Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

16 July 2017

Treasurer sparks free market concerns over Domain Central $6 million revamp

Image: QIC Domain Central site at Garbutt 
The Queensland Treasurer announced in an official press release that works on a revamp of over 1100m2 of the Domain Central shopping centre car park at Garbutt will create 110 jobs for the City as two new buildings are constructed.

Treasurer Curtis Pitt is being accused of deliberately misrepresenting his directions to the government-owned investment company to the Townsville people as a “vote of confidence” by the global investments entity in the Townsville real estate market.

The $6 million investment by the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) subsidiary QIC Properties Pty Ltd (QICP) will accommodate six new retailers.

The retail shopping centre has existing leases in place with national retail brands such as JB Hi Fi, Harvey Norman, Freedom, Nick Scalli, Snooze, Trade Secret and various retailers.

A new convenience supermarket run by IGA will anchor the new development. The project is expected to create employment for approximately 60 people during construction and 50 jobs in an ongoing capacity.

The commercial investment is a welcome relief for Townsville City Council (TCC) and the Labor state government who have come under pressure to arrest the impact of a sustained unemployment rate of over 10 percent, where local businesses have fallen victim to catastrophic bankruptcy, prompted 1000's of residents to leave the city.

Leaders in the North Queensland city have been caught off guard by the depth of the decline in employment opportunities for local workers and business traders.

The Rudd government’s resource rent tax and a crash in global commodity prices contributed to the mining downturn and large industrial employers such as Clive Palmer's Queensland Nickel refineries were faced with increased tax liabilities and declining export revenues.

Local leadership and media narrative

In addition to this investment, the TCC has also approved an application for development of further buildings by QICP on the Duckworth Street site car park area. However, the details of the second project are yet to be released. The portfolio manager for QIC, Charles Occhino, would not disclose which brands would be moving into the shopping precinct.

State Labor MP Scott Stewart commented to Rachel Riley from the Townsville Bulletin that "the best thing about this project is that it's a local business that's involved with building this project."

As the Townsville Bulletin article minimised the entity as QIC, an acronym for Queensland Investment Corporation, no attempt was made by News Ltd's flagship North Queensland paper to inform the readers that QIC is owned by the State government. No comment was sort from an opposition point of view. A fact of interest to the community of Townsville that the Treasurer's official press release had disclosed.

Was this a simple case of mistaken omission or was the acronym left undefined to accentuate the message of the incumbent political interests?

Mayor Cr. Jenny Hill also commented to the Townsville Bulletin reporter that "Projects like these are vital for our community and we're thrilled to see local builders, workers and business owners taking advantage of the opportunities being created through this development", she said.

Domain Central was originally developed in 2007 by local development company Lancini Developments with approximately 1800 car parks included in the plans.

Public disclosure of the sale could not be verified as any media release or local news coverage at the time of the sale could be referenced from inquiries. However, Mr. Pitt said in his press release formally announcing the QIC revamp that "it was acquired by QIC in July 2015."

Is QIC being used for political ends by the Treasurer?

In the Queensland Treasurer's official press release about the significant development, "the new investment was a great vote of confidence in the Townsville region," he said. This is all about Queensland investing in Queensland, and it's great to see the Townsville community being supported by this QIC investment," the Treasurer was quoted.

Image: Queensland Treasurer The Hon. Mr. Curtis Pitt

QIC's Statement of Corporate Intent (SoCI) defines the cost to income ratio (CTIR) as an indication of favourable or unfavourable performance. A lower rate is more favourable. From 2007 to 2015, the CTIR dropped from 88 percent to 74 percent, the SoCI stated.

A review of the SoCI identified two specific real estate assets were erased in the report (understood to be politically or market sensitive). In reference to these investments, it reported the CTIR dropped to 71% for the 2014 to 2015 financial year.

However, QIC forecast that the CTIR will increase to 78% in the 2015-2016 financial year due to a "significant investment".

The QIC property business has been vertically integrated into its Global Real Estate (GRE) business model even though its fee recovery model is vastly different to its core investments business model.
The QIC report said it "does significantly impact QIC's Cost to Income Ratio. By excluding its property management entity, QIC's cost to income would drop to below 70% in the 2015-2016 budget."

