Port boss biased, says Clive Palmer agent

ONE of Clive Palmer’s managers has accused the senior public servant overseeing security at Australia’s ports of “bias”.

ONE of Clive Palmer’s managers has accused the federal government’s senior public servant overseeing security and anti-terrorist measures at Australia’s ports of “bias” for her finding that the ­tycoon’s company provided false and misleading information.

Paul Robinson, who works for Mr Palmer’s company Mineralogy, told Transport Security Operations chief Pauline Sullivan: “We note that in your position as a public servant that you are acting in a biased manner.’’ The claim in a letter from Mr Robinson on May 2 followed Ms Sullivan’s advice to him that she was rejecting a misleading maritime security plan submitted by Mineralogy for the key resources port at Cape Preston in Western Australia.

Mr Palmer’s company will appeal against the decision, which prevents him controlling lucrative shipments from the port.

In her rejection, obtained by The Australian, Ms Sullivan described Mineralogy’s failure to truthfully set out the circumstances at the port at Cape Preston in the company’s security plan. The plan is a secret high-level document that the government demands of all would-be operators to ensure that ports have safeguards to limit the risk of terrorist attacks and other illegal acts.

The plan submitted by Mineralogy has been exposed as being based on falsehoods, scuttling Mr Palmer’s quest to manage the key hub for the shipping of billions of dollars in iron ore to China and other countries.

Mr Palmer is angry that the Chinese company he is at war with, Citic Pacific, has instead been given a green light by the federal government to run the port and manage security.

Mr Palmer, the Palmer United Party leader who has also called the site Port Palmer, denies his company has deliberately misled the federal government.

Ms Sullivan’s reasons disclose that after Mineralogy falsely claimed it “operates the port facilities”, officers from her department visited the site in March “to identify which areas of the port are ­operated by whom and what those parties are doing”.

Details from their comprehensive report were cited by Ms Sullivan to show that almost everything at the port was being operated by the Chinese government-controlled company Citic Pacific, which is locked in litigation with Mr Palmer.

Barges, security guards, lighting, CCTV feeds, pilotage services, site sheds, infrastructure for direct loading of iron ore, and other ­duties and ­numerous personnel were all being provided and funded by the Chinese company, not Mineralogy.

Ms Sullivan said the officers noted that: “No port facility, engineering or maintenance personnel employed by or contracted to Mineralogy were observed at the port. No distinguishable Mineralogy site sheds, security vessels or other equipment were observed at the port. No Mineralogy health, safety, environmental, security or other operational personnel were observed at the port.’’

Despite these factual circumstances at the port of Cape Preston, throughout the Maritime Security Plan submitted by Mineralogy, it is suggested that Mineralogy operates the infrastructure. This view is also reflected in the Security Risk Assessment. “No mention is made (in Mineralogy’s documents) of (Citic Pacific) as the port facility operator in respect of these other areas nor is appropriate account taken of (Citic ­Pacific’s) approved plan.

“Accordingly, the (Mineralogy) Maritime Security Plan is not consistent with the factual circumstances at the port.”

Mr Robinson, whose title is chief executive of port operations, told Ms Sullivan in an earlier letter the company was being victimised in a “clear denial of natural ­justice”.

The Perth-based manager did not return The Australian’s call yesterday.