Share play raises some disturbing question
Terry McCrann
February 19, 2010
Jeff Kennett's
Chinese
share play raises some deeply disturbing questions in and around the
casino
culture that have enveloped his government and him, personally,
above all. It adds further evidence to the conclusion that his personal and
public
policy can-do enthusiasm completely overrides any understanding of
the
proprieties required of the premier of the state.
His explanation of why he invested $39,000 in Guangdong Corporation
may
provide some surface justification, but is totally inadequate and
raises
questions on two levels.
First, was it proper for him to make the investment in the first
place? Or
did he only get the shares, which had the propensity to deliver him
an
immediate profit - like $25,000 - because he was premier?
He has not tried to pretend it was Felicity's
investment, even though he put them in her name, and thereby decided
they
did not have to be disclosed on the parliamentary register. How was it possible for him/Felicity
to get 50,000 shares?
This was a float that looked so attractive
that after
barely two business days, the promoters said it was swamped.
Yet Felicity appears to have
got an
allocation which made her one of the biggest individual Australian
shareholders. And the bigger the shareholding, the bigger the profit to the
Kennetts.
He says he wanted to make a gesture, an act of good faith. Surely he
could
have done so by subscribing for fewer shares, and thus set out to
reap a smaller
profit. But it is in the bigger context that the issues are most disturbing.
For Mr
Kennett
Three days after that meeting, the limits on poker machines outside
the
casino were announced. Two days after the meeting another 5000 poker
machines had been released to the market by the government. Around the very day that Mr made the investment
at
precisely the time he and his government - as we all know in truth,
that
means He - were making major decisions on gambling in the state.
He met the Guangdong people on the same day Crown was announced as
the
winner of the casino licence.Kennett
was writing his cheque, the government announced the maximum number
of
machines in the state. The combination had the effect of creating
licences
to print money for those who could get those machines.
And who has been the single biggest or close to the single biggest
winner
out of "getting" poker machines outside the casino?
Mr Bojangles,
Bruce Mathieson - the man who approached Mr Kennett
over Guangdong and set in train the process which led to his
investment and
an all-but guaranteed profit.
If Mr Kennett cannot
understand this
posed a truly monumental conflict
of interest, and that he should have declined any shares if offered
effectively by Mr Mathieson as a director of the float promoter,
there is
only one conclusion.
He is unable to understand what is required of a premier.
Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
