The Abbott Government

[trainspotter]

Ermmmm ....... Alastair Furnival is the dude that lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT for a Visitors Centre worth 400k for Cadbury. Leader of the opposition (that's right .. Tony Abbot was not PM then as it was the lead up to the election) pledged the 16 million PRIOR to being elected.

Senator Nash is GUILTY of not knowing (read lying) that Alastair Furnival held a pecuniary interest in a company he had partial ownership (Australian Public Affairs) that lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT prior to her becoming a Senator. Alastair Furnival went on to become Senator Nashs' chief of staff but has since resigned.

Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?

 

[trainspotter]

Only need to go back a few years for this one:-

A PROMINENT Labor lobbyist's wife has been appointed to the State Government's top planning body, despite having limited development experience.

Davina Quirke is serving her first term as an elected member at Burnside Council.

The council is being investigated by the State Government over allegations of bullying, harassment and outside influence.

Ms Quirke's husband, John Quirke, is a former ALP state MP and federal senator, and a lobbyist whose clients include Adelaide-based property development company Makris Corporation.

Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway yesterday said Ms Quirke was appointed because she was one of "very few" female applicants for the Development Policy Advisory Committee, the body responsible for advising the minister on planning changes such as the redevelopment of Cheltenham Park racecourse and the growth of Mt Barker.

Mr Holloway granted major project status to Makris Corporation's development of North Adelaide's former Le Cornu site and Encounter Bay Shopping Centre in 2007. The firm is part of a group of companies that last year donated $79,800 to the SA Labor Party – making it Labor's largest property donor.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s-government-job/story-e6freo8c-1225767718900

Me old mate Eddie Obeid .. nothing corrupt here:-

ICAC has found Mr Obeid obtained a licence at Mount Penny in the Bylong Valley with the help of former resources minister Ian Macdonald. The deal resulted in Mr Obeid and his family obtaining a $30 million profit.

AND

After sensational public inquiries last year, the Independent Commission Against Corruption found Mr Macdonald and his political ally, former Labor MP Eddie Obeid, acted corruptly by agreeing in 2008 to create a mining tenement over the Obeid family's farm at Mount Penny in the Bylong Valley.
The decision delivered the Obeids $30 million with the promise of at least $30 million more.
ICAC also found Mr Macdonald acted corruptly in 2008 in granting a licence at Doyles Creek to a company, Doyles Creek Mining, then chaired by former union official John Maitland. In December, ICAC advised the government that the licences - and another at Glendon Brook that formed part of the inquiry - were so ''tainted by corruption'' they should be cancelled.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-gover...on-scandals-20140120-314iv.html#ixzz2uV8ZjA46

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS ! :

 

[noco]

Interesting everyone is ignoring the growing Scandal around Alastair Furnival and his lobbyign to get Cadbury their $16M.

I thought at least Noco would be incensed at the blatant abuse of power.

Furnival used to work for Cadbury and miraculously they get a handout from the Government he was working for.

How do you have an end to the age of entitlement when the system is so corrupted by the lobbyists and the general public is realising that the burden of structural adjustment will not be fairly shared.

Factor in that the Food and Grocery Council, which has opposed the food rating system site, contacted the Senator about it the day it went live. The site was pulled down the same day. Coincidence??

Abbots' already using the not as bad as Thompson defence, but if that's the height of the bar you are setting yourself, then seriously resign and get someone in who has some integrity.

Sydboy, I have no qualm about any body breaking the law irrespect of which side of politics they belong....if they have done the wrong thing and are found out, then they should face the penalty served out to them.

It would appear Furnival has broken the law and has paid the price by losing his job..... whether Senator Nash of Abbott can be implicated is another question and as Craig Emmerson has always stated about Craig Thomson, you are innocent untill proven guilty.

I am sure of course the Labor Party will flog this to the death hoping to see Nash either sacked or resign......It is a bit like Conroy at the moment being admonished in parliament yesterday after the Member for Denison moved a motion to condemn Conroy......maybe both of them should be sacked and then that be the equalizer......tit for tat as they say.

 

[sydboy007]

Sydboy, I have no qualm about any body breaking the law irrespect of which side of politics they belong....if they have done the wrong thing and are found out, then they should face the penalty served out to them.

It would appear Furnival has broken the law and has paid the price by losing his job..... whether Senator Nash of Abbott can be implicated is another question and as Craig Emmerson has always stated about Craig Thomson, you are innocent untill proven guilty.

