Under Turnbull Government's new plan "38 out of 44 marine parks will be open to trawling, gillnetting and longlining, 33 will be open to mining, and 42 exposed to the construction of pipelines"

www.parksaustralia.gov.au

Canberra Times, 17 September 2017:

In the corridors of Parliament House that day, as I met MPs of every stripe, I felt a great sense of promise, even pride. And it seemed for a while such hope was not misplaced. In 2012, after an exhaustive scientific process and wide community consultation, Tony Burke declared a system of marine national parks, one of the biggest and best in the world, the most significant conservation gain in Australian history.

That took courage. Because it put science before politics, prudence ahead of expediency. And it was popular. But as soon as he came to power in 2013 Tony Abbott announced an immediate moratorium on these parks and instigated a review. The purpose was purely political. To delay implementation, corrode consensus and deny the science. A move straight out of the culture warrior's playbook.

After decades of forward-thinking leaders, the nation had fallen into the hands of a man whose loyalties were only to the past. It was a low moment. But Abbott's reign was as brief as it was fruitless. It was a relief to see him replaced in 2015 by a man who'd actually done things, who believed in the future. Malcolm Turnbull did not scorn science. He seemed to understand the value and fragility of our natural estate. So there was new hope the marine parks review would now be expedited and redirected towards real conservation outcomes. With coral reefs bleaching and miners pressing for even more coal ports and seabed to drill, the need for protection had only grown more urgent.

Well, that moment of promise is long gone. Turnbull's period in office has basically been a hostage drama. The bargain he made with powerbrokers rendered him captive to the party's most illiberal wing, and if his performance on climate, energy and marriage equality aren't evidence enough, last month's announcement that marine parks would be slashed beyond all recognition puts it beyond dispute.

The agents of inertia control his government. And what's worse he's looking like a hostage who's begun to identify with his captors. How else to explain his radical lurch backwards on parks? The draft management plans recently released for consultation by Josh Frydenberg don't just signify the gutting of the national system, they represent the largest removal of protection for Australian wildlife in our history. What the government is proposing is a nihilistic act of vandalism. Forty  million hectares of sanctuary will be ripped from the estate. That's like revoking every second national park on land. Under its new plan, 38 out of 44 marine parks will be open to trawling, gillnetting and longlining, 33 will be open to mining, and 42 exposed to the construction of pipelines. In total defiance of the scientific advice upon which the original system was designed, 16 marine parks will now have no sanctuary zones at all.

The science shows that partial or low-level protection simply doesn't work. What the government is putting forward will radically diminish protection of habitat. It will also undermine sustainable regional economic development. What began as a quest for excellence based on the best possible science is now so miserably degraded it's turned the greatest step forward in marine conservation into a regime that doesn't even aspire to be second-rate.

Draft management plans for Australian marine parks/reserves:

Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve draft management plan

                                                                         

North Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves management plan

South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

As one South Australian voter put it after reading about the Turnbull Government's intentions; FFS ! These guys are proof that there are no time machines. Otherwise someone from the future would come back and mulch the pr*cks. (quote supplied)

Voters in NSW North Coast electorates should be aware that:

* Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan supported this review and to date has never voted against his party’s position in the House of Representatives. Therefore it is highly likely that he will vote for any government bill which will reduce marine park and marine reserve protections.

*Nationals MP for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker supported this review and to date has never voted against his party’s position in the House of Representatives. Therefore it is highly likely that he will vote for any government bill which will reduce marine park and marine reserve protections.

* Labor MP for Richmond Justine Elliot does not support a reduction in marine parks and marine reserve protections.

Brief background

The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 July 2017:

The Turnbull government has released draft management plans for the nation's marine parks that amount to an "unprecedented roll-back" of protections, a coalition of 25 environmental groups say.

The long-awaited draft plans were released on Friday and propose changes to the 3.3 million square kilometres of Australia's protected offshore regions expanded in 2012 by the Gillard government.

The area of marine parks open to fishing would jump to 80 per cent from 64 per cent now, if the changes were to pass through parliament, WWF-Australia said.

