tip off

Sinodinos the chairman: what he really should have known

Australian Water Holdings was a small enough entity for its former chairman, stood-aside government minister Arthur Sinodinos, to know what was going on. So why didn’t he?

In 2008, Australian Water Holdings was a small company with some 10 employees, three shareholders and a single customer, Sydney Water.

Not really a lot to know if you are the company’s chairman. Except for the things that Arthur Sinodinos — former chief of staff to a prime minister, Liberal Party luminary, political rainmaker, Senator, all-round nice guy and deputy chairman, then chairman of the board of Australian Water Holdings between 2008 and 2011 — didn’t know about AWH.

According to his own statement to the Senate, chairman Sinodinos didn’t know the family of corrupt Labor politician Eddie Obeid had a 30% stake in his company. Or that the company had a connection to Obeid, even though Eddie Obeid jnr was a senior executive in the small company.

He apparently didn’t know his CEO was spending lavish amounts of company money on entertainment, limos and gambling, even though Sydney Water was challenging the level of expenses it was being charged. Or that his company was making hefty donations to political parties, including the NSW Liberal Party (of which Sinodinos himself was treasurer, then president).

And according to evidence in the current Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into AWH, the chairman apparently needed to be told of the company’s solvency position by another investor.

There is debate about whether a company chairman carries extra legal responsibility, but the duties and obligations of all company directors are set out in sections 180-184 of the Corporations Act. Arguably the most important is the duty of care and diligence. On this, Justice John Middleton found in ASIC v Healey (2011), which concerned the liability of directors for mis-statements in the accounts of shopping centre owner Centro, which collapsed in late 2007:

Directors are required to take reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company. A director must become familiar with the fundamentals of the business in which the corporation is engaged; a director is under a continuing obligation to keep informed about the activities of the corporation; directorial management requires a general monitoring of corporate affairs and policies, and a director should maintain familiarity with the financial position of the corporation …”

So what does this mean in practice, I asked Julie Garland McLellan, who has directed and chaired listed companies, advises other boards and facilitates and writes for the Australian Institute of Company Directors? It would be “unusual” for the chairman of a small, privately owned company to be unaware who the shareholders were, she says. And it would be “normal” for the chairman of a small company to review the spending of the CEO to ensure his or her spending was in line with company policy.

The chairman of every company in Australia, big or small, has fiduciary duties and obligations under law, as well as the basic responsibility of knowing what is going on in his or her company.

A chairman who is paid $200,000 a year and is given a 5% shareholding in his company undoubtedly has those responsibilities as well.

But will Arthur Sinodinos’s performance as a company chairman be scrutinised? Not if his lawyer Tony Bannon SC has his way. Bannon yesterday told ICAC the inquiry was “not directed to alleged breaches of directors’ duties, and we deny there was any alleged breach of directors’ duties”.

20
  • 1
    Grumpy Old Sod
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    One would hope that ASIC has a good look at this as the duty of care seems to be lost in the money.

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Don’t ask - won’t tell”?

  • 3
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Can’t wait for the Teletrash to put him on the front page :- “I No Nuthink!”?

  • 4
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    The really “curious” things in all this, was, first, the party found him a soft landing pad in the senate, and then Abbott gave a bloke like this, with his history, oversight of Fofa?

  • 5
    Pedantic, Balwyn
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    No doubt Mr Sinodinos has Directors Insurance, so the whole debacle won’t cost him a penny!

    It might however cost him his reputation, at least in the short term, until Abbott brings him in from the cold.

    After all if Fiona Nash can get away with lying to Parliament, actions outside Parliament are only minor problems and subject to rapid restitution of former roles.

  • 6
    drmick
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    It is a comedy. Brandis is Dr Evil and this mongo is mini me. Pyne is the hairless cat.

  • 7
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Based on the ICAC revelations of the past few days, Arthur’s political dead meat before he says a word.

    And to think he was a highly valued Howard strategist…says a lot really.

    Bye bye Arthur…you won’t be missed

  • 8
    MJPC
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Tony may not be able to bring him in if ICAC have him in their sights. Whilst Arty is only attending to give evidence I daresay ICAC will tie him in with the whole sorry crew of Obeid/Tripodi/McDonald (et al) on the Labour side and Arty, Harcher and others on the Lib side.
    The evidence is not looking good for any of them, contrary to their please of ignorance so, if the mud sticks the DPP will build the case against them all, and they will have no political allies to call upon. O’Farrell has just canned all the CSG contracts for the next 6 months, sounds like the gate closing after the horse. With an election next year he doesn’t want any more skeletons falling out over shady deals with miners.

  • 9
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    He still knows where those skeletons are buried.

  • 10
    The Old Bill
    Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2014 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    All a storm in a teacup. If the chairman of QANTAS can legally watch whats happening to their cash reserves and business, why can’t Arthur be excused in this case?
    After all, the others were Labor politicians and had Middle Eastern names so he wouldn’t have understood them, being Aussie and all.

  • 11
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    As always with such matters, the question is “what didn’t he know and when did he NOT know it?” - as in, ‘unknow’.
    DrM - speaking of excruciating comedies, did anyone hear the mini Mr Bean yapping away in the Senate of Tuesday in his prepubertal voice. I cringed to think that he has 6 years ahead of him and,given the immovable nature of ALP apparatchiks who get their rears of the red leather, probably a lot longer.

  • 12
    mikeb
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Going by the article from “planet” Janet yesterday Sinodinos should be awarded a sainthood rather then be questioned by ICAC. Maybe the reintroduction of knighthoods could be an alternative to a gong from St Peter?

  • 13
    Stuart Coyle
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    ” we deny there was any alleged breach of directors’ duties” - because director’s duties seem to be nothing more than appearing at a meeting or two and collecting their fat pay cheques.

  • 14
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    From the evidence available, Arfa appears to be in line for that “World’s Best Paid Doorman” award - paid as he was to “open” those doors to certain government - with which, coincidently, the company he worked for, paying him that motza, stood to gain so much “return” for their investment?
    Other people might think that sounds more like “lobbyist”? A lobby being further inside one of those “establishments”?, the person who looks after that area would probably be the “bell-boy”? How much do they get paid - besides gratuities/tips?

  • 15
    David Hand
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Mikeb,
    I think Albrechtsen’s comment on Sinodinos yesterday was rightly critical of his behaviour. Though some argue that he is not being investigated by the ICAC and is only a witness, Janet Albrechtsen correctly states that we hate this sort of political sleaze.

    He may avoid a corruption finding but I reckon his political career is terminal and rightly so.

  • 16
    drmick
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    AR. Shakespeare could not write stuff like this. I wish we had our own Colbert. Micaleff is getting there, but some of the drones take themselves to seriously to see how seriously stupid they really are and to hear the stupid things they say as the rest of us hear them.

  • 17
    Linc
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    He’s using the Rebekah Brooks defence!

  • 18
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I can’t believe that some people would admit to even reading Albrechtsen…don’t mention her & she’ll be fired.

    Doesn’t anyone get it???

  • 19
    Hunt Ian
    Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    What political sleaze? Gaining underserved benefits from one’s political position? If some in actual control of AWH were planning corrupt practices, they would look to cover themselves from political attack. Regardless of which party is in government, you will need cover from attacks from the opposition. What better way to silence possible LNP critics than to appoint a darling of the Howard worshipers and what better way to silence ALP critics than to have Eddie Obeid Jr as a senior executive-negligant accessories to corruption

  • 20
    R. Ambrose Raven
    Posted Friday, 28 March 2014 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Of course he knew. It is a sad comment on the power of denial that we fail to treat such defences with ridicule.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...