What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

[Pie eyed]

Thats what we all said about abbott.

I reckon all the opponents might be wise to the Liberal Dirty Tricks department this time.
I will be be very interested to see how many current elected Liberals will still be in their seats after the looming ICAC

 

[Pie eyed]

Obviously he had put his hand up before.

The issue was passed on by Christian Porter to a Liberal private Secretary to look into it.

I would say that amounts to no-one even checked out the facts.
Labor have three years.
Watch for the raft of "retirements due to family reasons" in the Liberal ranks over next couple of years.

 

[HairyO]

All of it before he became PM.

Dutton isnt PM either.

Not if her business did not profit directly from insider information about legislation being worked on by a spouse, convenient legislative change, Government (taxpayer) support during any type of financial crisis and Government contracts let without tender or even oversight.

She ran an employment agency. They make billions out of government support. Much like child care centres.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Rudd's wife made tens of millions of dollars with her business. Was that a conflict of interest?

yes - and she specifically sold it in 2007 because it was a conflict of interest

*fwiw i imagine the only difference between then and now is rudd as oppo didnt expect to be pm outside an election. its a very real possibility dutton will be with a minority govt. and for the record, i think every shadow role should handle conflict of interest as if they are to be in govt tomorrow.

 

[HairyO]

yes - and she specifically sold it in 2007 because it was a conflict of interest

*fwiw i imagine the only difference between then and now is rudd as oppo didnt expect to be pm outside an election. its a very real possibility dutton will be with a minority govt. and for the record, i think every shadow role should handle conflict of interest as if they are to be in govt tomorrow.

Problem with that is, 90% of politicians shouldnt vote on legislation affecting housing prices given they own investment properties.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Problem with that is, 90% of politicians shouldnt vote on legislation affecting housing prices given they own investment properties.

there is a big difference between that, and determining policy that will see you or your family benefit directly from govt contracts

 

[Kwality]

yes - and she specifically sold it in 2007 because it was a conflict of interest

*fwiw i imagine the only difference between then and now is rudd as oppo didnt expect to be pm outside an election. its a very real possibility dutton will be with a minority govt. and for the record, i think every shadow role should handle conflict of interest as if they are to be in govt tomorrow.

Thérèse Rein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thérèse Rein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and that backs what i said...

 

[HairyO]

there is a big difference between that, and determining policy that will see you or your family benefit directly from govt contracts

Id say its a fine line. If you make millions passing laws that increase the value of your properties (many of them own multiple properties plus have spouses who own many more - and thats not even looking at the dodgy blind trusts where they hide their wealth), or if you make millions from getting government contracts, you're still using your position to make millions of dollars.

The 1st is similar to insider trading, the 2nd is theft. Both very illegal.

and that backs what i said...

Dutton isnt PM yet. Rudd was Leader of the Opposition while she owned her business and made money from government contracts.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Id say its a fine line. If you make millions passing laws that increase the value of your properties (many of them own multiple properties plus have spouses who own many more - and thats not even looking at the dodgy blind trusts where they hide their wealth), or if you make millions from getting government contracts, you're still using your position to make millions of dollars.

The 1st is similar to insider trading, the 2nd is theft. Both very illegal.

FWIW i have no issue with properties being shoved into a blind trust like shares are done now

but saying someone owning a 2 bed unit in cranbourne is equal risk to someone winning a $100m pa child care/ndis/jobactive tender is not reasonable

 

[HairyO]

FWIW i have no issue with properties being shoved into a blind trust like shares are done now

but saying someone owning a 2 bed unit in cranbourne is equal risk to someone winning a $100m pa child care/ndis/jobactive tender is not reasonable

Ranked: how many properties do Australian politicians own?

With more and more Australians finding it difficult, if possible at all, to break into home ownership amid surging home prices, housing affordability

www.miragenews.com

Katter doesnt even declare what his spouse owns.

I dare say 10 investment properties is a bit more than a 2 bedroom unit...

Interestingly Labor pollies own more properties than Liberal. I would have thought it would be the other way around. But we dont really know the true numbers because they clearly dont have to declare spouse holdings - plus they hide assets away in trusts.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Ranked: how many properties do Australian politicians own?

With more and more Australians finding it difficult, if possible at all, to break into home ownership amid surging home prices, housing affordability

www.miragenews.com

Katter doesnt even declare what his spouse owns.

I dare say 10 investment properties is a bit more than a 2 bedroom unit...

Interestingly Labor pollies own more properties than Liberal. I would have thought it would be the other way around. But we dont really know the true numbers because they clearly dont have to declare spouse holdings - plus they hide assets away in trusts.

again, for the cheap seats, i have zero issue shoving these into a blind trust

I think you will find im more hard core on conflict of interest than most are

 

[HairyO]

again, for the cheap seats, i have zero issue shoving these into a blind trust

I think you will find im more hard core on conflict of interest than most are

Its not just blind trusts. Its family trusts where the spouse controls it. Of course in theory why cant a spouse who isnt a politician be able to make money... but the idea that spouses dont talk shop is silly.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Its not just blind trusts. Its family trusts where the spouse controls it. Of course in theory why cant a spouse who isnt a politician be able to make money... but the idea that spouses dont talk shop is silly.