"This is a huge step backwards for marine protection," Richard Leck, WWF's head of oceans, said. "Australia used to be seen as a global leader in marine conservation. That will no longer be the case if these proposals are implemented."

Other proposed changes would strip Shark and Vema reefs of  marine national park status, while Osprey reef - one of the world's premier dive sites - has lost more than half its protection, Tony Burke, Labor's environment spokesman said.

"Five years ago, Labor make the second largest conservation decision in history. Today the Turnbull Government announced the largest undoing of conservation ever," Mr Burke said….

Of particular concern to the green groups is the Coral Sea Marine Park, where a substantial area previously given the maximum protection had been reduced……

Ms Grady said the government had chosen to ignore the science contained in independent reviews that backed the original zones.

"All Australians will be justifiably distressed to know that science evidence supporting an increase in protections for marine life has been thrown out the window," Darren Kindleysides, director of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said.

NATIONAL REFERENDUM 2023: from this point onwards it may be less safe for people of goodwill to venture into public spaces - so tainted with malice and misinformation has the debate become courtesy of those parliamentary dissenters

 

For months now the entire country has known the exact wording of the national referendum question and text of the constitutional amendment which will create a permanent advisory body composed of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander representatives of the First Nations peoples of Australia.

National Referendum Question

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

**********

Text of additional clause to be inserted in the Constitution if referendum question is answered by a double majority in the affirmative

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

**********

On the morning of Wednesday, 31 May 2023 the second and third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Bill occurred in the House of Representatives and was passed by a majority of the House with just 25 members out of a total of 145 members dissenting.

The parliamentary dissenters in alphabetical order were:

Birrell, Sam. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, Scott (Teller)

Chester, Darren J. Conaghan, Patrick J. Coulton, Mark M. (Teller)

Gillespie, David A. Goodenough, Ian R.

Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, Alexander G. Hogan, Kevin J. 

Howarth, Luke R.

Joyce, Barnaby T. G.

Landry, Michelle L. Littleproud, David

McCormack, Michael F.

O'Brien, Llewellyn S.

Pasin, Anthony Pike, Henry J. Pitt, Keith J.

Wallace, Andrew B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, Andrew J. 

Wilson, Richard. J. and

Young, Terry J.

A majority of these dissenters took it upon themselves to organise and conduct a “No” campaign against the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament once the referendum question had been approved by a majority in the House of Representatives.

Advance Aus Ltd formerly Freedom Aus Limited, Advance formerly known as Advance Australia & Fair Australia (both associated with Advance Aus Ltd), Recognise a Better Way, Whitestone Strategic Pty Ltd, Texas-based RJ Dunham & Co, Matthew Sheahan, Vicki Dunne, Laura Bradley, Simon Fenwick, Marcus Blackmore and former Liberal MP Tony Abbott are among the companies & persons which assist the dissenters in their apparent aim to sow doubt and division ahead of the referendum.  [AFR, 10.04.23 & The Guardian, 13.07.23].

In this they appear to have had some measure of success.

According to custom, the parliamentary dissenters have also produced the official “No” campaign pamphlet titled “The case for voting No” which can be read in full and downloaded at:

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf

The first page summary text is as follows:

“REASONS TO VOTE NO – A SUMMARY

This Referendum is not simply about “recognition”. This Voice proposal goes much further.

If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history.

It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent.

If you don’t know, vote no.

RISKY

We all want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities. However, this Voice is not the answer and presents a real risk to our system of government.

This Voice specifically covers all areas of “Executive Government”. This means no issue is beyond its reach.

The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the Parliament.

It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government.

UNKNOWN

No details have been provided on how members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate. Australians are being asked to vote first before these details are worked out.

Australians should have details before the vote, not after.

We don’t know how it will work, we don’t know who will be on it, but we do know it will permanently divide us as Australians.

Some Voice supporters say this would just be a first step to reparations and compensation and other radical changes. So, what would come next?

DIVISIVE

Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing our country.

It creates different classes of citizenship through an unknown body that has the full force of the Constitution behind it. Many Indigenous Australians do not support this.

