Clive Palmer defends offer to drop coal litigation in return for rail corridor

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/clive-palmer-defends-offer-drop-litigation

Version 0 of 1.

Clive Palmer has defended an offer by his company Waratah Coal to abandon litigation against the Queensland government in return for approval of its proposed rail corridor, arguing there was nothing untoward in the proposed legal settlement.

The Palmer United party (PUP) leader – whose party is poised to wield great influence over the fate of bills in the Senate in Canberra from next month – is engaged in a growing war of words with the state Liberal National party (LNP) government relating to his business interests.

Among the terms in the proposed legal settlement was a requirement that the government not “rely upon any existing (and shall not introduce any) law, policy or other initiative without the consent of Waratah which would otherwise obstruct, hinder or delay the development of coal projects in the Galilee Basin or prejudice Waratah” for three years.

Queensland’s deputy premier, Jeff Seeney, has referred allegations about Palmer to the state’s corruption watchdog, the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

The referral followed an interview with the ABC on Friday in which Seeney accused Palmer of handing the government in 2012 “a draft bill that would give him the exclusive right to build a port and a railway and have control of the Galilee Basin”.

Palmer, now the federal MP for Fairfax, recently launched defamation action against the premier, Campbell Newman, and has flagged similar action against Seeney, questioning why the deputy premier had waited so long to act on the allegations.

The dispute relates to Waratah’s China First coal project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, including a proposed rail line to Abbot Point export terminal.

Seeney said Palmer’s decision to create the PUP was “all about seeking revenge for the fact that he was not able to get the special treatment from our government that he sought”.

“He sought that special treatment in exchange for campaign funding; he then sought that special treatment in some sort of a crazy deal to withdraw a number of supreme court actions that he had taken,” Seeney told reporters in Brisbane on Tuesday.

Seeney announced in June 2012 that the state government would support the north-south rail corridor proposed by an alternative proponent: the consortium of Gina Rinehart’s company Hancock Coal and the Indian firm GVK.

Palmer’s Waratah Coal subsequently launched litigation against government agencies, Seeney and the state treasurer, Tim Nicholls. Seeney has now released “settlement terms” proposed by Waratah in early 2013.

The three-page document suggested that Waratah would “discontinue all current litigation” in the Queensland Supreme Court and “release the government from all current claims that Waratah has or might currently have with respect to the litigation concerning Waratah’s China First Coal Project”.

According to the proposed terms, Waratah and the government would “issue a joint media statement to the effect that the parties have resolved all issues currently in dispute between them on mutually satisfactory terms and have agreed to cooperate with one another in order to develop the project for the benefits of the people of Queensland”.

If the settlement was finalised, Waratah and the government would not publicly “disparage one another” regarding the facts of the project, litigation and settlement.

The terms would commit the government to “arrange for approval by the governor in council of the Waratah rail corridor … as an ‘infrastructure facility of significance’” and seek to obtain parliament’s ratification of the settlement deed within six months.

For three years the government would agree not to “commence any litigation, judicial or administrative applications or to seek any orders or declarations from a court against Waratah, Professor Palmer and their respective associates, related parties, directors, officers and agents”, according to the document.

Seeney said the demand for approvals as part of the settlement was “entirely inappropriate”.

“Whether or not something is approved at the varying stages of the approvals process is about the particulars of that project, the significant issues that are involved,” Seeney said.

“You can't negotiate those things. You've either met the standard that's required or not; it's not dependent on as Mr Palmer was suggesting in this case that he would take three supreme court actions and then seek to withdraw them to have his approvals granted.

“That's just crazy stuff and I told him so. I told him we were prepared to deal with him exactly the same as anybody else.”

Palmer on Tuesday rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing, saying the company’s lawyers and the government’s lawyers had discussed a proposed settlement which was “not unusual in a legal case”.

The PUP leader said the settlement proposal had “nothing to do” with claims Seeney made last week about the nature of Palmer’s discussions with the government in April 2012 – allegations that Palmer has already indicated will trigger defamation action.

Palmer said the proposed settlement related to a judicial review of the government’s Galilee decision and there was nothing unusual in proposing to cease the litigation as part of such terms.

“This particular case was arguing the government had made the wrong decision so it flows from that our position would be we wanted the decision reversed,” he told Guardian Australia.

Palmer said negotiations between the lawyers broke down.

In defending his company’s actions, Palmer raised concern over the impartiality of Queensland’s Crime and Misconduct Commission following changes to state laws to no longer require senior appointments to be made on a bipartisan basis.

“An injustice done to one man is an injustice to all men everywhere,” Palmer said.

“We don’t want a gestapo in this state. Seeney and Newman will have their day in court and it won’t be too long until freedom reigns again in Queensland.”

The details of the proposed settlement were first reported by two News Corp newspapers, the Australian and the Courier-Mail, on Tuesday. Guardian Australia subsequently received a copy of the same document.

Asked whether the dispute would made it harder for his federal Coalition colleagues seeking to secure the passage of legislation, Seeney said he found it “completely impossible” to deal with Palmer.

“I don't know what's going to happen when other people try to deal with him,” Seeney said.