Mar 26, 2014

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?

Paddy Manning

Crikey business editor

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".

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “Sinodinos the chairman: what he really should have known

  1. Grumpy Old Sod

    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

    “Don’t ask – won’t tell”?

  3. klewso

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

  4. klewso

    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

    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

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

  7. Kevin Herbert

    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

    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

    He still knows where those skeletons are buried.

  10. The Old Bill

    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.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details