I am sure of course the Labor Party will flog this to the death hoping to see Nash either sacked or resign......It is a bit like Conroy at the moment being admonished in parliament yesterday after the Member for Denison moved a motion to condemn Conroy......maybe both of them should be sacked and then that be the equalizer......tit for tat as they say.

You're just nosier when it's about Labor??

It seems that Furnival was INVOLVED with the decision to provide Cadbury with $16M in funding, after he'd failed to get the Tassie Govt to provide them with $400K. He'll be in for a good bonus with that kind of deal, or is that his wife since she owns all the shares in the business??

Now if that turns out to be proven, then how does the Government have any moral authority to chastise the unions when they are providing public funds to companies based more on the political contacts. I'd say it's these kinds of issues that are going to have far more impact on Australia over the next couple of years than a small communist get together over Easter.

Abott harangued Gillard over the "slush" fund from decades passed. Surely the Government can provide some detailed answers to something that only just happened? Surely they can let us know what was discussed with the Food and Grocery council just before the food rating website was shut down. Surely it's not difficult to provide information on who was involved in the meetings and decision making process regarding the Cadbury funding.

 

[IFocus]

Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?

Actually I think a stake stuck through the h............may be not is there a stake big enough? OK burn him happy to provide the matches.

 

[sydboy007]

Yep .. burn them all at the stake. Eddie Obeid anyone or are your collective memories that short?

Asset forfeiture along the lines of proceeds from crime seems fitting, but once again it's not like any Government would have the balls to stop the lobbying or provide some real deterent to these kinds of crimes. After all, it's the main reason we need Governments, to decide which rent seeker gets the best deal.

 

[dutchie]

Hockey:

"Let me put it to you this way: The Age of Entitlement is over."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html#ixzz2uYyEj1Ra

Hockey:

Oh, by the way we want to introduce an entitlement for paid parental leave, that will cost the nation $5.5 billion.

What a joke.
What hypocrites!!

 

[noco]

Hockey:

"Let me put it to you this way: The Age of Entitlement is over."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/t...entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html#ixzz2uYyEj1Ra

Hockey:

Oh, by the way we want to introduce an entitlement for paid parental leave, that will cost the nation $5.5 billion.

What a joke.
What hypocrites!!

I don't believe it will get through in it's present form....the Greens are seeking some ammendments to water it down and may well be succesful....even a few LNP back benches may cross the floor....something you would not see from the Labor Party.

Whilst I am against women receiving PPL while earning $150,000, they are nevertheless in a very small majority....I believe lower than 2%.

 

[rumpole]

I don't believe it will get through in it's present form....the Greens are seeking some ammendments to water it down and may well be succesful....even a few LNP back benches may cross the floor....something you would not see from the Labor Party.

Whilst I am against women receiving PPL while earning $150,000, they are nevertheless in a very small majority....I believe lower than 2%.

The Labor party and Greens should let it through.

If you can't afford it, don't promise it.

 

[Logique]

Beyond despicable. Both Fairfax and Richard Ackland have jumped the shark.

Ackland seems appalled that the Government of the day should follow a policy because ''the Australian people want it''. Presumably he stands on the higher moral ground. No mention of the 1100 asylum seekers killed on Labor's watch.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/welcome-back-to-white-australia-20140227-33m4w.html
Welcome back to White Australia
28 Feb 2014, Sydney Morning Herald columnist - Richard Ackland

Before our eyes, day by day, Scott Morrison becomes the hollow man. His face tightens and twists, his eyes are dead, and his words strangled with jargon....When you peel back the layers, the oft repeated Coalition justification for stopping the boats is that ''the Australian people want it''....They are too invested in the nasty option - which has the flimsy justification of popularity..

 

[Calliope]

Asset forfeiture along the lines of proceeds from crime seems fitting, but once again it's not like any Government would have the balls to stop the lobbying or provide some real deterent to these kinds of crimes. After all, it's the main reason we need Governments, to decide which rent seeker gets the best deal.

Sigh.:shake: We can but hope for some wonderful day in the future when your Greens will assume power and we can move into the broad sunlit uplands where political corruption is non-existent.

 

[trainspotter]

Sigh.:shake: We can but hope for some wonderful day in the future when your Greens will assume power and we can move into the broad sunlit uplands where political corruption is non-existent.

Yes ... and I rode my unicorn to work today as it farted $100 bills out of it's anus to feed the poor.

 

[trainspotter]

You're just nosier when it's about Labor??

It seems that Furnival was INVOLVED with the decision to provide Cadbury with $16M in funding, after he'd failed to get the Tassie Govt to provide them with $400K. He'll be in for a good bonus with that kind of deal, or is that his wife since she owns all the shares in the business??

