http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/rob-oakeshott-lobbied-military-for-donor/story-e6freuzr-1225936188442

Whilst the illegalities of the deal may be difficult to prove, there is no doubt that Rob Oakeshott is not emerging squeaky clean from this. What is also interesting is Jula Gillard's sudden amnesia "I just don't specifically recall the conversation" when asked if her new ally had lobbied her.

Given RO's secretive request for a NSW cabinet position and recently his push for the highly paid federal cabinet and speaker positions, the extent to which Rob is prepared to put self interest over principles is becoming clear.

It will be interesting to see whether Rob will reflect his electorate's views on water allocations, presently being discussed, or will "sell them down the river" again.

In that article I get: Why are we buying from the UK when we could be buying Australian made?

Not to defend the guy, but the company he is trying to help would bring in a lot of jobs for people in his electorate and would keep money in Australia, a noble cause don't you think?

Scary company that Serco. Seems we give them a lot of our money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFkXmx8gxc

I don't know much about the company nor much about Rob Oakeshott, but we should be lobbying for government to give contracts to Australian companies albeit not for one's mates. Another example why there is a strong need for reform on political donations.

It used to be a condition of government tender processes that companies awarded contracts be majority Australian owned (I can't remember the percentage but it was high). Now money earned and paid by taxpayers in Australia is used to benefit foreign interests. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to label anyone who supports local business as redneck or nationalist, which reflects just how strong conditioning and social manipulation on this issue has become.

Now foreign owned companies provide employment services, financial services, products and defence materiels; and many other services to government. It kind of made a mockery of Therese Rein selling off her Australian owned employment service due to conflict of interest, when there is little to separate the Australian owned wing from the foreign owned interests. (I don't blame TR for that anomaly)

While these companies employ Australian workers, would it not be in Australia's economic interests to keep profits mostly onshore. When the service cannot be provided by an Australian company then a foreign company may be the only option.

I suspect the corruption part of this will fizzle out.

The tender process for government business is riddled with inefficiencies, contradictions, inadequacies and incompetence. Thus there will always and inevitably be an opportunity for someone to shout "unfair", whenever a decision goes against them.

Any competent government purchasing department will have inoculated themselves against such challenges, given that they are well aware of the "Aussie Aussie Aussie" sensitivities involved. The result will be a tedious audit of the process, which will cost us taxpayers a fair few bucks, but which will change nothing. Honour will be satisfied, business will go on. Eventually.

But having said that - isn't that Oakeshott bloke an absolute 100% dyed-in-the-wool goose?

Everything he touches seems to go titsup, while nothing he does appears to be thought-through, or constructive. Making such a public fuss over a constituent is one thing; but making a fuss after having accepted money from him should at least have rung alarm bells with him, no?

He's a dill.

I hope he enjoys his brief fling in this parliament, 'cos he sure ain't gonna be given another. And along the way, he is going to be the biggest single catalyst for an early election that there could possibly be.

He brings an entirely new dimension to the term "loose cannon"

Make no mistake, I am all for keeping manufacturing in Aus, However, there is already a requirement in defence tendering to give preference to local suppliers.

Whilst lobbying for constituents is expected, doing so whilst accepting generous donations from the contractor confuses the motivation (self enrichment or genuine motivation)

Trying to have the tender board's decisions overturned whilst under this cloud does little for him or contractor concerned.

I have always believed that in defence procurement there was always a
preference for Australian made. The reason is obvious, in time of war
overseas supply might be impossible.

However this principle is also applicable to a time of zero growth and
the decay of the global economy.

I have lobbied for that company, will continue to do so.
See in part I look after its workers.
This is a jobs drought area we need the work.
I bet, yes willingly, the ex Deputy Prime Minister, when he held the seat lobbied for them too.
After all do we not expect our local member to think and act locally?
Go Rob you good thing!

Belly,

Were you paid to lobby for them, or did you do so of your own volition. It makes a difference as to how seriously you are taken.

This scandal is not only bad for RO, but also for the company concerned, as any tender board looks on any inference of impropriety with a jaundiced eye.

Shadow do not picture a huge company, it is not one.
Do not picture a nice friendly bloke running it, he may be to Rob but not to most.
About 30 not one more work there, he has another not related business that is about the same size.
Now we need to know, Oakshot is highly regarded in his electorate.
And you can imagine many donating to his re election, trucks still proudly have his name on the sides around there.
It stretches reality to find corruption in this, Ute gate comes to mind.
What is it about Oakshot?
He sided with the ALP, if it had of been different Abbott would be most indignant about this story.
Rob you good thing go for it.
I get paid to support local firms, the smile on the face of a person who now has a job after not having one is greater than cash.

