source : the age
Jagadish Krishnan is having a bet both ways when he says he has done “everything appropriately” when declaring gifts, while simultaneously claiming he’s no longer a businessman outside parliament.
An investigation by 9News and WAtoday revealed the WA Labor MP is being sued for $1 million in a US court.
Wall Street investor Kannan Amalraj lent Krishnan the money for his wife’s businesses Spectrum Health and Codd Technology, and is now suing him, claiming he hasn’t paid it back.
The American businessman also claims to have bankrolled Krishnan’s lavish trip to New York City in May 2024, covering thousands of dollars worth of expenses.
Accommodation, including a luxury $1000-a-night hotel metres from Times Square, limousine and taxi services, and a dinner cruise on the Hudson River.
This masthead has seen receipts that back up some of these claims. The rest are detailed in a writ filed in the New Jersey District Court.
All up, it totals approximately $6000 worth of alleged gifts. Nickels and dimes compared to the size of the loan, but what is in question is whether Krishnan should have declared it on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In a bizarre and hastily organised press conference last week, Krishnan defended himself, declaring he had “done everything appropriately in my declarations”.
Under the Members of Parliament Act 1992, a member “shall disclose gifts received”, if they are valued at $500 or more. This includes travel undertaken by the member unless it “was made in the ordinary course of any trade, profession or vocation of the Member”.
He is claiming the travel gifts were for business purposes and exempt from declaration. But he has publicly declared he ceded his business roles when he entered parliament in 2021.
“Once I entered politics, I resigned from being a director,” Krishnan told 9News just last year, days out from the state election.
“I have been out of business for almost four years.”
He remains a shareholder of various interests, but the Australian Tax Office does not deem a shareholder to be a trade, profession or vocation.
Either, Krishnan is actually still involved in his businesses, which would absolve him of his responsibility to declare financial contributions.
Or, he really is no longer a businessman, in which case he must declare the gifts.
The Labor MP has snookered himself.
Geoffrey Watson SC, director of Centre for Public Integrity, said MPs should regard their parliamentary role as their full-time employment.
“They’re effectively an employee of the people of Western Australia,” he told WAtoday.
Or, in other words, a court case on the other side of the world does not absolve Krishnan of his responsibility and obligation to be accountable and transparent to his constituents.
Krishnan has not responded to detailed questions about his financial dealings. Some are, understandably, covered by the fact that there are legal proceedings under way.
But other unanswered questions are not, including is he bankrupt? (Which would render a member ineligible to sit in parliament).
Let’s not forget that Krishnan was parliamentary secretary to the premier at the time of the trip – Roger Cook’s right-hand man – when he lobbied overseas investors for a big loan by any measure for his wife’s company, enjoying lavish gifts from an investor looking to sink his claws into the Australian market.
This masthead does not suggest he was on official parliamentary businesses while in the US, or that taxpayers footed any travel bill.
Cook’s response when asked if Krishnan – and all members of his party – would face punishment if he hadn’t upheld the necessary standards of disclosures was unimpressively unconvincing.
“That’s a hypothetical … that’s a decision for the caucus,” Cook said.
The premier, like his colleagues, is watching this play out, because they aren’t sure which side of the court battle is telling the truth.
For now, the US Federal Court will decide that.
But it does not say much if Cook cannot even tell his caucus to uphold basic parliamentary standards or face some sort of discipline.
Let alone a parliamentary inquiry into Krishnan’s conduct.
