Solaring into Trouble

The Andrew Stoner Solar Panel "scandal" has been resurrected once again.  This displeased me greatly, and not just because I needed to come up with a new solar panel based pun for the title of this blogpost.

Full story on SMH

These attacks on Stoner shows an odd desperation on the part of Labor - an unbecoming fervour to splash the mud around in the hope that it sticks.

That worked for the NSW Coalition when Labor were in power.  To be fair, there were so many corrupt Labor members and ministers that the public didn't need any help from the Coalition to reach that conclusion. 

Things have been different since March.  Steve Cansdell's descent was as rapid as it was unexpected, but he was sacked before the issue could really do much damage to the Coalition's brand.

We then had the mystery unnamed senior Liberal minister who was alleged to have been involved in what I'll call some "fairly graphic situations."  I should say, in fairness, that his identity has not yet been revealed, despite my view in this post that it was inevitable. It remains to be seen whether that remains the case.

The consequence is that the old "stink of corruption" that hung over the Labor government has, to date, eluded the Coalition. This makes Robertson's fervour over Andrew Stoner look disingenuous rather than compelling.

In any event, in August it was alleged that Stoner had raced to take advantage of the Solar Panel scheme at the last possible minute.  In fact, there was even the (superficially) damaging allegation that he had skipped out on parliament that final afternoon to sign up.  

As if that wasn't enough, Labor then took the frankly incredible step of having the matter referred to ICAC.  It appeared that the installer was a National's member.  Further, it was alleged that Stoner's deposit arrived after the deadline for people to sign up for the deal and receive the 60c tariff, meaning that he had potentially received some sort of favourable treatment.

From there, the issue thankfully faded from sight for a period, until I saw this tweet from Sean Nicholls:

It appeared that during estimates this week there was an exchange involving Andrew Stoner where the issue of the solar panels was raised.  It was revealed that a report had been prepared by Keith Mason AC QC and provided to the Coalition.  The report was duly provided to the committee. 

The relevant document was produced and is available here (part 1) and here (part 2).

It bears a careful reading.

As a starting point, I thought it was pretty funny, in light of the topic, that the date on the document is clearly incorrect.

The report helpfully sets out 4 requirements for Stoner to have complied with law. They are as follows:

The report goes on to detail the times at which the relevant arrangements were made, which was assisted by the fact that Stoner had made many of the arrangements on email.  

The important part (for present purposes) is here:

What those emails unambiguously show is that Stoner had entered an agreement to purchase the system well before the date at which he was alleged to have snuck out of parliament to sign up.  That allegation was plain incorrect, and Labor owes him an apology for an allegation that is clearly wrong.

In any event, when the changes were announced the provider sent what I have no doubt was a quickly composed and semi-panicked email out to a large number of people - most likely anyone who has shown an interest but not yet had their system installed. Stoner received that bulk email asking for a deposit of $100.

In accordance with their email, Stoner transferred the funds to the provider.

One point is emphasized:

Additionally, confusion was created by the fact that the provider provided the invoices to everyone dated the same day as the email, as opposed to the date they received the funds.  It remains unclear why that was done, but, as far as Andrew Stoner is concerned, nothing turns on it.

The report is more than a little refreshing, because it is a report that looks beyond the stupidity of politics to the actual issue: has Andrew Stoner done anything wrong?

Unambiguously, the answer is no.  I don't suppose he is holding his breath for an apology.

Stupid is as Stupid does

If these are the people running the state, then I fear for our future. I really do.

Steve Cansdell is many things, and no doubt we are going to see an entertaining range of adjectives used in the days to come.

For me, all I can think is that he is a stupid, stupid man.

Image from abc.net.au

As a solicitor, I know that I have to value my practicing certificate.  I know that a charge of perjury (for example) can have consequences far beyond the serious criminal consequences.

People often lose their practicing certificate and are not allowed to practice again after proof of dishonesty.  Every time someone suggests that I might perhaps do something unethical, I point to my certificate on the wall and tell them that there is no way that I would risk it.

In my profession honesty is important, and dishonest acts are punished swiftly and severely.  And rightly so.

One of the few professions where this burden should weigh even more heavily is politics.  This is not only because a conviction for dishonesty would automatically leads to your expulsion from parliament as per s13A of the NSW Constitution

Even dishonesty that doesn't qualify as perjury can lead to serious consequences. Carl Scully was shown to have mislead parliament over the Cronulla riots and was forced to step down.

It was inevitable that Cansdell would be asked to stand down from parliament, and that's exactly what happened.

This threat should be especially heightened as a pollie when you consider the number of people who would RELISH the opportunity to bring you down.

Between journalists looking for a story, opposition members looking to damage your party, factional opponents looking for an advantage, not to mention all the people you have to piss off to get a seat, politicians probably have as many enemies as any other profession.

If there is a hint that you are vulnerable, people are going to seek that out.

