View Single Post
Old 4th November 2017, 02:39 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,134
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

pipbarber said View Post
A good move but what is this?

I don't really understand this given she has vetoed the loan application. If her husband worked on the application the conflict of interest accusation may be justifiable if she passed the loan but not if she vetoes it, right?

Anyway, the article concludes
A lot seems to be hinging on this election. William Hill has Labor at $1.85 and LNP at $1.92. It really doesnt get much closer than that.

Hmm, my understanding was that she only vetoed the loan after it was revealed that her partner worked on it, while it is now not a conflict of interest because she has vetoed it, it was a conflict of interest until she vetoed it. You don't get to claim innocence after the act. if she knew her partner was working on it, she would have known that it constituted a conflict of interest at the time.

It's likely, from the news report I read, that she vetoed because of the possible impact on the election;

However, Ms Palaszczuk accused LNP senators in Canberra of a “smear campaign” and “circulating rumours” about Mr Drabsch, adding she had written to the state’s integrity commissioner for advice on the “rumours and innuendo”. She said her chief-of-staff advised her of the rumours on Tuesday night and labelled the LNP senators’ moves as “a new low in Australian politics”.

“I am told they planned to use this during the election campaign to impugn my character and suggest something untoward,” the premier told reporters. Ms Palaszczuk insisted there had been nothing untoward and she had not known about her partner’s involvement as part of PwC’s work to secure a loan from the NAIF for the Galilee Basin mine.

It's difficult to see how she could not have known about her partners involvement in one of the biggest projects in the state involving billions of dollars. That may indeed be the case, I'm certainly not calling her a liar, the problem for her is, even if it was true she knew nothing about his involvement, she can't prove she knew nothing about his involvement.

Either way it might have, and still may, prove a body blow for the election. I think the chances for minimising impact have long gone.
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Thank pipbarber thanked this post