Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

NSW Politics

Apr 16, 2014

User login status :

Share

New South Wales will shortly have its fifth Premier in seven years following the bombshell resignation of Barry O’Farrell, who was today embarrassed by the emergence of a card in which he thanked Australian Water Holdings boss Nick Di Girolamo for a $3000 bottle of wine he yesterday denied having received. O’Farrell is the state’s second Liberal Premier to have been brought down by the exertions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Nick Greiner having fallen foul of an adverse ruling in 1992 involving a job offer to Liberal-turned-independent MP Terry Metherell. It now falls to the Liberal Party to find a replacement: without being too aware of the daily machinations of New South Wales politics, my immediate presumption was that the Treasurer, Mike Baird, would be the front-runner. However, I am seeing Gladys Berejiklian, Andrew Constance, Brad Hazzard and Jillian Skinner mentioned around the place.

William Bowe — Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe

Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, is one of the most heavily trafficked forums for online discussion of Australian politics, and joined the Crikey stable in 2008.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from William Bowe

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

721 comments

721 thoughts on “O’Farrell resigns

  1. Jackol

    Precisely.

    ICAC will be as disappointed as the next person with the events of the past few days.

    They want the bad guys – this is an opportunity for ICAC critics to say it us a failure.

    Of course it is not.

    What is now clear is that ICAC is alone in its pursuit surrounded by politicians who are best equivocal.

    The new premier should stand up and support ICAC and announce a review of dealings with lobbyists and hopefully that Michael Photios and his ilk have been shown the door.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  2. Jackol

    OK I should not have said corrupt for Meg Lees, but she certainly abused her position for her own preferences and personal benefit.

    I was in the democrats when the GST deal was done. It was supposed to be in exchange for a business tax review, which Howard parked but true blue Meg ignored; she never said a word of complaint.

    Meanwhile when she left the party but stayed in parliament she broke both party rules and her own word. The rule was she should have resigned, as other Dem senators had done before her, but she preferred to keep getting a generous paycheck.

  3. Getting back to that underlined ‘all’…

    It’s been suggested that it’s just a sort of courtesy thing… a ‘thank you for your support over the years’ line.

    Which is how I first read it – no big deal.

    But then – hang on – this is someone Barry said he hardly knew.

    I can imagine thanking someone for ‘all’ their support if they were someone I knew had always been there, pitching in, who’d (say) rang me occasionally when things were looking grim and told me to keep soldiering on, etc.

    Or I might thank someone for ‘all’ their support if they’d been willing to (say) come up with the dosh when needed.

    But I wouldn’t thank someone for ‘all’ their support if I’d met them twice and knew very little about them otherwise (and, in fact, given that writing letters of support for strangers has seen MPs retire to the front bench in the past, I’d be very wary about saying anything at all supportive about someone I didn’t know).

    So the ‘all’ may be more significant that it seems…

  4. Equally Zoomster, would you address a person you hardly knew by their given name, and sign with a familiar diminutive?

    I wouldn’t.

  5. [We Greens aren’t even a little bit corrupt. While I’d like to say that this entirely reflected our political and cultural integrity, it helps a great deal that the spivs of the world see us as offering them nothing tradable.]
    The Greens are extremely corrupt because they accept the science of climate change but reject the science that shows that a great deal of world hunger could be solved using GM foods. And reject the science and economics that nuclear energy is the lowest cost low carbon source of electricity.

  6. SO

    [The Greens are extremely corrupt because they accept the science of climate change but reject the science that shows that a great deal of world hunger could be solved using GM foods. And reject the science and economics that nuclear energy is the lowest cost low carbon source of electricity.]

    Even if such claims were substantially correct, which they aren’t, that wouldn’t make us corrupt, but merely mistaken or inconsistent. One can misunderstand the world in good faith.

  7. Fran and zoom, I think you’re reaching a bit. I know people whose socialising policy results in responses that might be considered exaggerated.

  8. [Even if such claims were substantially correct, which they aren’t, that wouldn’t make us corrupt, but merely mistaken or inconsistent. One can misunderstand the world in good faith.]
    No, it makes the Greens corrupt, stupid, idiotic, moronic and demonstrates how they are controlled by irrational nutters who seem to think that little furry animals are more important than humans.

  9. Showson
    Little furry animals are more important than humans. Humans are big enough and ugly enough to take care of themselves.
    Against us the little furries have no hope.