Wednesday 29 October 2014

Kathy Jackson's five star mental health crisis

Kathy Jackson's five star mental health crisis



22



Kathy Jackson's new view


As Craig Thomson’s appeal receives a mention in Melbourne Magistrates Court, Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks visits Kathy Jackson's new home.



YESTERDAY, Craig Thomson’s appeal had a Court Mention in Melbourne Magistrates Court.



The mention basically set the procedures and ground rules for the appeal.



Although there is nothing new or exciting to report on the matter, we
now know that there will be no witnesses appearing during the appeal
and that Thomson’s appeal will be relying on evidence that has already
been presented to the court.




The next court mention on the matter is 18 November.



Thomson’s confidence may have been lifted is the woman at the centre
of the HSU saga and the person who made so many of the accusations
against Thomson has seen her credibility completely demolished and is
now trying to avoid facing her own legal fight against claims that
utterly dwarf Thomson’s.




I speak, of course, of Kathy Jackson, whose Federal Court fight with the HSU over approximately $1.4 million is
due to be heard next on the 5 November. Next week’s hearing will be to
look at Jackson’s mental health condition given her doctor’s statement
was something the Court found to be rather vague.




Since then, Wixxyleaks has learnt where Jackson is an
inpatient, which may have relevance to the matter before the court
considering the admissions process.




Kathy Jackson is currently a patient at South Coast Private, which as the name suggests is on the NSW South Coast.



South Coast Private is a psychiatric hospital that describes itself
as five star and has a maximum of 90 patients, who all stay in resort
style accommodation. You won’t hear of electroshock therapy, patients
strapped to beds, padded cells or straight-jackets here. Some have
described it as a luxury hotel with doctors.




To give you an overview of the facility and to see how tough Jackson is doing it, below is a South Coast Private promo video. 





I contacted the South Coast Private to see what is required for a patient to be admitted.



The inpatients at South Coast private have not been sectioned under
the Mental Health Act and sent there by authorities. They have all been
admitted by themselves or their associates by going to the facility or
via the online admission form on their website, many of their patients
come via South Coast Private’s Facebook page.




To be admitted you need a referral from a GP, and be able to afford
the $870 a night it costs to stay in one of the rooms, such as the room
pictured below. Either that or you will need a private insurer that will
cover some of the costs for you. Then you will meet with a psychiatrist
from the facility who will decide if they wish to accept your $870 a
night or not.




A letter from a GP to say that you are stressed or depressed is not hard to obtain — everyone feels stress at some point.



I have no doubt Kathy Jackson is under some considerable stress,
knowing she faces the prospect of having to return $1.3 million dollars
to the poor union members she allegedly took it from for inappropriate
purposes. I’m sure that the likelihood of criminal charges coming not
long afterwards may also have had an impact on her stress levels.




I would like to also point out that I am not making asserting that
Jackson is faking a mental health condition to escape facing the same
legal process she demanded everyone else involved in the HSU saga to
face. Far from it, I am just pointing out where she is being treated and
the admission procedure for the five star facility.








Standard room at South Coast private



I am also not disputing the diagnosis of any doctor or trained professional.



The reason this is relevant is because it is the Federal Court itself
that has raised questions about the diagnosis of Jackson’s condition
and her ability to instruct her lawyer.




Given the Court has asked the doctor for a signed affidavit instead
of a vague statement, I think there is public interest in just what sort
of psychiatric treatment one receives for the money. Given Jackson’s diagnosis was
made on 20 September and gives a date for her recovery to be 15 January
2015, that is 118 nights at $870 a night, which means she’ll get a bill
for $102,666 plus incidentals — although I’m confident a private
facility wouldn't let that be of any influence .




I will let people make their own determinations on Jackson’s state of
mind and her ability to instruct a lawyer, just as I’m sure the Court
will.




If anyone reading this is suffering from mental health issues, please follow these links to contact Lifeline or perhaps Beyond Blue for support.



