Hi Foxy,

The inner workings of government is extremely complex. Policy has to be compatible with party philosophy, not conflicting with it. The problem within the Liberal Party is not policy, no matter how bad it is, that can be rectified at the stroke of the pen. The real problem is the conflict between the two main factions, the "Wets" the soft liberal faction within the party that has long supported Turnbull over Abbott, and the "Drys", that conservative hard right faction which seen Turnbull correctly as electable, where their own preferred choice Abbott was seen as a looming electoral disaster. In the interest of self preservation, enough "Drys" through their support behind Turnbull for the top job. Now it is proving to be an unhappy marriage, and Turnbull's support from the hard right faction is deminishing day by day. who should challenge Turnbull, I believe Julie Bishop is the only creditable alternative, however, I'm sure Tony Abbott would not agree.

Dear Paul,

I can't see Turnbull being replaced prior to the next
election. That would be a big mistake. They have
to present a united front. However, if they get behind
Turnbull, and fix some of their current policies - like
the company tax cuts - they might be in with a chance.
It's still to close to call between Labor and Liberal.
Don't forget that Shorten is not the preferred PM.
As for Julie Bishop? I don't think that will happen.
But of course I could be wrong.

Hi Foxy,

I'll agree Turnbull appears fairly safe until the next election, but anymore disasters could change that rather quickly.

mhaze,
Of course a PAF must keep records to maintain its status but the only mandatory guidelines are that the fund cannot be used to run a business and the minimum $11,000 or 5% donation per annum payout and this loose arrangement has been a complaint of the ATO since the Funds were legislated. This is why they consider the funds to be a vehicle for tax minimisation.

Allowable "expenses" of the Fund are not specified and commonly disburse such things as Directors Fees to individuals and "administrative costs". Funds can and do employ family members for that purpose.

Just before it collapsed, the Shane Warne Public Fund was paying his brother "employee" more money than the Fund was distributing to charities and was running at a loss because "expenses" were taking up 86% of the revenue. Public Funds run lavish fundraising parties as an example of administrative costs.

As I mentioned, the average fund is only paying out around 8% to charities so where is the money going?

With the American Godfather turning off Malcolm's political life support, and anointing Dud Dutton as the next House Boss it looks only a matter of time before poor Money Bags is sent packing. Hasta la vista sucker.