Kon Vatskalis’s eight-year reign as Darwin Lord Mayor ended this week in a third-place finish, while his legacy will live on in controversy, defined by the selection of the kinetic sculpture called ‘Coriolis’ as a Cyclone Tracy memorial that he later claimed was not a memorial, leading to a tangled story involving political cover-ups and ratepayer-funded threats of legal action against members of the public for trying to find answers.

The now identified ‘public art’ installation at Bundilla Beach that cost taxpayers more than $535,000 is seen by many as a lightning rod for all that went wrong for Kon, while survivors, politicians and community members demanded answers, its swinging branches foretelling a political storm of questions that have gone unanswered.

The sculpture remains as firm as the issues around the legitimacy of the controversial decision. Those unaddressed issues include: the secretive selection process for the design; the similarity of New Zealand artist Phil Price’s previous works which he claimed was inspired by the Biblical Garden of Eden story; Price’s own words that it would be impossible to represent the cyclone in a sculpture despite being paid to undertake that; the large cyclone survivor backlash to the design; and the public denial by Mr Vatskalis that the sculpture was a memorial to Cyclone Tracy.

Details of which artists the Cyclone Tracy Commemoration Advisory Committee considered for the sculpture, and why Price was chosen, were discussed in confidential meetings, with the relating documents and minutes kept secret and members required to sign confidentiality agreements.

A Freedom of Information request to Darwin Council by Cyclone Tracy survivor Antony Bullock, who was threatened with council-funded legal action by Mr Vatskalis over his now published book, The Ultimate Betrayal, was denied. The council argued it was not in the public interest to provide information about why Price was selected, while the matter is currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner.

The Albanese and Finocchiaro governments have shifted blame, claiming it is the other’s responsibility to have decided if the memorial, that Mr Vatskalis repeatedly stated was not a cyclone memorial while contradicting council’s claims, commemorates the anniversary of one of Australia’s worst natural disasters and whether the $300,000 taxpayer funding should have been stripped from council.

Finger pointing and a ‘please explain’ for the Lord Mayor

Under the agreement signed by then-chief minister Eva Lawler with federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King, the NT Government agreed to provide details by February 28 of this year on the use of federal money, confirm all the project elements had been delivered, and advise of any changes from the initial project scope.

The contract, called the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Memorial federal funding agreement, states there would be $600,000 in total given by the Federal Government to support the construction of a permanent sculpture, and a separate permanent memorial to honour those who died, and those whose lives were irrevocably changed by Cyclone Tracy.

“The Commonwealth and state will participate in regular project oversight meetings as required, for the purpose of monitoring and assessing performance in delivery of the project under this schedule,” the agreement states.

The reason why there are two different memorials is unclear, but the other memorial was the initiative of a survivors’ community group called the Remembering Cyclone Tracy Committee, which rejected the council’s chosen design, stating it did not represent Cyclone Tracy.

Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro told the NT Independent earlier this year Darwin Council should have done better with the memorial, but her government was going to report to the Federal Government that the money was spent appropriately.

“The funding was for a kinetic sculpture and that’s what was delivered,” Ms Finocchiaro said in a statement, “The criteria is a matter for the Federal Government, it is their grant.

“City of Darwin should have done better for Territorians and listened to the community, which is a matter for the City of Darwin.”

However, the funding was not explicitly for a kinetic sculpture – the design was chosen without public explanation.

A committee member and chair of the Remembering Cyclone Tracy Committee, Richard Creswick, told the NT Independent he signed a confidentiality agreement, keeping the selection process secret.

Federal Labor Member for Solomon Luke Gosling did not respond to questions about whether the council should pay the money back in November last year – after Mr Vatskalis again publicly said the sculpture was not a cyclone Tracy memorial – told the NT Independent that he was concerned following Mr Vatskalis’s first denial on Katie Woolf’s 104.9 Mix radio show on June 18.

He said he wrote to Mr Vatskalis, noting it did not fit the description of a cyclone monument, but he assured him it did.

Neither Ms King’s office or Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s office have ever responded to questions about how the $300,000 was used.

A Cyclone Tracy memorial that lasted five days

Darwin Council unveiled the sculpture design on June 7 last year, with an immediate backlash by a significant number of Cyclone Tracy survivors.

In the unveiling press release, Mr Vatskalis said the monument was a fitting tribute to recognising one of the most significant events in Darwin’s history.

“The Cyclone Tracy commemoration monument aims to recognise the effects this devastating event had on our community in a meaningful and permanent way … honouring the memories of those lost, validating the experiences of survivors, and reflecting the spirit of the Darwin community.”

Five days later, following public backlash, he shifted, telling the NT News it was a “public artwork” rather than a “proper memorial”.

There was no public mention of it being public artwork before that point.

On Mix 104.9 on June 18, he stated calling it a monument was a “stuff up” by the council’s press release.

“Public art is always controversial,” Mr Vatskalis said.

“This is not a memorial for Cyclone Tracy. [The earlier council press release] was a stuff up because it was mentioned as a monument and it’s not going to be a monument.”

He had not made this claim about the “stuff up” on June 12, which prompted the letter “of concern” from Mr Gosling.

On June 26, Darwin Council was forced to issue an extraordinary public statement saying it needed to “clarify” that the change in language from ‘monument’ to ‘kinetic sculpture’ was intended to clarify the difference between the Darwin Council sculpture and the Remembering Cyclone Tracy committee memorial at East Point, which was created with the other $300,000.

It is unclear why the council could not have differentiated the structures by referring to them as the Bundilla Beach memorial and the East Point memorial.

“Despite the change in language to describe the installation, the purpose and intent behind the kinetic sculpture remains unchanged,” the statement said.

“However, we acknowledge this has caused some confusion, and wish to assure the community that we are operating in line with both our legislative requirements and the grant requirements.”

‘From the very beginning I told you that was not a memorial’: Kon

As late as the end of November, Mr Vatskalis was still denying the sculpture was a Cyclone Tracy memorial and dodged questions about whether he would need to return the Federal Government’s money.

Mr Vatskalis has said at least six times in the media that the sculpture is not a memorial to the cyclone, or not the “official” memorial, despite council receiving taxpayer money for a memorial.

“From the very beginning, I told you that it was not a monument or memorial for Cyclone Tracy,” Mr Vatskalis said on Mix. “The official memorial would be in East Point, and that’s been organised by the Survivors of Cyclone Tracy Incorporated, and that’s the difference.

“That [returning the money] would be a slap in the face of Cyclone Tracy survivors who participated in the committee, who themselves suggested, and were accepted by all of them [sic], and that was recommended by council.”

He added he found the Oxford Dictionary definitions for ‘memorial’ and ‘monument’ confusing.

Mr Vatsklais failed to explain that there were only three Cyclone Tracy survivors of the eight Cyclone Tracy Commemoration Advisory Committee members present at the meeting when the Coriolis design was voted on in January 2024.

He omitted the fact he was the chair of the committee that selected the design and that he voted for it himself.

He also neglected to disclose that the minutes for the council meeting at which it was resolved to adopt the design show it was called a memorial, while there were only two people who claimed it was not a memorial representing Cyclone Tracy: him and the artist.

Artist says it is impossible to represent cyclone in sculpture

The council press release from June 7 last year described Coriolis as “momentum capturing the power of wind”, with the sculpture having expanding and retracting branches that represent “themes of growth, resilience and regeneration”.

Some described it as looking like something from Dr Seuss, or like “ripened ovaries on fallopian tubes”, a “kids’ playground”, or a “mango tree”.

The artist, Price, was quoted as saying it was a very special privilege to be asked to design the sculpture to commemorate the cyclone.

“It is my hope to bring joy, something very special and memorable to City of Darwin and its visitors later this year,” he was quoted as saying.

Despite this, the sculpture he produced shared strong similarities to two other existing works, called Snake and Big Snake, that he said represented the Biblical Garden of Eden story.

Price has not responded to questions from the NT Independent, including about the brief he was given by council instructing his design and whether he was asked to create a sculpture to resemble the Snake sculptures.

When asked what he was trying to achieve with his work in an ABC interview in early December, Price did not mention Cyclone Tracy survivors, nor Cyclone Tracy as an inspiration for his work, which saw him paid $535,000 in public funds to produce. He further suggested survivors who do not like it do not have the right attitude.

“I think, you know, the calling card of my sculptures, public sculptures, well, all of them really, is that they’re, they’re really happy, you know, they’re kind of a…because they have, because they’re influenced by nature,” Price said.

“I rather think that, that is the concept. The concept is a celebration of life, you know, and it’s not anything more than that. I’m not saying that that’s a flippant concept. I think that in art, that has been one of the most foundational, you know, the pursuit of beauty, there is nothing wrong with that.”

Sixty-six people were reportedly killed during Cyclone Tracy.

“…I rather think that, you know, there are things that can’t be satisfied, and, you know, I don’t know, show me a sculpture that does represent, you know, something for a school of thought that’s coming from a, you know, a certain standpoint,” Price said.

“And you’re not going to achieve it, you know. I think it’s, I think that the issue is not whether or not it addresses every concern, the issue is, you know, let’s have the right attitude.”

Survivor backlash and calls for council to repay money

Antony Bullock organised a protest last December, questioning how the Darwin sculpture could represent Cyclone Tracy because of its similarity to the two Snake works in Canberra and Denmark.

“Questions raised include did the council provide a specific brief for this art, or was Phil Price given unrestricted reign over the design?” Mr Bullock asked.

“If so, why are so many Phil Price sculptures so similar, but with significantly different meanings? This doesn’t pass the pub test and perhaps leads on to the conclusion that the funds may have been spent inappropriately.”

The Remembering Cyclone Tracy Committee East Point memorial.

At the time the design was made public, Mr Creswick, who is also an author, told ABC Radio Darwin he was aware “mostly of criticism” of the Price design and said he didn’t believe the work should be affiliated with Tracy.

His Remembering Cyclone Tracy Committee spent its $300,000 on a memorial designed by Techy Masero which sits at East Point, where Cyclone Tracy made landfall, with no public criticism.

Mr Bullock said council failed its obligations with the federal and NT governments, citing the agreement.

“It is my firm position that the City of Darwin failed to meet its agreement to build a fitting monument to commemorate Cyclone Tracy and that the NT Government in conjunction with the Federal Government must now commence official steps to recover the funds,” Mr Bullock said.

“Federal Member for Solomon Luke Gosling appeared on Mix 104.9 and stated if the Bundilla monument failed to achieve this commemorative aim, then the funds should not be provided. We have now passed that point.

“It is well past the time to act and recover the funds from the council…

“Unfortunately at this point in time, the council has considered all discussions surrounding the selection of the monument confidential as not in the public interest to know how the process was carried out. This information is currently going through an FOI investigation with the Information Commissioner.”

Transparency International Australia CEO Clancy Moore said the confidentiality agreement between the committee and the council raised serious questions about public accountability and good governance, considering public projects funded by taxpayer dollars should not be hidden from public scrutiny.

“Confidentiality agreements and a lack of response to Freedom of Information requests can hamper public trust in the 50th anniversary commemorations,” Mr Moore said.

“The community would benefit from open decision-making and transparency from Darwin Council, particularly when Cyclone Tracy is of such historical significance.”

While council awarded Price a $535,000 contract to create the sculpture, it said it would cost $700,000 in total, including landscaping its Bundilla Beach site.

The threat of defamation

Mr Vatskalis initiated defamation action against Mr Bullock, with the first legal letter sent on behalf of Mr Vatskalis, seemingly using council funds in November last year, after Mr Bullock sent him a draft of his book to review The most recent letter was sent on July 17, just over a month from the municipal election.

The July letter, sent by Kirby Dixon of Mills Oakley and partner Sophie Cleveland, implied representation of the council, Mr Vatskalis, and council staff member Dr Alice Percy, although the letter did not explicitly state who its clients were.

It alleged that Mr Bullock’s manuscript for the now published The Ultimate Betrayal contained 19 defamatory claims against the Lord Mayor and referenced three additional unnamed staff members.

The letter outlined accusations allegedly made in the manuscript, including that Mr Vatskalis is “incompetent”, “untrustworthy”, “deceitful”, “abuses his power”, “lacks integrity”, and “breached the council’s code of conduct”.

The lawyers rejected the imputations and any defences for them, including justification or qualified privilege, and demanded Mr Bullock confirm the removal of the defamatory material by July 25.

If he failed to do so, they warned of substantial legal action, including pursuing “exemplary damages” due to what they claimed was Mr Bullock’s malicious intent to influence the upcoming mayoral election.

However the threat came amid questions about whether ratepayers’ money could be used for the legal fees, based on what both the Local Government Act 2019 (NT) and the Defamation Act say about it, but also because of an October 2023 Tasmanian Supreme Court decision ordering the Northern Midlands Council Mayor and General Manager to repay $135,423 in public funds they had used to sue a ratepayer. The Acting Justice said councils cannot fund personal legal actions for defamation, even if they stem from official duties.

Politicians criticise the memorial and the process

In July last year, Catherine King told a press conference she was “very proud” to be part of the memorial funding announcement along with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, but when a journalist said there was controversy over the design and asked whether it could be changed, she said she would do something about it.

“I know it’s been an important memorial, an important contribution for us to make, and we’ll work closely with the Northern Territory Government to make sure that we get that project right,” Ms King said.

There is no evidence to support her claim and only the colour of the design changed following the backlash.

When the Cyclone Tracy Commemorative Advisory Committee members selected the design, it was specified in the minutes that when voting, committee members were approving it “subject to community consultation”.

It is unclear what, if any, community consultation Darwin Council undertook.

In early December, before the cyclone anniversary date of December 24, NT Treasurer Bill Yan said the debacle was a “dog’s breakfast”.

And CLP MLA for Karama Brian O’Gallagher, who was on council when the members voted to adopt the design, told Parliament he put to Mr Vatskalis in the public session of the June 25 council meeting that he was making a mess of the situation, suggesting the council consider putting off passing a motion to build the sculpture until the new year, “rather than creating a lightning rod of dissent in the lead-up to the commemoration later this year”.

Ms King and Mr Albanese did not respond to questions from the NT Independent earlier this year about the memorial.

Meanwhile, Mr Vatskallis said earlier this year the Prime Minister cancelled his visit to Darwin for a secret VIP unveiling event of the sculpture that had largely excluded survivors.

Mr Vatskalis, in a nonsensical exchange at the time, told Mix 104.9 that the VIP event was not an event ,despite admitting 70 people would be attending. He claimed that the only event being held was a community cyclone memorial at the Darwin Ski Club the next day.

A defiant Mr Vatskalis said if the unveiling event was “so secret why does everyone know about it?”

The answer was the NT Independent made the secret event public for the first time on November 8, the day before his Mix 104.9 interview.

“The ‘real’ memorial will be unveiled and will be installed in East Point by the incorporated body that represents the survivors. The sculpture is a sculpture. It is not a monument. It is not a memorial. The memorial will be in East Point,” Mr Vatskalis said.

When asked if he could understand why survivors would be upset with him for not inviting them to the event, he did not answer, instead claiming his feelings had been hurt by people who criticised and abused him over the sculpture’s design.

Mr Vatskalis said he had cancelled the event because of a “bad personal Issue” Mr Albanese had, which meant he could not attend. He denied it was because Mr Bullock’s group had planned to protest the event.

However, Mr Bullock received a Freedom of Information application in June that showed the Federal Government claiming the Prime Minister’s Office has no record of correspondence with Darwin Council about why Anthony Albanese allegedly cancelled a trip to attend the council’s ‘VIP’ unveiling ceremony of the sculpture.

Mr Vatskalis’s claims he cancelled the event because the Prime Minister could not make it have never been substantiated.

Mr Albanese attended Darwin in March, where he specifically announced the funding for the monument and said it would be a “fitting” remembrance of the devastation of Cyclone Tracy.