Shadow Minister, basically you are directly accusing Rob Oakshott of corruption.
You have not presented one shred of proof that corruption took place. You have presented a tabloid article that was published in a coalition supporting tabloid that has made unproven insinuations.

Where is your proof?

Put up, or shut up.

In debating SM Tboy you must learn a lesson I did.
You will change nothing by confrontation or even saying it like it is.
Let facts speak, you are in the company of our Federal opposition.
For every day of my life a reasonably long one we asked our local members to lobby for us.
Country party as it was before becoming a Liberals tea making servant was king here.
As the Nationals they serve miners and just maybe farmers some times.
Liberal, Labor, we all know and understand pork barreling, white boards and such.
Rob Oakshot, has done nothing wrong, nothing you I and Shadow Minister know that.
You need to know giving air to the confrontation for confrontation sake conservatives is not worth the effort.
Let truth rebut for you.
Remember to infer a politician breaks trust by excepting funding from a local business man who he trys to help get work is to call every one in the house a criminal.

Rob Oakeshott for sale ? Not anymore ! He's past his use by date. He won't even make it to a garage sale now but there might be some crank collector with a twisted sense of humour on Ebay.

Tboy,

Are you another resurrection of Jockey? All you seem to do is follow me around and slang me off.

I have not directly accused RO of corruption, but here are the undisputed facts:

RO been referred to ICAC, and it is openly admitted that lobbying went up as high as the PM, and RO has tried to get the tender board's decisions overturned following substantial donations from a small contractor.

At very least RO is guilty of gross political naivety. Even if the contributions and lobbying were both unrelated, RO has conducted himself in a manner that suggests completely otherwise. As a MP where integrity is paramount (an NSW minister has had to resign over a lesser matter).

There is a code of conduct that is required for people in industry and in politics to follow. All managers and MPs are taught it. Managers can, and are fired for not for strict adherence to the code of conduct whether corruption even existed.

RO ignored this code of conduct, and only he can take the blame for the resultant conflict of interest, and appearance of impropriety. If he was in the corporate world he would most likely be fired.

It is not only important what you do, but how you do it.

All I seem to do is follow you around? I checked my posts, and to date I have made 14 and 9 of them have not had anything to do with anything you've written. You're a strange one. I don't understand what you mean by your first sentence. What are you saying?

The only 'personal' comment you made in your post there that made any sense was that Rob Oakshott was politically naive. But with this entire thread you're implying a lot more than just that. You're implying that Oakshott is not honest, can't be trusted, is corrupt and is basically an unworthy individual. Pure, politically based, personal mud slinging from you.

Tboy even I noted your posts follow SM, Jockey came and went then came back as a sock puppet.
He rarely posted other than to cross swords with SM.
I miss posters like foxy and C J Morgan, but again say Oakshot by his simple action in supporting the ALP has made himself a target.
Well liked in his electorate he may be at a market day tomorrow he is that type of bloke.
In todays world of politics it is important to understand confrontation is not the only way to get a point across.
I am rather pleased, true, that any little ant hill is turned in to a mountain in trying to say those who supported Labor are evil,silly, wrong, corrupt , loving it .

Ok I see, Jockey is someone who posts here.

So I'm not allowed to comment on Shadow Minister's posts? Five of my posts were in reply to him, and ALL the others had nothing to do with him. But that makes me some kind of stalker? Well, bugger this website then. I'll delete my account.

About time the name was changed to SHALLOW MINISTER. This post is same dog different leg action. Boring.

Tboy,

In all the threads that you have interacted with me, you have used the same modus operandi that Jockey did. That is not to offer a single worthwhile fact or insight to the debate, but simply to slang me off. I read your other posts and they are all equally vapid. Offering only harsh criticism without an attempt to add to the debate requires only the IQ of a squirrel.

Please feel free to convince us why RO's conduct was entirely above board. Dig deep and find comparisons with other MPs or even corporate examples. Otherwise you are just a disruptive child in the back ground going "Na Na Na Na!"

As for ethical procedures, if I were to issue a large contract at the company I work, even if I know that company A offers the best value, I am obliged to tender to at least 3 contractors, and be seen to administer and adjudicate the tender without favour. In 90% of the cases the tender is awarded to company A for the same pre existing reasons, and simply negotiating from the start would have saved everyone time and money.

However, if I were to ignore the tender requirements and go straight to company A, I would almost certainly be dismissed, not for corruption, but for ignoring procedures that preclude corruption.

All new MPs are inducted into parliament and given ethical guidelines. RO ignored these guidelines, and has created the perception that corruption might have occurred. This was entirely preventable, and of his own doing. It will taint his career and the company from which he received the donations.

By ignoring ethical procedures and entering a conflict of interest situation, corruption may not be able to be proven, but it cannot be disproved either.