Alternatively, if you’re flush with cash why not check out South Coast Private? It does look rather nice.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Saturday 25 October 2014

Liberal Party corruption stench grows

Liberal Party corruption stench grows



75





It is now almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that
using high office for personal gain is now a core value of Australia’s
Liberal Party.




The recent record of failures of trust within that party is as great as in any current political party in the Westminster world.



There have not just been four or five isolated instances come to light in recent months — but between 40 and 50.



Only yesterday, we discovered Troy Buswell in Western Australia – the former Treasurer and Transport Minister – going straight into a job with a company involved with major road construction simply stinks to high heaven.



Buswell has sat in on state cabinet meetings for the last six years,
made contacts at the highest level across Australia and beyond in those
two portfolio areas. He will have an enormous amount of privileged
information relevant to the future of transport in the West not
available to others.






His former boss WA Premier Colin Barnett assures us all is well:



“If there is seen to be any potential conflict with his former
role as minister, then the government will take responsibility for
ensuring that it is not in any way misused. That scrutiny is the
responsibility of government, not of Troy, so obviously within
government there will be some caution about that.”







So, ‘trust us’ is the message. The problem, however, is that Barnett is a Liberal too.



The pursuit of naked self-interest by the Abbott Government began the
day it was elected in September 2013. Steve Bracks’ position as
consul-general in New York was immediately cancelled. The appointment
announced the previous May had been due to take effect that week. Abbott
had no-one else in mind. The position remained empty for six months
until a Liberal needing a favour became available, in this case former
MP and lobbyist Nick Minchin.




A 21-year old student is currently awaiting sentencing in the notorious ‘Frances-free ride’ whistleblower scandal.
Freya Newman has pleaded guilty to accessing and making public
‘restricted data’ that showed Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s daughter
Frances had been awarded a furtive $60,000 scholarship to study at a
design school.




Newman was prosecuted for revealing ‘secrets’ which plainly should never have been concealed.





In any other part of the civilised world the questions would be these:



  • Why was the availability of a valuable scholarship not publicly announced and applicants sought?
  • How is it conceivable that the daughter of one of the most privileged families in Australia is the deserving recipient?
  • And, now it is known that the college stood to gain favours from
    the Abbott Government, why is Newman awaiting sentence and not the
    directors of the college and the prime minister?
No fewer than 12 Liberal MPs
are now in disgrace following findings of the ongoing Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigations in New South Wales.
ICAC has exposed extensive flaunting of electoral and other laws in that
state.






Those sin-binned so far are:



  1. ex-premier Barry O’Farrell;
  2. former police minister Mike Gallacher;
  3. former energy minister Chris Hartcher;
  4. Chris Spence;
  5. Darren Webber;
  6. Bart Bassett;
  7. Marie Ficarra;
  8. Tim Owen;
  9. Andrew Cornwell;
  10. Garry Edwards;
  11. Craig Baumann; plus
  12. former federal assistant treasurer Arthur Sinodinos.
Clearly, that is not the full extent of Liberal Party corruption. They are just the MPs caught — so far.





There are credible claims that Liberals are still fundraising millions via various clubs and forums which effectively subvert current electoral laws.



The list of Liberal favours to mates via other appointments to plum
jobs, in many cases without requisite experience or competence, is now a
long one.




An excellent summary at AIM Network this week titled ‘Trust, transparency and accountability or gimme gimme gimme?’ lists 25 dodgy appointments.



Vital institutions now burdened with Liberal mates installed at the
top include the High Commission to the UK, the Human Rights Commission,
the Commission of Audit, the Financial System Inquiry and the National Curriculum Review.




Other highly whiffy conduct by senior Liberals includes:



  • the $40 million Tourism Australia campaign spruiking a Sydney restaurant owned by tourism minister Andrew Robb;
  • using the Speaker’s position and offices for party fundraising;
  • treasurer Hockey ‘selling’ meetings for ‘donations’ of $22,000;
  • Hockey appointing as an advisor an English tax evader known as the ‘godfather of Tory donors’;
  • Abbott using an official event at the Adelaide RAAF base to promote the Liberals before the South Australian election;
  • a bizarre $20 million marriage counselling scheme advanced vigorously by the social services minister — whose wife just happens to work in the industry; and
  • countless personal trips at taxpayers’ expense.