PERMANENT

Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it’s permanent. We will be stuck with negative consequences

The content of this argument (which can be viewed at aec.gov.au/referendums/pamphlet.htm) was authorised by a majority of those members of Parliament who voted against the proposed law and desired to forward such a case. This text has been published without amendment by the Electoral Commissioner“

******

The official “Yes” campaign pamphlet from the majority of the parliamentary assenters titled “The case for voting Yes” can be read in full and downloaded at:

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0

This affirmative campaign is assisted by YES23.

Examples of how the two very different pamphlets are being initially received in mainstream & social media:

Greg Craven furious no campaign used his previous voice concerns in pamphlet https://t.co/m1SHzOv11Q

— grace pettigrew (@broomstick33) July 18, 2023

 

Uluru Dialogue's Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, architects of the Voice, call the No referendum essay "cooked" and a "destructive agenda"

"The NO pamphlet has used taxpayers’ money to distribute misleading information aimed at holding our people back, all Australians in fact." pic.twitter.com/ByEC2JjWci

— Josh Butler (@JoshButler) July 18, 2023

 

"The No Campaign have clearly taken advantage of the pamphlet not being fact-checked and done more to embolden racists than they have to argue against the Voice."https://t.co/ZS7FATECqz

— National Indigenous Times (@nit_times) July 18, 2023

 

The Yes pamphlet says the "idea" for the voice, came from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.....no it didn't AT ALL.....it came from the U.N, and has been in the works for years...."Project UNDRIP"....they lie and lie through their teeth...it's NOT grassroots.

— R1nky d1nk (@RD1nk33775) July 18, 2023

CONCERNING POLLED RESPONSES IN JULY 2023 TO THE PROPOSED NATIONAL REFERENDUM QUESTION

Latest Newspoll conducted on 12-15 July 2023 shows 48 per cent of the 1,570 surveyed voters say they now intend to vote no to the proposal to insert an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice into the Australian Constitution.

Among surveyed voters from regional areas 62 per cent opposed the Voice proposal.

The survey breaks down by gender to 47 per cent of all males surveyed and 49 per cent of all females surveyed now oppose the Voice.

By age it appears that 59 per cent of those younger voters surveyed were in favour of inserting an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice into the Australian Constitution, while 46 per cent of all older voters surveyed were in favour of the Voice.

NOTE: The 15 July 2023 Newspoll as reported does not breakdown responses by state and, as a referendum affirmative requires a majority of the voting age population in a majority of states, it is possible that at this time there is still a majority in favour of the Voices in four of the seven states & territories.

Morrison & Co called out for victim blaming

Chief economist at The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, on the subject of Coalition economic stories........

The Guardian, 5 August 2020:

Australian economic debate relies more heavily on metaphors than it does on evidence, experience or expertise. While the prime minister, treasurer and self-appointed business leaders drone endlessly about what the economy “needs”, they simply refuse to provide any evidence that they know what they are talking about. For decades the inanity of Australia’s economic debate has been concealed behind the sugar hit of surging world demand for our exports, and surging population growth on house prices and retail profits. But in the deepest recession in modern history, the shallowness of Australia’s economic debate is about to become clear for all to see.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s admission last week that his favourite politicians were Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan was as informative as the fact that my favourite Marvel heroes are Thor and Iron Man. Given that Thatcher oversaw burgeoning unemployment and Reagan doubled the US government’s debt, you can see why our current treasurer might have an affinity for his cold war heroes. But for those of us interested in the Morrison government’s actual plans to get us out of the hole we are in, the treasurer’s last big interview told us even less than his recent “mini-budget” did.

According to Frydenberg, Australia’s economy will shrink by a record 7% in the current quarter. To put that into perspective, the entire 1991 recession saw GDP fall by 1.4% and the 1983 recession, which saw four quarters of contraction in a row, saw GDP fall by “only” 3.8%. For the 60 years we have collected quarterly GDP data, the biggest previous quarterly contraction of GDP was back in June 1974, when the economy contracted by 2%. But apart from drawing inspiration from Thatcher and Reagan, what exactly is the government’s plan to create jobs for the almost million people who are already unemployed, let alone for the many more who are predicted to be unemployed by the end of the year?

