NationStates Jolt Archive

That bloody lying (not left-wing) Liberal bastard! I took the money, I didn't take the money, an associate took the money, there was no money. :rolleyes: Makes you wonder what else he's done that has not hit the papers.

Surely he must have realised that if you have to stitch it into your clothing then something is not right. It disgusts me that I, as the tax payer, am footing the bill to send him on errands for a private company and allowing him to make a profit from illegal insider trading. The company, Woodside, is cutting him loose, I would too.

This idiot was elected as a representitive of Australia, not of Woodside petrol! I think this could be the tip of the ice berg, I sure hope some reporter actually asks the hard questions of this government and gets to the bottom of this. I want to know how wide spread this practice is, of using taxpayer mone to run errands for private companies, and I want to know what Lightfoot got out of this arrangement.

Why would Woodside pick him? It's not as if an oil company representitive would be out of place in Iraq... Well, what do you think? Are you as disgusted and outraged as me? Here's the article:

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12581214-2,00.html)
Lightfoot's day of contradictions
March 18, 2005

LIBERAL Senator Ross Lightfoot could not get his story straight yesterday, repeatedly contradicting himself over his involvement in the smuggling of $US20,000 into Iraq for oil giant Woodside Petroleum.

The Senator further embarrassed the Howard Government by suddenly cashing in his Woodside shares, for a $4000 profit, this week, soon after learning his activities in Iraq were about to be revealed publicly.

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,427615,00.jpg

Senator Lightfoot's version of events has changed constantly since The Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed his claim that he helped smuggle Woodside's $US20,000 hospital donation into Iraq in his suit jacket.

The trip was paid for by taxpayers. As the Senator changed his story, the Government remained on the backfoot given his position as an MP would be untenable if it was proved he engaged in improper conduct on behalf of a company in which he held shares.

After fiercely denying he used the study tour to run errands for Woodside, the WA Liberal backed himself into a corner, declaring: "I never saw any money."

But by early afternoon he admitted to being present when an associate handed $US20,000 from oil giant Woodside Petroleum to Kurdish officials.

He even remembered the texture of the cash last night, describing the US bills as "crisp". In another glaring contradiction, Senator Lightfoot told ABC radio yesterday: "I had no business on behalf of Woodside."

But in a statement to The Australian, he said: "There was a donation given to the Halabja hospital by an interpreter - my bodyguard and interpreter - that I had negotiated back in July last year on behalf of Woodside Petroleum."

Senator Lightfoot also claimed last night he signed a memorandum of understanding between Woodside and the Kurdish government, allowing the company to explore for oil.

"I was a signatory, only as an attendee. I didn't witness any documents but I signed as a signatory," Senator Lightfoot said.

The company at the centre of the political storm, Woodside Petroleum, yesterday cut the Senator adrift.

"We are examining our options," a Woodside spokesman said when asked if the company would take legal action against the senator.

"Woodside has no relationship with Senator Lightfoot and he is wrong to assert any such relationship," the company said.

The WA senator has repeatedly bragged of his love of firearms and said that being pictured with a Russian-made AK-47 assault rifle reminded him of his "Nasho [national service] days".

But, once again, Senator Lightfoot yesterday performed an about-face, saying of a .38 pistol he brandished in Iraq: "I was uncomfortable with it and did not subsequently carry it."

The gaping holes in the Senator's story raise serious questions about his role in the ferrying of $US20,000 into Iraq.

He told The Daily Telegraph this week the cash was stitched into his jacket but later said the money was carried in the jacket of an associate.

He said the wad of cash was "carried by another person with me and given to the Kurdistan Regional Government".

Prime Minister John Howard left Senator Lightfoot largely to fend for himself yesterday, saying only that he was shocked by the revelations.

Mr Howard said he first became aware of the story as he watched the morning television news.

"I must say that I held my cup of tea at my lips as I saw the news," he said. "I didn't immediately consume it. I thought well, this is going to be an interesting day."

While many of his colleagues privately distanced themselves from Senator Lightfoot yesterday, Mr Howard knows the veteran is crucial in the Government's plans to control the Senate from July 1.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd yesterday demanded an inquiry into Senator Lightfoot's actions.

"We need to establish the facts of this matter as a matter of urgency, not just in terms of what is legal and appropriate in Australia but also what is legal and appropriate in Kurdistan," Mr Rudd said.