Plus, of course, the notorious May budget which so blatantly took from the poor to give to the rich.



This is not to suggest the Nationals, Labor, the Greens, other minor
parties and independents are entirely free of the whiff of corruption.
There are some rotten apples in most large institutional barrels. But it
does seem to be a particular characteristic of the Liberal Party in
this generation.




The putrefaction appears to have begun during the dismal Howard years
from 1996 onwards, with the rise to prominence of George Brandis,
Arthur Sinodinos, Kevin Andrews, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott.




During the 11 years and 8 months of the former Howard Government, 12
Liberal ministers lost their positions because of integrity failures: Jim Short, Brian Gibson, Bob Woods , Geoff Prosser, David Jull, Warwick Parer, Peter Reith, Michael Wooldridge, Bill Heffernan, Ian Campbell, Wilson Tuckey and Santo Santoro.




Departures of six of these – Woods, Parer, Wooldridge, Reith,
Heffernan and Tuckey – were pragmatically delayed, but were forced
removals nonetheless.




At least another four ministers weren’t sacked but clearly should have been — Helen Coonan, Phillip Ruddock, De-Anne Kelly and Alexander Downer.



In contrast, the five years and nine months of the Rudd/Gillard
governments saw just the one minister resign over ethical matters — Joel Fitzgibbon.




One reason there have been fewer departures under Abbott than under Howard is that some integrity rules have been relaxed.
Conduct which was once out of order for Liberals is now acceptable.
Indeed, it seems to be well on the way to becoming obligatory.






It was under Howard that the insidious practice blossomed of Liberal
ministers going virtually straight from parliament to work for private
companies, where their valuable insider knowledge would advantage their
corporations over others.




Howard ministers to have done this include Michael Wooldridge, Alexander Downer, Nick Minchin, Helen Coonan, Phil Baressi, Gary Humphries, Peter Reith, Ian Campbell, Peter Costello, Santo Santoro and Richard Alston.



There are better ways forward.



A four-year ban on working in the for-profit sector would not be
onerous. MPs have generous pensions, and there are plenty of
opportunities for men and women with drive, talent and experience in the
not-for-profit sectors.




Prominent Liberals to have done this include Brendan Nelson, John Herron and Malcolm Fraser.



If this discouraged those ambitious for personal enrichment from seeking parliamentary office, well, good.



Finally, a robust anti-corruption body for Federal politics along the lines of NSW’s ICAC is a must.





Until then, we will just have to get used to the smell.



You can follow Alan Austin on Twitter @AlanTheAmazing.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License






Thursday 23 October 2014

James Packer and Sri Lanka: No country for a new casino

James Packer and Sri Lanka: No country for a new casino








Human rights campaigner and refugee advocate Victoria Martin-Iverson
has very publicly challenged Crown Casinos boss James Packer about his
decision to go into business with the brutal and murderous Rajapaksa
regime.




IT IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE for those of us concerned with human rights
to get some issues onto the mainstream agenda — such as businesses
dealing with the worst human rights abusing nations. 




Standard protests are not even on their radar, however there are the
occasional opportunities to challenge business leaders and corporations,
which we usually try to grasp with both hands.




Last week, I took advantage of just such an opportunity.  I attended the AGM of Crown Resorts Limited — the gambling fun palace consortium owned by the Packer family plus thousands of Mum and Dad investors.



I was there ostensibly to vote as a proxy for a chap who couldn’t attend, who had asked me to vote in his place.  Company head James Packer chaired the proceedings.



There I sat in a room full of shareholders and a few business
journalists, watching flashy commercial videos of happy beautiful people
having “fun” at the various resorts and  listened and took notes while Mr Packer presented the books and  romanced “the brand” and talked about expansion, corporate governance and being a




“… model corporate citizen.”






And then during the “ask the board” section I rose and went to the microphone.



I was greeted with smiles and nods when I began by commending the directors on the efforts taken to



“…. be good corporate citizens.”




