Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of a great Queensland company that has been badly let down by the legal system in this country. The company acted within the law, honourably, and despite this is faced with trial by media over the illegal activities and likely corruption of two well-connected Australians, Angus Reed and Matthew Joyce, in Dubai in 2007.

Sunland Group is headquartered on the Gold Coast, an ASX listed property company that has been in business for 29 years, 17 of those as a publicly listed company. Sunland's portfolio includes iconic buildings like the Q1 as well as housing, urban development and residential multistorey throughout Australia and overseas. In 2007, the Dubai waterfront was being developed. Sunland had already acquired property in the area and was seeking more. In what it believed to be a legitimate land deal, Sunland sought board approval for the purchase of the land and proceeded to transact through its lawyers here and overseas for the land purchase. It would be later revealed that, despite their representations otherwise, neither Matthew Joyce or Angus Reed had rights over the land which they sold and that the payments made to them by Sunland were never recorded or correctly reported.

Despite recent media reports, it needs to be made clear that Sunland is not a party to the Dubai criminal proceedings and the Dubai criminal investigation was not commenced as a result of a complaint made by Sunland against Joyce, Lee, Reed or Brearley. The proceedings were initiated by the Dubai government after an inquiry by the Dubai audit department into an alleged bribe paid by Reed to Joyce. Sunland's only involvement is that the money from which the alleged bribe was paid came from money Sunland paid to Reed's company for development rights Reed said his company held. The Dubai government has said that no such development rights existed. Until Sunland was advised by the Dubai government of this, it had not known that it had been deceived. The Dubai authorities say that Joyce, who was a government official, received approximately $7 million from Reed in connection with a land transaction involving his employer, the Dubai government, where he failed to disclose the payment to his employer. Joyce has been charged with receiving a bribe and Reed is charged with paying it, and with disclosing government secrets and harming Dubai state interests.

Sunland has taken civil action against Reed and Joyce in Australia to reclaim the moneys paid to Joyce for the land. The complaint is supported by documents prepared by Reed's lawyers which say that Prudentia, Reed's company, has reached agreement with the seller, Joyce's employer, to acquire and develop the property, which Sunland says is a representation that Reed already had an agreement with Nakeel to acquire the plot and upon which it based its reliance on the validity of its rights over the property.

In Dubai, property is transacted differently than it is in other countries. That is, rather than the full amount, any premium or increased value is paid to the rights holder, who in this case was from all investigations deemed to be Angus Reed through his company Prudentia. It was under this arrangement that Sunland paid nearly $14 million to Reed from which Joyce himself was paid nearly $7 million by Reed. The defendants in Dubai are also charged with defrauding Sunland, but even if the Croft judgment was correct in its finding that Sunland was not deceived, and even if the Dubai court accepted that Sunland was not deceived, the other charges would remain. In particular the charge of bribery would remain, which is a serious crime in Dubai, as it is in Australia.

In Australia, Justice Croft recently dismissed Sunland's case. He contended that the Dubai proceedings were not considered because he considered the evidence of Reed bribing Joyce to be irrelevant. Sunland, however, maintains that the $7 million bribe is very relevant as it provided a strong motive for Joyce to make the representations alleged by Sunland. There is evidence before the Supreme Court of Victoria that documents relied upon by Joyce and Reed are likely to have been falsified, and also unchallenged expert evidence that one key document relied upon by Joyce and Reed was proven to be a forgery, with a faked signature of a Dubai Waterfront employee. Despite protesting their innocence, at the Victorian trial Joyce and Reed chose not to give any evidence, so their witness statements were never able to be tested in court, and they were never able to be cross-examined about documents relating to Reed paying the bribe to Joyce. In relation to certain documents put in evidence, Joyce and Reed also claimed privilege against self-incrimination. The Australian civil case is going to appeal. In Dubai, the judge recently requested that the prosecutor consider if the charges against Reed and Joyce are sufficient. Last week the charges were upgraded.

Sunland considers that the reputation of the company and its executives has been attacked in the Australian courts with the ulterior motive of assisting Joyce and Reed in connection with the criminal proceedings in Dubai. I know the Sunland directors well and their integrity is beyond reproach. It then begs this question: why have Sunland and its directors been attacked so viciously through trial by media? It is a great question and is a question that deserves to be answered, because Sunland directors have in my experience been fine, upstanding men, pillars of the community, and deserve every support from the community.