The question for the Treasurer Mr. Pitt is; what are the property assets that have been erased? Is Domain Central included in the erased accounts?

If so, why did the Treasurer represent to the Townsville community that the acquisition of a significant asset was a QIC vote of confidence in the City when the Treasurer himself could have directed the GOC to make the investment?

QIC Properties Accountability

The QICP 2016 annual financial statement reported that the company is managed by four non-executive directors. The independently audited report said, "no income is received by any directors".
However, the same report also declared "the company may purchase or provide goods and services to/from entities related to key management personal related entities."

The terms and conditions of transactions that occur between management service entities "were no more favourable than these available or similar transactions to non-related entities on an arm's length basis," the report declared.

The company’s other related parties expenses were declared at $83.7 million in 2016, $20 million more than the company's 2015 financial statement, for property management and other fees.
The purchase of goods and services by the GOC entity was declared as zero or not applicable. However, the state of Queensland purchased $1,015,000 in goods and services through the QICP entity, the company reported.

The company also discloses that "there are no fixed terms for the repayment of loans between related entities and the company and is interest-free. Outstanding balances are unsecured and are repayable in cash." The corporate entity's report went on and said, "All other transactions are made on normal commercial terms and conditions and at market rates".

Audit and Risk Management

The report declared that the financial statement is independently audited by the Queensland Audit Office and complies with the federal Corporations legislation.

QIC's Statement of Corporate Intent from 2015-2016 must be consistent with its 2015-2020 Corporate Plan agreed to by the shareholding Ministers in accordance with Chapter 3, Part 7 of the GOC Act.

The GOC Minister sets the guidelines as subordinate legislation for the QIC Corporate Plan. The QIC Board must comply with the Ministers and Treasurers request or directions urgently, the statement prescribed.

Every director and every officer, employees or agents of the GOC is indemnified and held harmless of the Corporation in pursuing their duties in good faith if they comply with the GOC Act.

The board level Audit and Risk Committee is the oversight "line of defence" attended by KPMG and the internal auditors, Deloitte. External auditors KMPG and the Queensland Audit Office are the 3rd line of defence in QIC's enterprise risk management framework.

The QIC enterprise risk management framework has an oversight expectation, a 4th line of defence, consisting of a Board, 11 committees and a 3rd line of defence being executive managers, employees, risk management teams, KPI reports, staff and contractors.

So the Audit and Risk Committee and internal and external auditors are the first and last line of defence for GIC and other State GOCs in managing any threats of unacceptable risks.

Each member of the Audit Committee has an entitlement to rely on QIC management and on external professionals and "may assume the accuracy" of such information is correct unless they are aware of any reasonable grounds to question its accuracy.

Auditors of QIC have unfettered access to the Audit Committee via the committee chairperson.
Although directly unconnected to the Queensland GOC's, an Australian Senate Inquiry in 2015 found that multinational corporations were avoiding tax and the "big four" accounting and auditing firms were advising the corporations on the accounting methods.

Jeffrey Knapp, Lecturer in Accounting at the University of NSW said, "In December 2015, the Parliament introduced new laws so that the significant global multinational corporations must henceforth furnish general purpose accounts to the Australian Tax Office (ATO). In effect, the Parliament had to bypass the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the "big four" accounting and audit firms; Ernest & Young (EY), Deloitte, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) and KPMG."

The multinational corporations had switched the accounting practices from "general purpose" to "special purpose" which required compliance with five standards instead of forty.

The QIC financial reports confirm that equity accounting practices are applied. The use of general purpose accounting standards could not be confirmed as the GOC did not provide a definition as to whether the equity method it uses is a general, special method or neither.

Nevertheless, QIC applies accounting practices through the AASB and applies an "equity method" of accounting. Accounting fees of $389,603 were accounted for by GIC in its 2015 financial statement.

Commercial property implications

Stockland Limited, owner of Stockland shopping centre at Aitkenvale and Dexus Limited, owner of Willows Shopping Centre at Kirwan, could not provide a comment about the 100 percent government owned entity investing in real estate assets in the same Townsville marketplace in direct competition with its publically listed businesses.