In March and April, the Morrison government was more enthusiastic about stimulating the economy than many expected but, by July, it had grown tired of its flirtation with Keynesianism. In his mini-budget, Frydenberg simply turned his back on all that economics has to offer and – at the same press conference where he announced the largest ever decline in GDP – he announced his government would be cutting spending in September this year. The consequences of that decision will be disastrous for the economy and, most likely, for the Coalition.

If private demand and investment is falling (it is) and if foreign demand for our exports, including education and tourism, is collapsing (it is), the only thing that can stop GDP spiralling downwards is a big increase in government spending. That’s not ideology or theory, it’s just maths. GDP is the sum of its parts, and if the private-sector parts are shrinking (they are), virtually every economist agrees it’s a good idea for the government to spend more. Morrison and Frydenberg spent the first half of year pretending to understand and accept this most simple of economic tenets but, as of last week, they have clearly decided to put storytelling ahead of solid evidence.

In explaining why they had to cut government spending on unemployment benefits – and in turn cut the amount of money the unemployed spend in their local shops – the prime minister and treasurer dusted off old anecdotes, unsourced, about unemployed people turning down work because life was “easier”. To be clear, there are currently 13 unemployed people for every job vacancy.

The Coalition love to tell stories about what great economic managers they are, despite ABS data suggesting otherwise. But, of course, in Australia the key to being a “great economic manager” isn’t delivering high rates of economic growth or budget surpluses (neither of which the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments have actually done). On the contrary, the key to being a great economic manager is to tell great stories.

Central to the Coalition’s economic narrative is to take credit for everything good that happens in the economy and shift the blame for anything bad. When unemployment is falling, say it’s because your tax cuts are working to “strengthen” the economy. When unemployment is rising, blame the unemployed and say you need to cut unemployment benefits.

The same applies when telling stories about the budget. When times are good, cut taxes for your friends and, when times are tough, cut spending on those who never vote for you. Likewise, with productivity growth, consumer confidence or private investment. If things are looking up, link it to your tax and welfare cuts, and if things are going badly, blame it on union power and lazy workers.

Conservatives have masterfully implemented the old adage to “never let a crisis go to waste” – successfully blaming the victims of Australia’s economic system for all of its failings, while taking credit for managing all of its successes. But they have never had to tell a story about an economy that shrank 7% in a single quarter, driving unemployment to 10%…… 

Unemployment is about to rise, and the economy is not going to “snap back”. Increased training will not create jobs. Cutting unemployment benefits will not create jobs. Industrial relations reform will not create jobs. The reason that companies are shedding staff is that there aren’t enough customers with enough money, or enough confidence, to buy the things that companies sell. The only thing that will pull Australia out of this nosedive is a big increase in government spending, and the government has just announced it plans to cut spending. Strap yourself in – the storytelling is about to go fantastical as the economy goes very, very quiet.

Investigation into the conduct of Public Service Commissioner & IPA member could be cut short and closed without findings once he leaves the public service in August

John Lloyd. Image: The Guardian, 4 June 2018

This close to a federal election will Turnbull & Co organise a whitewashing of any Australian Public Service Commission Code of Conduct finding relating to John Richard Lloyd?

The Guardian, 21 June 2018:

The outgoing public service commissioner John Lloyd is being investigated for an alleged breach of the public service code of conduct, in what Labor has called an “unprecedented” move.

Labor has targeted Lloyd in Senate estimates sessions over allegations of favouritism to the right-wing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs, of which he is a longtime member and former director.

At a supplementary session on Thursday, the finance and public administration committee chair, James Paterson, tabled letters showing that the acting merit protection commissioner, Mark Davidson, had announced he intended to conduct an inquiry into Lloyd’s conduct.

The 14 June letter from Davidson said he would investigate an “allegation of a breach of the Australian public service code of conduct”.

Asked why he is being investigated, Lloyd told the committee he would take the question on notice and said he did not want to prejudice the investigation but did not claim public interest immunity.

