- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,842
- Reactions
- 13,883
Andrew Robb.Do you have some examples ?
Managed to get the Port of Darwin sold then got a job on the Board of the company that bought ( sorry leased it for 99 years).
Andrew Robb.Do you have some examples ?
What role exactly did he play in leasing the port?Andrew Robb.
Managed to get the Port of Darwin sold then got a job on the Board of the company that bought ( sorry leased it for 99 years).
He was the responsible Federal Minister at the time.'What role exactly did he play in leasing the port?
That’s a bit of a stretch isn’t it. The deal was organised by the NT state government, Robb is a federal minister, he was the minister for trade, but he wasn’t part of the Foreign Investment review board that approved it.He was the responsible Federal Minister at the time.'
"
The Federal Minister had to approve it and that was him.That’s a bit of a stretch isn’t it. The deal was organised by the NT state government, Robb is a federal minister, he was the minister for trade, but he wasn’t part of the Foreign Investment review board that approved it.
Are you saying that the State and federal government bodies that organized and approved it, and all the members that voted on it were doing him a favor?
Do you have some examples ?
It was the foreign investment review board that had to do the main approval, and the deal done at the state level, it was the state government that wanted to lease it out.The Federal Minister had to approve it and that was him.
You see nothing strange about going straight from politics into a private company that benefited from a deal he approved?
I asked for examples where politicians had made decisions purely to get elected to board positions, it just a list of politicians that have board positions.
If you say so.It was the foreign investment review board that had to do the main approval, and the deal done at the state level, it was the state government that wanted to lease it out.
I can’t see how he could have initiated it to the point where he got a kick back, if anything maybe he blackmailed them, but I think that’s unlikely.
Ok you win the internet todayI asked for examples where politicians had made decisions purely to get elected to board positions, it just a list of politicians that have board positions.
I am sorry, I thought because you said that politicians make decisions purely to ensure board seats you would have a bunch of examples showing that.Ok you win the internet today
Well it’s just hard to believe that a guy that wasn’t sitting in the level of government that actually had the original idea to sell, and wasn’t part of the board that actually approved it. Some how held enough sway to be singled out and paid off.If you say so.![]()
Well it’s just hard to believe that a guy that wasn’t sitting in the level of government that actually had the original idea to sell, and wasn’t part of the board that actually approved it. Some how held enough sway to be singled out and paid off.
However, I can see why people that know the insides and outs of the political structure with connections are valuable on certain boards. But that doesn’t automatically mean that the way we’re corrupt during their time in office.
Stephen Mayne has worked for almost 30 years as a shareholder activist . Essentially he challenges companies on their treatment of shareholders and the behavior of CEO's in terms of ethical business practice.
Concept | Three axial flow motors |
Max. drive power | > 1,000 kW (> 1,360 PS) |
Drive system | Fully variable all-wheel drive (AMG Performance 4MATIC+) |
Maximum speed | > 360 km/h |
Battery | > 800 Volts |
Charging time for approx. 400 km (WLTP) | ~ 5 minutes (DC fast charging) |
Average DC charging power | > 850 kW |
Vehicle length | 5.204 mm |
Vehicle width (with mirrors) | 2.130 mm |
Vehicle height | 1.317 mm |
Cd value (drag coefficient) | 0,198 |
Abutting face | 2.24 m² |
I know it can seem like there must be dodgy business happening, but it is also just the fact that people tend to work in industries they have experience in.The issue of Government Ministers going from being in positions of power one year and then when retired sitting on Boards of companies related to their political experience goes back for decades.
The Defence Department is notorious for ex politicians ending up on Boards that have dealings with them. Whether it reflects giving special favours to people who supported previous decisions OR having these ex pollies on Board because they know the ropes and who to influence is much the same.
There have been calls to prohibit ex politicians sitting on Boards with companies that could have dealings with the Government for 5 years after they retire. I don't believe that has got traction becasue frankly politicians on all sides look to jumping on Boards directly after retirement and using their political contacts.
Fine if they have technical expertise in the area, but a politician's association with a portfolio doesn't make them an expert in that particular field.I know it can seem like there must be dodgy business happening, but it is also just the fact that people tend to work in industries they have experience in.
which is a value asset in itself even without any corruption happening, not to mention the many other aspects of knowledge on how the system works, and what are likely to be road blocks, ins and outs of various red tape etc etc.The value of an ex-politician to a company is usually in the contacts within government that they have.
Well yes, for the company that's fine, but in the public interest having token politicians on boards just for the purposes of "insider trading" adds no value for the taxpayer as the company itself may be shite and better companies overlooked if they don't have influential mates.Boards generally have professionals from a wide array of fields, eg financing, law, media, etc etc on top of technical expertise in the actual business. It would be crazy to think that some one with a long background in politics can’t add value to some boards.
I didn’t mention anything about insider trading, I am talking about them assisting the board with navigating aspects of their businesses that involve government or regulation, or lobbying etc etc or even just aspects to do with areas of expertise that ex Polly has.Well yes, for the company that's fine, but in the public interest having token politicians on boards just for the purposes of "insider trading" adds no value for the taxpayer as the company itself may be shite and better companies overlooked if they don't have influential mates.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.