"John Howard can't simply hide from this as it's not just a matter of Australian law, its a matter of Australia's diplomatic relations with Kurdistan and the newly independent Iraq."

Opposition public administration spokesman Kim Carr told Parliament Senator Lightfoot had made an "extraordinary set of statements" about his trip to Iraq.

Senator Carr said the Government had failed to deal with Senator Lightfoot's actions.

"What I'm concerned about is the fact that the boyhood fantasies of one particular senator can expose the misjudgment of this Government," Senator Carr said.

"And I would think the Government itself would have taken firmer action to deal with the situation. I think it would have asked itself why it is that Senator Lightfoot is still a member of the government party room because these are the sort of actions that bring the whole of Parliament into disrepute.

"You cannot bribe foreign officials, you cannot carry firearms while on an official passport and you cannot engage in unauthorised currency transactions without, one would expect, the Government taking serious action to preserve the good name of this Parliament and those carrying official passports."

Edited because some people for some reason think Liberal=Left :confused:

Pff, just like oil-for-food...

Pff, just like oil-for-food...

How so? Did the oil companies get other members of other governments to break the law and act on their behalf at the expense of the taxpayer?

How so? Did the oil companies get other members of other governments to break the law and act on their behalf at the expense of the taxpayer?
I mean they are similar because they all involve a liberal party (either this Senator, or the UN), oil, Iraq, and corruption

I mean they are similar because they all involve a liberal party (either this Senator, or the UN), oil, Iraq, and corruption

Do you mean liberal or Liberal? This was an Australian Liberal party senator, here the Liberal party is the conservative party...

Do you mean liberal or Liberal? This was an Australian Liberal party senator, here the Liberal party is the conservative party...


That's quite odd.

That's quite odd.

Only to Americans who for some strange reason tend to use the word 'liberal' as if it means 'left wing.'

I'm shocked that a major international company would use Iraq as a place to do dirty business. Quite clearly they should understand that the US as set a better precedent than this; using the chaos in Iraq to make improper or illegal dealings. Why can't the rest of the world behave itself?

Australia should quickly mobilize auditors to ensure the business deals within Iraq are conducted with the highest standards of transparency and fairness. Follow the US standards and prosecute any offenders to the fullest extent of the law; don’t allow politically well-connected corporations to get off with a mere wrist slap for taking advantage of a war torn nation.

Seriously folks, why can’t the rest of the world follow the clear and moral example of US behavior? We lead through our actions; if you cannot follow suit, then perhaps you need to take a close look at your business community and their ethics.

Australia should quickly mobilize auditors to ensure the business deals within Iraq are conducted with the highest standards of transparency and fairness. Follow the US standards and prosecute any offenders to the fullest extent of the law; don’t allow politically well-connected corporations to get off with a mere wrist slap for taking advantage of a war torn nation.


It would be nice if the government obeyed the law, under pain of being prosecuted but the conservatives in power are going to protect him, otherwise they threaten their own majority in both houses.:(

Seriously folks, why can’t the rest of the world follow the clear and moral example of US behavior? We lead through our actions; if you cannot follow suit, then perhaps you need to take a close look at your business community and their ethics.

Absolutely, could you imagine the scandal if an American oil company, like say, Halliburton, was awarded something (like a multi-million dollar contract in Iraq) or allowed special privileges (like not having to account for their costs) just because an individual in government had close ties with them or was set to make a profit?

A bump because wthe working day (and week) has finished in Australia.

Only to Americans who for some strange reason tend to use the word 'liberal' as if it means 'left wing.'

By dictionary.com, one definition of liberal is "1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative]"

Other definitions:
"Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

"Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

It's the Aussies who have the odd view. ;)

By dictionary.com...

Dictionary.com, umm, isn't that American too?:)

Edit below:

Liberal to me means free, as in liberty. Liberalism to me is supporting a free and fair democracy, freedom, free trade, freedom of speech, freedom from persecution, freedom of religion, rule of law, equality before the law and that none are above or below the law. Above all, liberal should mean small government so your daily lives can be lived free from interference, unless you impose on someone else's freedom. The government must suppress lawless elements.

It makes me angry that Howard craps on about it not being important & refusing to hold an enquiry. If a goverment minister really was smuggling money on behalf of an oil company, it's a very serious problem.