In June Lloyd announced his retirement effective 8 August but said the decision was not influenced by “recent events”.

He told the committee he resigned after consulting his family after a long working life and denied any government member had sought or canvassed his resignation.

Davidson told the committee there was “no power to continue the inquiry” after Lloyd ceases to be commissioner on 8 August….

At an October estimates session Lloyd was asked about his contact with the IPA, including an email in which he attached a document that he said “highlights some of the more generous agreement provisions applying to APS employees”.

The IPA is a fierce public critic of public service conditions and in December called for 27,000 jobs to be slashed.

At that hearing Lloyd defended his link to the group, rejecting the allegation that giving the information amounted to special access because the information was publicly available in public service enterprise agreements.

In May it was revealed Lloyd had complained about scrutiny of his links to the IPA, writing to the IPA’s executive director, John Roskam, referring to “more publicity for the IPA including page 1 of the Canberra Times thanks to ALP questioning”.

The Canberra Times, 23 June 2018:

Mr Lloyd was a controversial appointee from the moment Tony Abbott gave him the job. Although he is a career bureaucrat, he has long been associated with conservative politics; many of his senior promotions were the result of Coalition governments appointing him directly. As John Howard's building industry watchdog, he took an unashamedly hard line against unions. In his current role, he questioned long-held public service tenets, particularly security of employment, and openly opposed freedom of information law.

The head of the public servants' union, Nadine Flood, is hardly an objective observer. Nonetheless, the tone of her extraordinary farewell to Mr Lloyd, who will resign in August, is a sign of his impact on public administration. Ms Flood said Mr Lloyd had debased his office, misled a Senate inquiry, repeatedly attacked the public service, "used his position to promote his ideological preoccupations" and was unfit for the job.....

...it is deeply worrying that acting merit protection commissioner Mark Davidson took so long to deal with the complaint. The possibility now exists that the ensuing investigation might not conclude before Mr Lloyd leaves his job, by when the investigation, if it is still ongoing, would need to be cancelled.

Lloyd spent almost two hours of last month’s [Senate] hearing refusing to answer whether he was under investigation for his contact with the IPA, at one stage attempting to see if he could claim public interest immunity over the queries.

He later took the question on notice and said he was not the subject of any current inquiries.

The department of the prime minister and cabinet had rejected freedom-of-information requests asking for emails between Lloyd and the IPA, on the grounds that releasing the emails “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law”.

The Guardian, 4 June 2018:

John Lloyd, the public service commissioner, has announced his resignation just days after a Senate estimates grilling that questioned his independence…

Lloyd spent almost two hours of last month’s [Senate] hearing refusing to answer whether he was under investigation for his contact with the IPA, at one stage attempting to see if he could claim public interest immunity over the queries.

He later took the question on notice and said he was not the subject of any current inquiries.

The department of the prime minister and cabinet had rejected freedom-of-information requests asking for emails between Lloyd and the IPA, on the grounds that releasing the emails “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law”.

English peer Lord Michael Ashcroft helped fund the Liberal Party's war chest to the tune of $1.5 million over the last three Australian federal elections

Sixteen days before the 2004 federal election English peer, Michael Anthony Ashcroft, the Rt Hon. the Lord Ashcroft KCMG  (left), donated $1 million to the federal arm of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Twenty-four days before the 2010 federal election this peer contributed $250,000 to that same federal political party.

Six days before the 2013 federal election he again donated $250,000 to the federal Liberal Party - this time from an address in that well-known tax haven Belize where he is said to hold dual citizenship.

Of his first sizable donation to the Liberal Party, Lord Ashcroft stated in his book Dirty Politics, Dirty Times:

The donation of Australian $1 million – £410,000 – was believed to have been the largest single political donation in the country’s history. I made it prior to the 2004 general election as a show of support for John Howard, the country’s Prime Minister and leader of the International Democratic Union. I have long been a great admirer of John and he was struggling against the Labour Party, which seemed poised to take power. In fact, in October 2004, John secured a fourth term and, if my donation helped him to victory at the polls, then I am delighted. 