None of the reports I've read today explain why all this has happened today, but it seems likely that someone has been looking around.  For whatever reason, Cansdell has seen the writing on the wall and jumped before the inevitable.

The fact that all the media outlets appear to have been caught by surprise suggests to me that it may not have been the media that was on the scent.  If it had been the Labor party, you can assume that they would have been better prepared to take advantage of the situation, and would have positioned him accordingly.

We may never know the full story, and it may be that someone with an interest in minimising damage to the government found out, and convinced him to leave now before someone else found out.

The dumbest thing of all is that this has all happened over what is a (comparatively) minor matter - the loss of a drivers licence.

Cansdell apparently asked another person to sign a false statutory declaration so that they could take some demerit points that should have been allocated to him.

This may well be fairly common practice in the community, but that doesn't change a thing - it is illegal and is punishable by imprisonment.  Moreover, it is potentially easy to prove, and it involves other people - essentially, too many people are going to know about this for it to stay secret forever.

The consequence of Cansdell leaving parliament is of course a by-election.  This is often a disaster for a sitting government, but should be a comparatively minor event.

Anthony Green as written an excellent blog post on this issue.

In short, the seat is held with a margin of 31.4% over Labor and 23.3% over Williamson, an independant.  Cansdell polled 62.8% on first preferences.

Taken from Green's outstanding Election Analysis

Labor are still on the nose - there will be some hangover from the Carr/Iemma/Rees/Keanelly government when we return to the polls in 2015, let alone only 6 months after O'Farrell's coronation.

There might ordinarily be a chance for an Independant to step in and sweep up some voters who are angry at having had to return to the polls so soon, but as Green notes on his blog, the seat is not far from Rob Oakeshott's seat of Lyne, and it is likely that the new National candidate will not be slow to remind the electorate.

Oakeshott's seat of Lyne

Cansdell's former seat of Clarence

So, a loss of the seat is unlikely.  What damage to the O'Farrell government?  Probably not a great deal - allegations of corruption and incompetence tend to have a cumulative and exponential effect, and Robertson's statement below is probably a bit over the top.

From SMH

The fact that the Stoner was able to announce that Cansdell was out of the parliament when the news broke meant that he could say the following:

Also from SMH

It is also interesting to note that Cansdell has already reported the matter to police, and expects to be prosecuted.  I think we can conclude from this that the person who has confronted him with the evidence has insisted he do this - otherwise surely he would have resigned to spend more time with the family (or used one of the other usual excuses).

I have no idea whether Cansdell should have been preselected in the first place.  Perhaps all this has come completely out of the blue, and Stoner truly had no reason to suspct that this kind of behaviour may have been on the cards.

But the real question I want answered is this - who pushed him?  Who had this knowledge, and insisted not only that he stand down, but also that he reveal the reason?  Who stands to gain the most from that?

Hopefully in the fullness of time we'll find out.

Is someone Stoned?

This Andrew Stoner thing has gotten a little ridiculous.


If you missed it, I blogged earlier this week about the Andrew Stoner "scandal".


In short, whilst Labor was still in power, there was an inquiry into the solar panel rebate.  For about two months there was speculation that once the inquiry was completed the rate would be reduced, but that those that had already signed up would retain the higher rate.


In due course, on 27 October 2010 Keneally announced that, as of midnight that night, the rate for all new signups would be reduced.


Labor got their knickers in a knot earlier this week about the fact that, later that same day, Stoner got a pair, shot out and signed up for the scheme.

Full release can be seen here

For some reason this only came to light earlier this week.


Accusations of hypocrisy was bandied about, and my view remains that they are ridiculous.


The Coalition's position has been that the scheme is a waste of money, but for me there is no reason that he, being a taxpayer himself, should miss out.


Anyway.


Earlier this morning Kristina Keneally continued her efforts to revitalise her twitter profile - linking articles, retweeting mentions, and generally getting involved.


Among all those tweets, I spotted this:

The article linked was this one:

Full article here

Now, I can understand Keneally's glee at this.  She was unfairly criticised for signing up for the scheme just a few weeks before Stoner did, whilst the government was considering reducing the rate.


But, nonetheless, the fact that the matter has been referred to ICAC looks, to me, like a blatant attempt at mud-throwing.


The Independent Commission Against Corruption does what it sounds like - investigate corruption.


What exactly is Stoner meant to have done that can be described, in ANY way, shape or form, as corruption?


The Tele article makes this new and rather odd allegation:

The only other mention of this $100 allegation is this article, also on the Tele website:

Full article here

It is odd that in the above article, published yesterday, says that the installer admitted that the $100 was paid after the deadline, whilst the article published today says that he has refused to confirm that it was paid late.


It's also odd that it is only the Tele that is making the $100 allegation - Sean Nicholls wrote a piece today about the scandals plaguing the Coalition at the moment, and makes no mention of it.