I can not remember the last time I agreed with with anything Shadow Minister wrote.
I found no content jockey wrote I did not agree with, while understanding it could have been put together better.
Nairbe,in one line expresses my views brilliantly.
Shadow Ministers last post here is full of fluff and feathers.
It overlooks real storys of past coalition members.
And for no other reason than spite, no word describes it better, against a man who denied Abbott government.
I SM with no reserve see blind confrontation that is not a split hair different from conservatives single policy.
And it was threads like taming of the shrew, coalitions way forward is confrontation, sleeping her way to the top, the fallacy anger in Oakshots electorate.
Snout in the troff need we go on, further reference can be found by clicking the little man under Shadow Minister post reading the last well balanced [unlikely] 100 posts, let your own words judge you mate.

Belly,

I take it that your personal attack on me means that you cannot refute any part of what I said, a little hypocritical coming from a one eyed Labor supporter such as yourself. A token chiding of your beloved party does not make you in any way balanced.

Also, I don't see much difference in our views on nuclear power, abortion etc. In spite of our differences I hold you in greater regard than the empty vessel that was Jockey and is probably now Tboy.

SM it is odd that you are accusing others of a one-eyed opinion. Belly might be a strong ALP support but he does acknowledge at times a number of problems particularly within the NSW ALP.

I have yet to see you offer the same insight or degree of impartiality as regards the Coalition, particularly on this sham about the independent audit and costings. Nor the fact that the Coalition disingenuously accuses the ALP of creeping socialism when there has never been as great a shift towards neo-liberalism by the ALP particularly under Rudd - which suggests a more centrist leaning than a Left leaning.

It never pays to insult the intelligence of the electorate nor assume that a blatant lack of honesty and integrity has slipped past the populace. The fact that we are two-party system dominated is the only reason why both the Coalition and the ALP can get away with this stuff. That does not excuse it.

One thing is certain about Rob Oakeshott, and to a lesser extent Tony Windsor, is that he will be hounded and targeted during the term of this government by the Coalition for what they perceive as treachery. So we should also keep an open mind on what is actually said and why.

Pelican,

I have never claimed to be unbiased, however, Belly seems to think that because I am an ardent Coalition supporter, that this means the information I post is incorrect. Unfortunately this is not so.

The facts are from reliable sources, and while my view of them can be argued, the facts are the facts. Belly has not even tried to refute them, probably because he cannot.

When you stab your ex colleagues in the back, you had better be sure that your own house is in order. Electoral donations are an ethical minefield, and RO has at least been careless in not scrupulously separating his donors from his political actions. The ethical cloud hanging over his head is entirely avoidable, and entirely of his own making.

Hi, just a point of information. TBoy does indeed appear to be a sock puppet of "Jockey". He has deleted his account so there is no other action for me to take really. Thanks for those who drew my attention to him.

Graham

ShadowMinister
"I have never claimed to be unbiased,..." - I am not disputing your loyalty to the Coalition and we all have biases - no problem.

I only ask you as a fellow citizen if it is in the interests of democracy to hold only one Party to account?

Would you be beyond criticising the Coalition should they commit a faux pas no matter how big or small, no matter if in ignorance, intentional or conspiratorial?

I agree that RO and other independents should be held to account like any elected Member of Parliament however the system works best when all players are scrutinised. Just saying is all...

The number of blind devotees to the Labor party are many on this site. They don't need my help.

It is not about help, it is about honesty (given this post touches on issues of integrity). Your attention to it assumes a sense of justice and honesty - or is it only one-sided.

Pelican,

I fail to see what point you are making.

That Rob Oakeshott's dealings have been exposed as ethically questionable is not in dispute, as there are several articles about the subject in the media. If I have said anything that is untrue or a poor interpretation of the facts then feel free to comment or challenge me.

That I am enjoying his discomfort after his treachery does not take away anything from the validity of the facts, and debating my personal motivation is actually irrelevant to the debate as a whole.

My personal feeling is that he is in politics more for himself than his constituents, and his secret approach to the NSW labor government for a cabinet post, parliamentary reforms, support of Labor, and subsequent shots at federal cabinet and speaker were primarily motivated by self interest.

That RO's loss of integrity must be of concern for Julia Gillard, as his support in the conservative electorate does not come from his alliance with Labor. If it erodes too far, he might have to switch allegiance to prevent being unemployed in a couple of years.

Perhaps you are right about RO, ShadowM, but if RO had sided with the Coalition I suspect you would not be making this post. That was my point.

Pelican,

Your point has nothing to do with the issue.

If RO had expressed the wishes of his electorate and sided with the coalition, he would not have made so many enemies with the time to dig out his malfeasances, refer him to ICAC and ensure it made the papers.

If he had not been so duplicitous, it may not have peaked my interest.

However, the underlying fact is that if he had followed ethical procedures there would be nothing to refer to ICAC or make the papers.