One has to wonder if he feels the same way about the money he has outlaid on Tony Abbott, now that the Liberal Party Leader’s prime ministership has become a slow-motion political train wreck .

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Lord Ashcroft writing about himself on his website:

After more than 40 years as an entrepreneur working in both the UK and overseas, particularly the US, I am an active investor in new companies and ideas. At various points in my business career, I have headed companies employing more than 100,000 people. Over the years, I have negotiated countless major deals, including the sale of ADT to Tyco International for more than $6.7 billion (£3.7 billion) in 1997. See my Business page for more details.

I am a lifelong supporter of the Conservative Party. In 2000, I was knighted and became a member of the House of Lords (Lord Ashcroft of Chichester, KCMG).  I served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party, under William Hague’s leadership, from 1998 to 2001. I continue to be Treasurer of the International Democrat Union.

The peer’s register of interests recorded by the U.K. Parliament:

Information found at Linked In:

Group Mayfair Limited (UK) in Australia which includes Anne Street Partners Financial Services Pty Limited, QNV Constructions Pty Limited and a number of related subsidiary companies owned by interests associated with UK businessman and philanthropist billionaire The Right Honourable Lord Ashcroft PC KCMG….

Impellam Group plc (traded on AIM Board London Stock Exchange IPEL) Group conducts business primarily in the UK and North America, with smaller operations in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and mainland Europe. The Group employs nearly 6,000 people, including 2,200 managers and consultants and more than 3,500 support services workers, across a network of 230 branch and regional offices. The Group operates more than 17 speciality brands across a broad range of staffing sectors which are complemented by businesses in the outsourced support services sector. Impellam Group is ranked 2nd largest in the UK and 12th largest in the world…..

Medacs Healthcare Group commenced operations in 1990 in the UK and is part of the listed Impellam Group, a global brand of specialist recruitment agencies…..history of service provided to Qld Health dates back to the commencement of the acquired firms.....Qld Health from 2005 to 2010 was the Group’s largest customer in terms of placement services and revenue generated in Australia. [my red bolding]

Former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and chairman & director of a number of companies in which Lord Ashcroft’s has an interest, Shane Stone, is currently the chairman of Australian PM Tony Abbott’s Northern Australia Advisory Group.

QNV Constructions Pty Ltd currently lists residential housing projects in NSW, VIC, SA and Tasmania, with a number of completed projects in Queensland.

Staffing Industry Analysts December 2014:

Lord Michael Ashcroft, KCMG PC, has been appointed Non-Executive Chairman of recruitment firm Impellam Group (IPEL: AIM), the second largest staffing firm in the UK, with immediate effect.

Impellam Group is one of Lord Ashcroft’s many business interests in the UK. According to the company’s most recent financial results, the Group achieved revenue of £612.3 million in the six months to 27 June 2014, an increase of +3.5% compared with the same period in 2013.

In 2010, his 57% holding in the Group was transferred to his children and “remoter issue”. The transfer occurred one day before a new law forcing members of the House of Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets came into effect. Tax lawyer, Richard Frimston, subsequently told the BBC’s Panorama programme that Lord Ashcroft would have faced a hefty inheritance tax bill under the new legislation if he had made the change one day later. Lord Ashcroft's lawyers denied any impropriety or wrongdoing….

Excerpt from Press Complaints Commission (U.K.) ruling:

Lord Ashcroft complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined “Tory treasurer sued in US court” published in The Observer on 8 April 2001 was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

The complaint was rejected.

The article claimed that the complainant, the former treasurer of the Conservative Party, had, along with four other directors of a company called Tyco, been accused of making ‘false and misleading statements’ to the public and using deceptive accounting to boost the share price falsely. The piece made clear that the allegations were yet to be tested in court and that a Tyco spokesman had made clear that they were ‘totally without any foundation’. In addition, a spokesman for Lord Ashcroft was quoted denying the allegations and the article made clear that such lawsuits were common in America…..

