Request review of the denial for Nomination documents for Terry Romaro's Order of Australia Medal

Andrew Laughton made this Freedom of Information request to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

The request is waiting for clarification. If you are Andrew Laughton, please sign in to send a follow up message.

From: Andrew Laughton

Delivered

Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,
[email address]

This letter is to request a review of the denial for nomination documents for Terry Romaro to receive an Order of Australia medal originally made on February 21, 2013.

These nomination forms are very clearly administrative documents of the Office of the Governor General and covered by section 6A of the FOI act, the only grey area is if they are considered internal documents of the Council of the Order of Australia. I personally do not believe this is the case.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/te...

The only public record of why Terry Romaro received an Order of Australia medal remains at this link;
http://melville.inmycommunity.com.au/new...

This is false or misleading for the following reasons;

Committee membership.
It is implied if not stated directly that being a member of these committees is for the benefit of the fishing industry as a whole, and that Terry receives no benefit from this.
Conflict of interest.
Suppose for the moment that a committee member did not declare that he had a conflict of interest in a matter that came before the committee, in that he owned substantial shares in the company that supplied the imported pilchards that introduced the virus that caused the biggest recorded biomass fish kill in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/wa/stories/s...
http://www.westernangler.com.au/archive/...

Also suppose that the local pilchard industry was a direct competitor to his own company importing Tuna feed.
Someone with integrity may excuse themselves from this discussion, however someone with no integrity would do a risk benefit assessment. IE, the risk and consequences of being caught against the benefit to himself. In this case the risk of being caught is remote, and the consequences of being caught would amount to a slap on the wrist, and told not to do it again. The benefit would be that his company may not need to go to the expense of sterilising the feed, may not need to go to the expense of testing the feed for viruses, and they would have less competitors because the Australian fishermen had been driven out of business due to lack of fish to be caught.
This extra expense could easily be the difference between Fishtrade being viable and not viable.
If that same person held a Medal of the order of Australia it could mean the difference between being kicked off the committee and just getting a wrist slap if he was ever caught.

Insider trading.
When a new species of fish is targeted commercially, no licence to catch those fish is needed.
When there may be a danger that a certain species may be over exploited, licences are issued free of charge to people with a history of catching that type of fish in the area they are fishing, limiting the amount they can catch.
These licences can be worth a lot of money.
Suppose someone on this committee had “mates” that could take advantage of this information, or if the licences were deliberately deferred for a year, officially to gather more information, unofficially to allow “mates” the opportunity to report catching this species so that they will be given a quota the following year.
This would provide an incentive to catch fish at a loss in the knowledge that they will get their money back in the value of the licence. Fishermen without this inside knowledge would be at a definite disadvantage as they would not deliberately run at a loss on the off-chance they would get their money back in the value of the licence.
Because no company shares are involved, ASIC, with their very limited resources are not interested, state or federal police would not be interested because no clear crime has been committed.
It amounts to an abuse of the committee privileges, with no risk, and the only losers would be the fishermen that established a new fishery, but did not have inside knowledge that licences would be greatly influenced by the amount of fish they caught that specific year.

To summarise, being a member of these committee's could very profitable, and it should not be assumed that it was done for anyone's benefit apart from his own.

Ownership of Sampi.
At the time of the nomination for the Medal for the order of Australia, Sampi and DK quarry's were the only company's taking fish waste in Port Lincoln.
DK Quarrys were putting the waste into landfill.
Ownership of Sampi was;
45% Peter Laughton in the name of Quotila.
45% Fishtrade.
10% Discovery III.

When Sampi was established the agreement was that Peter would provide $100,000 dollars worth of equipment, and his own time and know-how until Sampi showed a profit, and Fishtrade would provide $160,000 paid in instalments, and manage all the paperwork, and receive 10% of the sale price of any product.
Fishtrade never provided this $160,000, and hid this fact by never sharing financial records, despite being asked on several occasions and instead loaned Sampi money at a high rate of interest.
Terry Romaro is believed to own 1/3 of Fishtrade.
Charles Franchina is believed to own 1/3 of Fishtrade.
The remaining 1/3 is believed to be owned by an honest fisherman with no other involvement.

To summarise, the most of Sampi that Terry Romaro could claim to own is 1/3 of 45%, or 15 %, with a big question mark hanging over it because they never provided the original seed funding.
His actual involvement was limited to directors and shareholders meetings held in the same building that he worked in, and then only to help steal Peters share of Sampi.
Most of Terrys time is probably spent in the building industry, and he is generally unknown in the fishing industry apart from a few people in Port Lincoln where he used to work.
http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/top/pert...
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/buil...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/new...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/...
The council for the Order of Australia could not of checked company records as to who owned Sampi, and did not even bother checking the Sampi web site where Terry was not mentioned at all in any context.
Sampi production of Omega 3 oils.
Fishtrade would not provide financial details of what they were doing, and they kept telling Peter that Sampi was not making any profit, and that he needed to provide extra years of labour as part of his agreement to establish Sampi.
Peter was not so keen to spend additional time and money on setting up an oil separator for production, but only did a proof of concept labour intensive runs to test the market.
The production manager that Peter hired did not know how to set up or use the separator, and Fishtrade instructed the manager to dispose of it without telling Peter, who supplied it in the first place, and in the rush neglected to include a number of separator specific tools.
This was done while Peter was away trying to sell Sampi product to local farmers.
The separator was critical in producing the Omega 3 and 6 oils, and Fishtrade disposed of it in 2009, before Terry was given this medal.

