphlet? Were you aware that Buildev was behind the production of the pamphlet at the point in time when you made alterations to the content of the pamphlet?


---I can’t remember exactly, you know, how quickly these things flowed from each other. I did learn that Buildev were, was involved by taking to Ann Wills. I can’t remember exactly when that happened. Ann Wills had no role in changing the content of the pamphlet, did she? ---I’m sorry, we, Vince Fedele would ask me questions, I would ring Ann and say, what do you want to do here and what do you want to do there and, and, and on some occasions I would actually put Mr Fedele onto my phone and say, “Vince, just ask her yourself.” And I actually asked him to ring himself. 10 So do you say that all of the alterations that were made to the content of the pamphlet were done in consultation with Ms Wills?---Yes, I think so, yes. Well, then I’m obliged to put to you, Mr Tripodi, Ms Wills’ evidence before this Commission was that the pamphlet came back from the printer in a vastly different state to the way that she had submitted it and that she had no role and no understanding of how those changes were made?---Yes, well, that’s- - - 20 What do you say about that?---That’s wrong, Commissioner. So she’s lying about that?---She’s wrong. Well, maybe she doesn’t remember that there was these phone calls made, but I, she was consulted through the changes. MR WATSON: Well, just to wrap it up, what I want to suggest to you is that you were involved in Stop Jodi’s Trucks because you saw that as being to the benefit of Buildev and its attempt to get a coal loader. Do you accept that?---I’ve explained the circumstances that under which I became 30 involved. Now, you leaked the Treasury document, didn’t you?---I have no recollection of receiving that Treasury document and no recollection of giving it to anybody. Right. Are you denying you leaked the Treasury document?---I have no recollection of receiving it or giving it to anybody? Are you denying you leaked the Treasury document?---I’ve given you my 40 answer, Counsel Assisting. Are you denying you leaked the Treasury document?---I’ve told you, Commissioner, I don’t, I don’t recall receiving it, I don’t recall giving it to anybody. Mr Tripodi, it will be my submission in due course that you declined to deny that you leaked the Treasury document. Before I make that


submission I should give you the opportunity to answer the question. Do you deny that you leaked the Treasury document?---I’ve given you my answer, Counsel. That’s all right. Well, then let’s have a look at this Exhibit Z10, hopefully it’s still before you, and if you’d open it up at page 75. We can prove that the Treasury document came into the possession of Matthew Kelly at the Newcastle Herald. You know that?---Yes. Well, what have you heard, how did he get it?---Sorry? 10 What have you heard, what did you hear about it?---Everything that you’ve heard. Well, no, sorry, I should have made it more to the point. At the time this was a big issue, wasn’t it, a leaked Treasury document?---Look, I can- - - Don’t bother looking at the page, that’s just a distraction?---Yeah. At the time it was a big issue. Ms Keneally rang Mr Roozendaal, there had 20 been all sorts of kerfuffle in Parliament?---I wasn’t aware of that. All right. Well, you must have known something about it, did you hear that it had happened?---I can’t recall, I can’t recall. You can’t recall?---No, I can’t recall. So do you deny hearing anything about it?---No, I can’t recall ah- - - Well, so then what have you heard since, I mean since this inquiry’s started 30 we’ve been getting some evidence?---Ah hmm. Have you spoken to anybody about the circumstances in which the Newcastle Herald got a leaked Treasury document?---No, not that I - - - You haven’t spoken to anybody?---Not that I can remember, no. No. Just doesn’t interest you?---So who would I speak to? 40 All right. Well, have a look at page 75. We can show that the Newcastle Herald had, sometime during that afternoon, not long before this first call or text message, we can prove that the Newcastle Herald had the leaked Treasury document. Will you assume that from me?---(No Audible Reply) Will you assume that?---On that day you mean? Yep?---Yes.


And then do you see here that Mr Williams is sending a message to Ann Wills, “Call me, Joe is panicking. The document has been leaked?” ---Yes. What’s all that about?---Well, as I’ve said, Counsel, I don’t recall ah, this conversation or this um, this SMS’s. Can you try for us?---Yeah, I can try actually. 10 Now, just thinking about it, I’m not sure about your background, Mr Tripodi, but have there been many instances that you’ve known of where Treasury documents were leaked in the lead-up to an election, have there been many cases of that? There might have been, I don’t know?---There’s, there’s documents leaked all the time from Government to the media. All right. Okay. So if this is right, and at the moment given your poor recollection there’s no reason to doubt it, if you were panicking, why? ---Well, first of all they’re not my, that’s not my word, that’s ah- - - 20 Well we’ve heard from Mr Williams you know that?---Yeah, that’s right I’m telling you it’s not my word. That’s fine but we’ve got to assume you see ‘cause you can’t recall it - - -? ---I have - - - - - - unfortunately but Mr Williams is that right in that Joe was panicking. Why would you be panicking? As you say it’s a common occurrence?---All I can do is attempt to give you a construction of my understanding of what occurred because I don't recall all of this. 30 Well no I’m just asking why and - - -?---Would you like me to? I’m just going to put the question to you?---Yeah. Why would you be panicking about this particular document being leaked? ---Well my – I would imagine that the situation would be that Mr Darren Williams had told me that he’s leaked a document to the media and my response to that you’re bloody stupid why would you do something like that. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Again that’s an account of what was said but the question was why would you be upset about the leaking of a document, why?---Because it would cause detriment. MR WATSON: To whom?---To whoever was involved.


Right. And so do you always panic when you hear about potential detriment to people?---Yeah, it does concern me. Right. So you heard about a car accident in Perth and you panicked about that did you?---Sorry, I mean in the, in this context. No, let’s just have a look at it. Why would you be panicking about this particular document leaking unless you had something to do with it? ---Counsel, I would be very , sorry, I would be very concerned about him doing something like that and I would have expressed that view to him, the 10 fact that he chooses to describe it as panicking is not something you can hold me to account for, I can’t - - - I’m sorry, we need to unless you’ve got a recollection of the events and can deny it?---Sorry? Do you have a sufficient recollection of the events which would enable to you to deny that you were panicking?---I don’t recall this, this event, these events exactly. 20 Exactly. So we’ve only got a contemporaneous account. He gets off the phone and says Joe is panicking. Why would you be panicking? Unless you had something to do with it?---Well sorry, they’re his words you need to ask him. All right. Well - - -?---Why he believes it’s the word’s panicking. I put that to you sufficiently. Have a look at page 76. You’ll see that that’s the article in which there was a reference to it and then would you go to page 85. You’ll know these two pages, text messages exchanged by Darren 30 Williams and Ann Wills. You must have read them have you?---Yes, Counsel. Well what I’m interested in is that if you go to page 86 Ann Wills is conveying a message to Mr Williams about whether or not two matters can run concurrently and she says, “You should probably talk to Joe after you have read the paper.” Do you see that?---Yeah. What’s all that mean?---Well it must be something arising that’s mentioned in the paper. 40 Well but – well if I need to I was hoping I didn’t, go back to page 85. You’ll see that the context of this is the leaked Treasury document - - -? ---Yeah. - - - the Newcastle Herald story and then the last message on 85 is by Mr Williams to Ms Wills, “So will this stop any announcements.” Why would you be commenting upon that?---That’s not to me. Counsel.


No, but look over the page, “Speak to Joe.” Why would he speak to Joe? ---Sorry, I’ll need to know what they’re referring to is the two things that are running parallel to answer that question. They were two things which were running in parallel. Once was that there was a community consultation process which had been re-opened. The NPC had got advice that it could go ahead and announce NSC as the preferred contractor at the same time, they were the two processes. The announcement was whether or not NPC could announce that NSC was the 10 preferred contractor. Does that give you the background? Does that help you?---So the community consultation’s running yeah, that’s one of the two and the second one was? Yes. And the other one was that the NPC would announce that the NEC was the preferred contractor?---Okay, yes. All right, so they’re the two things. Why would they be talking to Joe? ---They probably wanted my opinion whether it’s correct that they can run in parallel, I don't know. It’s a technical question I suppose that they 20 probably wanted to get my opinion on. And so this is how close your relationship was that Buildev would at a critical time consult you on tactics is that so?---They would ask me questions and get my feedback. Now do you remember I asked you the other day about something to do with the other work you were doing with Buildev?---Yes. There was something at Leppington. You’ve seen that? Do you need to see 30 it again?---In Edmondson Park? Well there’s a time when you met Mr Williams, he arrived - - -?---Yeah. - - - by helicopter and you met him at the Leppington shops?---Yes, correct. What was that about?---I was going to take him to Raby Road and to um, Edmondson Park. All right. What’s Raby Road which suburb?---I’m not sure the suburb, it’s 40 the golf course. And what was the deal there?---The sellers, the owners were looking to sell, they were looking to get a partner in. And so why were you taking Mr Williams?---Well because as I explained on Friday Mr Williams in a conversation had asked if I’d known of any land


banking opportunities that that’s what they were looking for and I referred um, and as they came across to me I referred them over to Mr Williams. And so you were doing this in respect of a site at Raby Road, a site at Edmondson Park, is that so?---Yeah. And there was also a site on the Central Coast?---That’s, yeah, that’s correct. And where was that one, what was that?---Um, Forresters Beach. 10 Right. And what was the nature of the proposal?---There? Yes. It was I think a retirement village or something. Right. And what was the idea, that Mr Williams would do what?---They want, they were going to have a look at it and assess it and see whether they’d be interested in buying or investing or something like that. And did you go with him to look at it?---Forresters Beach? 20 Yes?---I don't recall doing that. What about at North Richmond, you were also involved to some extent about their project there?---I’ve never been to North Richmond. No, I’m not, didn’t ask you that. They had a project at North Richmond you know that?---Yeah. And you had some involvement in that?---Very little. 30 Very little?---Yeah. But you had some involvement?---Yes. And so that’s Raby Road, Edmondson Park, Forresters Beach,. North Richmond. Any other land proposals in which you got yourself tangled up with Buildev?---Um, there might have been, um - - - Right. Could you just cast your mind back? This is while you’re the 40 Member for Fairfield of course?---Yeah, these are, these are referrals, Counsel, I mean - - - I don’t care whether they’re referrals or what they are?---Ah hmm. Just give us the detail, how many others?---Um, there might have been one more or, I think there might have been one more, I’m not sure.


Right. What did you see as your role?---Well I was just being obliging. Sorry?---I was just being obliging. Obliging to whom?---To the parties that were involved. And why?---Because I’m an obliging type of person. So how many other people did you introduce to the site at Raby Road? ---Um, well at that – this is post GFC there is actually - - - 10 No, just, just tell me?---I’m, well I’m going to answer your question. No, I don’t think you are?---Oh - - - That’s only built on experience. THE COMMISSIONER: We, we just want to know the names of other parties that you assisted with respect to this particular development?---There may have been, Commissioner, I just can’t recall at this moment. 20 MR WATSON: There may have been but you can’t recall them?---At this moment. Who might they have been?---I can't recall at this moment, I can’t answer the question. You see you know what we want to do we want to get in touch with these people and see - - -?---Yeah. 30 - - - whether you’re telling us the truth?---Sure. All right. So try and help us. Who else did you show the property at Raby Road?---I can't recall at the moment I may have - - - Who else did you show the property at Edmondson Park?---Um, there had been, I’m - - - Names, names not generalisations. Who?---Chinese investors I’ve suggested to - - - 40 Did they, were they lucky enough to have names?---I can't remember at the moment, Counsel. Right, I see. So we’ve got those two. What about Forresters Beach? Who else?---No, no-one else at Forresters Beach, no. No-one else. Why not, I thought you were an obliging sort of a guy?


---Because no-one else came to me asking me about investment opportunities in the Central Coast. How did you meet the Chinese investors?---I can’t – um - - - It wasn’t while looking for Lucerne for them was it?---Well - - - Was it?---How, how did I meet them? I can't recall how I met them they’d be people I would have known and I would have maybe potentially suggested to them. 10 Well hold on, no, we’ve got – I’m talking about something more detailed, I’m talking about people who you were went out, took, drove around, said here it is here’s the Edmondson Park job. Were there any like that?---Yeah, yeah. But not those, it’s not necessarily those two jobs but there were other occasions where, where people asked me to help them and I bring them along and make introductions it happens all the time. See, isn’t it the case that this was just part of you ingratiating yourself hoping that you would get some kind of financial benefit after you left 20 Parliament?---I was just being obliging, I was trying to connect people up and help them out and actually - - - No prospect of financial gain for you of course?---The vendors were, the, the vendors were going to be the bigger beneficiaries than the purchaser from my understanding of it in those, in that ah, economic climate at the time. I’m reminded I should actually show you something just so at least you can comment upon it. Could the witness – may still have Exhibit Z10, do you 30 have that there?---Yes. Have a look at page 6. Do you see page 6 is the start of a report Mr Sharpe gave Mr Tinkler, go to page 7 and look under the heading “Strategy”? ---Yeah. The third paragraph under that heading is the one we’re interested in? ---Mmm. Quote, “Need to brief Joe and Eric so they can take charge of the situation,” 40 unquote?---Yes. Do you see that?---Yes. What do you make of that?---Well, it seems that I’ve been roped into their strategy, Counsel.


Roped unwillingly?---No, I’ve been roped into their strategy, that they had decided their strategy was to approach me. All right. So - - -?---So I wasn’t involved, involved in the formulation of that strategy. So unwillingly?---I’m sorry, when they put to me the situation - - - I think unwillingly is pretty easy?--- - - - over time – I’m going to answer the question. 10 I bet you don’t - - -?---I bet I do. - - - but anyway, let’s see what happens?---Sorry, to the degree that there were elements in the things that they’d made representations to me on, to the degree that I agreed to them, yes, I willingly was involved. Well, what do you mean roped in, roped in sounds to me as though you were dragged into it?---Well, I was approached by them, see the word “strategy”? 20 Yes, I do see the word “strategy”?---And then under that is my name, so they formed a strategy which was to approach me, right, so I wasn’t involved in the formulation of the strategy, their strategy was to approach me. All right?---Thank you. And so – and when they approached you, you came in on board did you? ---To the degree that I thought that their case had merit I was involved. 30 And have a look at page 161 of that same Exhibit Z10. If you’ll see there there’s an email from a gentleman Ross Cadell, you would have seen this I’m sure, page 162, it lists you as being a senior advisor to the Hunter Coal Logistics Coal Loader project. What’s all that about?---A very good question, I’d like to know too. Did you ever tell anybody that post-Parliament you were interested in getting a job in the area of ports, ports policy and development?---Um, did I tell anybody? 40 Yes?---I can’t recall if I told anybody. Well - - -?---It’s an area I’m interested in. Or did you ever think that, that after Parliament I’d like to get work on ports and port strategy and port development?---After Parliament I just wanted to have a rest to be honest with you, Counsel.


No, I’m just asking you another question. Did you ever think while you were in Parliament that perhaps in life after Parliament I could look for work in the area of ports or port development?---Look, I – that whole area as you know is an area that is of interest to me and - - - Oh, dear me, this is the fourth time, Mr Tripodi, I want to finish this? ---Yeah. Did you think while you were in - - -?---I don’t have - - - 10 - - - Parliament that post-Parliament you might look for work in the area of ports or ports development?---Did I think it? THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, it was obviously as you say an area of interest but more importantly it was an area in which you had some considerable skill wasn’t it?---Well, from the Government perspective, yes. So, so in terms of your marketable skills if I could put it that way in a life after politics it was an attractive prospective employment area for you 20 wasn’t it?---Well, for my prospective employer I would be potentially of value to them, yes. Right. MR WATSON: Did you ever think mmm, maybe life after Parliament I could go into the area of private industry, ports, ports management, ports development, that sort of thing?---It would be part of a very much - - - Just yes or no?--- - - - broader area that I would be interested in. 30 Okay. Have a look at page 163. You’ll see that here you are in your life post-Parliament providing Buildev with information on the Port Waratah strategic play, do you see that?---Yes. Why?---Because they had asked me my opinion. Right. And what did you get for providing them with that opinion? ---Nothing. 40 Thanks, Mr Tripodi. THE COMMISSIONER: Who has any questions of Mr Tripodi? MR ISAACS: Mr Tripodi, my name is Isaacs, I appear for Mr Cadell. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Isaacs, I think you’re going to have to come forward to a microphone.


MR ISAACS: Can you hear me now? THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, there’s one there, thank you. MR ISAACS: You were asked a question about an email sent by Mr Cadell to both you and Ann Wills just a moment ago, do you recall that?---Yes. And the effect of your evidence when shown the second page of that email which lists you as a senior advisor is you didn’t know anything about that? ---That’s my recollection. 10 And is it the effect then of your evidence that you were unaware of this document before you received it?---Look, I – when I saw this document in the ICAC - - - You’re going to have to speak into the microphone as well?---Yes, sorry. When I saw this document in the ICAC pile of documents it was a very big surprise to me. I actually think this is the first time I’d read that page. Are you saying you never had any discussions in relation to the preparation 20 of such a document with either Mr Cadell or Ms Wills?---I can’t recall having discussions with Mr Cadell about this or Mr, or Ms Wills. THE COMMISSIONER: Which document are we talking about? MR ISAACS: Sorry, Exhibit 10 page 161, the email - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. MR ISAACS: - - - at page 162. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. MR ISAACS: Well, I suggest to you, Mr Tripodi, that on or about 18 August, 2011 you did have a discussion with Mr Cadell in relation to matters relating to this email and its associated documents, what do you say about that?---Well, as I say, I can’t recall the discussion. I have nothing further?---Thank you. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Oates. MR OATES: Thank you, Commissioner. I just have to move this microphone if it pleases. Mr Tripodi, my name’s Oates, I represent Ms McKay?---Thank you. Mr Tripodi, you stated you have an interest in public policy?---Yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6639T E12/2107/0821 (ISAACS)/(OATES)

That would have underpinned your time as an MLA and as a Minister? ---Yes. And you were a Member of the House for something like 14 years?---16. I beg your pardon, I didn’t hear (not transcribable)?---16, 16. Thank you?---Yeah. And you were also a Minister for almost five years?---Yes. 10 Various portfolios?---Yes. You were the Ports Minister for three years and eight months, perhaps more than that?---Yes. I didn’t count the days. You left the Ministry in November ’09 and it was about one year and four months till the election?---Ah hmm. Correct?---Yes. 20 At the time that you were the Minister for the Ports you led the tender for the site that Buildev subsequently won, the Intertrade site, didn’t you? ---No. I’m sorry, no?---No. Just bear with me one moment please?---Not to my memory anyway, I thought it was done by HDC, HDC were never under me. 30 I’m sorry, I thought your Counsel, Mr Neil, put it to my client that that’s what happened, I may have read that incorrectly? MR NEIL: Commissioner, I put it without using technical terms it went to market. THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, you put it without? MR NEIL: Without using – I asked regardless of what the technical term was had it gone to market. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Under Mr Tripodi? MR NEIL: Yes, yes. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Anyway, the, the lease for the site went to market under your Ministerial - - -?---For Buildev, the HDC site?

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6640T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

No, no, we’re talking – Mr Oates, perhaps if you put the question again in a different form. MR OATES: Yes could I just – I’m sorry, your Honour, I’m sorry, Commissioner. Let me just say what was said on the last occasion my client gave evidence? ---Sure. All right. I’m reading from 5875T of the transcript, about point 4. Mr Neil 10 asked my client, “You say that in mid-2009 the Port Corporation entered a tender process for a container terminal” and so on?---Yes. “Yes”, Ms McKay answered. Mr Neil, “And whether we call it a process of expression of interest or tender it was in effect putting the proposal out to market, isn’t that right,” and my client Ms McKay said, “Yes, that was my understanding of it.”?---Yes, but um, sorry - - - Just one moment, I’ll just - - -?---Sure. 20 - - - say the last question. Mr Neil then said, “And who was the Minister who authorised that? Was it not the Honourable Joseph Tripodi, the Minister for Ports?” and my client answered, “Ah, mid-2009, ah, possibly, yes.” Were you the person responsible for that?---Ah, Counsel, you asked me whether the HDC site, the Intertrade site was put out to market by me, no, that wasn’t – if you’re asking me whether the multipurpose terminal owned by NPC was put out by market the answer’s yes, I did that. Okay. I’m sorry about that?---Yeah. 30 So the Buildev site was done and dusted by the time you became Minister, was it?---(No Audible Reply) Been let to Buildev?---More or less, I don’t know, I don’t know what stage of the implementation of that- - - But you knew what it was to be used for?---(No Audible Reply) You knew the terms of Buildev’s- - -?---Yes. 40 - - -Buildev’s tender and what it was authorised to construct?---I had some knowledge of it, yes. Well, you must have, you were Minister for Ports?---Well, sorry, I didn’t put it out to tender. You must have gained some knowledge about it when you became the Minister for Ports surely?---No, because it wasn’t under my administration.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6641T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

But it was connected to a vital part of land which was under your administration?---Yeah, I understand that the zoning allowed for coal loaders, yeah, the SEPP, the State Environmental Planning Policy, allowed for coal loaders on that site and I was responsible for drawing up the State Environmental Planning Policy. That’s the knowledge that I had. I didn’t have specific knowledge about the HDC’s arrangements with Buildev because they were not under my administration. No, I don’t know mean a detailed knowledge, Mr Tripodi, I just mean as a 10 Minister you’d have some knowledge as to what’s- - -?---Yes. - - -happening in the general area where you have administration responsibility. Right?---Yes. And you let the tender for the container terminal site, did you?---Yes. And that was part of Labor policy?---Ah, yes. Part of, part of Government policy?---Yes. 20 It’s a policy with which you agreed as the Minister, wasn’t it?---Oh, well, I’m sorry ah, when I put it out to tender, Counsel, and when I brought it to Cabinet, the, break, there was a Bulk and General Division which allowed brake ah, allowed bulk coal to be part of the multipurpose terminal. Now, that changed – and that was a Cabinet decision. That changed subsequent to me leaving. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, I am sorry to interrupt but that is not an answer to Mr Oates’ question. Mr Oates asked you if it was Government 30 policy and if it was policy that you supported. Now, you either did support it or you didn’t support it. Can we please get an answer to the question? ---Yes. NPC came to me about the proposal of putting the multipurpose terminal out, I was happy for them to do that, and yes, it was Government policy as I understood it at the time. And you supported it?---Well, I was happy, I was happy to put it out to market, yes, I supported it, supported that going to market, yes. Well, did you go into the Party room or did you go into whatever meeting it 40 was that authorised that process and support the process?---Yes. Thank you?---I’ve said that, I said yes. No, you didn’t say that?---I did, I said yes. You said you were happy to do it, you didn’t say you supported it?---And at the end I said yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6642T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

MR OATES: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr Tripodi, it’s fair to say, isn’t it, that in your time as Minister for the Ports- - -?---Yeah. - - -Minister for Ports I’m sorry, that you were well known to and you knew well many of the people who were involved in the Ports industry, the NPC, Mr Webb, the stakeholders with whom you negotiated the Coal Chain Agreement, et cetera?---Yes. And that was a long and protracted and detailed negotiation which resulted 10 in a landmark decision and a landmark agreement?---Yes. For the benefit of all, Newcastle, New South Wales?---Yes. It’s been said many times, it was true?---Sorry? It was true?---It was, sorry, true? It was true?---What was true? 20 It was a landmark decision, a landmark contract which assisted Newcastle and New South Wales?---I felt so, yes. Well, I think you said on the last occasion, last Friday, that you didn’t think it was necessary inviolate, you do I assume regard the agreement as being worth keeping?---I’m sorry, these agreements need to – I explained this on Friday, that you don’t freeze it in time, as new, as new market participants come into the market, as things evolve, it’s possible and necessary and the system allows for authorisations to change. 30 Yes?---So at the point of time when I left it I thought, well, okay, and there was still a lot more reform to be implemented, it could have changed even as a consequence of the further reform that need to be implemented for the rest of the supply chain, so, but at that point in time, that’s where I’d left it at. So the sum of your answer is that nothing is set in stone?---Yes, that’s right. All right. But in order to vary the agreement at it still maintain its efficacy, any new player would have to be introduced in a constructive way, there 40 had to be negotiation about how that would affect the Coal Chain Agreement to make sure that the agreement continued to have the beneficial effects for which it was designed?---Ah, most of the beneficial effects were achieved through the lease, not through the authorisation. Did you understand my question?---Yeah, I’m, I’m, I’m explaining it to you.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6643T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