Now if that turns out to be proven, then how does the Government have any moral authority to chastise the unions when they are providing public funds to companies based more on the political contacts. I'd say it's these kinds of issues that are going to have far more impact on Australia over the next couple of years than a small communist get together over Easter.

Abott harangued Gillard over the "slush" fund from decades passed. Surely the Government can provide some detailed answers to something that only just happened? Surely they can let us know what was discussed with the Food and Grocery council just before the food rating website was shut down. Surely it's not difficult to provide information on who was involved in the meetings and decision making process regarding the Cadbury funding.

ERMMMMMMMMM .. that's his JOB .. he was a lobbyist, he lobbied the TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT for 400k who in turn approached the THEN Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbot and he PLEDGED the 16 million to Cadbury PRIOR to the election.

If the NOW Prime Minister Tony Abbot reneged on his pledge to give the money to Cadbury YOU would be the first one to say he has done a BACKFLIP !!!

Alastair Furnival CRIME was to not declare his pecuniary interest in the lobbying firm "Australian Public Affairs" that had a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with his job description. He was in the process of transferring his shares and directorship to his wife at the time FAIRFAX MEDIA shat on him.

Senator Fiona Nash is STOOOPID and LIED that she did not know about Alastair Furnival background. Within hours she BACKFLIPPED and got caught out LYING. (I can't recall is their favourite get out of jail free card)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...t-to-fiona-nash-on-day-website-pulled/5286976

Go here and read it for yourself !

 

[overhang]

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap. This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help? What am I missing here? Are there stipulations that some form of maintenance be performed here that will be removed that would save money? I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise. He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.

 

[Julia]

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap. This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help? What am I missing here?

I suspect the government's decision to put this legislation up is designed more to wedge Labor, and to provide an apparent equalising of the playing field with Virgin.

I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise. He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.

Yep, hence the government's reluctance to accede to Mr Joyce's request for a $3 billion unsecured loan.

 

[McLovin]

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap. This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help? What am I missing here? Are there stipulations that some form of maintenance be performed here that will be removed that would save money? I've never held Qantas but it seems a large sum of shareholders point the finger at Joyce for the airlines demise. He was also high up at Ansett during the financial collapse and seems incapable of turning things around.

If you can't exercise control then you may just not bother investing in the first place. Once a foreign airline sees that it can control Qantas it changes the ball game. The two clauses (foreign airline ownership + foreign ownership in totality) are designed to ensure Qantas is controlled by Australians, it's not really there to stop portfolio investors from buying QAN shares.

As long as the Act is in force they (Joyce + board) can attribute every ill that befalls the airline to the outdated ownership structure, while glossing over their own incompetence.

Shorten is an idiot, why on Earth would you hand over a taxpayer funded blank cheque to a business that is being run by a group of managers who'd struggle with a school sausage sizzle?

Having said all that, neither side of politics will let Qantas disappear. If it goes broke it will be absolutely rescued.

 

[DB008]

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap. This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help? What am I missing here?

Maybe..

The Act, which limits foreign ownership of the Flying Kangaroo to 49 per cent, limits foreign airline ownership to 35 per cent and prevents a single foreign investor from owning more than 25 per cent

 

[Ferret]

So the Government believe the fix for Qantas is to lift the sale act but yet currently only 39% is foreign owned which is still 10% off the cap. This would indicate there isn't a demand for the airline so how is this going to help? What am I missing here?

I don't think the government believe this is the fix for Qantas, but Joyce has been winging that Qantas can't compete because of the sale act, and therefore it should be given a government debt guarantee.

Now the government has said they will change the foreign ownership provisions of the act and Joyce is left with egg on his face because he knows the problems are deeper than the sale act provisions.

The government has called his bluff!

 

[sydboy007]

If anything it was the Labor Govt allowing Virgin to do their little trick of setting up a holding company for flag carrier status, while keeping "control" of the airline via the ASX listed shares which means 75% of the airline is now pretty much owned by 3 fierce QF competitors.

To give you an idea of how this has changed the playing field we'll look at Singapore airlines, which is really an extension of the Singapore Govt. Say SQ wants to increase flights from Australia to Singapore. They will not only look at the revenue they gain from the extra seats, but also how much extra revenue the Singapore economy gains by more tourists visiting or stopping over in Singapore. They might only be making $20 profit on each extra seat, but if each seat brings in a few hundred dollars (probably a lot more considering a cheap hotel is $150 a night) to the Singapore economy then it's likely they will bring in the sub economic capacity. International tourists provide over 10% of Singapores GDP, 3.3% of export income and roughly 10% of employment.