Mr Packer had been at pains during his address to dismiss any and all
suggestions that the Casino resort business was remotely unsavoury or
not paying its fair share of taxes. So, I congratulated them on the




“… work done in the rehabilitation of the brand.”




 I then noted “with some concern” that none of this appeared to be consistent with the extraordinary decision taken in October 2013 to partner with the Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka.



In announcing the plans for an “integrated resort” in Colombo, Sri Lanka Mr Packer is quoted as saying:



“Sri Lanka is a beautiful and unique country with a huge tourism
potential and I have great confidence in its future and it is Sri
Lanka’s time to shine in Asia.”





I expressed grave concern that there would be a partnering with a
government accused (and, though I did not mention this last
week, already found guilty by a tribunal in Bremen) of the first genocide of the new century.






A government accused, not just of war crimes, but of crimes against humanity



I noted the destruction of Hindu temples and Christian churches
of the Tamils and their replacement with Buddhist stuppas. I informed
the board of the deliberate bombing of hospitals in the so called “no
fire zones” a clear war crime. And I mentioned the some two dozen
disappeared journalists and political cartoonists. 




I reminded all of them that, since the original plan for a Casino in Colombo were announced, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNCHR) had voted to conduct an investigation into the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the very regime they were intending to do business with.



I suggested this very public international condemnation of the regime was hardly good publicity for “the brand” and should it not give the board just cause to reconsider getting into bed with Rajapaksa?



I said to the board:



“Is this really a regime we should be doing business with? This is not being a good international corporate citizen.”




Mr Packer thanked me for the respectful manner with which I asked the
question and actually gave a thoughtful and considered response. 




It was hardly an acknowledgement of moral error or a commitment to
reconsider however.  The deal is a lucrative one and the company is
committed to capitalising on the rising Chinese and Indian market for
their “product” and he believes a major resort in Sri Lanka will drive




“… increased international inbound tourism.”




Yes there is a clear business case for the deal. But what about the
risk to reputation and to investment potential if the country
destabilises again? That is always a risk when dealing with dictators.
Especially military dictators engaged in ethnic cleansing.






He excused the decision with the fatuous observation that the
International Criminal Court and the UN were too politicised. He
expressed disbelief that the criticisms were factual, based on anything
other than politics.




Then he mentioned the pending “election”, which he said would be returning President Mahinda Rajapaksa with a substantial majority. The irony of that prediction was clearly lost on him.  



Perhaps worried he had been a tad too dismissive of the very
real human rights concerns, he went on to observe ‒ rather oddly, I
thought ‒ that war is hell and the Middle East (?) in turmoil. He said
he and his family were terribly sad about that and noted that few
nations were free from allegations of human rights abuses.




The business in China got a mention at this juncture.



He asked:



“Where do we draw the line?”




At genocide,” I replied.



To my surprise, he appeared to nod and we discussed the issue for a few more moments.



He made it clear he did not believe this regime was very different
from any other and that there wasn’t any real evidence to back up the
allegations.




I suggested that perhaps he could do just one more thing before making a final decision:



“Before you make a final decision as regards getting into bed
with the Rajapaksa regime, would you at least watch the award winning
documentary by Callum McRae
No Fire Zone?”







I explained it was a detailed analysis of the conduct of the Sri
Lankan Government and presents the incontrovertible evidence for war
crimes. 




I brandished the copy I had brought with me.  He paused for no more than a millisecond.



“Yes, I will watch your video.” 




I walked up to the dais and handed it to him and he confirmed again, publically, that he would watch this documentary.



The promise to watch has been passed on to the film maker, who was just nominated for an Emmy for the film, which was produced for Channel Four.
He has been asked to write a letter to Mr Packer about the film and the
ethics of a commercial deal with one of the world’s more brutal
regimes.




I wonder how one sells the image of fun in the sun in a nation riven
by, not just a bloody conflict, but ongoing human rights abuses and a
deliberate program of ethnic cleansing. I can imagine parodies of any
commercials that might be created.  Swimming pools full of blood,
perhaps?