Services to the fishing industry.
There is a chance that the people nominating Terry Romaro to received an Order of Australia medal actually believed that he helped them at his own personal expense, so I will address this issue as well.
Accepting waste product.
When Peter arrived in Port Lincoln to establish the Sampi pilot plant, the only company processing Fish waste was Feedlink.
When Peter had moved enough of his own equipment to Port Lincoln, and set it up enough to start to accept fish waste, Feedlink tried to stop Sampi by getting all the processors to sign a contract to only supply themselves.
When this failed Feedlink folded.
The Port Lincoln processors then had a very expensive problem, what to do with their waste.
The EPA would not allow them to dump it at sea, to dump it in a local quarry was expensive, and to truck it 8 hours to Adelaide was also expensive, even if they were able to find someone to take it.
Sampi was obliged to ramp up production very quickly, and because they had only just started there was not yet a market for the product, forcing them to buy more storage tanks than they needed.

Terry Romaro and Charles Franchina from Fishtrade had the contacts with the processors as they supplied some of the feedstock that was fed to the Tuna, however the new arrangement did not cost them a cent, and they profited at the expense of Peter for the following reasons;
The original agreement was that Fishtrade would provide $160,000 worth of seed funding, Peter would provide $100,000 worth of processing equipment, know how and labour until Sampi showed a profit, while Fishtrade would get 10% of sales that they made until Sampi showed a profit.
Peter was unhappy with this new arrangement and wanted to change the original agreement but this was flatly rejected by Fishtrade.

Because of the massive budget blow-out to buy more storage tanks, and the profit Fishtrade was making in interest charged to Sampi, and combined with the fact that Fishtrade never provided seed funding, Sampi was unable to show a profit for several years, years that Peter was obliged to work for no income.
At the same time 10% commission on a planed low volume sales was suddenly changed to 10% commission on high volume sales, simply because there was a lot more to sell.

Fishtrade at this point had no incentive to market Sampi product, the more Sampi owed them, the more interest they would get, and the longer Peter would need to work for no income.
Peter changed his focus to sales to try to lower Sampi debt, but he was never given any commission and in fact Fishtrade did a bit of creative accounting, sold Sampi product exclusively to themselves, and then selling it to the end user at a much higher price, with all expenses being charged to Sampi.

And so to summarise, not only did it not cost Fishtrade or Terry Romaro any money to provide this service to the Port Lincoln processors, they actually made a lot of money out of it at Peters expense.

A willingness to sign documents he knows are false.
Terry Romaro and Charles Franchina broke a number of laws when they stole Sampi.
Both Terry and Charles have also proven a willingness to sign documents they know are false and this may also be of concern to members of the committee that decide recipients of the Order of Australia.

It was a normal practice for minutes of any Sampi meeting to be enhanced to Fishtrades advantage, as an Example;
Sampi shareholders meeting minutes for 27 August 2010.
Directors meetings where Terry Romaro and Charles Franchina were able to out vote Peter Laughton 2 to 1 were normal, and Peter was given very little notice of when they were to happen, in one case less than 24 hours.
Shareholders meetings where Peter Laughton's shares held the same value as Fishtrades shares, and the balance of power rested with a 10 % shareholder, were very rare, with only four shareholders meetings being held over five years, and only one in the last three years. Peter Laughton normally held the proxy vote for the 10% shareholder, and Terry normally declared that proxy vote to be invalid for various reasons, giving Fishtrade equal voting rights and going on record as their own vote outweighing Peters vote.
This particular meeting was first requested well over a year earlier, and was only held on this date after Peter gave up asking and finally took expensive legal action to force it to happen.
Fishtrade refused to allow their premises to be used for this meeting forcing Peter to hire a meeting room at his own expense. Peter also hired a neutral chairperson to run the meeting.
Peter also needed to fly from Port Lincoln to Adelaide, then to Perth to attend this meeting in Fremantle, all at his own expense on borrowed money.
That evening after the meeting Peter had his first ever heart attack, and woke up in hospital.
He never fully recovered from this heart attack.
When Terry took over the chair he also ignored the issue Peter spent so much money to address, the number of Fishtrade directors, and there was a legal obligation to hold this vote.
If the independent neutral chairperson that Peter had hired was allowed to chair the meeting, Sampi might have been saved.
Terry went on to call a directors meeting, with both Fishtrade directors out voting Peters single vote.
It should be noted that no meeting ever had its minutes confirmed, but the level of arrogance would have been high enough to make another false declaration anyway.
The document that Terry signed stated that there were no objections to him kicking out the neutral chairperson and replacing him. This is false, and Terry was fully aware it was false, as were most if not all other meeting minutes.

