[Peetwo]

The political donations can of worms?? - Bring it on I reckon..

Extract from my '2016 Election' thread post: 

Wong muck raking & the GRABOR Party -

There was a time where naively I used to think that Senator Wong was an intelligent asset and addition to the Senate chamber..

Then came the RUDD to GILLARD/Independentsx2/GREENS & then of course back to RUDD debacle, where Wong showed her true colours and that was when I began to realise that she was really a political animal...    

Even then (again naively) I was prepared to consider the Wong OBS as an aberration, put it down to the toxic politics of the time, after all isn't it the responsibility of a Senator (regardless of colour) to stand up for; 1) State interests; then 2) the Country interests; and 3) politics coming a very distant last??

Again maybe naively that is what I believed and I was given a perfect example of this with the conduct & outcome of the totally non-partisan PelAir Senate inquiry...   And I also have seen it since in that same committee's dedicated efforts to keep certain agencies honest in Senate Estimates and other inquiries...

But then at one certain RRAT committee budget Estimates Wong made her first (and probably last) appearance and finally the Penny dropped, it was all a façade, a smokescreen, a spin and bulldust show...

This Senator wasn't really concerned about her State interests, she was purely there for potential political point scoring and nothing else..

P9 - I could live with the window dressing of Cash, the bad manners displayed and endless side chats while questions were being asked etc.  No more than a minor irritation, some others came in and asked some fairly pointless questions, which, thankfully, took little of the valuable time available and were not blatantly ‘political’.  But the tedious Wong session took the biscuit.

 
And that was before I discovered the Wong QON - Part I & Part II.   

P9 - Lets just hope the silly ‘politics’ are taken out of the game – early.  Lord, I’m fed up with the sniping, hair pulling and bitch-slapping. Then there’s time wasters; those who put 1500 odd questions on notice, not for answers to shape a policy – Oh no, but for self aggrandisement in hope of one day running the country – 'their' way.  Just how many Wongs does it take to make a right ? (or a left, as best pleases).

  
Then two days ago in a lazy Senate hearing day, the final straw for Wong in my book and perhaps a very real wake up call for industry if Wong, Short-one and the Greens have their way at the next election- 'back to the future' (note all the names under the green ayes):

 What were they voting on? Another political muck raking exercise initiated by Senators Wong & Carr .

Senate Hansard reference 19/04 Question time:

Donations to Political Parties

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:45): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to evidence to the New South Wales independent investigation against corruption that showed Senator Sinodinos was a participant in at least one meeting that discussed facilitating the making of prohibited donations to the New South Wales Liberal Party through the Free Enterprise Foundation. Did the Prime Minister ask Senator Sinodinos to provide a full account of his conduct before he appointed him to his cabinet?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:46): Senator Wong, as you know, no findings adverse to Senator Sinodinos whatsoever have been made—
Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator BRANDIS: and given that you know that—as you have, just across the table, intimated to me that you do know that—it is very inappropriate for you to base a question on an innuendo, well knowing that no adverse finding against the honourable senator was made.

The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Wong?

Senator Wong: My point of order is direct relevance. I referred to the New South Wales independent investigation against corruption. I referred to that evidence and I asked if the Prime Minister had asked Senator Sinodinos to provide a full account of his conduct before he appointed him to the cabinet. A discussion about whether or not there are ICAC findings is not an answer to that question.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I accept that, Senator Wong. Senator Brandis, you have one minute and 35 seconds in which to answer the question.

Senator BRANDIS: I intend to, but I just thought I should begin by pointing out the inappropriateness and, indeed, unfairness of the premise of the question, when the senator well knows that no adverse finding was made. You are referring to evidence, Senator. Evidence is given in courts, tribunals, commissions and hearings all the time.

Senator Kim Carr: Certainly not given here!

The PRESIDENT: Order! On my left.