Mr Packer has publically written about the deal as creating employment opportunities for



‘… Sri Lanka’s youth from around the country...’




Will he insist that any deal must include employment for Tamils?



Will he watch the film? Well we are going to try to hold him to his public commitment.



Film maker Callum McRae has tweeted that he was



‘… looking forward to hearing James Packer's reaction to the watching No Fire Zone.’





It may not kill the deal, but it might give Mr Packer pause.  



At the very least it might make him reconsider the risk to the overall brand. It is hard to market genocide.



James Packer should also read Trevor Grant's new book SRI LANKA'S SECRETS, which may be purchased at the IA store at a significant discount.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Trust, transparency and accountability or gimme gimme gimme? - The AIM Network

Trust, transparency and accountability or gimme gimme gimme? - The AIM Network



Trust, transparency and accountability or gimme gimme gimme?














Buoyed by their success at the 2013 election, the Abbott
government has wasted no time in using their power to feather their own
nest and to promote, reward and employ their backers.  Whilst all
governments do this to a degree, Abbott has taken it to a whole new
level of blatant nepotism and servitude to his masters at the expense of
the public interest.



On the 9th of September 2013, before the count was even
finalised, Julie Bishop flexed her muscles by her petty and vindictive
decision to revoke the appointment of Steve Bracks as consul-general in
New York.  He had been appointed in May, long before the caretaker
period, and was due to start that week.



It’s not as if Ms Bishop had a better person in mind. The position remained vacant for six months until it was gifted to Nick Minchin, the man who gave Tony Abbott leadership of the Liberal Party in return for his conversion to climate change denial.


And she didn’t stop there. Despite having 18 months of his term left,
Mike Rann was booted from the position of High Commissioner to the UK
to make way for Alexander Downer
This is the man who, under the guise of providing foreign aid,
authorised the bugging of the cabinet offices of the East Timor
parliament to further the commercial interest of Woodside Petroleum who
coincidentally employed him after he left politics.



Rather than investigate this matter, which is before the International Court of Justice, George Brandis authorised raids to steal the evidence and cancelled the passport of the prime witness.


Brandis also hit the ground running to look after his mates. So
appalled was he by the conviction of Andrew Bolt, he immediately set
about changing the laws to protect the rights of bigots.  To champion
the cause, he made the inexplicable decision to sack the Human Rights
Commissioner for the Disabled, Graeme Innes,
and appoint the IPA’s Tim Wilson (without advertising, application,
interview, relevant qualifications or experience), to fight for the
repeal of Section 18c of the racial discrimination laws,



After a huge backlash from the public, Brandis was directed to drop
his crusade, and there sits Tim Wilson, drawing a salary of $400,000
including perks, with nothing to do.



Mr Wilson’s appointment followed Senator Brandis’ announcement that he had chosen former Howard government minister David Kemp
– the son of IPA founder Charles Kemp – to chair the advisory council
of Old Parliament House.  This position had been given to Barrie Cassidy
but Brandis forced him to resign.  Along with Kemp, two others were
appointed: Heather Henderson, the only daughter of Liberal Party founder
Sir Robert Menzies; and Sir David Smith, whose place in history was
assured on November 11, 1975, on the steps of Old Parliament House, when
as official secretary to governor-general Sir John Kerr he was required
to read out the proclamation sacking the Whitlam government.



Brandis, as Minister for the Arts, also appointed Gerard Henderson
as chairman of the judging panel for the nonfiction and history
category of the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards, Australia’s richest
book prize.



Tony Abbott only took a few hours to begin his Night of the Long
Knives. The swearing-in ceremony had barely finished when the Prime
Minister’s office issued a press release, announcing three departmental
secretaries had had their contracts terminated and the Treasury Secretary would stand down next year.



The head of Infrastructure Australia
also quit or was sacked for his criticism of the government’s
interference with the independence of his organisation.  The head of the
NBN, along with the entire board, were also replaced.



All funding for the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples was withdrawn.  Countless charities and advisory groups have been defunded.