I don't know whether Stoner was required to pay the deposit before midnight or not.  Even if he was, I still don't see how what he did is "corruption".


The ICAC website defines corruption as follows:

Even assuming that Stoner really did pay the $100 after midnight, and assuming that a deposit was required before midnight, there is zero evidence that anything he did fits in the above categories.


To refer the matter to ICAC in the absence of any such evidence (and if there was any, you can bet we'd have heard about it) is nothing more than mudslinging.


And Labor should be ashamed for engaging in it.

Let the Sun Shine In

I am often puzzled at the things that politicians pretend to care about.


There are times when parliament seems to be in a constant state of manufactured outrage - ranting and raving about things that we all know they as politicians don't care about, but things they hope will get the public upset.


Such is the political paradigm in Australia today.


The fuss over Andrew Stoner and the solar feed-in tariff is exactly that.

Image from here

I covered the solar issue a few month ago during O'Farrell's aborted attempt to slash the feed-in rate from apparently unsustainable levels.


In short. the Labor government had introduced a tariff of 60c per kilowatt hour for power gathered by solar panels and "fed back" into the network.


The scheme was incredibly generous and, unsurprisingly, massively oversubscribed.


As a result, the Labor government reduced the rate to 20c, but allowed all people who signed up at the 60c to retain that tariff.


The change was announced on 27 October 2010. A Google News Search brought up this article on news.com.au, purported to have been published at 11:40 on that day, saying:

Hansard shows that sometime around about 17:30 that day a bill was introduced to the Legislative Assembly:

There was a short debate on the bill between 20:00 and 21:20 and the bill was passed with support from both sides of the chamber.


It is interesting to note that, during her speech in support of the bill, Catherine Cusack (Lib) said the following:

There was outrage from the Coalition a few days later when it was revealed that Keneally had signed up to the scheme before the rate was reduced. She was revealed to have signed up 5 days after the government flagged an intention to review the sceme and less than 2 months before the changes were announced.


Keneally was asked this question by Donald Page (Nat):

In any event, Keneally managed to arrange things such that she missed out on the 60c rate regardless.


The issue sprang to life again today when the ALP released this statement:

Now, I'm as enthusiastic as the next person when it comes to highlighting hypocrisy. In fact, few things give me more joy than seeing a hypocrite being revealed for who he or she really is.


But I'm not sure that the mud here sticks.


Firstly - i've had a cursory search of the internet and I cannot find any statement made by Stoner directly in support of the changes. 


That said, when the tariff was reduced he, along with his party, supported the change.


I've also posted the question above asked by one of his Coalition colleagues.


I've searched Hansard for 27 October for any mention of Stoner, and there is none.  In his press release John Robertson says that he was granted a pair for a portion of that day - presumably the parties keep some record of these things, so I've no reason to doubt that he did indeed pop out of parliament to get the application in. 

A search for his name and the word solar brings up three entries:

• A question on 28 October (the day after the change) where he asks the then Minister for Energy Paul Lynch, when he was first advised about the blow-out in cost of the scheme
• A dixer from Leslie Williams (Nat) to Stoner on 24 May 2011 (after O'Farrell announced the change in the tariff but before the backdown) about the effect of Labor's Solar Bonus Scheme, and 
• A question from Linda Burney (ALP) on 24 May 2011 challenging Stoner in relation to a written guarantee he gave to a constituent that the bonus scheme would not be amended retrospectively.

At the end of the day, the criticism from Labor appears to be that he signed up to the scheme that his party (at the very least, if not Stoner himself) has called a massive waste of government money.

The fact that he signed up for the program on the last possible day is thrown in, almost as if to suggest he had some sort of insider knowledge.

I have a little trouble getting outraged about that.

He didn't break any laws.  He didn't lie, cheat or steal.  He took advantage of a scheme put in place by Labor that was about to be brought to an end.

True, his party did then and has since coming into power criticised Labor's decision to set the tariff at 60c.

That said, there are some taxes that I think are too low - but I'm not going to pay extra in (even if I could) because there are other taxes that I think are too high, and I don't expect that excuse to carry much weight with the State Debt Recovery Office.

I thought the "metro" train systems proposed by the Labor government were a terrible idea - but had they been built I would see no hypocrisy in using them, given that I as a taxpayer would have funded their construction.

I agree that the 60c tariff was far too high - but if I owned a house rather than an apartment you can bet every dollar you have that I would have jumped all over that 60c tariff, and been pretty pleased about the result.

Being opposed to a policy doesn't mean you have to be self-righteous about it and refuse the benefit accrued.

Look, Stoner was pretty stupid in the way he went about it.  Everyone in parliament surely must have known that the amendment was coming, and to wait til the last day and then go about it in the way he did was asking for trouble,

But he has taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by a particularly stupid Labor policy, as did thousands and thousands of of NSW residents.

And that doesn't make him a hypocrite.