Townsville City Council also announced recently that it has created a new development corporation.
The move by the local government authority said it is willing to exchange the value of the land it owns at Woodstock, 40 klms west of Townsville, for a shareholding equity stake in the United States private investment consortium led by Boston Energy and Innovation (BEI).


Townsville's commercial property vacancy rates are hovering around 20 percent. Adding additional supply to an already struggling real estate market could present a further unfavourable risk to the commercial leasing market, unfavourably impacting local investors.

So questions about whether the State government provided requests and directions to the QIC Board to acquire the Lancini Development's Domain Central real estate asset in July 2015 remain unanswered and outstanding.

The inconvenient truth for the State government is that the GIC purchased the premium industrial retail site at the very beginning of the Queensland Treasurer and Premier’s scheduled approval of the five year Corporate Plan and Statement of Corporate Intent.

The GOC Act sets the timeframe for shareholding ministers to approve of the Statement of Corporate Intent and Corporate Plan. Approval must be completed within two months of the beginning of the new financial year.

Due to the coincidental timing of the acquisition, it raises serious questions within the commercial real estate market in Townsville about the Treasurer's press release announcing the “vote of confidence” from the GIC which instead finds the GICP management business a costly and unfitting business for its core investment skill set.

Comparable GOC model

The Queensland government has also been called out recently by Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, accusing the Labor state government of being the blame for discrepancies in Queensland power prices.

"In Queensland, your state-owned generators - and this is a very strong allegation based on the evidence - have been gaming the system," Mr. Frydenburg said to an ABC reporter.

"What they've been doing is holding back their supply and then late into the period into which electricity prices are set, bidding in artificially high prices." the Federal Energy Minister said.

The Australian Energy Regular has confirmed late price bidding has impacted the energy prices in the Australian energy market.

The state-owned power generators such as Stanwell are regulated and managed within the same governance and risk management framework as the GIC.

Here too the State Treasurer and Premier have shareholding powers to direct and request guidelines be adopted by the Board and management of the GOC that could result in positive revenue opportunities contributing to comparable dividends to the government's treasury, and consequently, creating favourable political perceptions on the eve of a State election.

Construction of the Domain Central revamp is expected to be completed by the end of the year and will include a bus transport hub.

Further reading:

Council chambers development exposes false international bank representation







Free Subscription Offer

You’re fired! The best summer. Bugger – Go Digital. Join TREN. It’s Free. Explore more..
Click on image above to Join TREN
How to stay up-to-date

Do you have an opinion about government owned entities investment intervention in real estate market?

The TREN community wants to hear your story.

Become a subscriber to TREN eMgazine and be the first to receive local breaking stories, analysis and opinions on the Townsville real estate market.


20 June 2017

Council chambers development exposes false international bank representation

Image: Team Jenny Hill and Councillors
Photo thanks: Townsville Bulletin
Breaking story

International banks are setting up global networks of "intermediaries" like the NSW-based Eastbrook Medical Centres (EMC) who have purchased the old Thuringowa council chambers site in Kirwan.

They plan to develop 132 residential units and to recruit finance "actors" in the community to team up with trusted professional partners as part of a global "finance innovation" scheme targeting non-profit organisations.

Pressure is escalating on the Townsville City Council (TCC) over these plans to develop the old Thuringowa council chambers site with seventy residents so far registering their objections against the development.

Community in the dark

If that isn’t enough for the TCC to cope with in the fog of its bitter organisational restructure, local Councillors are being called to answer questions involving powerful international banks seeking to profit from some of Townsville's most vulnerable people receiving support from the non-profit sector.

The resident’s inquiries are being ignored and left unanswered.

This is not the type of intermediaries people may think are used by large companies and trusts to plant funds in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes in Australia. Nor is it intended to siphon money away from companies that can't pay their debts to creditors.

However, the underlying methods of layering accountability, outsourcing services and, masking potentially unethical practices to raise funding, are deceptive communication tactics that are real, whilst aiming to secure the perception of the public in believing local representatives are honest and trustworthy.

Meanwhile, the seventy residents’ distrust in local Councillors’ representation concerning the unit development so far has raised even more questions, to say the least.

Could these communication tactics be what is keeping the Kirwan public in the dark?

The middlemen

EMC has 16 medical centres located across three states in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, including two on the Gold Coast at Burleigh Waters and Southport, and one at North Mackay.