While the Commission noted the complainant’s objection to what he saw as the staleness of the story it considered that the selection of material for publication is a matter for editorial discretion. Turning to the specific complaints of inaccuracy, the Commission noted that, while the complainant may have disputed the worth or chances of success of the legal proceedings, they were nonetheless still active as reported in the paper. There was no dispute that the complainant was a director of the company or that he had been mentioned in legal documents, some of which the Commission noted had been quoted in the piece. Regarding whether or not readers might erroneously have thought that the complainant was personally being sued in the US, the Commission highlighted the fact that it considers headlines in conjunction with the text of a piece and, examining the context of the article as a whole it did not conclude that readers would have been misled as to who was the subject of the legal action. The Commission considered that the piece made clear that the claims were untested allegations and considered that the phrase ‘corporate scandal’ would have been seen in this context. The Commission did not find any material discrepancy between the complainant’s account of the involvement of the SEC and how it was reported in the article. Given that there had been an SEC investigation and given that the company had contemporaneously restated some of its results – albeit before the conclusion of the investigation – the Commission did not consider that there was any significant inaccuracy in the article’s claim that the ‘SEC did force Tyco to redo its financial results’. The Commission noted that some of the allegations were still to be tested in court or struck out and it considered that the newspaper’s offer to report the outcome was a sensible one in the circumstances.

The Commission noted the complainant’s objections that the newspaper had initially approached his spokesman for a comment only a few hours before publication. In some cases this might be a factor that the Commission would take into account – usually if the approach was so late that somebody had no reasonable opportunity to comment on a story that, by omitting their comments, would be inaccurate or misleading in breach of the Code if published. In this case, however, the Commission noted that the article had used the comments of the complainant’s spokesman and lawyer to make the complainant’s point of view very clear. Readers could have been in no doubt that the complainant vigorously disputed the allegations. The Commission also noted that the article had explained that such lawsuits were common in America and that the company believed that lawyers were attempting to blackmail the firm. In all these circumstances the Commission could find no breach of the Code. 

The Guardian 8 April 2001:

Lord Ashcroft the Conservative Party treasurer, is being sued in the United States over his alleged role in a corporate scandal that is said to have cost shareholders millions of dollars.

The allegations will again raise awkward questions about Ashcroft's business affairs and William Hague's judgment in appointing him party treasurer.

Documents filed in the US courts - and obtained by The Observer - claim Ashcroft, along with four fellow directors of a company called Tyco International, made 'false and misleading' statements to the public and used deceptive accounting to boost falsely the firm's share price. The allegations, made by disgruntled shareholders, have yet to be tested in court.

They claim the directors have 'profited handsomely' by selling more than $242 million of shares they owned in their company.

Ashcroft, who has donated millions to the Tory party, is personally named in the lawsuit. He is accused of selling nearly 830,000 shares in the company at 'artificially inflated' prices for more than $37m.

The documents filed in the Court of New Hampshire in November allege that Ashcroft took part in a 'fraudulent scheme' to 'cover up and conceal Tyco's real business prospects and artificially to inflate the price of Tyco's stock so that it would be attractive... and to personally benefit by selling a substantial portion of their holdings'.

One claim is 'specifically, Ashcroft sold 827,400 shares of Tyco common stock at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of $37,472,947.'

Ashcroft still has almost $300m of shares in Tyco, a Bermudan-based manufacturing company which bought Ashcroft's ADT security firm in 1997 for $6 billion. It was as a result of this deal that Ashcroft became a non-executive board director of Tyco and a major shareholder of the company, whose products range from bandages to burglar alarms.

A Tyco spokesman has insisted that all the allegations - which are contained in the 56-page document lodged on behalf of Tyco shareholders - are 'totally without any foundation' and says the directors will 'vigorously defend' themselves…..

On 2 November 2007 the matter of Meran v Tyco International Ltd, Michael A Ashcroft, Mark A Belnick and Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP - and other associated matters - were finally concluded when the defendants entered into a $3.4 billion agreement which compensated all shareholders (listed from 13 December 1999 to 7 June 2006) with the exception of the defendants and certain others.

* Photograph from The Daily Mail