Senator BRANDIS: All sorts of allegations are made against people all the time, and the fact that the statements are made does not make them true. If they are not supported by a finding by the relevant court, tribunal, commission or board, they amount to nothing. Now, coming directly to your question, Senator Wong, the Prime Minister most certainly was satisfied that, when he invited Senator Sinodinos to be a member of his government, in every respect he satisfied the requirements of the ministerial code of conduct and was a person of integrity, as we all know him to be.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:48): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware of findings of the New South Wales Electoral Commission that implicate Senator Sinodinos in the improper channelling of prohibited donations to the New South Wales Liberal Party through the Free Enterprise Foundation? If so, why has the Prime Minister not stood aside Senator Sinodinos from his position as Cabinet Secretary at the apex of his government?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): Senator Wong, I am sure the Prime Minister knows of no such findings, because there have not been any. I notice you choose to use the weasel word 'implicate'. If you can point to a finding against Senator Sinodinos, point to it, and if you cannot, desist.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:49): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Through you, Mr President, I note that Mr Abbott stood aside Senator Sinodinos pending the outcome of a New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry considering his conduct. In contrast, Mr Turnbull gave him a promotion. What does that say about Mr Turnbull's ministerial standards?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): Senator Wong, I challenged you to point to a finding against Senator Sinodinos and you were unable to do so, which is the clearest proof to every man and woman in this chamber that that question should never have been asked. You should be ashamed of it...

 
Followed by this excellent passage of Senate theatre where PW & KC got their bottoms spanked: Estimates, Senator Carr motion & more Wong QON

Despite this obvious political smack-down Wong & Carr still went on with it and subsequently PW put forward this late notice reference for Senate inquiry which ultimately led to the above vote - Inquiry page:

Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties

On 19 April 2016, the following matter was referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the 4 May 2016:

Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties, with particular reference to the adequacy of:

1. the funding and disclosure regime relating to annual returns;
   
2. the powers of the Australian Electoral Commission with respect to supervision of the conduct of, and reporting by, associated entities of political parties; and
   
3. any related matters; and
   

2.     That the Senate direct Senator Sinodinos to appear before the committee to answer questions.

The Submission closing date is mid-day, Tuesday 26 April 2016. The reporting date is 4 May 2016.

Probably much to the Ferryman's horror   , those ToR got me thinking..thinking..thinking???  Mainly 1. & definitely 3. but also some of 2. maybe??

As most PAIN associates know, PAIN has an extensive file on the PelAir cover-up Senate inquiry, that still gets regular updates and further information added, while we are actively conducting our parallel investigation with the ATSB VH-NGA re-investigation.

Now part of that file includes volumes of information pertaining to any dodgy or otherwise associations between REX and various political parties &/or government agencies. In particular there was one very murky association and political donation that occurred just prior to the Senate inquiry which began 22nd October 2012: “Do you operate or conduct business under any other names?"

Rex made a $250,000 donation to the ALP, $95,700 to the federal Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberal Party. This made the small airline one of the biggest political donors in the country.

“Rex is a public company and it had an obligation to explain whether even one (word) regarding the crash was spoken with any of the political parties,” Mr Xenophon told The Australian.

“This largesse to political parties is inexplicably baffling and I will be buying some shares in Rex and asking them to explain it.”

&..

The airline had earlier incorrectly claimed it had made no donations to the LNP; however, when shown otherwise, Ms Chapple said the airline had meant it had made no donations to the Queensland LNP.

Of particular interest was Rex’s $250,000 donation to the federal ALP given the airline was a highly vocal critic of the Labor government.

In 2013 Rex publicly said the ALP was “hellbent” on destroying regional aviation and “along with it pretty much the rest of the economy”.

Mr Xenophon said it appeared to defy reason why Rex would donate heavily to a government it would shortly afterwards describe as “destroying its industry”.

“Perhaps Rex had a case of Stockholm syndrome?” he said.

In 2009 a Rex aeroplane — operated under the group’s Pel-Air brand — ditched into the ocean with six passengers on board, badly injuring one.

A lengthy Australian Transport Safety Board investigation blamed the Pel-Air pilot involved in the crash but failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air.

Mr Xenophon headed a Senate committee inquiry into that botched investigation, which led to the federal government last month calling on the ATSB to reopen the investigation.

So what do you reckon Ferryman, is it possible to collate, review, draft, etc. the PAIN associates observations in regards to ToR 1, 2 & definitely 3; into a readable submission inside of four days??   


MTF...P2   

Ps I also seem to recall a certain DIP statement, that recorded the DIP (on the way up to meeting with former minister Albo) bumping into a certain Mr John Sharp coming out of the lift with a number of files etc. under his arm?? - Hmm definitely have to dig that one out