Individual directors and executives of EMC have excellent academic and professional credentials and there would be no reason for concern about the management of the company.

On the EMC website, the company said it "aims to be the best distribution for healthcare allowing patients to access a range of allied health practitioners and specialists who supplement the family general practice."

The business strategy of the Townsville-bound health service seeking "social investment" organisations is to "partner with exceptional doctors who share their vision of integrating entrepreneurship with social investment and partnership doctors".

However, a direct impact from an environmental, safety and peaceful enjoyment perspective concerning the freedom of community groups using the adjoining sound shell, children's playground and car parking area to access Dan Gleeson park is being fought on one front.

Local voices

In these engagements, the Thuringowa Brass Band is ready to "sound the horn over plans for 132 units to be developed next to its practice area", Association Secretary Mr. Cutler said to the Townsville Bulletin on 5th April this year.

This week Mr. Cutler confirmed he has not received direct contact from the TCC or local Councillors. "Council is not responding to our concerns", Mr. Cutler said.

Also, Mr. Ian Frazer from Kirwan wrote a scathing letter to the editor of the Townsville Bulletin on April 5th saying "council owes it to Kirwan and beyond to rein in this plan."

The TCC is considering the development application from EMC on the old Thuringowa Council site at Kirwan, directly opposite the Kirwan State High School on Thuringowa Drive.

Deputy Mayor Les Walker commented to the Townsville Bulletin and said."The development fits well with the City plan" but has not returned multiple calls from the Brass Band Association or TREN researchers.

On a much broader and concerning front, serious questions are being asked about foreign banks, insurance companies and foundations that are unaccountable to the Australian public.

These companies are organising to extract profits and capital returns from unsuspecting non-profit organisations including charities in Townsville North Queensland.

Global disruption and backlash

It seems the TCC and all levels of governments are behind an alleged Marxist-style "social investment" agenda in Australia and that Townsville has landed fair and square in the cross hairs of this global commercial profit-making and government savings scheme.

The political champion of the UK model, ex-Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after the UK people voted at a referendum to exit from the European Union because they felt they were losing their social and cultural identity.

The British Prime Minister pledged to support closer integration with European countries, but the majority of the UK people disagreed and felt their society was being dismissed and losing relevance in a big Europe.

Creative “social investment” initiatives have been developing in the UK for the past 16 years and the people of England have had enough.

A UK-based think tank, 
Society Exchange, has condemned the scheme because it is "failing charities". They provided an alarming report to the UK government claiming multiple reasons why the most vulnerable people are being neglected.

It is alleged EMC is also an "actor" in the UK-based "social investment" initiative where funding for social housing, charities, non-profit sector and non-government organisations are being funded with private capital and government grants because their advisory committee is being chaired by one of the architects and founders of the UK scheme, 
Sir Ronald Cohan.

EMC has made it clear they are seeking “social investment” partners in Townsville.

To get these funds working, fifty percent of the risk is being sold to individual shareholders and a significant amount is funded by government grants through Trusts legalised by government heads and managed by capital fund managers.

What is driving change?

In Australia, the Social Enterprise Development and Investment Fund (SEDIF) was established to fund employment and welfare improvement initiatives but was ended in 2016.

The SEDIF model, however, continues and is managed by three private fund managers in Australia including Social Ventures Australia, Foresters Community Finance, and Social Enterprise Finance.

These fund managers were set up with a non-refundable $20 million from the federal government. The SEDIF model is based on advice from the American-based Rockefeller Foundation and Monitor Institute in the United States.

All states and most politicians are thirsting for funding wherever they can get it. TCC has proven its desperation for funding, and now the local Councillors avoid talking with frustrated local residents about this escalating set of concerns.

This thirst for money could be compromising the integrity of executive government, operational supply, accountability and even the sovereignty of the entire country.

International networks that fundraise for “social investment” opportunities are very sophisticated. New funding initiatives are advertised on a global database to attract capital from superannuation funds, international social banks, corporately wealthy individuals as well as small private investors.

Self-determination rights of the people and social justice is being put at risk. Whether this applies to large-scale social funding policy or gifts of humble access for community groups, seeking certain access to premises to play music, residents feel they are being stonewalled by the politicians whose job it is to represent the people.