Here is a follow up article on this astounding topic! :eek: Of course nothing is going to happen, you'd have to throw your children overboard into WMDs before Prime Miniture J. Ho. will raise a finger. :headbang:

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12589405-2,00.html)


PM stands by senator's account
By Nick Butterly and Ian McPhedran
March 19, 2005

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,427830,00.jpg
Ross Lightfoot and his wife Anne at Perth Airport yesterday.

PRIME Minister John Howard has admitted there were "differences" between Senator Ross Lightfoot's official report to Parliament and his public statements - but again refused to launch an inquiry.

The Australian newspaper's Middle East-based reporter yesterday backed up the Herald Sun's exclusive story that Senator Lightfoot had bragged that he ran cash into Iraq on behalf of oil company Woodside Petroleum.

Nicolas Rothwell said the senator told him during a meeting in northern Iraq on January 30 that he had brought $25,000 into the country and was present when the money was handed to Kurdish officials.

But a short statement from Senator Lightfoot yesterday said he did "no such thing".

"I did have a general discussion with Mr Rothwell but at no point did I claim to have brought $US20,000 cash into the country," the statement read.

Mr Howard said Senator Lightfoot's travelling companion, Simko Halmet, had backed his version of events. Mr Halmet, the Kurdish Regional Government representative in Australia, said he, not Senator Lightfoot, handed the cash to the Kurdish Prime Minister to be passed on to a children's hospital.

Senator Lightfoot left Canberra for Perth yesterday morning and was pursued, in comical fashion, by camera crews at Canberra airport. He and his wife Anne Fergusson-Stewart emerged from the exclusive Chairman's Club lounge and walked to the wrong gate at the far end of the terminal.

"You are a very small man," the senator told a TV reporter as they turned back.

Mr Howard, pressured at a Canberra media conference, admitted there were several discrepancies between what Senator Lightfoot had told the media and his official, signed statement to Parliament, which the Prime Minister tabled on Thursday.

"I would agree, having listened to the interviews, that there were some differences of emphasis. But the real issue -- and that is the smuggling -- he just denies that, and that is at variance from what the journalists said.

"If evidence of substance were to emerge that casts new light on the matter, then I would obviously consider some further course of action."

Mr Howard again defended the senator's use of a firearm.

He refused to answer questions about the potential damage to Australia of a gun-toting Senator wandering around Iraq's oil fields spruiking for an Australian oil company.

Attention also turned to the potential political ramifications. The Coalition will hold the Senate by only one seat come July 1, and if the senator resigned or was forced from the party, the balance of power would be lost.

"The Prime Minister could have called an independent inquiry if he wanted to," Labor shadow treasurer Wayne Swan said. "He doesn't want to because he doesn't want to endanger a vote in the Senate."

Greens Senator Bob Brown also demanded an ASIC investigation of the matter.

In a sidelight to the saga, "Sell, sell, sell" were not the only words the veteran senator's stockbroker heard this week. Even as his role in the Iraqi money mission made national headlines, Senator Lightfoot was buying shares in companies exploring oil opportunities in Iraq.

On the same day he dumped 850 shares in Woodside -- the oil giant behind his Iraqi odyssey -- Senator Lightfoot bought up big in an outfit called Hardman Resources. Hardman is part-owned by Woodside and describes itself as a "junior partner" of the country's biggest oil company.

The Herald Sun was alerted to Hardman's plans to seek oil leases in Iraq by Senator Lightfoot himself, who strongly advised buying into the company.

Senator Lightfoot was apparently keen to remove any trace of Woodside from his parliamentary file, but the connection between Woodside and Hardman is abundantly clear.

Yeah well... Howard thinks that it is perfectly acceptable that Australian citizens get locked up in illegal immigrant detention centres, he also thinks that detention centres are a good idea, he also thinks that the Australian Govt has nothing to apologise for after years of systematic human rights violations of our indigenous people.

He also thinks that if he allows gay marriage that the entire country will suddenly turn gay.

What else? Oh... he doesn't seem that worried about pedophillic priests being protected by the Church.

Anyone who appoints Andrew Downer to represent us to other nations really deserves not to be a leader.

However, the majority of the Australian public will swallow his lies wholesale ("if Labour gets in the interest rates will rise!" Looks like they are anyway Mr Howard, can we flog you publicly now?)