Compare this to QF who would have major reservations about bringing on extra international capacity with such a slim profit margin.

Etihad is probably run along similar lines too, since Abu Dhabi is becoming a reasonably popular tourist destination. Tourism supports roughly 10% of all jobs in the emirate.

As for Air NZ, not sure if the majority Govt ownership is affecting how they operate or not, but it's not hard to see them adding extra capacity at sub economic returns especially if that increases overall tourism revenue which is a big part of the NZ economy - 10% of population employed in the industry and it provides roughly $10B in revenue from international tourists.

So it's hard for QF to compete against carriers that are being used partly as Government tourism policy. QF has to make an economic return just from seat sales, whereas the major shareholders of Virgin could in theory sell seats at break even, or even a slight loss and their major Govt investors would see that as part of the costs of supporting their tourism industries. Tourism employment for Australia is < 5% so you can see the 3 major Virgin shareholders have economies much more reliant on tourism than Australia.

I don't know if it's possible, but forcing Virgin to move the flag carrier holding company back into the listed entity may be the best way forward, along with the forced reduction of ownership for overseas airlines on the share register. This would then reduce the incentive to continually support the loss making addition of domestic capacity, as well as curtail the aggressive expansion of capacity into Australia that is generally not done solely on the profit generated for the airline.

Combine this with the fact that Thai and Malaysian airlines have had multiple Govt bailouts, United and Delta have been through Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines are on the road to bankruptcy. Pretty much EVERY airline flying into Australia receives far more Government support than QF, yet the Govt and media argue they should learn to compete. How do you compete against competitors that get regular Govt top ups, or go through bankruptcy protection and come out with lowered debts and leaner staff levels and working conditions? How do you compete against airlines that can be "pressured" to bring in extra capacity at below ROI because it's supportive of the countrys' tourism industry? Maybe we need to give QF a bounty for each tourist it brings into the country, or something to help them compete in a very unlevel playing field.

 

[McLovin]

To give you an idea of how this has changed the playing field we'll look at Singapore airlines, which is really an extension of the Singapore Govt. Say SQ wants to increase flights from Australia to Singapore. They will not only look at the revenue they gain from the extra seats, but also how much extra revenue the Singapore economy gains by more tourists visiting or stopping over in Singapore. They might only be making $20 profit on each extra seat, but if each seat brings in a few hundred dollars (probably a lot more considering a cheap hotel is $150 a night) to the Singapore economy then it's likely they will bring in the sub economic capacity. International tourists provide over 10% of Singapores GDP, 3.3% of export income and roughly 10% of employment.

Compare this to QF who would have major reservations about bringing on extra international capacity with such a slim profit margin.

Who told you that?

SQ is a listed company. And a profitable one at that. It is not an extension of the Singapore tourism authority. Just because it is majority government owned doesn't mean the profit motive has been chucked out the window, nor is there any credible evidence they are dumping capacity in Australia. This accusation of government support has been getting tossed around by unprofitable competitors for years (actually SQ complains that EK receives support too). SQ has more capacity running into Australia because it's not an end of line carrier like QF. It's the same reason CX can run 5 daily flights into Sydney and 4 into Melbourne. All that traffic is running back into a massive hub.

There is a huge market that involves getting people from Australia to Asia and Europe. SQ has been playing in that market for decades. QF decided to keep dropping services from Europe until all it offered passengers was London. Well that's fantastic, if you're going to London, otherwise they force their pax to transfer at probably one of the worst airports in Europe. If I'm not going to London, I'd much rather transfer at Schipol or Frankfurt.

I'll play Qantas CEO, and say that they could compete. But Joyce has run down the product so much because he thought everyone who flew Qantas was like the once a year punter who flies Deathstar from Sydney to Bali. Those crappy mattresses they offer in business class now are because they seats are falling apart. The hosties have to make people's beds now, which means on a long haul late night flight in a full business cabin it might be 30-40 minutes once you're in the air before you are offered a drink. That would never, ever happen on SQ/CX/EK etc. Qantas still believes it can charge a premium price but it has degraded its hard and soft product over the last few years.

As for Air NZ, not sure if the majority Govt ownership is affecting how they operate or not, but it's not hard to see them adding extra capacity at sub economic returns especially if that increases overall tourism revenue which is a big part of the NZ economy - 10% of population employed in the industry and it provides roughly $10B in revenue from international tourists.

ANZ has been shrinking not growing, that's why it's returning to profitability.