Category Archives: Goldman Sachs
from the Australian Morning Mail
The Clintons and Turnbulls
One can’t escape that the two families seem to like ‘foundations’, it has a cozy sound, one of philanthropy through the pure heart of a samaritan—even Mother Theresa like. Past Australian governments simply adored the Clinton Foundation to the tune of more than $400 million. Gillard is in there somewhere also. Perhaps ‘foundation’ was the lure for Malcolm? The Great Barrier Reef Foundation sounds regal—don’t you think? The Clinton Foundation $400 million odd. The GBRF $444 million—not too much and not too little. Gee, big Mal has a lot of good friends—today. Tomorrow—I dunnow!
Malcolm Turnbull’s office has confirmed that two of the directors of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation — the recipient of a $444 million grant from his government awarded without tender — may have been hosted at the Prime Minister’s home by wife Lucy.
Source: News Corp
PM fends off Lucy’s links to $444m reef grant recipients
The Australian can reveal the head of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s philanthropy committee, Stephen Fitzgerald, a one-time head of Mr Turnbull’s former investment bank Goldman Sachs, was on the board of the European Business Advisory Council at the same time as Mrs Turnbull.
Mr Fitzgerald is also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre in Sydney — where Mrs Turnbull is patron — and was on that council while Mrs Turnbull held the role of deputy chair between 2012 and 2015.
The chairman of the philanthropy committee for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation before Mr Fitzgerald, Stephen Roberts, was also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time Mrs Turnbull held ceremonial roles. Mr Roberts resigned from his foundation role in June after being charged with alleged criminal cartel conduct.
Asked yesterday whether Mr Fitzgerald or Mr Roberts had been to the Turnbulls’ home, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “Prior to 2015, as deputy chair of the US Studies Centre, Mrs Turnbull occasionally hosted USSC directors and advisers at her home.”
The revelations will raise more questions about the grant to the foundation but the Prime Minister’s office insists the decision was not a result of connections.
The Australian understands Mrs Turnbull concedes she knows Mr Fitzgerald but says she has not seen him for more than three years and cannot “recall” discussing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with him.
“Mrs Turnbull is not a director of the European Australian Business Council and has not been for more than a year,” a spokesman for the Prime Minister said.
“The PM’s parliamentary disclosures reflect this. (Mrs Turnbull) has not spoken directly with either man for several years, and does not recall discussing the funding of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with them.”
He said: “The PM has not discussed this issue with Mr Fitzgerald or Mr Roberts. The government is preserving the Great Barrier Reef for future generations. This initiative will secure jobs and improve the health of the reef. The foundation is the best-placed body to deliver on these goals.”
Asked whose idea the grant was, Mr Turnbull’s spokesman would only say: “The proposal was developed within the Department of the Environment and Energy in consultation with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, Treasury, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.”
The Australian does not suggest the grant was made improperly.
Mr Turnbull has conceded he knows Mr Fitzgerald but says he does not know another Goldman Sachs boss, Keith Tuffley, who was on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation board until he resigned on federal budget day, May 8.
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg repeatedly refused to say on 2GB yesterday whether the decision to give the $444m to the foundation without tender was Mr Turnbull’s idea. “It’s the government’s idea and it was one of the major announcements … in the budget because we want to save the Barrier Reef,” he said.
“This is the single largest ever investment in the Barrier Reef.”
Labor senator Kristina Keneally said: “There is something fishy about this grant.
“How does a prime minister give away $444m of public money without due diligence, competitive tender or grant application?”
“If Malcolm Turnbull and his family has a personal relationship with one or more of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation board members, that’s even more reason (he) should have ensured this grant decision was taken at arm’s length from him, with the highest standards of probity and contestability, so as to give the public confidence in the decision.”
Prime Minister, former head of Goldman Sachs Australia 1997-2002.
Former deputy chairman and director of US Studies Centre 2012-15 and on the board of directors of the centre 2007-15, including a time when both Great Barrier Reef Foundation directors Stephen Fitzgerald and Stephen Roberts were on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre. Also on the board of the European Australian Business Council at the same time as Mr Fitzgerald was a fellow director.
The Turnbulls’ son-in-law. A former non-resident fellow at the US Studies Centre.