Probable influence this Order of Australia medal has had.
When Terry Romaro and Charles Franchina deliberately caused Sampi to go broke for the purpose of stealing Sampi from the other shareholders, external Administrators RSMI Bird Cameron were called in.
http://www.rsmi.com.au/rsbcwr/_assets/ma...
RSMI Bird Cameron helped to force Peter Laughton to drop legal action against Fishtrade for breaking company laws, the cost of justice was higher than Peter could afford.
When considering the cost of Justice the lawyer involved with the court case the administrators stopped was of the opinion that the Judge may also be influenced by this Order of Australia award.
RSMI Bird Cameron reported that Fishtrade had sold all Sampi product to themselves and that the Sampi accountant had not signed the accounts, (normal procedure if the accountant believes it is not a true record).
RSMI Bird Cameron was fully aware of this situation and prevented Peter Laughton from showing potential buyers Sampi Assets, prevented Peter from contacting the Sampi accountant, deliberately prevented Peter Laughton from getting any financial records at all, despite the fact they were obliged to make sure he had them.
They also knowingly violated copyright regarding the Sampi website and deliberately notified creditors AFTER the deadline to register proxy votes at a creditors meeting.
The Administrators are have a duty to prosecute past directors if they have acted improperly, and knowingly ignored the fact that Fishtrade deliberately failed to conduct the legally required shareholders meeting to vote to remove directors, and ignored the fact that Fishtrade had spent over a million dollars of Sampi money in less than four weeks before the administrators were given control, more than doubling the dept they had built up in all the previous years put together.
They also seemed to believe that Fishtrade actually used or sold Sampi product independent of anybody that thought they were buying Sampi product, despite the fact that the invoices included the Sampi name.
It needs to be asked what would inspire the administrator to do such things ?
Raw incompetence is an easy assumption, but it is hard not to be suspicious that they is a lot more involvement with Terry Romaro and Charles Franchina, than meets the eye.
If it is to be assumed that RSMI Bird Cameron were not corrupt, the only other logical answer is to assume that they were influenced a massive amount by the fact that Terry was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, and therefore must be honest.
Is this blind faith in the Council of the Order of Australia justified ?

Summery
The best way to inform the committee that recommends to the Governor-General's Office who to award Medals to, that they have been misinformed, possibly fraudulently, possibly through corruption, is to get a copy of the original nomination form that contains this information.
Terry Romaro has done a lot of other things not listed in this letter, and for him to be awarded this honour is an insult to those who he has stolen from, as well as to other recipients by association, and significantly reduces the value of the award.
There is also the very real danger that this award may lead to unsuspecting members of the public trusting him more than they should, and it could lead to their lives being destroyed as well.
It is remotely possible that Terry has actually done something to merit this award, but it is certainly nothing that is available to the public, and given his history it is very unlikely.
Terry Romaro stands out as being a very bad egg and I have a lot of other documents to prove it, but how many others have also been given this honour that do not deserve it ?
It should be possible for anybody to review all the nominations, to be able to see why different people received awards and why others did not. If for some reason Terry's award is not an anomaly but part of a bigger picture of corruption the public should be aware of this so that they can treat awardees appropriately.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Laughton

Link to this

From: Enquiries
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner


Attachment image001.jpg
4K Download


Our reference: MR13/00146

 

 

 

Mr Andrew Laughton

Right to Know

By email: [1][FOI #98 email]

 

 

 

Dear Mr Laughton

Your application for IC review of an FOI decision

Thank you for your request for Information Commissioner Review (IC Review)
of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor General’s decision
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act).

In order to investigate the matter to refuse access to documents made
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the Act) by the Office of
the Official Secretary to the Governor General an IC review has been
registered.

However, Section 54N of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 says that in
order to make a valid application for review a person must send us a copy
of the decision they want reviewed with their application. A link to a
website does not meet the requirements of the Act. If no decision is
provided, the application is not valid and we cannot consider it. 

Please provide us with a copy of the decision letter by 13 May 2013. We
can then register your request as a valid application for IC review.

If you do not send us a copy of the decision we will be unable to review
it. If this happens we will send you a letter advising you of this. 

If you would like to discuss this matter with me I can be contacted on
1300 363 992 or email [email address]. Please quote the reference
number MR13/00146.

Yours sincerely

 

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

GPO Box 2999 CANBERRA ACT 2601 |www.oaic.gov.au

Fax: +61 2 6239 9187

Email: [2][email address]

 

Protecting information rights – advancing information policy

 

[3]Description: Description: cid:image010.jpg@01CE2A37.661F53A0

 

Get involved and register your agency or organisation as a [4]2013 Privacy
Awareness Week partner

 

 

P Please consider the environment before printing this email

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #98 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.oaic.gov.au/news-and-events/p...
4. http://www.oaic.gov.au/news-and-events/p...

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner only: