ICAC Inquiry into Eddie Obeid & NSW ALP

[Brown Bottle]

There's really no hypocrisy here. Anyone who's been on these boards for long enough knows that in politics what goes around comes around. Sinodinos being Greek has no more to do with any commentary here than Thomson's choice of hookers. Politicians all live in glass houses. They really should all know better than to attack another over abuse of parliamentary entitlements, etc. because they themselves are only one audit away from the hot-seat.

If Thommo is looking at jail time for rorting $20 or $30k from the HSU what is Sinodinos looking at?

 

[Taylor]

There's really no hypocrisy here. Anyone who's been on these boards for long enough knows that in politics what goes around comes around. Sinodinos being Greek has no more to do with any commentary here than Thomson's choice of hookers. Politicians all live in glass houses. They really should all know better than to attack another over abuse of parliamentary entitlements, etc. because they themselves are only one audit away from the hot-seat.

If Thommo is looking at jail time for rorting $20 or $30k from the HSU what is Sinodinos looking at?

Hopefully it's a serious punishment but that assumes he is guilty of something.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Hopefully it's a serious punishment but that assumes he is guilty of something.

That's the same view that some of us took with respect to Thommo, much to the dissatisfaction of others

 

[blackcat]

yes I admit I only went to high school, (some families, in the country region didn't have their children go to university back in the early 90s, you went out and got a job to start to earn), so my grammar and spelling are below par , i accept that

dont worry. all are overrateds anyhow

 

[noddy]

Not looking good for my man Arthur & guess what DR the Liberal Party also have "slush funds"


An investor in Australian Water Holdings confronted former Coalition minister Arthur Sinodinos in 2010 raising concerns about the company’s debts including $20,000 owed to the Liberal party, an inquiry has heard.

Senator Sinodinos, who was deputy chairman of AWH at the time, has previously said he was not aware of donations AWH paid to the Liberals, though he was also treasurer of the NSW Liberal Party at the time

But Rod de Aboitiz, a former chief financial officer of Rothschilds whose family invested $1 million in AWH convertible notes, told ICAC that he went to see Mr Sinodinos after discovering the company was having difficulty paying its debts after paying $4.5 million in salaries to directors and its 10 employees.

Mr De Aboitiz was scathing over management practices at AWH after he found unpaid debts not only to the Liberal Party but also to Eight By Five, a slush fund company run by Liberal Party fundraisers which is the focus of the next ICAC inquiry.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...allout-labor-donation-payback-parliament-live

 

[pazza]

I ask people in NSW this...how can anyone up there trust any politician from up there.

Both sides are as dodgy as.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Hahahahahahahaha too funny if true.

But I forgot - we're only interested in the misappropriation of public / union funds on this board. What happens in the private sector stays in the private sector, right?

 

[greennick]

That's the same view that some of us took with respect to Thommo, much to the dissatisfaction of others

And the view the Labor party took was innocent till proven guilty. Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[greennick]

Hahahahahahahaha too funny if true.

But I forgot - we're only interested in the misappropriation of public / union funds on this board. What happens in the private sector stays in the private sector, right?

While incredibly dodgy, it isn't illegal for a company to give money to a political party it is trying to influence. How is them donating to the ruling Liberal party in NSW any different to unions donating to the ruling Labor party?

It is illegal to steal from a company/union/government though for personal gain though.

 

[Maggie5]

He looked pretty confident on the news. Doubt too much mud will stick.

 

[Brown Bottle]

And the view the Labor party took was innocent till proven guilty. Hence the hypocrisy.

There's hypocrisy on both 'sides' dude. All day. Every day.

That's what happens when you fling mud, knowing that any minute now new facts will emerge and the mud will be flung at you. Is it too much to hope that one day someone might run the fking country? Already we've had 6 months of "the last mob left us with a big mess" and not a single policy.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Hahahahahahahaha too funny if true.

But I forgot - we're only interested in the misappropriation of public / union funds on this board. What happens in the private sector stays in the private sector, right?

A lot of it wasn't private sector funds, they were billing Sydney Water for it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

A lot of it wasn't private sector funds, they were billing Sydney Water for it.

Exactly. They gave taxpayer funds to the Liberal party and from the sounds of that article above, they were paying themselves and the Liberal party so much they were in debt - which of course means they avoid paying tax - and potentially insolvent.

I ask people in NSW this...how can anyone up there trust any politician from up there.

Both sides are as dodgy as.

If Sinodinos is meant to be a man of such skill and integrity I think your summation is fair, but there are a bunch who seem relatively legit federally (around me there is Plibersek, Turnbull, Thistlewaite - who replaced Garrett). As I mentioned earlier, however, most residents don't seem to pay it much attention. Maybe because the beach is more interesting. Maybe because it's too corrupt for a regular citizen to fight.

 

[Brown Bottle]

A lot of it wasn't private sector funds, they were billing Sydney Water for it.

You and I understand that... but you must remember AWH was a private entity, and that's what's really important here

 

[greennick]

There's hypocrisy on both 'sides' dude. All day. Every day.

That's what happens when you fling mud, knowing that any minute now new facts will emerge and the mud will be flung at you. Is it too much to hope that one day someone might run the fking country? Already we've had 6 months of "the last mob left us with a big mess" and not a single policy.

Not a single policy?

 

[Brown Bottle]

Not a single policy?

Maybe I missed them? I've heard a lot from the government on a couple of topics, but none of that's been policy driven.

 

[Maggie5]

Not a single policy?

Not one policy directed to the "economic emergency" but we seem to be travelling fine without any policy intervention.

 

[greennick]

Maybe I missed them? I've heard a lot from the government on a couple of topics, but none of that's been policy driven.

They've been enacting the policies they went to the election with, many of which they can't complete until the senate switches over.

What did you expect? A whole lot of policy announcements that get half completed? They specifically went to the election saying they won't do that. One of the first things they did is review the half completed work of the previous government and throw out a lot of the announced, but not legislated changes.

They've had policies on asylum seekers, Qantas, corporate handouts, mining tax, carbon tax, just to name a few. Other policies are clearly being formulated while they're taking in views from the public and other stakeholders. This seems to be so they can work out how far they can push their conservative agenda in their policies without causing too much uproar from "the middle".

 

[greennick]

Not one policy directed to the "economic emergency" but we seem to be travelling fine without any policy intervention.

Remember that is all because we're now "open for business"! That typical conservative view that a change to a business friendly government is just the shot in the arm the economy needed.

 

[Maggie5]

Remember that is all because we're now "open for business"! That typical conservative view that a change to a business friendly government is just the shot in the arm the economy needed.

I have a friend that makes eye patches, you want one? Only $100, wants to start big.

 

[greennick]

I have a friend that makes eye patches, you want one? Only $100, wants to start big.

I think you may have missed the fact I was not being serious?

 

[Taylor]

I think you may have missed the fact I was not being serious?

Whoa let's not get into subtext again!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I think you may have missed the fact I was not being serious?

You had just accused someone of being wrong about the lack of policies, before giving a glowing report of the govt that seemed to agree on a lack of policies (because the Senate/because they don't want them to be half-cocked/because they're consulting/etc), so it's not surprising that people might think you actually believed a change of govt to the Libs would be enough to remove the "budget emergency".

 

[greennick]

You had just accused someone of being wrong about the lack of policies, before giving a glowing report of the govt that seemed to agree on a lack of policies (because the Senate/because they don't want them to be half-cocked/because they're consulting/etc), so it's not surprising that people might think you actually believed a change of govt to the Libs would be enough to remove the "budget emergency".

Accused someone of being wrong! No, I pointed out and provided evidence of how he was wrong, it wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact. He said there was not one policy in 6 months, when clearly there have been many. A glowing report? Please point out where I even commented on the policies other than their existence??

In case you haven't worked out, , is generally used on the internet to demonstrate sarcasm is being employed.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

They've been enacting the policies they went to the election with, many of which they can't complete until the senate switches over.

So those policies haven't been enacted.

What did you expect? A whole lot of policy announcements that get half completed? They specifically went to the election saying they won't do that. One of the first things they did is review the half completed work of the previous government and throw out a lot of the announced, but not legislated changes.

So no policies. Your take on them removing a lot of announced but unlegislated changes is also very generous. Do you mean they didn't implement the policies Labor announced they'd implement if elected?

They've had policies on asylum seekers, Qantas, corporate handouts, mining tax, carbon tax, just to name a few.

That is a few. Especially considering many haven't happneed due to the Senate and may not happen due to the Senate. As you'd already mentioned, so why did you list them here? They are turning back boats. It's hard to access the success of this compared to the success of the PNG solution due to a lack of transparency from the govt. Doing things they aren't telling us about is hard to call 'policy'. Not giving a company money it asks for is also hard to call 'policy'. I think maybe they've got the MRRT/PRRT changes through? Maybe?

Other policies are clearly being formulated while they're taking in views from the public and other stakeholders. This seems to be so they can work out how far they can push their conservative agenda in their policies without causing too much uproar from "the middle".

Of course, Labor was criticised hugley for consulting. "Another review" being a favourite refrain for many years. So I would say that your report is indeed "glowing" considering this alternate "statement of fact".

In case you haven't worked out, rhetorical exaggeration is generally used on the internet to demonstrate passion.

Yes, the govt have done things, like signalling Australia is closed to business if you're in the subsidised manufacturing sector, tweaking some approaches to policy, and closing the Climate Council. So Brown Bottle was wrong to say "not a single policy" when he clearly meant "not a single substantial constructive policy IMO".