Former chairman of Goldman Sachs after joining in 1992. Named a managing director in 1998 and a partner in 2002. The current chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation Board’s philanthropy committee. On the board of the European Australian Business Council at the same time as Lucy Turnbull. On the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time Mrs Turnbull was on the board of directors. The PM’s office confirms Mr Fitzgerald may have been hosted by Mrs Turnbull at the Turnbulls’ home.
Former head of Citigroup. Was charged with alleged criminal cartel conduct related to his time at Citigroup. Was chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation philanthropy committee in 2016 and 2017. Resigned from Great Barrier Reef Foundation board in June after he was charged. Was on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time as Mrs Turnbull was on the board of directors. The PM’s office confirms he may have been hosted at the Turnbulls’ home.
The Turnbulls’ son. Worked for Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. The PM’s office says Alex Turnbull ‘does not recall meeting Stephen Fitzgerald’ and ‘they did not work together at Goldman Sachs’.
United Nations sycophants of ALP, Greens and LNP decry Senator Anning’s remarkable maiden speech which is reproduced in full at the bottom of the page
The dominant left wing of national broadcaster, the ABC is frothing at both ends over Senator Fraser Anning’s maiden speech.
Cairns News has perused the speech and discovered it is not nearly as volatile as Pauline Hanson’s in the maiden speech stakes.
Brainless shock jock Senator Derryn Hinch, naturally a Victorian and ALP atheist Penny Wong have joined the choirmaster ABC along with the Jew, Josh Frydenberg, unremarkably spluttering the views of the Liberal Left.
It is a terrible blight on the jaundiced, national Marxist education system, that a supposed government Minister is unable to rely on normal comprehension to understand the meaning of Senator Anning’s quite acceptable speech.
Readers can decide for themselves but the new senator leaves us in no doubt a national referendum on immigration should happen quite soon.
Below is a statement from Senator Anning:
Senator Anning has dismissed criticism of his use of the words “final solution” in regards to immigration as an effort by the left to shut down debate.
“Claims that the words meant anything other than the “ultimate solution” to any political question is always a popular vote are simply ridiculous.”
“Anyone who actually reads them in context will realise this.”
“Some in the media and left wing politicians are simply afraid of the Australian people having a say on who comes here.”
“As I called for a plebiscite on the immigration mix, this baseless and ridiculous criticism is simply an effort to play the man and not the ball.”
“It is ironic that those on the left such as the Greens and some Labor who seek to criticise me are the same people who refused to support my efforts to stop Australia funding the Palestinian Authority which finance terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli women and children.”
To read the full speech click link – Maiden Speech – Senator Anning
LNP/ALP free trade deals costing us dearly
01 March 2018: Federal Member for Kennedy Hon Bob Katter slammed the Prime Minister in Question Time today asking when the ALP/LNP will leave the fantasy land of the ‘Sydney Suits’ and realise the ‘Struggle Street’ caused by free market fundamentalist.
The fiery session began with Mr Katter questioning what free trade has done for – or rather done to – Australia. Tensions soared as Mr Katter announced facts to back his claim of how free trade has destroyed Australian jobs, and asked when the ALP/LNP would realise the struggle they’ve imposed on Australians.
“Could you advise what free marketing has done for – or rather to – Australia?
Are you aware that the ALP/LNP free marketing of wool is 68% and a $16b loss, gas – sold offshore for 6c and now onshore we pay $16, that’s a $23b loss, motor vehicle industry another $21b gone, petrol (instead of ethanol) $19b loss, Galilee Coal Railline $12b.
That’s just five items equalling a $91b a year loss.
“When will you and the ALP leave the fantasy land of the ‘Sydney Suits’ and realise the ‘Struggle Street’ you’ve imposed on Australians?” Mr Katter asked.
It is not the first time Mr Katter has spoken on free trade this month; he ferociously delivered a message during the first week of Parliament, a video which has now gone “viral” online.
“What are the facts about our free-trade deals? The last one was with the United States. They wanted pharmaceuticals and they wanted phytosanitary quarantine removed. That was what they wanted. According to the Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, we wanted dairy, beef and sugar.
“Did they get what they wanted? Yes. They got an open-door policy virtually for pharmaceuticals and for phytosanitary requirements quarantined. We have a board now which consists of half United States and half Australia. We pleaded with them not to allow the prawns in. If you allow prawns in, you will get white spot. Well, we got white spot, citrus canker, Panama disease, black sigatoka and papaya fruit fly. Our phytosanitary requirements are an absolute joke.
“What did the free-trade deal do for us? $91b a year gone,” Mr Katter said.
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The next NATs’ Party meeting could set Australia back on track by deciding to reverse what Turnbull tried to do to them. Turnbull made no secret of the fact he was trying to get the NATs to sack Barnaby. Well, that’s heresy and guess what, as I have been saying from day one, Barnaby is going nowhere, it’s Turnbull who should be worried.
A deputation of NATs should now go to Turnbull’s office and demand he step down or the NATs will rip up the coalition agreement and leave the Libs to wallow diseased and deceased.
So, at the next joint Party meeting, the proposition should be put to the entire Liberal Party where many would be quite excited by the idea.
The NATs, in the meantime, will have had meetings with Bernardi and all other Right of Centre Parties and Independents, who I believe would break their necks to preference the NATs at the next election but not the Libs.
Turnbull support diminished and still shrinking
There would no doubt be Liberal Party defections as it became clear that this NAT coalition would stop Shorten dead in his tracks and the Liberal Party would effectively become defunct, never to rule again.
Those who always voted Liberal will also naturally preference the NATs. The Liberal Party deserves to die for allowing Turnbull to capitulate to his Lefty Labor mates, deserting the Menzies centrist doctrine.
The combination would see the NATs as the senior conservative Party in Government as it already holds 21 seats in the Parliament. The three-corner election deals would be scrapped and the NATs could field and win with candidates in seats, where it formerly could not.
This would give Aussie voters what they crave… a clear choice between socialist and conservative and if you add to that Shorten’s appalling popularity figures it would be impossible for even Graham Richardson to predict a Labor/Green win.
The NATs would undoubtedly win between 35 and 40 seats, most at the expense of the Liberals, but it would be the NATs, combined with a diminished Liberal Party, who would be able to convince the GG that they could easily form government as one Party.
The Liberals would then have to agree to a One-Party Conservative Coalition where grubby Lefty wastrels like Bishop, Payne, Frydenberg, Hunt and Pyne etc would no longer run the joint and they would have to toe the line as they did before Turnbull assassinated Abbott.
A One-Party Coalition Government would likely elect Dutton as PM and retain Joyce as his Deputy.
Now Australia could have an honest Conservative Government that will kill off the ABC and Fraser’s SBS, dump the Paris accord, start re-mining coal, get energy costs back to normal, ban RETs, develop the north, start on nuclear power, halve immigration, combine and halve our security agencies, decimate the corrupt and bloated SCSIRO, ban immigration from known terrorist nations, reduce QUANGOs by 75%, reduce all Departmental budgets by 10%, reduce the Public Service by 5,000, cap their salaries, allow the States to collect and spend their own GST, stop ‘nominated’ Aboriginal status, reform the judiciaries, Reform the Senate, force States to reform the Family Court and the CSA, stop Islamic welfare rorts, tell the Islamic dominated UN to go root its boot, ban deficit spending, rip up 20,000 regulations, cull crocodiles and bats and at the next election include a fair dinkum referendum on restoring a trashed Marriage Act. (You can look forward to a much different result than the last Green inspired dodgy one.)
Okay so I might have my hand on it but really, Turnbull must go, and the only people with the testicular fortitude to make that happen are the NATs.
Submissions called to investigate the unlawful removal of Senator Rod Culleton from the senate earlier this year.
What really happened? Why did the Attorney General Liberal George Brandis, intentionally mislead the senate about Culleton and how did the Senate President Stephen Parry(former Port Arthur undertaker) remove Culleton without a motion of the senate? Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia says only the senate can rule on the eligibility of a senator.
Brandis is hightailing it to London as the new High Commissioner. He will no doubt be called to give evidence. He has a problem.
‘On 6 December 2017, the Senate resolved that the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018:
The implications of recent decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns concerning section 44 of the Constitution on questions referred by the Parliament under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with particular reference to:
(a) the decisions in connection with the disqualification of former Senators Bob Day and Rodney Culleton;
(b) a regime for disclosing information relating to aspects other than section 44(i), for which the Parliament has already provided;
(c) the form such a process might take and how it could be implemented; and
(d) any related matters.’
Committee Secretariat contact:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
PO Box 6021
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2374
Fax: +61 2 6277 4773