I’ll just start again. In order for the Coal Chain Agreement to be- - - MR WATSON: Commissioner, could, with respect, I just don’t see how this advances the case for Ms McKay. Ms McKay’s got a very specific narrow case and- - - THE COMMISSIONER: I know that. MR WATSON: - - -this stuff has been hammered out at length, by now we know it pretty well. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I know, but it wouldn’t be, it wouldn’t be so tortuous, Mr Watson, if Mr Tripodi would actually answer the question. MR WATSON: Oh, I agree. I endorse that comment. THE COMMISSIONER: Go on, Mr Oates. MR OATES: I take Mr Watson’s point, Commissioner. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR OATES: You know, don’t you, Mr Tripodi, how Government works, that was dealt with in Operation Credo, wasn’t it, about the Working With Government Guidelines and whatnot?---Yes. Government’s a transparent process, an inclusive process, isn’t it? ---Yes. It’s a process for the public good, isn’t it?---Yes. 30 It’s not for the personal gain of any particular person?---Not the process, no. Well, the outcome is not for any particular person’s again, is it, it’s supposed to be primarily for the public good, is it not?---Working With Government Guidelines? No, the process of Government legislating for the public, legislating public policy?---Sometimes it can be to the benefit of private individuals- - - 40 Yes, it can be, yeah?--- - - -and a class of people, yes. But that’s not the primary object, is it, the primary object- - -?---It’s not the - - - - - -is not putting a dollar in someone’s pocket?---No, of course not. It’s ensuring the public gets served?---Yes, that’s correct.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6644T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

When you argue matters in Cabinet I assume there’s often vigorous debate? ---Yes. You don’t not argue with somebody or attempt to press your point simply because you don’t agree with them?---(No Audible Reply) Simply because you don’t like them, I beg your pardon?---Simply because you don’t like them? 10 Mmm, well, I don’t, I try not to do that?---Mmm. So irrespective of what you thought of somebody, you would continue to attempt to convince that person of your view because that’s what your responsibility is?---Yes. In this matter of the Buildev issue, broadly speaking, these are the things you did, are they, Mr Tripodi? You had some meetings with Buildev? ---Yes. 20 One of which was the helicopter meeting?---Yes. Was it fair to say that at that meeting Buildev pitched the proposal of the coal loader to you?---They gave me a lot of ah, they detailed what the proposal was, yeah, they gave me a lot more detail of it. That must have struck you as being inconsistent with Government policy? ---Um, at that point in time my ah, view was, and I expressed this view to them, is that um, I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t just use the PWCS terminal to try to ship the coal. And ah, so I listened to what they 30 said and then I went away and thought about it. And you suggested that because- - - THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, Mr- - - MR OATES: - - -you believe, I’m sorry, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I’m sorry, but this transcript has got to at some stage reflect evidence that is responsive to the questions that are 40 asked. THE WITNESS: Sorry, okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, the last question that Mr, sorry, that Mr Oates asked you- - -?---Yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6645T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

- - -was, it struck you at the time of this meeting with Buildev that their proposal was counter to current Government policy. Now, do you either agree with that or you disagree with it?---Um, to, to my mind I thought it was, it could be consistent with Government- - - You thought it was consistent, all right, thank you?---Yes, it could be consistent with Government policy. Yes, Mr Oates. 10 MR OATES: Even if it was consistent to a certain extent, that is that there was a coal loading capacity, even though it was small, in the current Government plan- - -?---Oh, sorry, sorry, when I – the current Government plan was a draft, that draft was not Government policy at that time, it actually took two more years for it to become policy and get signed off by a Minister of the Delegate of the Minister, so I don’t think it actually was that pertinent. What policy did exist at the time was a State Environmental Planning Policy which allowed coal loading on both the Buildev site and also on the multipurpose terminal site and I, I was responsible for the development of that policy and I was aware of that at the time. 20 It must have struck you when Buildev pitched the proposal to you that it was talking about volumes of coal far exceeding anything which had been mentioned prior?---Ah, no, that didn’t occur to me. Didn’t it?---No. Well, they must have told you that?---They didn’t specifically refer to the volumes that were involved. 30 Didn’t you ask?---No. Why were you going to a meeting if the proposal was as you understood the Government policy to be?---I was there to learn about what they were, what they were interested in doing. Because you were interested in public policy albeit you were a backbencher?---And also because Ann Wills had asked me to go, yes, but yes. 40 And you were effectively- - -?---And interested in public policy, yes. You were effectively a Minister at large, that’s correct, were you, is that what you were?---I’m sorry, every Member of Parliament has got an interest in a whole range of public policy areas which are not confined to electoral boundaries. I mean you know, I can give you 100 examples if you like.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6646T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

You must have thought the proposal of Buildev was pretty much a win/win, coal loader and coal terminal?---Yes, that’s correct. Yes. And you must have known that there was going to be an announcement about the coal, I beg your pardon, the container terminal in the not too distant future. Buildev must have told you that?---Um, they may have told me that, I can’t remember specifically. And you thought the coal loader proposal was good?---I think it’s worthy of consideration, yes. 10 Weren’t you concerned that Buildev’s coal loader proposal might be sunk if the Treasurer announced the container terminal preferred tenderer?---In my discussions with Buildev what I said to them was that if they had this idea of progressing this they should go to, do an unsolicited proposal to Government, now that’s the process that they should follow, if they’d done that then there’s a possibility that it would have all been progressed with both of them and that’s the thoughts I had in mind that’s the thoughts I conveyed. 20 Were you concerned that if the container terminal was announced that the coal loader would have very little prospect of thereafter being approved? ---No, no, I wasn’t concerned about that because um, my understanding is that and this is with hindsight the knowledge that we have since I’ve been reading things, my understanding is that what was coming up was authorisation to begin the negotiations with NSC by the Government, that doesn’t mean that those, that negotiation could have gone on for quite a while. After that then it would go to the NPC board and after that it would be something that would go to Cabinet. So there was a long, there was a long period of process still to follow after that decision during which that 30 period of time an unsolicited proposal could have come forward. But the direct negotiations would have been between the Government or NPC and Anglo Ports not between NPC and Buildev, that’s correct isn’t it? ---When the unsolicited, sorry - - - Just focus on the question please?---Just, yeah, just I will. Can you repeat it - - - That is correct isn’t it?---Yes. No. Can you repeat it. 40 The direct negotiations would have been between NPC and Anglo Ports - - -?---Yeah, NSC, yeah. - - - over the container terminal - - -?---Yes. - - - not between NPC and Buildev, correct?---That's correct, yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6647T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

That would make it very difficult for Buildev then to get inside those negotiations to become a party to them wouldn’t it?---No, well Buildev would put their unsolicited proposal in it would go to the Department of Premier and Cabinet then the Department of Premier and Cabinet would decide that they’re going to do, that may be to notify NPC, while these negotiations are occurring that there was this other pending issue evolving. MR WATSON: Commissioner, I with respect this has gone on long enough. Mr, Ms McKay’s got a limited case, we’ve got a large number of witnesses in the next fortnight. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Oates, I think we have, we have gone over this ground before, I’m not sure that you’re going to - - - MR OATES: Well I’m not getting anywhere I’ll give you that. THE COMMISSIONER: No, precisely. I think that’s part of the problem. And it’s also might I say, Mr Oates, fertile ground for you to make what submissions you wish to make about whether or not Mr Tripodi should be accepted in place of your client. 20 MR OATES: Yes. I’ll just finish with this, Commissioner. Mr Tripodi, you had an interest in public policy, we know that?---Yes. Between the time that you left the front bench in November 2009 and the election in 2011 did you get engaged in any other public policy issues as a back bencher?---Plenty. Yes. And did, did you put into those the same amount of time you put into 30 the Buildev matter?---Um, well, sorry the Buildev matter was over a seven month period and the degree of involvement has been exaggerated by - - - What other, what other public policy issues did you get involved in, Mr Tripodi?---The electricity privatisation. I was actually very concerned of that and very active on that front. Being concerned isn’t involved. What were you involved with?---I had meetings with the Premier Keneally, I had meetings with Minister Roozendaal, I - - - 40 THE COMMISSIONER: No, we’re talking about meetings - - -? ---Electricity - - - - - - we’re talking about meetings with private individuals or companies in these other areas of public policy that you were interested in?---Yeah.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6648T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

We’re not talking about within the limits of your existing Parliamentary duties?---Well yeah, I was describing one, yeah. Well no you weren’t you were talking about meetings with other Ministers and the - - -?---Well the private sector. - - - Premier of the day. Mr Oates is asking you what other public policy areas did you devote this similar amount of time to?---There were plenty of public policies, I had lots of meetings with people all the time. I still had meetings in other, other parts of the Ports industry. I think actually I was 10 involved in trying to resolve the rail issues at Sydney Ports um, for a while until the media made a big storm about it and I withdrew. So, and I was having meetings with private sector rail operators at Sydney Ports. I mean I was an active Member of Parliament I have a big interest in policy issues particularly those that relate to economics and commerce and so yeah, I met with people from the private sector on the rail issue at Sydney Ports because it was part of the reform I hadn’t completed and um, I was encouraged to you know help a bit on that front also. And you say that when Buildev spoke to you about the coal loader they 20 spoke to you as a Member of the Government?---(No audible reply) That's right?---Yes, that’s right. But you didn’t, you didn’t bring this to the Government did you?---I’m sorry, well they - - - You didn’t bring the proposal to Buildev put to you to the government - - -? ---No, not my - - - 30 - - - that’s what you say do you?---No, no. They were asking for feedback on issues and they were asking for information and help on processes and that’s what I was giving them. And you didn’t speak to Ms McKay about it when you went to Newcastle to talk to these people?---Why so she could ring the newspaper and malign me again, no, I didn’t. Nothing further, Commissioner. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions of Mr Tripodi. MR STRICKLAND: Yes, I act for Mr Roozendaal. You gave evidence - - - THE COMMISSIONER: You won’t be picked up, Mr Strickland.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6649T E12/2107/0821 (OATES)

MR STRICKLAND: All right, thank you. You gave evidence last Friday at 6589 it was put to you about the ACCC, sorry, it was put to you that a new entrant, that’s in relation to the coal terminal at Newcastle could, could jeopardise the fragile basis upon which the ACCC agreement had struck and you said, “I don’t agree with that assessment at all”?---Yes. What’s the basis of you not agreeing to that?---My extensive knowledge about, about the authorisation, um, the content of the lease itself which captured most of the essence of the relationships that were necessary to operate, they were actually captured in the lease rather than the ACCC 10 authorisation, that was very robust and most importantly the take or pay contracts are actually the thing that underpins the whole of the supply chain, the funding of the coal loader, the capacity of industry to export, that is the most important element and those contracts would remain in place. What’s the take or pay contract?---The take or pay contract is where the exporter must pay the coal loader even if it doesn’t use the degree, the level of contacted capacity. So for example they contract for 20 million tonnes, they want to ship 20 million tonnes through the coal loader in one year, if they only ship 18 or 12 or 15 million tonnes they still need to pay for 20 20 million which means that the coal loader and its finances and its, and its cash flows and its income are rock solid regardless to what the volumes are. So that is far more important than the ACCC authorisations. The ACCC authorisation as I understood it was about the coordination of the different agents in the supply chain and being able to get them operationally through and that degree of collusion that’s necessary to do that. So that’s really focused on an operational element but the fundamental commerce to the fundamental financing of the infrastructure was all robust and in place as a consequence of the take or pays. 30 Do you see that those robust arrangements would not have been affected? ---What I’m saying is the ACCC were very conscious and have enormous amount of knowledge about how this supply chain works and if it was required for them to change the authorisations they would have done it and it would have been sensitive to all of these issues and not place those issues at risk. You gave evidence - - - MR WATSON: Can I just understand what my learned friend’s positive 40 case is? Is he saying that this information that Mr Roozendaal had from Mr Tripodi and relied upon it? MR STRICKLAND: Commissioner, I reject the proposition that I’m required under the ICAC Act to put a positive case. THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6650T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND)

MR STRICKLAND: It’s inconsistent with the terms of the ICAC Act itself. THE COMMISSIONER: No. Well it’s not inconsistent with the practice directions, Mr Strickland, the practice directions state quite clearly that in so far as any Counsel appearing before this Commission only has leave to cross-examine, that leave can be withdrawn if the Commission’s satisfied that there is in fact no positive case being put and that really all we’re doing is going over old territory. So - - - MR STRICKLAND: This isn’t old territory, Commissioner. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: Well it is because I’m just looking at the transcript and Mr Tripodi gave almost exactly the same answer to that question last Friday. So can we, we have to go somewhere - - - MR STRICKLAND: I’ll move on. Yes, certainly. MR WATSON: But I wonder - it’s important for who we call and evidence we elicit from them. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that, yes. MR WATSON: Is my learned friend saying this is information which he got from that’s Mr Roozendaal got from Mr Tripodi or are we just eliciting this as one man’s Lone Ranger opinion out there? THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know Mr Watson. Mr Strickland, so are we, are we just, are we just seeking to reinforce Mr Tripodi’s view of this or is this something that he would have communicated to Mr Roozendaal? 30 MR STRICKLAND: First, Commissioner, it’s the former because in my submission is relevant to the allegation put by Counsel Assisting in his opening which was, this is at page 4772 that the experts at the NPC opposed the Buildev proposal on a number of sound and solid basis, the most critical was that if Buildev proposal went ahead it fractured the basis of the ACCC approved Coal Chain Agreement. This is, this is another expert in my submission that’s contrary to - - - THE COMMISSIONER: But Mr Strickland we’ve had all this evidence. We’ve had his evidence all of Friday that was exactly what he was going on 40 about. I don’t think you’re going to improve it by asking him again. MR STRICKLAND: I accept that, there were some elements in his answer just then that did move it a little bit forward. THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, look, Mr Strickland, we all know what Mr Tripodi thinks and we all know that he’s considered an expert in this


field and in fact, we know ad nauseam, might I say, that he didn’t think that any other coal loader would imperil the Coal Chain Agreement. MR STRICKLAND: Yes. I’ll move on. Could the, could the witness please, I’m sorry. You’re were aware of the New South Wales Government Ports Policy, is that right?----The New South Wales Growth Plan. 2003 - - -?---Yes. 10 Yes. And was it your view that the Buildev proposal for a coal container to co-exist with the container terminal was inconsistent with that 2003 Policy?---No. Why do you say that?---That they could, sorry, that the two could co-exist? That’s right. Yes, that is, the Buildev proposal before the March election, that there could be a coal terminal which co-exist with a container terminal, you understood that was the mix?---It’s not inconsistent with the ports 20 growth plan. Why do you say that?---Because well, first of all, the ports growth plan is not, I actually tried to find this ports growth plan - - - Would you mind speaking up a bit please sir.---I tried to find it, I can’t recall actually, I actually tried to get the Department to find it also and I don’t think they could. I’m advised that it’s actually a press release so I don’t, it’s been elevated to some massive level of significance but in essence, as I understand it back in 2003 there was a decision made to move 30 cars out of Glebe Island and White Bay down to Port Kembla. The people in Newcastle were very upset about that, in response to that, they were promised that the, that Newcastle would become the next container terminal when Port Botany reaches capacity. Now Port Botany is in the midst of doubling its capacity right now. It’s going from six berths to eleven berths. It’s going to have a very big future in terms of containers. It could be in 50 years’ time that containers become, possible. But at the time when I was the Minister, Mr Webb came to me and he said, I would like to test the market on this, on a multiple purpose terminal. And I said, “Yes, fine.” It is consistent to have a container terminal, it is also consistent with the policy 40 that you continue to have growth in coal terminals. Could the witness please be shown Z63 page 10 and at the same time could he also be given Z42. Z42, if you could please go to page 53 of that document.---Yes. Sir, on the same page, Z42 page 53 should have a heading Mayfield Site Demand, do you see that?---Yes.


I want you to assume that this is a Treasury document - - -?---Yes. - - - prepared on or around 4 February 2011.---Yes. Can you just read to yourself the last dot point of that Treasury document.---Yes. MR WATSON: That’s not it. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. MR STRICKLAND: I’m sorry. I think the last dot point which refers to the 2013 study updated in 2009, does that make a similar point to the point you’ve just made?---Yes. Right. There’s a dot point under that which requires attracting regular shipping lanes cannibalisation.---Yes. What does that word refer to, what does that concept refer to?---So this - - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: This is not his document though, is it Mr Strickland? MR STRICKLAND: Yes, but I understand he will have some expert, he may have some expertise in relation to it. THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know, I don't know how one determines in what sense the author of the document used the term cannibalisation – isn’t that something that should be asked of the author of the document and it 30 was Mr Sharpe as I understand it. MR STRICKLAND: Mr Schuster. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Schuster? MR STRICKLAND: That’s right. THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - - 40 MR STRICKLAND: I’ll put it a different way. MR WATSON: I’d ask Mr Strickland not to bother putting it at all. Won’t that document speak for itself, it came from Treasury. THE COMMISSIONER: I would have thought so, I would have thought so.


MR STRICKLAND: I’m not sure how the word cannibalisation does speak for itself. It’s obviously a concept - - - THE COMMISSIONER: I know. MR STRICKLAND: - - - which requires some elaboration. This witness, in my submission, would have the expertise to – I’m happy to approach it a different way. MR WATSON: Well see, this isn’t his area. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: But Mr Strickland, I’m sorry, I really have to go back to this. We are going to be here all day if all you’re going to do is test this witnesses expertise in this area. It doesn’t actually help us in terms of determining precisely whether or not, and let’s face it, these are the issues, whether or not this witness did anything to intervene in furthering Buildev’s interest, whether he leaked the Treasury document, whether your client had any role to play in all of that. It just doesn’t get us anywhere. MR STRICKLAND: Commissioner, it’s the Counsel Assisting’s case - - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know. MR STRICKLAND: - - - that Buildev’s proposal was so obviously ludicrous - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR STRICKLAND: - - - to even entertain - - - 30 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know and that comes from the evidence of Mr Webb and Mr Crosby and Mr - - - MR WATSON: Schuster. It comes from that document from which Mr Strickland is selectively - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Is reading. MR WATSON: - - - reading page 10. When one reads the whole thing it says that the Buildev proposal is some kind of rancid joke and here are the, 40 on page, here are three points that could be made against the current NPC proposal. MR STRICKLAND: Commissioner, when Counsel Assisting opened he said this document gave Buildev traction, that’s his exact words. THE COMMISSIONER: No, the document that was leaked to the Herald which was one page of the Treasury document as I understand it.


MR STRICKLAND: No, Commissioner, that’s not how it was opened. THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I don’t want to - - - MR STRICKLAND: There’s an alternative narrative, that’s the point I’m trying to make - - - THE COMMISSIONER: All right, there might be Mr Strickland but - - - 10 MR STRICKLAND: But it’s being shut down. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no, it’s all very well to keep going back to Counsel’s opening but at the end of the day, you know, we’ve moved four weeks on from that and there is a great deal of evidence which, as I’ve just said, indicates that from the point of view of quite a number of significant people the Buildev proposal was unviable from a number of perspectives. Now we know what Mr Tripodi’s view is. MR STRICKLAND: But we don’t Commissioner, we only know it in 20 certain limited aspects, I’m fleshing them out. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, well can we - - - MR STRICKLAND: This witness is an expert in the area. He is at least as much as an expert as Mr Webb. Mr Webb has his own institutional - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Well, apparently not because Mr Tripodi has acknowledged that in the twelve months that he was away from the portfolio things changed so dramatically that his knowledge of what had occurred 30 previously needed supplementation. So I don’t know that he was an expert as at the date of the building proposal. But can we please just get to the point. MR STRICKLAND: I’m going to, I’ll only be five minutes Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Go on. MR STRICKLAND: Let me take you then to Z63 page 10 which is - - -?---Is that the cannibalisation issue? 40 I’m going to come back to that.---Yes, sure. No, it’s the - - -?---Z10. Z63, have you got that?---No. I think you may have been given that - - -?---Sorry, sorry, okay.


Just go to page 10 which is headed 22 November 2010 file note.---Yes. Just read to yourself the second last paragraph of that document.---Yes. There’s a reference in the last sentence to a request relating to the discussion on Enfield and PBLIS?---Yes. What’s Enfield?---Enfield is an inter-modal that Sydney Port Corporation were working on, an inter-modal, it’s called an inter-modal park. 10 What does that mean?---Okay. So that’s where rail moves the containers out of Sydney Ports out to Enfield and then there downloaded or re-loaded on trains at Enfield. And what’s, PBLIS refers to what, Port Botany Landside Improvement Strategy, is that right?---Yeah. Are you familiar with that?---I created it. 20 Yes. And what is it?---What it is, is a performance management system for truck movements in and out of Port Botany, it was about redressing the market power of the stevedores and their capacity to be unreasonable and impose ah, unreasonable waiting times on trucks coming and going, it’s now made Sydney ports the only demurrage-free port in the world. So how does Enfield and PBLIS, how does assessing what they’re doing at a given time affect an assessment of the NPC container terminal proposal, if at all? Do you understand my question? 30 THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s not the context at all. MR STRICKLAND: I’ll withdraw the - - - THE COMMISSIONER: The context is whether Sydney Ports had been requested to bring forward a discussion and there’s nothing in that paragraph that suggests it has anything to do with Newcastle. MR STRICKLAND: Well, that’s what I’m asking, Commissioner. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, then ask that question. THE WITNESS: Well, only insofar as it potentially could affect volumes at Sydney but that’s the only potential connection between the two. MR STRICKLAND: So what, what is that potential?---Okay. Well, if, if – let’s say for example Newcastle was to be highly successful you may have to defer Enfield um, and you might look at the way ah, PBLIS operates but


it’s a bit of longshot connection, I mean, it does affect volumes and that could have implications for the other, for, for ah, Port Botany. So a request for material in relation to those two matters, Enfield and PBLIS, could be relevant to an assessment of volumes in relation to the NPC container terminal, is that right?---Potentially. Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Almost anything could potentially I suppose but - 10 - -?---That’s true. MR STRICKLAND: Does it. Can I just ask you finally about the notion of cannibalisation. What do you understand that concept to be?---Well, I mean ah, so the major ship people, the pattern around the world is that shipping lines wanted to have less stops in countries so they tend to load and unload more ships, more containers at any one port. With the ah, developments that are happening in ah, the Port of Melbourne with the deepening of the um, of the channel um, the prospect of a port stopping, a ship stopping in Australian for more than say two ports um, is, is, is ah, diminishing quickly 20 um, so in effect um, the ports are in competition with each other, if there’s an advancement of any one port it comes at the cost of the other port. So that includes any container terminal at Newcastle may be, may be in conflict with the, with the interests of the Port Botany?---Ah, will be, not may be ‘cause you’d have to go through Port Botany if you want to go to New South Wales um, at the moment but if Newcastle was there then you would capture all of that market, all of it. Just finally you gave some evidence about having a lot of contact with 30 Mr Roozendaal?---Yes. Did you also have contact with him in relation to the issue of the power sale matter?---Yes. Do you recall on 15 November there was a cut off for bids in relation to the power sale agreements?---I take your word for it. Nothing further, thank you, Commissioner. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Does anyone else have any questions of Mr Tripodi? Yes, Mr Neil. MR NEIL: Thank you, thank you, Commissioner. Mr Tripodi, I’m going to ask you some questions and where matters are not controversial I’m going to try to keep it short. Do you understand what I mean?---Yeah, sure.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6657T E12/2107/0821 (STRICKLAND)/(NEIL)

I don’t want to leave anything out. Could I ask you to go to Exhibit 10, Z10 please. Firstly, just going through some of these in the order in the document - - -?---What page, sorry? Page 1 to 4?---14? They’re some telephone records of calls between you and Mr Fedele?---Yes. Is that right?---Yes. 10 Now if one looks through those will we find that there are times when there was in fact no contact between you and Mr Fedele for some weeks or months?---Yes. And then other occasions when there’s concentrated contact?---Yes. Would the concentrated contact have been at particular times such as election time?---Yes. Yeah. So either when I was ah, working through with Mr Fedele on one of my newsletters for my electorate or potentially – or, or also when there was an election on, I would be working with him for the 20 creation of publications. So your contact with him was in relation to shall we take it predominantly matters of that nature rather than just general personal contact?---They were work matters, yes. Yes. And the gaps are, we can go through and find, correct?---Yes. And there were considerable months of times when you had no contact with him?---That’s correct. 30 Thank you. Now if we just have a look then at page 6 and I want to ask you a few questions in conjunction with - - -?---And also there was continued phone contact after 19th of the 1st which is the last date. I continued to have phone contact ‘cause there was ah, my own campaign work that I was doing with Mr Fedele at the time which was quite substantial so all through this period, through 2011 up to the election and even afterwards I was in constant contact with Mr Fedele ‘cause we were working on campaign material together. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, wasn’t it you who provided Mr Fedele’s name to Ms Wills when she asked for, for a printer for the material?---Yes. MR NEIL: Now if you look at page 6 which is the notes of the Newcastle Stevedoring Consortium meeting and I want to ask you something about this, together with the Joe notes at page 16 - - -?---Yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6658T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

