What is ignored in Sydney will be examined in microscopic detail,and exploited in Washington: On the appointment of Arthur Sinodinos as Ambassador to the United States
by Ganesh Sahathevan
Senator Arthur Sinodinos Source: AAP
Arthur Sinodinos will soon be Australia's ambassador to the United States. The appointment assumes that Washington will share the Sydney establishment's perspective of Sinodinos' Australian Water Holdings matter.That perspective is described by Richard Ackland in the 2016 Guardian article below.
In 2017 ICAC determined that Sinodinos did not need to disclose he stood to benefit from Australian Water Holdings (AWH) a water company gaining a public private partnership.
Arthur Sinodinos will soon be Australia's ambassador to the United States. The appointment assumes that Washington will share the Sydney establishment's perspective of Sinodinos' Australian Water Holdings matter.That perspective is described by Richard Ackland in the 2016 Guardian article below.
In 2017 ICAC determined that Sinodinos did not need to disclose he stood to benefit from Australian Water Holdings (AWH) a water company gaining a public private partnership.
Washington is far from Sydney,and Americans, especially in the intelligence and diplomatic services do not have that same level of sophistication that one finds in Sydney.They are not likely to consider the AWH matter an historic irrelevancy.
END
Opinion
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Sinodinos and Icac: corruption may have been going on under his nose, but ignorance is bliss
Richard Ackland
When Icac finally reports this year, the unimpressive ducking and weaving by Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos is sure to draw criticism
@JustinianNews
Tue 26 Jan 2016 11.09 AEDTLast modified on Wed 14 Mar 2018 04.07 AEDT
Comments
281
END
Opinion
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Sinodinos and Icac: corruption may have been going on under his nose, but ignorance is bliss
Richard Ackland
When Icac finally reports this year, the unimpressive ducking and weaving by Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos is sure to draw criticism
@JustinianNews
Tue 26 Jan 2016 11.09 AEDTLast modified on Wed 14 Mar 2018 04.07 AEDT
Comments
281
‘Among the questions with which he had no
difficulty was: are you Arthur Sinodinos?’
Photograph: Daniel Munoz/AAP
It’s been a funny time of year. The heat and humidity do strange things, not least of all to journalists and editors anxious to fill up a lot of vacant space.
So it was that last week we woke up to a front page story in the Australian declaring that Icac “clears” cabinet secretary Senator Arthur Sinodinos, “over corruption claims”.
No one knew that there were any corruption claims against the senator. The Daily Telegraph had dismissed such speculation 18 months ago when it reported Sinodinos “is expected to escape a corruption finding from Icac” in relation to his involvement in Australian Water Holdings.
This was based on a leaked submission drafted by counsel assisting the commission, Geoffrey Watson SC, and as such is not a final determination by the commission itself.
Sinodinos had been a director of AWH from October 2008 and later chairman for a year until November 2011. During this time he was treasurer of the NSW Liberal party and later the party’s state president. His job at AWH was to “open lines of communication” with Liberal politicians.
Part of Icac’s probe was to see whether the Obeids had a hidden interest in AWH, which was pressuring the government to enter into a public-private water and sewerage infrastructure partnership in Sydney’s north-west.
The Telegraph story appeared well before last April’s high court decision in the Cunneen case, which recast the definition of corrupt conduct under the Icac Act, so any “escape” from corruption findings had nothing to do with the changed legal interpretation and the subsequent legislative amendments.
The sound and fury of Icac: surely it can't get any more theatrical than this?
Following the Cunneen case, a finding of corruption requires the probity of a public official to be adversely affected, except in a limited range of circumstances. In this case, that would have to be someone in Sydney Water who did something improper to benefit AWH.
That has never been the case. In fact, Dr Kerry Schott and Ron Quill, senior executives at Sydney Water, allegedly were under fire from Eddie Obeid for not being pliable. Icac heard that Obeid sought to have these two public servants “eliminated” on the basis of concocted allegations of corruption.
In December 2014 and January 2015, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age published apologies to the senator for suggesting that he was the subject of corruption allegations. So much for the latest “news” that Sinodinos had been cleared of corruption.
This calls for an understanding of the new distinction between corrupt and non-corrupt conduct. Corporate over-indulgence and splashing about the state’s money is not, in this case, corruption as far as senator Sinodinos is concerned.
Under the joint partnership infrastructure agreement, Sydney Water was liable for some of AWH’s administrative costs, but it soon became apparent that from 2007 the billing was exorbitant.
Mr Quill told ICAC: “It appeared as though the money they were asking for was going directly into the directors’ pockets to put it bluntly”. They (AWH) were asking for money “they were not entitled to”.
The CEO of AWH, Nick Di Girolamo, was prominent in Liberal Party circles and a party fundraiser. AWH donated $75,636 to the NSW Liberal Party – money that had come from Sydney Water. Sinodinos, a state treasurer of the Liberal party, told Icac he knew nothing about that. The inquiry also examined whether AWH had paid $183,000 into a slush fund created by an adviser to former Liberal minister Chris Hartcher.
When Sinodinos appeared in April 2014 to answer Icac’s questions about AWH he was pressed about his salary, the amount of work he did and whether he was across the company’s financial details.
Australian politics: subscribe by email
Read more
Sinodinos was paid $200,000 a year as a director for a total working commitment of between 25 and 45 hours per annum and stood to make $20 million if the company won a lucrative $1 billion contract with the state-owned Sydney Water. During his time as a director he managed a solitary visit to an AWH worksite.
The senator complained that the calculation of his time commitment did not include his travel to and from AWH headquarters at Bella Vista – a trip of an hour and a half each way, “if we’re observing the speed limits”.
Counsel assisting asked him whether he thought $200,000 was a fair remuneration given that AWH’s main source of income was from the state-owned Sydney Water.
A: “Um, the fact that I took the salary indicated that it was reasonable from my point of view.”
As a director he paid scant attention to the details of AWH’s accounts. When asked whether he looked at the primary material that lay behind the accounts his reply was:
A: “Can you define the primary material?”
Among the questions with which he had no difficulty was:
Q: “Are you Arthur Sinodinos?”
A: “Yes, I am.”
At the political donations inquiry conducted by Icac (Operation Spicer) the following September, Sinodinos continued to equivocate when asked more than half a dozen times whether he accepted responsibility, as chairman of the Liberal party’s finance committee, for accepting money from banned property developers contrary to the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Act.
He wasn’t sure what was meant by responsibility - “Responsibility, in what sense? For compliance?” he replied.
It was like pulling teeth, but ultimately he said he didn’t accept any responsibility for the party taking money from prohibited donors. That was a matter for others.
Q: “What did you do to ascertain the identity of donors to make sure that money wasn’t coming in from property developers, anything?”
A: “Nothing.”
Nor was he certain what was meant by “property developer”.
Q: “As chairman of the finance committee what responsibility do you accept for the fact that these funds from illicit donors came through the Liberal party and were used by the Liberal party in the campaign?”
A: “When you say illicit donors what do you mean?”
It was put to Sinodinos that party functionaries Simon McInnes and Paul Nicolaou had previously given evidence that the Liberal Party had secured funding from prohibited property developers.
Arthur Sinodinos: I will be vindicated at Icac inquiry into water deal
Read more
A: “Property developers as defined by whom?” was the senator’s response.
Advertisement
Q: “So what’s your problem, don’t you know what a property developer is?”
A: “ ... my problem is I’m a layman.”
It was painful session of ducking and weaving - unimpressive for someone who now holds the job of cabinet secretary. It’s a performance likely to draw criticism from ICAC when it finally reports, probably in March.
The money from property developers was funnelled through a trust associated with the Liberal Party, known as the Free Enterprise Foundation (FEF), and then back to the state branch of the party. The Australian has quoted advice from the crown solicitor claiming that there was nothing illegal in banned donors having their money washed through the foundation, and that this exculpatory material was suppressed by Icac.
In fact, the material is not evidence, but was provided to all the relevant parties before the inquiry started. It is a legal opinion based on incomplete information and Icac commissioner Megan Latham has said that consequently the advice from the Crown Solicitor is “wrong”.
Some of the non-politician shareholders in AWH commenced civil proceedings against the directors, but in August last year the action against Sinodinos was withdrawn. Last April, AWH settled a claim by Sydney Water for $1.7 million, relating to “inappropriate billing” for limousines, dinners and funnelling money to the Liberal Party.
Corruption may have been going on under his nose, but ignorance is bliss.
On the other side of the line we find former Labor ministers Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly. There was evidence they allegedly doctored a cabinet minute to reverse an earlier recommendation that the government reject a joint public-private agreement with AWH (they both claim others are responsible for this). At the time they were public officials, so they could conceivably fall within the Act’s definition of corruption.
As far as breaches of electoral funding laws are concerned, NSW Liberal senator Bill Heffernan proposed another remedy. He said that anyone who had “desecrated” the reputation and purpose of the Free Enterprise Foundation, “should have their nuts cut off”.
It’s been a funny time of year. The heat and humidity do strange things, not least of all to journalists and editors anxious to fill up a lot of vacant space.
So it was that last week we woke up to a front page story in the Australian declaring that Icac “clears” cabinet secretary Senator Arthur Sinodinos, “over corruption claims”.
No one knew that there were any corruption claims against the senator. The Daily Telegraph had dismissed such speculation 18 months ago when it reported Sinodinos “is expected to escape a corruption finding from Icac” in relation to his involvement in Australian Water Holdings.
This was based on a leaked submission drafted by counsel assisting the commission, Geoffrey Watson SC, and as such is not a final determination by the commission itself.
Sinodinos had been a director of AWH from October 2008 and later chairman for a year until November 2011. During this time he was treasurer of the NSW Liberal party and later the party’s state president. His job at AWH was to “open lines of communication” with Liberal politicians.
Part of Icac’s probe was to see whether the Obeids had a hidden interest in AWH, which was pressuring the government to enter into a public-private water and sewerage infrastructure partnership in Sydney’s north-west.
The Telegraph story appeared well before last April’s high court decision in the Cunneen case, which recast the definition of corrupt conduct under the Icac Act, so any “escape” from corruption findings had nothing to do with the changed legal interpretation and the subsequent legislative amendments.
The sound and fury of Icac: surely it can't get any more theatrical than this?
Following the Cunneen case, a finding of corruption requires the probity of a public official to be adversely affected, except in a limited range of circumstances. In this case, that would have to be someone in Sydney Water who did something improper to benefit AWH.
That has never been the case. In fact, Dr Kerry Schott and Ron Quill, senior executives at Sydney Water, allegedly were under fire from Eddie Obeid for not being pliable. Icac heard that Obeid sought to have these two public servants “eliminated” on the basis of concocted allegations of corruption.
In December 2014 and January 2015, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age published apologies to the senator for suggesting that he was the subject of corruption allegations. So much for the latest “news” that Sinodinos had been cleared of corruption.
This calls for an understanding of the new distinction between corrupt and non-corrupt conduct. Corporate over-indulgence and splashing about the state’s money is not, in this case, corruption as far as senator Sinodinos is concerned.
Under the joint partnership infrastructure agreement, Sydney Water was liable for some of AWH’s administrative costs, but it soon became apparent that from 2007 the billing was exorbitant.
Mr Quill told ICAC: “It appeared as though the money they were asking for was going directly into the directors’ pockets to put it bluntly”. They (AWH) were asking for money “they were not entitled to”.
The CEO of AWH, Nick Di Girolamo, was prominent in Liberal Party circles and a party fundraiser. AWH donated $75,636 to the NSW Liberal Party – money that had come from Sydney Water. Sinodinos, a state treasurer of the Liberal party, told Icac he knew nothing about that. The inquiry also examined whether AWH had paid $183,000 into a slush fund created by an adviser to former Liberal minister Chris Hartcher.
When Sinodinos appeared in April 2014 to answer Icac’s questions about AWH he was pressed about his salary, the amount of work he did and whether he was across the company’s financial details.
Australian politics: subscribe by email
Read more
Sinodinos was paid $200,000 a year as a director for a total working commitment of between 25 and 45 hours per annum and stood to make $20 million if the company won a lucrative $1 billion contract with the state-owned Sydney Water. During his time as a director he managed a solitary visit to an AWH worksite.
The senator complained that the calculation of his time commitment did not include his travel to and from AWH headquarters at Bella Vista – a trip of an hour and a half each way, “if we’re observing the speed limits”.
Counsel assisting asked him whether he thought $200,000 was a fair remuneration given that AWH’s main source of income was from the state-owned Sydney Water.
A: “Um, the fact that I took the salary indicated that it was reasonable from my point of view.”
As a director he paid scant attention to the details of AWH’s accounts. When asked whether he looked at the primary material that lay behind the accounts his reply was:
A: “Can you define the primary material?”
Among the questions with which he had no difficulty was:
Q: “Are you Arthur Sinodinos?”
A: “Yes, I am.”
At the political donations inquiry conducted by Icac (Operation Spicer) the following September, Sinodinos continued to equivocate when asked more than half a dozen times whether he accepted responsibility, as chairman of the Liberal party’s finance committee, for accepting money from banned property developers contrary to the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Act.
He wasn’t sure what was meant by responsibility - “Responsibility, in what sense? For compliance?” he replied.
It was like pulling teeth, but ultimately he said he didn’t accept any responsibility for the party taking money from prohibited donors. That was a matter for others.
Q: “What did you do to ascertain the identity of donors to make sure that money wasn’t coming in from property developers, anything?”
A: “Nothing.”
Nor was he certain what was meant by “property developer”.
Q: “As chairman of the finance committee what responsibility do you accept for the fact that these funds from illicit donors came through the Liberal party and were used by the Liberal party in the campaign?”
A: “When you say illicit donors what do you mean?”
It was put to Sinodinos that party functionaries Simon McInnes and Paul Nicolaou had previously given evidence that the Liberal Party had secured funding from prohibited property developers.
Arthur Sinodinos: I will be vindicated at Icac inquiry into water deal
Read more
A: “Property developers as defined by whom?” was the senator’s response.
Advertisement
Q: “So what’s your problem, don’t you know what a property developer is?”
A: “ ... my problem is I’m a layman.”
It was painful session of ducking and weaving - unimpressive for someone who now holds the job of cabinet secretary. It’s a performance likely to draw criticism from ICAC when it finally reports, probably in March.
The money from property developers was funnelled through a trust associated with the Liberal Party, known as the Free Enterprise Foundation (FEF), and then back to the state branch of the party. The Australian has quoted advice from the crown solicitor claiming that there was nothing illegal in banned donors having their money washed through the foundation, and that this exculpatory material was suppressed by Icac.
In fact, the material is not evidence, but was provided to all the relevant parties before the inquiry started. It is a legal opinion based on incomplete information and Icac commissioner Megan Latham has said that consequently the advice from the Crown Solicitor is “wrong”.
Some of the non-politician shareholders in AWH commenced civil proceedings against the directors, but in August last year the action against Sinodinos was withdrawn. Last April, AWH settled a claim by Sydney Water for $1.7 million, relating to “inappropriate billing” for limousines, dinners and funnelling money to the Liberal Party.
Corruption may have been going on under his nose, but ignorance is bliss.
On the other side of the line we find former Labor ministers Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly. There was evidence they allegedly doctored a cabinet minute to reverse an earlier recommendation that the government reject a joint public-private agreement with AWH (they both claim others are responsible for this). At the time they were public officials, so they could conceivably fall within the Act’s definition of corruption.
As far as breaches of electoral funding laws are concerned, NSW Liberal senator Bill Heffernan proposed another remedy. He said that anyone who had “desecrated” the reputation and purpose of the Free Enterprise Foundation, “should have their nuts cut off”.
Comments
Post a Comment