Rational view

A Deloitte's Report tabled for the New Zealand government on “social investment” schemes has refrained from the temptation of progressing financial innovations using private capital and potentially handing irreversible control of public resources for its most vulnerable people in society, to banks and private capital interests.

Instead, the NZ government is maintaining the traditional role of government to control social investment programs, unlike the Australian government.

How did the scheme get started in Australia?

A social innovation strategist from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), together with an American consultant, inter-departmental heads, and the expert advisory committee were established to design and road test the "social investment" initiative for Australia.

Lawyers from each government department set up the legal accountability framework and consultants specialising in process improvement produced a report on the success of the SEDIF in Australia titled 
Lessons from the Implementation Process.

False representation

As one who is well versed in reviewing government studies, and having read the "Lessons from the Implementation of SEDIF" document, it becomes evident that the consultants and government committees’ main focus were on how they can satisfy and attract banks to offer capital into social services portfolios.

The heads of department and committee representatives seek private capital on the mutual understanding with the banks, that government grants rendered to the intermediary, are controlled by managed fund and bank executives as defined in the Big Society Capital Articles of Association.

Currently, government grants are issued directly to charities and non-profit organisations and service providers.

Instead of asking what is in the best interest of the Australian people, the community, society as a whole and our cultural values, the government heads learnt in the Lesson of the Implementation Process report, how we can get more money into government social policy initiatives. This was in spite of the ethical, societal and sovereign risks that are seemingly breaking up the fabric of British society now.

If government funding is engaged, the relevant department head or committee assesses the case for granting the “social investment” fund with taxpayer contributions.

The United States 
Social Impact Bonds (SIB) model has now been adopted by the Australian government for the purpose of raising private investment into the non-government, non-profit and charities sector. SIBs have already been sanctioned in NSW for criminal parolees and child protection programs.

The nuances of control and power articulated in the lessons of the SEDIF report are jaded in favour of the big bank's interests like a customer survey seeks to understand buyer needs and behaviours, so more product can be targeted at the consumer and sales targets can be achieved.

The Rockefeller Foundation calls it “innovation finance” and the governments of Australia are down the throats of the domestic and international banks, hook line and sinker.

Trusting the banks and corporations

In light of the most recent federal budget, the government levied taxes from the "big four plus one" of Australia’s banks. Raking in billions of dollars in profits, and now to no one’s surprise, mortgage holders are being slugged higher interest rates to offset the cost of the government's levy on the banks.

So why are banks not working with the government to share some of their massive profits for the good of society? Why are governments seemingly partnering with banks in this way to raise more taxes, yet bank profits are being protected?

The consistency of the banks' policies and behaviour in Australia is focused on one thing, profits. This is certainly the case across the world too. Predicting with a certainty of profits in shareholder returns, the massive salaries paid to executives and fund managers is what drives the bank's priorities and decision making.

So why would the Townsville community trust, international banks and executive fund managers, to serve the interests of vulnerable people like the Kirwan residents who are seeking simple responses to phone calls from local Councillors and getting no satisfaction?

The Secretary of the Thuringowa Brass Band Association said, “If our community funds are going off shore to banks this is a real concern.”

Work in progress

TREN is conducting extensive research into the "social investment" agenda impacting Australia and Townsville North Queensland.

The body of general information on the various players involved, including non-profit organisations and social groups, is extensive across the world. No conclusions have been established yet and individuals or corporations are not being investigated individually.

But the body of stories and events about innovative financing initiatives creating a causal catastrophic conflict of interest between banks, governments and investors is growing.

The consequence of social instability and injustice for charities by big society capital is developing in Townsville North Queensland and the broader Australian community.

For example, ordinary property investors and home owners could be impacted from the structural changes arising from more social housing funding.

Our subscribers will have exclusive access to the research paper when it is completed. 

How to stay up-to-date

Do you have an opinion about "social investment"? The TREN community wants to hear your story.

Become a subscriber to TREN and eMagazine and be the first to receive local breaking stories, analysis and opinions on the Townsville real estate market.

Or Submit a News story that you think TREN eMagazine should cover in the public interest.

Further reading:




Please see a copy of our disclaimer.