- - - to keep it short the matter that my learned friend took you to at page 7 you say is a reference to some strategy of the Buildev people to bring you into their strategies?---Well, that’s what their heading is, strategy - - - Yeah?--- - - - and it’s his notes. Did you formulate any strategy for Buildev?---No, I didn’t form a strategy for Buildev. Now if you go to page 16 the, I just want to ask you firstly you, as we know, 10 had a meeting with Mr Sharpe and Mr Williams on 19 November, is that right?---Yes. Now did at some stage the meeting itself finish?---Yes. And what did you do then?---We went – from, from memory we went downstairs and had a sandwich downstairs in a coffee shop in the same building. Who was that that did that?---Darren Williams I think and maybe Ann 20 Wills. All right. Was Mr Sharpe involved as far as you can remember in going downstairs?---I don’t think so. All right. Now the meeting upstairs, was that Sharpe, Williams and yourself?---Yeah, Mr Williams I think was coming and going from the meeting. I don’t think he was there all the time. Now what did, what was the first thing asked of you and what did you 30 respond by saying?---Well, they told me they had, they would like to come forward with a coal loader at the Port of Newcastle and the first question I said is well, why would you want to do that. Ah, I think at that um, and then I went on to explain to them about ah, Port Waratah Coal Services and how it works and how that ah, terminal is obliged to ah, provide capacity to exporters um, and it would be easy for them if anyone wanted to export just to go knock on the door at PWCS and ask them to give you access and they’re obliged to do it, so I explained that and that’s how I started. Can you recall what response you got to that?---They weren’t, they were 40 more interested in building a coal loader. Did you say anything further then?---I said I, I said oh, well, okay, if that’s what you – I don’t understand it but if that’s, that’s what you want to do yeah, fine. What did you tell them they should consider doing?---Well, I – when they explained some of the detail I said well um, you’ll need to – they asked me

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6659T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

what, what should we do and I said well, it seems to me something that could help you is to work with the, work to, to use the Working with Government Guidelines and come forward with an unsolicited proposal because there were elements to what they were proposing that were across Government and all the rest of it so I, I gave him that advice. All right. Could you – just looking at page 16 can you recall whether at the time of the meeting Mr Sharpe or Mr Williams, either of them was taking any actual notes of the meeting?---I don’t remember whether they were taking – definitely not Mr Williams and I can’t remember whether 10 Mr Sharpe was or wasn’t taking notes. All right. Now I think my learned friend’s taken you through this document in some detail but I just want to shortly ask you a few matters. Can you find anything and bearing in mind Mr Sharpe said that you spoke about the matters you’ve just mentioned can you see anything in the document about you telling them about the PWCS and unsolicited proposals?---Yeah. Um, so there’s an element here where is it, PWCS. But can you see if anything in words mentioning the unsolicited proposal? 20 ---About the process? Yeah, I think that’s his take on um, if you look at where’s the, the one that says Anglo meeting the dot point? Above that it says Joe and I think that’s what his understanding was about me saying to them work, you know use the work, working with Government guidelines and this is how they work and I’d said to him that you know it’s a process that goes to budget committee, all the rest of it. So I think that’s what he, that’s his take of what I was giving him in terms of how the working with Government guidelines work. All right. But we don’t find the word unsolicited proposal on this page do 30 we?---No. THE COMMISSIONER: Or Working with Government Guidelines. MR NEIL: Or Working with Government Guidelines either did we?---No. We find at about number 9 some reference to PWCS. Do you see that? ---Yes. Can you recall whether at number 9 was said?---Yes, that was said and what 40 happened was there was an assumption that PWCS um, which proved to be correct mind you but I wasn’t aware of it at the time, there was an assumption that PWCS would be hostile to a new coal loader coming in I said to them look don’t assume that they are hostile because PWCS is under so much pressure under its obligations under the lease to meet its, to meet its expansion that if a new coal loader was to come in it actually would take the pressure off PWCS to meet, to meet the demands of the industry to, to

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6660T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

provide capacity for the coal export industry. So don’t assume that they would necessarily be hostile to you and that’s just a few I expressed. All right. Now just going down the page, to keep this short I think my learned friend Mr Watson asked you about number 1 and number 2. Let me just ask you about 3. Was anything in number 3 mentioned?---Not, not that I recall but I wouldn’t disagree with it, I mean you know even Mr Webb would say he’s stubborn but I don’t remember that being discussed specifically no. 10 You worked closely to Mr Webb when you were Minister did you?---Very closely. And did you have a high opinion of him?---Very high opinion. Did you ever try to override him in anything?---Oh look no, we, we often would have professional disagreements about issues and we would work together to come to some arrangement, or some agreement to, to progress it. MR WATSON: I think we’ve now got evidence that Mr Webb was 20 stubborn. I think he’d admit that. THE WITNESS: Yeah. He admits it. He takes pride in it actually. MR NEIL: So you had a good working relationship with him did you? ---Yes, very good. Thank you. Now - - - THE COMMISSIONER: And in spite of that good working relationship 30 you said earlier that it never occurred to you to go to Mr Webb and have a discussion about Buildev’s coal loader proposal?---Well, Commissioner, it’s, it’s, it’s just, it’s not done. I wasn’t the Minister any more - - - It doesn’t matter?---Well sorry - - - You were a person - - -?---There are customs and - - - - - - who was in Government and you were being asked to progress a coal loader on behalf of a private company and you say it did not occur to you to 40 go to the one man who you had a good relationship with when you were Minister for Ports who is in fact still in charge of the organisation?---What’s that – I’m no longer the Minister it’s not my, it’s, it’s - - - And you can’t explain that to me, Mr Tripodi?---I can explain it to you it, just that – it seems to me, Commissioner, you don’t want accept that it’s, there’s a custom and practise that you don’t approach chief executives directly as a back bencher or even as a Minister in a different portfolio. If I

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6661T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

was to do that I would ring Mr Roozendaal first and I’d ask him if it was okay. Well you didn’t do that either?---No, I didn’t - - - Right, thank you?---But I was just listening to their issues and responding to their questions. Go on. 10 MR NEIL: If Buildev hadn’t put in an unsolicited proposal would it have gone through the processes that you have mentioned?---Yes, yes. Now the – I think you were asked some questions about the, the DS1 and in detail about the Joe and something about the DS and the 7. I’ve come to number 8. Was anything said about these plans that you can recall?---No, that I can recall, no. All right. Was anything said about – we’ve done 9 go to 10, Jodi not supporting them?---I don't recall that being specifically discussed it could 20 have been. Can you recall anything being said about the next one Buildev?---No, that wasn’t discussed. The next one Buildev?---That wasn’t discussed. The next one’s Sargent?---I don't recall that being discussed. The next one - - -?I don’t, I don't know Mark Sargent, I’ve never met him I 30 don’t think. So I wouldn’t know what his views would be. The next one Buildev getting legal opinion?---I don't remember that being discussed. The next one EOIs?---No, I don't remember that being mentioned to me. And I think you’ve just mentioned something about the next one. Now the last five Mr Sharpe has given some evidence about those. Have you any recollection of those matters being mentioned?---No. 40 All right, thank you. Now - - - THE COMMISSIONER: So are all of the dot points on that document you can’t remember any of those matters being discussed but you can say without qualification that the two matters referring to Buildev and Mr Kelly and Buildev and someone else that they definitely weren’t discussed?---That

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6662T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

they would go and contact Mr Kelly to make sure he’s still on side, I don't remember them saying that to me at all. Oh no, that’s not what you said a moment ago?---Sorry, what - - - That is not what you said a moment ago?---Sorry, I’ll go further than that that was not discussed. Well that’s what I’m asking you?---Yes. 10 So of all of the dot points on that document - - -?---Yes. - - - you can’t recall any of those subject matters being discussed but you can definitely remember those two things not being discussed?---Yes. I can, I’m happy to explain it to you if you want. Oh no, don’t, don’t trouble yourself. MR NEIL: Well I’ll ask you to trouble the Commissioner, explain it?---At that point in time I wouldn’t understand what Tony Kelly’s involvement was, so if he’d mentioned it, it would have (not transcribable) something 20 curious to me and therefore it would have probably remained in my mind um, so I don’t – that was not mentioned to him. All right. Now if you could move forward to the entries at 22 you were asked some questions about Edmondson Park?---Yes. At 22 there’s a reference to Landcom in the fifth paragraph. To what extent at that time was there any public knowledge about Landcom’s position on the matter?---As I said - - - 30 That’s as far as you knew?---As I said on Friday that was something that was communicated to me by the vendor. All right. Now just going through please, if we go to – I think I can keep moving to save time, if we go to number 75. Before I ask you specifically about that I want to ask about this, do you recall having a meeting in Sydney and February with Mr Williams?---Yes. Can you recall the date, approximately at least?---It was early February some time. 40 And can you recall where the meeting took place?---Yeah, it was in the Aurora Bar in the city. And can you recall who was present?---There was, Ann Wills was present, um,. Darren Williams was present and at some stage Ian McNamara was present.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6663T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

And can you recollect what was discussed at the meeting?---I just want to qualify that I’m sure that, I’ve been to the Aurora Bar many times so you know I have to qualify that recollection that’s all I’ve got to say. In what way?---In the, in a way that you know I can’t be a hundred per cent sure that, when it happened and who was coming and going when. Now when you say you’ve been many times at the Aurora Bar do you go there as a bar or has it got some, coffee shop?---Coffee, yeah. 10 Coffee, thank you. Now if you look please if you still have it at Exhibit 42, Z42. There is a document that commences at page 44, it appears to go through to I think it’s page 65 and it includes page 53 that you were asked some questions earlier about. Do you see that?---Yeah. Now, when did you first see that document or any copy of that document?---I don’t believe I’ve seen this document till it was in the Treasury ah, sorry, till it was in the ICAC notes. You mean the ICAC exhibits or- - -?---Exhibits sorry. 20 You think you’d remember it if you had seen it at any time before? ---Well, it’s the kind of stuff I’d be interested and I would read it so I think I would remember, yes. In the private hearing, the evidence of which has been tendered at certain pages, were you shown that document or any part of that document?---No, I wasn’t. It wasn’t even drawn to your attention?---It was referred to as a Treasury 30 Cabinet Briefing Note or a Treasury Cabinet document or something. All right. But it wasn’t put before you. Is that right?---No, it wasn’t. All right. Now, I think my learned friend has asked you about page 75. Do you want to add anything to your evidence?---Page 75 of? 75, Exhibit 10, sorry?---Which one’s that just from memory? That’s the, that’s the message on 16 February, 2011. Have you got it before 40 you?---Is this the panicking? Just trying to move quickly without leaving anything out?---What page, sorry? 75?---Now, which one? The first entry?---Yeah.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6664T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

Well, as I said, I don’t recall this, but my construction of this is that Mr Darren Williams must have told me that he’d leaked a document and I’d reacted in the ways that, you know, expressing the view that he shouldn’t have done it and he was crazy and ah, he’s interpreted it in that fashion. All right. Now- - -?---In, in the way that he’s conveyed it in the SMS. You were asked some questions at page, just go to page 112. My learned friend asked you some questions about page 112. I just want to ask do you 10 want to say anything more about- - -?---112? Yes, please?---Yes. So, look, my understanding is that this is Ann Wills’ understanding of a conversation that we must have had um, I think it’s full of errors um, in terms of what I would have said, but would have been her sort of simple or lay understanding of what was communicated. All right?---For example, I never mentioned DA, I have no ah, I have very very little knowledge about DA’s, I wouldn’t have been talking about a DA for a coal loader. Um, the submission would not have to Maritime, it would 20 have gone, sorry, the unsolicited proposal would have been to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, it would not have gone to Maritime. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, I’m just wondering. Can you explain to us why in the light of your discussions with Buildev about how they should progress this coal loader, why there is not a reference anywhere in a single document in anybody’s notes, in anyone’s communications, not a single reference to the words “unsolicited proposal,” or “Working With Government Guidelines?” Can you explain that?---Why other people don’t put it in their notes? How could I explain that? 30 Well, Ms Wills was not exactly a stranger to political processed?---I’m sorry, she would have understood what the term unsolicited proposal meant, would she not?---No, no. No?---No. I don’t think so. So you’re saying that that’s just a mistake on her part that she’s referred to the DA for the coal loader?---Definitely, I’ve never spoken about it, I- - - 40 And that what she should have written was, the steps need to be taken for an on solicited proposal>?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Right. THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6665T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

MR NEIL: If we go to page 114 at the commencement of the truck pamphlet. DO you see that?---Yes. Now, prior to Weill speaking to you, did you have any relationship, I’m now talking about 2010, with Mr Darren Williams or David Sharpe? ---Well, I believe I’ve never seen David Sharpe until these, the issues up at Port of Newcastle were raised with me and Darren Williams, I would see him at functions, at party functions, but I don’t think I never had a conversation with him or got to know him until really he came to me with, through Ann Wills. 10 Were you mates with them?---No, I was never mates with them. Since 2011 have you had any relationship with him?---No. Now, I think you said in terms of the pamphlet that you took some, did you say you took some ALP matter out of, out of it at one stage?---Yeah, it had a political flavour, I think it was sort of what Mr Fedele had done, it had a sort of anti-Labor sort of sentiment to it and I said to them, “Look, you can’t do that, this is not campaign material, this is material about a public 20 consultation. And what was your understanding as to whether there was any authorisation required on the document?---My understanding is that if the publication, and this is, first of all it’s not a political pamphlet, it doesn’t say election, it doesn’t say Labour, doesn’t say vote any particular way, so on that basis um, I believe that, you know, the authorisation wasn’t required, but far more importantly it was before the campaign period had formally started, well before, my involvement was well before. I thought that this would be out and received before the election had started. 30 All right?---Before the writs were issued. Which of the suburbs – I withdraw that. Did you understand some of this material was to be distributed in the electorate of Newcastle?---Yes. There was a range of suburbs that were suggested to us, yes. Did you understand some of it was to be distributed in electorates other than Newcastle?---Yes, and- - - 40 Which electorates were they?---Port Stephens, in the electorate of Port Stephens. Actually it appears to me that the majority of, of, of these leaflets were in the seat of Port Stephens. Is Mayfield – were you aware of the boundaries?---Yes. Was Mayfield in whole or in part in Newcastle or Port Stephens?

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6666T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

---I remember very distinctly when the new boundaries came out, when Mayfield went into the seat of Port Stephens, that in the Labor Party circles we were quite excited because it made a marginal seat, yeah. Well, just tell us- - -?---Yes, it was. - - -was Mayfield in whole or in part?---Part. Thank you. What about Mayfield West?---I think in whole, yes. 10 In which?---In Port Stephens. Thank you. And what about Warabrook?---In Port Stephens. All right. Now, the, what your understanding is that a percentage of these pamphlets that was going to go to Newcastle as against other electorates? ---Yeah, I, I, um, yes, this was not a pamphlet that was targeted for the seat of Newcastle, it was a pamphlet that was targeted around the areas that would be affected by the container terminal. 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, why was there a reference to Jodi McKay? ---Because she was the advocate for, the public advocate for the container terminal. But she was one of many people who supported the container terminal? ---No, not publicly, not, not to my understanding, she was championing it. MR NEIL: And what, if I could just ask the question again, are you able to say what was your estimate, the percentage that was going to go to Newcastle and as against other electorates?---My estimate is about 60 per 30 cent was outside of the seat of Newcastle. Now, you, did you do anything in relation to any draft of the pamphlet in respect of what’s called third party campaigning?---I’m, I was, I am aware of third, third party campaigning rules and my, when Mr Fedele asked me about the compliance issues they were one of the issues I was concerned about and that’s why there was, there is in this pamphlet no reference to Labor, no reference to Liberal, no reference to election, no reference to voting. This is a pamphlet about public consultation inviting residents to express their objections to what was being proposed. It is a community 40 consultation publication. All right. I won’t ask you about the - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, if that was the case, why wouldn’t the pamphlet had been put out as a community consultation pamphlet under the auspices of the existing pressure group which was Mr Hayes pressure group, why wouldn’t the pamphlet then have referred this letter back to Mr

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6667T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

Hayes by way of adding support to an existing group that was opposed to the container terminal?---Well, it says, for more information visit the website. No, that’s not the question.---Sorry - - - If the pamphlet was for the purposes of community consultation - - -?---Yes. - - - why wasn’t it referred back to Mr Hayes by way of adding to the support that he had in his own group which was already opposing the 10 container terminal?---I was just describing, in my answer, I was describing what was in my mind when I was making the edits. So, you know, if, if, if the people in Newcastle wanted to make that connection in the pamphlet they would’ve told me. I wasn’t instructed that way, so, what I would have told Mr Fedele more accurately. Well, I don’t think that’s an answer to my question, but anyway.---Well, I - - - What I was curious about was you describe it as a community consultation 20 process, there was an existing pressure group, namely Mr Hayes’ pressure group so this pamphlet could have been put essentially out under his auspices and people could have been invited to join that pressure group or to consult with him about the way in which they should protest their opposition to the container terminal?---Commissioner, I’ve never met John Hayes - - - All right. Well, you’re not going to - - -?---Ann Wills. All right, never mind, never mind.---They might have wanted to. I’m sorry, 30 you’re asking me about what I didn’t do it and why I didn’t do it - - - No you - - -?---There’s hundreds of different things I didn’t do. No, you’re just not answering my question - - -?---I’m trying. - - - but I accept that you don’t want to answer it, go on Mr Neil.---Well, no sorry, if you can put it again, I can try my best. No thank you.---Okay. 40 Go on Mr Neil. MR NEIL: Are you deliberately trying to not answer the Commissioner?---No, not at all. I’m trying to answer the question. You asked me why I didn’t go and connect up with the community group and ask them to be involved in the pamphlet, I’m sorry, it never occurred to me to do it and nor

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6668T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

would I do it and it’s something that Ann Wills and the Buildev people should do. Not me, sitting in Sydney, I’ve never met John Hayes. When did you learn, I think you’ve said this. About when did you learn that Buildev was paying for it?---It was a long, I think it was towards when Mr Fedele had to be paid. All right.---I can’t remember exactly. You said you didn’t commission the pamphlet, you didn’t sign off on it.---10 Yes. As far as you were concerned, who’s pamphlet was it?---It was Ann Wills and Buildev’s pamphlet. All right.---And Darren Williams anyway. Now the, can I take you through to 161 and 162, can you have a look at those please.---Yes. 20 Did you ever have any discussions with Buildev or Wills or Mr Cadell about job prospects with Buildev?---Look, I definitely not with Ann Wills, sorry, with Ann Wills the only, the only potential discussion, I can’t a hundred per cent be sure that it was even them was, I was asked what am I going to do after politics and I said, “Look, I don't know.” And that was about the degree of discussion I would have had with them. In terms of Ross Cadell I can’t remember any discussions with Ross Cadell about this. The only conversation I remember with Ross Cadell was he rang me and asked me about whether I knew if anyone would be interested in supporting marketing packages for some race car event and I said, “Look, if I come across anyone 30 I’ll let you know.” I remember that discussion which potentially could relate to this but that’s all I recall with Mr Cadell. I think your answer to the question to my learned friend Mr Isaacs I thought suggested that about 18 August 2011 you had a discussion with Mr Cadell, can you recall any such thing?---I can’t recall that discussion unless it was one about the racing car packages, marketing packages. Did you ever tell anyone that you had become a senior advisor to this project?---No. 40 All right. Now if you can just have a look please at page 180 of Exhibit 10 thanks. If you look at the sixth last item which starts off with your first name, do you see that?---180. Yes.---Yes. What number is it? 10965.---Sure, yes.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6669T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

Do you have any recollection of receiving this message?---I do now, I’m not doubting this is true. All right. The last sentence is, when does he think it will be. Do you have any recollection of talking to Mr Kelly about the matter at all?---Yes I do. And can you recall when?---Yeah, I can’t recall exactly when, it would have been after this. 10 Can you recall where?---I can’t recall where, no. Can you recall what was said?---Yes, it was something along the lines of Buildev have asked me about their project up at North Richmond when a decision’s going to be made and he just sort of shrugged at me and that was about it. You didn’t get a reply?---Not really, no. Did you ever, if you go two down to 10963.---Yes. 20 Did you ever speak to Mr Kelly about the port?---No, I didn’t raise that with him. All right. Now, about when was it after your first discussion on 19 November with Williams and Sharpe that you came to the view that the multipurpose terminal and the proposed coal loader could co-exist?---IT was over time, it would have been coming into December or, yeah, coming into December. 30 All right. At that time, did you have any knowledge of the 500,000 tonne cap that had been put on the bulk, part of the multipurpose terminal in respect of coal?---I can’t remember at what stage I’d learnt about that, it would have been a bit later, I think. All right. Thank you. Now, when you had your last involvement with the pamphlet, the Jodi’s Truck Pamphlet, before it was signed off by others, what was your belief as to whether it was accurate or not?---I believed it was accurate. 40 Based on what?---Based on my knowledge about trucking, the trucking industry and ports. Based on the information that Mr Fedele had given me and based on what I’d read on the website. All right. Could I asked if the witness could be shown (not transcribable) part of Exhibit Z45 which is Volume 1, Environmental Assessment, please Commissioner.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6670T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

THE WITNESS: Can I also add to that answer, the pamphlet is written from the perspective of residents, 1,000 trucks a day is actually only 500 trucks in and out of the port. In any one street whether you have ten trucks travel up at once or one travel up ten times, as far as the residents are concerned the impact is ten trucks. So, to say that there’s a 1,000 trucks in the suburbs is actually to say that there’s 500 trucks coming in and out of the port. MR WATSON: No wonder he did so well at politics Commissioner. In relation to this document unless Mr Neil can show now that Mr Tripodi had 10 read it and relied upon it in putting together that pamphlet, could I ask that these questions be rejected because they won’t take us any further forward. THE COMMISSIONER: Anyway, have we finished with the pamphlet, Mr Neil? MR WATSON: No, there’s a new one, sorry, it’s on the screen. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, this one? 20 MR WATSON: Yes. MR NEIL: Yes. Now I just want you to look at ES6 of that document as the, as the numbers are at the bottom right-hand side. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just a minute. Sorry, before we go there I don’t know that Mr Tripodi has said anything to indicate that he saw this document before the pamphlet was printed or that he based anything that he said on that document. So far he’s said that he got instructions from Mr Fedele or information from Mr Fedele, he looked at the, the Hayes’ 30 website and his knowledge as a Minister for Ports. He has never said that he based anything on this document so where do we go from there? MR NEIL: Well, I submit I’m entitled to ask him upon - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let’s ask the preliminary question shall we? Mr Tripodi, did you see that document, the, the title page of that document at some stage before the pamphlet was produced?---No, Commissioner. 40 No, thank you. MR NEIL: Well, Commissioner, I don’t want it to be gone by default that we accept a proposition that this terminal would only have reached truck operation of 1,000 or more until 2034. This document and Exhibit 63 show clearly it would have started at the higher level. THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s, that’s - - -

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6671T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

MR WATSON: Those submissions could be (not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: Those submissions are available on the face of the documents without having to ask this witness a question on a document that he hasn’t seen at the relevant time. MR NEIL: Well, then I’m content with that. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 10 MR NEIL: Thank you. Now just one moment. Do you have any knowledge, personal knowledge, of Industrial Drive?---Yes. Are there any residences in it?---Yes, there are. I don’t want to go into all the background of the ACCC and so on, you’ve answered a lot of questions about that but it would – your position seems to be different from the understanding of Mr Simmons, is that right?---And what was his understanding, I’m sorry? 20 Well, I thought he seemed to be suggesting that it was all or nothing, the container terminal or the coal terminal?---No, the most, the most I - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Neil, I don’t know that you can put - - - MR NEIL: Well, I’ll, well, I’ll withdraw it, I don’t want to go into areas - - - THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, who knows what ultimate submissions 30 will be made about the effect of Mr Simmons’ evidence but I mean - - - MR NEIL: Well, I withdraw the question, I withdraw the question. In what way did you think the multipurpose terminal and the Buildev coal loader could co-exist?---Well, not only could they co-exist but actually the multipurpose terminal would be assisted by the coal loader because they would have shared infrastructure, in particular rail, the rail infrastructure was quite, you know, in a rundown state, very deplorable, it had to be up, upgraded um, and having both the coal loader and the container terminal 40 operating off the rail would not only, would, would have reduced or halved the cost to the container terminal of the rail infrastructure, halved the costs of the road upgrades and would have reduced the amount of containers coming out by having efficient rail as part of the, the upgrade of both projects um, you would have been able to reduce the number of truck movements coming in and out through the ah, Port um, the container ah, containers coming out by truck through the Port.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6672T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

In the relevant time between - - -?---It was mutually beneficial. In the time between November 2010 and say February, end of February or March 2011 did you have any view as to whether if Buildev obtained approval for their coal loader they would obtain massive financial benefit from it?---Well, sorry, I’ve heard this, that ah, you know, they were under the impression that they were going to make a massive financial benefit. On my reasoning that was actually not a likely prospect. Why is that?---Well, because Buildev were either - - - 10 MR WATSON: I object to this. It would have been great - - - THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the relevance of it? What’s the relevance of it? MR WATSON: It is relevant, Commissioner, I must say. We’ve had a number of people who have come through and I said were they doing it to make money - - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: They’ve all said the same thing. MR WATSON: - - - and now we’ve got Mr Tripodi telling us without having put it to any of those witnesses that this was some sort of bad project. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, more importantly - - - THE WITNESS: I didn’t say it was a bad project. 30 THE COMMISSIONER: - - - more importantly though I’m sorry, Mr Neil, you know, we know he was a Minister for Ports, we know he was a Parliamentarian for 16 years, what possible expertise does he have to make an assessment of the financial benefits to Buildev without knowing the ins and outs of the proposal from their point of view, what their balance sheet was, what they hoped to achieve by it. He just doesn’t know enough about the company to make an assessment. MR NEIL: Well, I’m just trying to head off a submission to the effect that he must have known Buildev was going to make a lot of money therefore he 40 joined in. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR WATSON: Oh, well, sorry, if it’s put on that basis let me assure you, Commissioner, Mr Neil should ask these questions. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Go on.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6673T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

MR WATSON: He should be given free range to ask these questions. MR NEIL: Can you answer the question?---Yes, under, under – there is, there’s two reasons why I wasn’t under the impression they were going to make a massive financial gain. The first one is with respect to the Buildev site um, either, either they were permitted to do it under the ah, contract of sale and in the case that they were permitted to do it then you’d have to look at the next stage which I’ll get on to or they weren’t permitted to do it. If they weren’t permitted to do it they would have had to renegotiate with 10 HDC. In the case of that renegotiation HDC would have extracted the value back that would have been associated with the upgrade or the use of, changing it from warehousing to a coal terminal. They would have extracted that value back and demanded a much higher price in those renegotiations. If it was permitted under the terms of sale to ah, Buildev then when it came to getting permission to get the corridor off NPC, NPC would have said well, you want to do a coal loader here, you’ve got to go back and renegotiate with HDC or we’ll charge you a price that’s significantly more so that we can ah, ah, extract that value back also. So they were in a very – in terms of progressing they still had to have a lot of 20 negotiations with Government and Government would have clawed back this supposed massive ah, profit that would have occurred. Also this is a regulated asset under the ACCC. This asset is only entitled to a regulated rate of return, whatever it is 10, 12 per cent risk adjusted return. They would not have made a massive bonanza on this as, in the, in the, in what I was thinking was the situation so I didn’t, I never approached it from that perspective and I couldn’t see it from that perspective. My view is that you could make a regulated rate of return on a coal loader because it’s in essence a, a monopoly asset, a declared asset under the Trade Practices Act and they would have had to have renegotiations with HDC or NPC they would have 30 bene able to extract back the value that was lost because of the fact that it was put out to tender as warehousing um, and not put out as a coal terminal. All right. Thank you. Now what did – in November 2010 what did – please try and keep (not transcribable) find it necessary what did you understand of the financial position of Ms Wills?---I understood that Ms Wills was under financial pressure, yeah, and she needed a job. All right. 40 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tripodi, did you become aware that the question of the origins of the pamphlet became a police investigation? ---Sometime in April I think that was. April of 2011?---From memory, yeah, I don’t think I - - - You became aware of that?---Yeah, towards the end of April I think, yeah.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6674T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

Did you at any stage suggest to Ms Wills or take it upon yourself to go to the police and explain how the pamphlet came about?---No. Why not?---I, I wasn’t ah, contacted by the police. That’s not what I asked you. You regarded this pamphlet as a legitimate community consultation exercise, you knew that it had become the subject of a police investigation. Did it occur to you to go to the police and tell them how the pamphlet came about?---No. 10 Why not?---‘Cause I hadn’t commissioned it. What’s that got to do with it? You knew what the circumstances - - -? ---Sorry, I’m not the owner of - - - - - - were?---I’m not the owner of the pamphlet and I wasn’t contacted by the police. All right. Go on, Mr Neil. 20 MR NEIL: Thank you, Commissioner. Do you want to say anything more about the take or pay contracts and the open access to the coal loaders?---No. Thank you. Did you – I’m almost finished, Commissioner, we’re just checking our notes. In the private hearing page 1568, can you tell the Commissioner that you had contact with Williams after the, on other matters, not solely the coal loader note?---Yes, but I think further on in my evidence I, I corrected it and said I also had discussions with Mr Williams 30 about the coal loader. All right.---It’s probably blacked out. And did you tell the Commissioner about, for example, 1571 Raby Road the Golf Course Place?---Yes, I think I offered that, yes. Thank you. Now, Mr Tripodi, I think I’ve covered everything I want to ask you but is there anything that you consider important that I haven’t asked you about?---I mean, I would have loved an opportunity to read my private 40 transcript but I don’t really think I’ve had that chance. Would you like to have a chance to do that? THE COMMISSIONER: Too late for that Mr Neil. MR NEIL: I was going to get it this morning.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6675T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there’s nothing in there that is, that really, if there was, I’m sure Counsel Assisting would have asked about it. THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. MR NEIL: I’m happy to leave it on that basis. Thank you Mr Tripodi. MR ISAACS: Commissioner, there’s only one matter that arises. Just this matter of clarification, the date I referred Mr Tripodi to was 18 April, two 10 days before the email, not August I think my learned friend Mr Neil may have misheard me and said August, it was 18 April, but I don’t know if that will change. THE COMMISSIONER: This is the discussion with Mr Cadell in relation to the Buildev strategy team? MR ISAACS: No, in relation to that email and its attachment. MR NEIL: Well Commissioner Tyson and I both must have got it wrong 20 because we thought it was August. MR ISAACS: I apologise for that, but it was April. MR NEIL: Can you recall anything in April about Mr Cadell?---Only what I’ve said. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Watson. MR WATSON: Mr Tripodi, you gave us a very long and detailed answer 30 about the profitability of Buildev’s proposal at Mayfield, do you remember giving that answer?---Yes. Why were you turning your mind to issues about the potential profitability of Buildev’s proposal?---Because I couldn’t understand why they were so keen to build a coal loader. Well, why were you thinking about the potential profit and going into such detail about it?---I’m sorry, I wasn’t, I said because - - - 40 What was it to you about whether it was profitable or not?---Sorry - - - I thought it was all about policy.---It is about policy. Well, no, if it’s about policy why do you care whether Buildev’s going to make money or not?---So what I said to - - - No answer my question.---I am.

01/09/2014 TRIPODI 6676T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)/(ISAACS)/(WATSON)

If it’s all about policy, why do you care about whether Buildev will make a profit?---Well, sorry, I don’t care but did I exercise my mind on the issue, yes I did and I’ll tell you why – because I couldn’t understand why they wanted to build a coal loader when they could get their coal exported through PWCS and I actually expressed that view at the meeting on 19 November. You were given legal advices obtained by Buildev weren’t you?---I can’t I remember whether I was given legal advice. 10 Could you have been given legal advices - - -?---I don’t remember - - - - - -obtained by Buildev?---I don’t remember on what issues - - - No, you must have misunderstood my question. Could you, could it have happened, I suppose everything could happen?---Yes, that’s right, everything could happen. So just thinking about it now, did you give legal advices to Ian McNamara which had been obtained by you from Buildev?---Legal advices? 20 Yes.---I don’t recall doing that. All right. Could you have done that sort of thing?---(No audible reply) Could you have done that sort of thing?---Everything’s possible, I don’t recall doing it. Oh no, let’s put out things which are at the extreme edge. In terms of real things that you might have done, could you have been supplying legal 30 advices to Ian McNamara, they being legal advices you’d got in turn from Buildev?---Potentially. Why would you do that?---May be I was asked to pass it on, I don't know. But why? Why would Buildev be asking you to pass on legal advices?---I don’t remember, I don't know. Remember the evidence you gave about Warwick Watkins?---Yes. 40 That was false wasn’t it?---I don’t, sorry, what was the evidence, which one, which evidence, Friday or before? All right. Listen, what you said about not discussing Warwick Watkins, that was false wasn’t it?---Not discussing Warwick Watkins? Yes, yes.


THE COMMISSIONER: Is this the dot point on the document? MR WATSON: Yes. THE WITNESS: I can’t remember, sorry. MR WATSON: Oh, you did remember before that was something about which you were clear, one of the very few things. THE COMMISSIONER: Let’s just make sure we’re on the same page. 10 You recall Mr Neil took you to the document which was a combination of dot points about things that were said to have been discussed at the meeting and you said, that of all the things on that page of which mostly you couldn’t recall, but you definitely knew that there were two things, two dot point on that page that were not the subject of discussion at the meeting.---Yes. One of them was a reference to discussing with Warwick Watkins?---No, I thought they were going to go and discuss it with Warwick Watkins. 20 MR WATSON: It’s really whether or not Mr Watkins was raised at the meeting that was the issue?---Well, no it’s not, that’s not the question you asked me. Okay. Well, we’ll have a look back at it.---Okay. I tender those call charge records, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit Z66. 30 #EXHIBIT Z66 - CALL CHARGE RECORDS BETWEEN JOSEPH TRIPODI AND ERIC ROOZENDAAL MR WATSON: Mr Tripodi is finished with his evidence could we just do this, I’d just asked that Mr Tripodi not be excused we’ve got some other witnesses coming. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well, Mr Tripodi you can stand 40 down for the time being and we’ll come back to you if we have to. THE WITNESS STOOD DOWN [12.36PM


MR WATSON: Commissioner, Mr O’Mahoney’s going to take Mr Cadell. I note it’s close to lunch but Mr Cadell has been waiting I’m afraid for four days, to give some very short evidence. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cadell if you could come forward please, thank you. MR O'MAHONEY: I call Mr Cadell. THE COMMISSIONER: Just take a seat Mr Cadell. Yes, thank you Mr 10 Isaacs. You’ve explained to him to the effect of the section 38. MR ISAACS: I have and I ask that the direction be made and the witness be affirmed. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Cadell, I just need to confirm with you that you appreciate that the order under section 38 protects you from the use of your answers against you in civil and criminal proceedings but does not protect you should it be found you’ve given false or misleading evidence. Do you understand that? 20 MR CADELL: I understand. THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to section 38 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, I declare that all answers given by this witness and all documents and things produced by this witness during the course of the witness’s evidence at this public inquiry are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection and accordingly there is no need for the witness to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. 30 PURSUANT TO SECTION 38 OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ACT, I DECLARE THAT ALL ANSWERS GIVEN BY THIS WITNESS AND ALL DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PRODUCED BY THIS WITNESS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WITNESS’S EVIDENCE AT THIS PUBLIC INQUIRY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN GIVEN OR PRODUCED ON OBJECTION AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE WITNESS TO MAKE OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR ANSWER GIVEN OR 40 DOCUMENT OR THING PRODUCED. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you wish to be sworn or affirmed, Mr Cadell? MR CADELL: Affirmed if I may. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, have the witness affirmed, please.

01/09/2014 6679T E12/2107/0821

<ROSS PHILLIP CADELL, affirmed [12.37pm] MR O'MAHONEY: What is your full name?---Ah, Ross Phillip Cadell. And what do you do for a living, Mr Cadell?---I’m now employed as a Regional Coordinator at the New South Wales Nationals. How long have you been in that role for?---Since 2 May, 2011. 10 And what was your job as at the time of the State Election campaign in 2010/2011?---It was – I don’t have a start date but I started um, beginning of November-ish, end of October as the campaign manager for the Cessnock campaign for the New South Wales Nationals. And prior to that role had you had any offices or positions within the National Party?---I had not. I joined the Party about the same time. What was your background?---Ah, for the previous ah, back to 2000 was sports marketing and um, also a job with a community telco and prior to that 20 I was employed by the Vice President of the Liberal Party working on campaigns and working for his family businesses. All right. Mr Cadell, we’ve got some information that in 2011 you provided some advice to a company, Buildev. Could you tell us about how that came about?---Yeah. So ah, post the election period Ann Wills and I had been discussing a potential of what we were going to do as my role, it looked like I was increasingly losing the Cessnock campaign which ultimately happened, there was some concern over my future employment and one of the things that was put forward is maybe we could ah, get together in 30 consultancy and look for work in either community advocating or ah, lobbying and she came to the table with ah, the potential for doing work for Hunter Ports and that was an initial discussion document about how that might work. Um, I constructed that ah, an email, our frame, a framing of treatment of how I would go with a community consultant and, and sent that out. All right. Well, we’ll come to that document in a minute but could you just tell us what the remit was for your role, what were you told about what was being asked of you?---Ah, she just asked for assistance in preparing it, there 40 was no ah, there was no funds, there was the potential that something might come of it and ah, I was looking around at different options at that time. But you’ve accept I’m sure, Mr Cadell, that to provide assistance in preparing a strategy document you needed to know something about what it is you’d be writing about?---Yes. And who was it that gave you that information?---Um, all the information came between Ann um,. Buildev and Mr Tripodi.

01/09/2014 CADELL 6680T E12/2107/0821 (O’MAHONEY)

All right. Well how about – if the witness could be shown please Exhibit Z10 page 161. Just while you’re opening that, Mr Cadell, page 161 how long before putting this document together had you been engaging with anyone about some work for Buildev?---Um, the original contact with Buildev was back in I believe 2009 about a race track that they were proposing to build at Whittingham. All right. Well put, put other - - -?---Sorry. 10 - - - matters aside - - -?---Right. - - - in relation to the coal terminal?---Only since post the election I would say post April ’11 there may have been other correspondence in general about Ann saying they were one of the targets she could go after but only after the election. So we can assume can we that this document that we’re looking at now at page 161 that was put together not long after you were first approached? ---That's correct. 20 Okay. If you look at this document you’ll see that it’s from you - - -?---Yes. - - - titled Hunter Ports it’s addressed to Ms Wills, Mr Tripodi, David Sharpe and a Darren Williams?---Yes. What did you know about Mr Tripodi’s involvement in respect of this project?---Um, Ann after initially saying – Ann introduced him as potentially coming on board as senior advisor because of his knowledge, um, it was, it seemed a good idea. 30 What did she say to you about, could you flesh that out a little bit, was that a conversation you had with her on the phone?---Um, may have been in person, I caught up with her a lot after the campaign um, so yeah. So what did she say to you about the prospect of Mr Tripodi as you say coming on board?---She suggested it, um, she said that his knowledge would be invaluable um, and it worked from a Government relations stand point I thought had hassles with his political history with who we might be trying to convince but his knowledge was good and I think that’s why I 40 looked at um, a difference face of the thing in the (not transcribable) document. Now we know based on a few sources of information that Mr Tripodi had been engaged in with this project for some time as at April 2011 what if anything did Ms Wills tell you about what he’d already done in relation to the project?---No, nothing I was not aware of it.


You’ve sent this email to Mr Tripodi, was - did Ms Wills ask you to do that?—Um, I have volunteered to do that, I spoke um, to Mr Tripodi a couple of days before about this and got some knowledge for it and I’m not sure how I got the email, either from Ann or Mr Tripodi but Ann or I decided to send it. It’s not a memory test, Mr Cadell, but doing the best you can what was that conversation with Mr Tripodi, what did he say, what did you say?---Um, I spoke about the issues surrounding it, it’s before you go into it what were the, what were the obstacles, what were the potentials, um, what were the 10 things as he understood it and they form I think the large part of some of the negatives and some of the key points down the bottom on that document. And was that – so can we take it that the information ‘cause there is some detailed information I think you’d accept that?---Yes. - - - do you, in this document? Can we take it that to the extent there is detailed information in this document, it was largely sourced from Mr Tripodi?---There was three sources of information. Ann supplied the um, the who, what, where’s in relation to allies, advisory, um, I supplied the 20 target staff and the framing of the previous page on 161 how I would characterise a campaign and between Ann and Joe came the negative arguments and key points so that was the break up. On 161 there’s a reference to fluff. Is it fair to say, I mean you could call that the visionary type motherhood statement part of the two pages?---Yes. That was your work?---Yes. But the balance of it, the detailed information apart from the who and what 30 came from MR Tripodi, is that right?---And Ann combined. I can’t speak – I, I supplied to target staff. All right. And how many conversations did you have with Mr Tripodi in putting this document together?---I believe openly one but I may have had two. And in those conversations what did he say to you about, I mean did he demonstrate an awareness of the site and the issues surrounding it?---Oh, yes. 40 And did he sign off or give you permission to put his name forward as a senior advisor?---I can’t say specifically that happened but um, I sent this email and I received no, no, what the answer or - - - Put it this way you didn’t get a phone call afterwards. You sent this email to him you didn’t get a phone call from him afterwards saying what on earth are you doing - - -?---Correct.


- - - putting my name forward in a document of this kind?---Correct. Tell us looking at the document over the page there’s a mention there too his role as senior advisor. Was that ever scoped out in terms of what that was likely to entail?---No. Um, it was just simply he was way better at this than me and Ann and so that was where it was going to end up and this, this document was for discussion following on from this, this is not a final document this was a work in progress. 10 Okay. Could I just get you to explain, when you say he was way better at this than me and Ann that could mean a lot of things. Can you tell us what it means in your head?---He’s an ex-Minister he’s Minister for Ports, he, he’s got, had more runs on the board than Ann and I would ever have and um, he just, he should have been higher than us. Sorry, was the thinking he would be a real asset to have on board?---I thought so. On page 161 there are two gentlemen cc’d on this email Mr Sharpe and Mr 20 Williams?---Yes. What interaction did you have with them?---I spoke to them at least David prior to this going out to confirm it was a possibility, um, how it was put to me was that they had their Government relations team but um, Hunter Ports did not and there was a name that came in evidence I couldn’t recall it before Shane Ban begins with a B, um, who this was going to be put to as I understood it. And did they, did they talk to you about who the team was likely to be in 30 respect of the project?---No, this was our, our pitch to them this wasn’t a, this is who it is this was a, this could happen document and I don’t recall discussing who was on it with them at that stage. Okay. Well when you say it was our pitch to them who’s the our in that sentence?---It was Ann and I largely drove it, Ann um, obviously spoke to Joe um, in that lead up but that was, that was it. But looking at the advisory team the three names listed there - - -?---Yes. 40 - - - you, Ms Wills and Mr Tripodi was it the case that this was you guys as a team pitching to this project?---As a potential I believe it was, yes. And you’ll see beneath those three names there’s a list of names there alongside allies/role. Do you see that?---Yes. Including Mr Owen, Mr Vaile, Mr Gallacher?---Yes.


What was said to you about those individuals?---That came from Ann, um, and I just typed it and put it down I had no interaction with any of those people. Um, previous page I was talking about Vaile because he was a more friendly face to the Coalition um, in the role but that was just, I was told and I typed. And further down there’s target staff and possible conduits?---Yeah. There’s a few names there that are associated with the National Party. Do you see that?---Yes. 10 Were they names you put forward?---Yes, they were. So that was your input - - -?---Yes. - - - here. Was that courtesy of your positon within the National Party at the time?---Yeah, and working in the, the campaign and just knowing one of the, one of the irons in the fire in early April was actually becoming a staffer and um, seeing who got jobs was something I was looking at because I might have wanted some of those jobs but yeah I became aware of who got 20 what. And I think it’s fair to say from looking at 161 that you appreciated that Mr Tinkler was at least behind Buildev in this proposal to some extent?---Um, I knew the coal loader was all for Nathan, yes. And at this time were you aware that Mr Tinkler or companies that he was behind were donors to the National Party?---Not at this time, no. When did you become so aware?---I think after ah, in May ah, it became 30 aware that they’d bought a national engagement package after I’d started and questions were asked about the shareholding of um, Buildev by Nathan Tinkler and I think that resulted in the Nationals actually writing to the Electoral Funding Authority and saying we think that this 5,000 is not kosher and should be given back or taken by you our something. All right. Moving along, Mr Cadell, this email was sent, and you’ll see the signoff line, “Let’s get together tomorrow and discuss?”---Yep. What came of this? You sent it off, what was the next thing that happened? 40 ---Ah, I met with Ann the next day and forwarded it to another email address um, that then came Easter, over Easter I decided to move with the office that I’d had with the Nationals so I withdrew and I am unsure whether um, anyone proceeded with this document in any way, shape or form.


They’re all the questions, Commissioner. Thanks, Mr Cadell. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cadell, could I just take you back to the second page of the document?---Yes. If we could have that on the screen. And at the bottom of that page there’s a heading, “Key Negative Arguments?”---Yes. And I take it that they were negative arguments to the coal loader proposal that you needed to meet in order to lobby for that position?---Yes. 10 And you see that it says “Will negatively impact the business case for T4 and against planning policy for the state?” Do you, do you know where those, that summary of the Key Negative Arguments came from?---It came from Ann, and/or Joe. I can’t be specific as to who gave what. Um, they were notes I took over a phone conversation and put them down. Right. Thank you. Yes, Mr Moses. MR MOSES: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Mr Cadell, I act for Mr 20 Gallacher?---G’day. Mr Gallacher, can you hear me?---Yes. You’ve made public statements about this email which is Exhibit Z10, haven’t you, previously?---Yes, I was asked by the Sun Herald ah, two Sundays ago. Yes. I think they were published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 August. You stated that the email was a “Failed pitch for business written 30 for Ann Wills as a job tender for a $50,000 contract with Mr Tinkler’s Hunter Ports?”---I don’t believe it was $50,000, I don’t think numbers ever came into it. I thought post-this that um, Hunter Ports employed um, another agency on about $50,000. Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: So that wasn’t a reference to Ms Wills, that was someone else actually getting a, getting a consultancy on, on the back of this proposal?---Ma’am, yeah, I think another Government relations agency got 40 some work with Hunter Port. Right. MR MOSES: And I think you said, didn’t you, that the reason you were doing this was that Ann Wills was a close friend of yours and you were trying to provide her with assistance?---Yes.

01/09/2014 CADELL 6685T E12/2107/0821 (O’MAHONEY)/(MOSES)

And you said it was, “A pitch thing that we constructed but we didn’t get a cent out of it?”---Correct. Correct. And you said that you included Mr Gallacher and Mr Owen’s name in the outline sheet which is at page 162 at Exhibit Z10. This is what you told the paper, “Because I would have been told this by Ms Wills or Mr Williams?”---Yes. Did you say that because you did not have a recollection of who told you to 10 put the names in the document?---Ah, at the time I believe it was Ann but after being able to go back and look, that was the second interaction I had, but yeah, at the time that was the best of my recollection. Okay. Thank you. I think your evidence here today, is this right, that you say that Ms Wills gave this information to you. Correct?---I believe so. And this is the case isn’t it, you never spoke to Mr Gallacher about the contents of this document prior to preparing it or sending it?---No, I did not. 20 And you have not subsequently spoken to Mr Gallacher about the contents of the document, correct?---I have not. Yes, thank you. No further questions, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Any other questions of Mr Cadell? Yes, Mr Neil. MR NEIL: Just shortly, Mr Cadell. At the time were you a close friend of Ms Wills?---Yes, I was. 30 And were you just trying to help her out with something she brought to you? ---There was some, there was some potential personal benefit as well, but overriding I would have done this for Ann, even though I withdrew later, I will still hoping she would get something. And the whole proposal sank when you went elsewhere?---Ah, it possibly did. It didn’t go – I don’t, am not aware of it going anywhere. All right. Pardon me. Do you have any recollection of where you were when you spoke to Mr Tripodi on this one or maybe more times? 40 ---Ah, the only one time I’m relying on was in Ann Wills’ office in Lambton. And did you ring Mr Tripodi?---Yes, I rang Mr Tripod. What, at the suggestion of Ms Wills?---Sorry, no, no.

01/09/2014 CADELL 6686T E12/2107/0821 (MOSES)/(NEIL)

At the suggestion of Ms Wills?---Ms Wills and I were there together, it was I who, who phoned Joe on that time. All right. Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: No other questions? Anything, Mr Watson, sorry, Mr, sorry, Mr O’Mahoney. MR O’MAHONEY: Nothing, Commissioner. 10 THE COMMISSIONER: No. Thank you, Mr Cadell, you can step down, you are excused. MR WATSON: We’re especially grateful to Mr Cadell, he really did get mucked around by us in terms of times. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I’m sorry, Mr- - - MR WATSON: I’m sorry that that- - - 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr Cadell. THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: We’ve been a bit poor on the scheduling front. Well adjourn for lunch and resume at 10 to 2.00. Thank you. THE WITNESS EXCUSED [12.54pm] 30 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.54pm]

01/09/2014 CADELL 6687T E12/2107/0821 (NEIL)

12/2107/021pub06607 credo/spicer public 01/09/014 pp … · 2014-09-02 · at sydney . on monday 1...

Documents