I said this years ago when we discussed it with Morrison - a blind trust should be genuinely blind, noone you have a direct and regular relationship with should be managing it

not sure how much more clear i can be

 

[HairyO]

I said this years ago when we discussed it with Morrison - a blind trust should be genuinely blind, noone you have a direct and regular relationship with should be managing it

not sure how much more clear i can be

The requested content has been archived

This content has been archived in the Parliamentary database: ParlInfo. You can use the advanced search to limit your search to Bills Digests and/or Library Publications, Seminars and Lectures as required. ParlInfo search tips are also available. Otherwise click here to retu

www.aph.gov.au

The problem is, how do you know if its genuinely independent and the beneficiaries really have no influence. Even when setting up the trust I would assume there are questions on broadly how the assets should be invested. I doubt a trust is going to sell all the properties and buy shares, or sell shares and buy crypto.

 

[Kwality]

Ranked: how many properties do Australian politicians own?

With more and more Australians finding it difficult, if possible at all, to break into home ownership amid surging home prices, housing affordability

www.miragenews.com

Katter doesnt even declare what his spouse owns.

I dare say 10 investment properties is a bit more than a 2 bedroom unit...

Interestingly Labor pollies own more properties than Liberal. I would have thought it would be the other way around. But we dont really know the true numbers because they clearly dont have to declare spouse holdings - plus they hide assets away in trusts.

Are naive enough to believe Labor politicians dont use trusts in their own financial/legal arrangements ?

 

[Pie eyed]

He’s unlikely to ever be PM but he could be effective as a head-kicking Opposition Leader.

He won't have the benefit of a mentally *ed cross bench as Abbott did.

 

[Pie eyed]

Dutton isnt PM either.



She ran an employment agency. They make billions out of government support. Much like child care centres.

Dutton was a minister in a government which handed billions to Childcare through increased rebates to parents as well as financial assistance when ever it even looked like the centers may lose profits, not income, profits. over more than a decade

 

[Pie eyed]

Dutton isnt PM either.



She ran an employment agency. They make billions out of government support. Much like child care centres.

Have a look at how much she made during the Rudd Government.
The point being made is she made her money before Rudd even had a chance to profit.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The requested content has been archived

This content has been archived in the Parliamentary database: ParlInfo. You can use the advanced search to limit your search to Bills Digests and/or Library Publications, Seminars and Lectures as required. ParlInfo search tips are also available. Otherwise click here to retu

www.aph.gov.au

The problem is, how do you know if its genuinely independent and the beneficiaries really have no influence. Even when setting up the trust I would assume there are questions on broadly how the assets should be invested. I doubt a trust is going to sell all the properties and buy shares, or sell shares and buy crypto.

There are guidelines you give it, but then you walk away. A proper blind trust should be making all the decisions.

And I 100% agree the version some have had in the past (where a reli runs it) have been completed bs. Unfortunately it's an issue noone cares about, so it's ignored unless the media is gunning for you (as they did with Turnbull's trust)

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Its not just blind trusts. Its family trusts where the spouse controls it. Of course in theory why cant a spouse who isnt a politician be able to make money... but the idea that spouses dont talk shop is silly.

A spouses COI should be deemed a COI for the politician as well. As a partnership they stand to gain regardless of which partner owns the assets.

 

[HairyO]

A spouses COI should be deemed a COI for the politician as well. As a partnership they stand to gain regardless of which partner owns the assets.

We could also make this about football too, and the salary cap should be based on tax returns signed off by the ATO so we can see just how much 3rd party money is coming from people associated with the club.

Transparency is a scary thing to politicians and football administrators.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We could also make this about football too, and the salary cap should be based on tax returns signed off by the ATO so we can see just how much 3rd party money is coming from people associated with the club.

Transparency is a scary thing to politicians and football administrators.

I mentioned this in passing, but one trial in the USA had an interesting approach to campaign financing

one of the issues with banning all campaign financing is what replaces it. The standard argument is the wealthy take over, because you cannot stop someone spending their own money on themselves. The solution is to have govt fund 100% of all candidates. This is bad for me, because you just encourage the grift candidate (who runs just to get the campaign funds, and then pockets it).

In Seattle (I think) for the council elections they tried something new. The govt issued a voucher to every eligible voter for $xx, and each voter was able to sign the rights to the voucher over to one candidate. The massive positive was grass roots candidates killed it. Because they were door knocking, they got a much bigger proportion of funding than they were used to. The majors on the other had who were living in the glass towers, got very little.

The negative was engagement. off mem less than half of voters actually signed over their vouchers, and also there were concerns on theft of vouchers given they were mailed.

Im a big fan of campaign finance reform, but as we saw with Advance Australia this election, its easy to loophole around these laws no matter what you do.

 

[Festerz]

 

[HairyO]

I mentioned this in passing, but one trial in the USA had an interesting approach to campaign financing

one of the issues with banning all campaign financing is what replaces it. The standard argument is the wealthy take over, because you cannot stop someone spending their own money on themselves. The solution is to have govt fund 100% of all candidates. This is bad for me, because you just encourage the grift candidate (who runs just to get the campaign funds, and then pockets it).

In Seattle (I think) for the council elections they tried something new. The govt issued a voucher to every eligible voter for $xx, and each voter was able to sign the rights to the voucher over to one candidate. The massive positive was grass roots candidates killed it. Because they were door knocking, they got a much bigger proportion of funding than they were used to. The majors on the other had who were living in the glass towers, got very little.

The negative was engagement. off mem less than half of voters actually signed over their vouchers, and also there were concerns on theft of vouchers given they were mailed.

Im a big fan of campaign finance reform, but as we saw with Advance Australia this election, its easy to loophole around these laws no matter what you do.

Because the lawyers and accountants rich people use will always do better than the ones the Government uses. Particularly when the Government is not overly interested in having a spotlight shone on where the money comes from.

Its why Im very keen to see what sort of Federal ICAC we end up with. Albo was very gung-ho in opposition, but now in power will we get a NSW ICAC with teeth, or the faux policeman VIC has.