Climate change and renewable energy bodies have been under constant
attack with many disbanded and the rest hanging on temporarily by the
grace of the Senate.



To replace all these experienced experts, we have seen an astonishing
array of people appointed to high-paying positions as advisers,
reviewers, commissioners, consultants, board members, envoys –



Maurice Newman, head of Tony Abbott’s 12-member Business Advisory
Council, aged 76, a former head of the stock exchange and the ABC and a
founder of another of the right-wing think tanks, the Centre for
Independent Studies. Climate sceptic.



Dick Warburton, 72, the former chairman of the petrochemical company
Caltex, among other corporate affiliations. Appointed  to review
Australia’s 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET).  Climate
sceptic.  Also appointed was Brian Fisher.  Climate modelling done by
his firm has been presented to the review panel by the oil and gas
sector, as part of its campaign against the RET.



Tony Shepherd, former head of the Business Council of Australia
(BCA), aged 69. Appointed to head the Commission of Audit.  Climate
sceptic.  Former Liberal senator Amanda Vanstone and Liberal staffer and
Chicago-school economist Peter Boxall were on the commission’s panel.
Peter Crone, director of policy at the BCA, was head of the secretariat.



David Murray, 65, the former CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, appointed
head of the government’s Financial System Inquiry. Climate sceptic.



Henry Ergas, 62, regulatory economist and columnist for the
Australian. Appointed to Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s
“expert panel” to assess the costs and benefits of Turnbull’s “copper
magic” NBN-lite.  Climate sceptic who recently made a video with
Christopher Monckton.



Kevin Donnelly, the IPA-aligned former chief-of-staff to Kevin
Andrews and champion of corporal punishment. Appointed to review the
National Curriculum.  He then appointed Barry Spurr, author of racist
sexist ranting emails, to advise on the literature curriculum.



Warren Mundine, son-in-law of Gerard Henderson. Appointed to advise
on Indigenous affairs.  Has set up a nice new office, 10km away from his
department.



Jim Molan, retired general and author of the tow-back policy.
Appointed as Special Envoy to fix the asylum seeker problem and to
advise on the defence white paper, a position he quit after three weeks
citing differences with the Defence Minister.



Janet Albrechtsen, columnist for the Australian, and Neil Brown,
former deputy Liberal Party leader. Appointed to the panel overseeing
appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.



It seems the pool of “experts” nowadays is confined to the IPA, the
Australian, the Business Council, and the Howard government, and climate
change scepticism is an essential criterion.



Aside from jobs for the boys (and a couple of girls who think
feminism is a dirty word), we have also seen the blatant promotion of
the coal industry with fast-tracking of approvals. We have seen the
repeal of gambling reform laws.  We have seen the delay and watering
down of food and alcohol labelling laws.  We are seeing an attack on the
minimum wage and penalty rates.  All of these measures are against the
best interests of the people and purely designed to reward business
donors.



Our Prime Minister personally introduces James Packer to
international government and business leaders around the world to
promote his quest to build more casinos. This is despite the fact that
his company, Crown, has been implicated in bribery to a Chinese
official.



In a recent report, the OECD was scathing of Australia’s record,
pointing out that Australia “has only one case that has led to foreign
bribery prosecutions, out of 28 foreign bribery referrals received by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) … this is of serious concern”.



One of the 28 cases referred to the AFP related to two properties in Chinese Macau part owned by James Packer’s company, Crown.


A former Macau official is currently serving a 289-year sentence for
accepting bribes of up to $100 million, with various suspect projects
named, including the casinos.



The OECD report notes Australian police did not launch a domestic investigation into any possibility of Crown’s involvement.


In another scandal, former Leighton Holdings construction boss Wal
King has denied all knowledge of a $42 million bribe Leighton is accused
of having paid in Iraq. Leighton Holdings continue to be awarded
lucrative government contracts.



Another of the 28 cases referred to by the OECD relates to payments
made by BHP Billiton in China. They note that, unlike Australia, the US
has launched two investigations into BHP Billiton



The OECD’s lead examiners expressed concern that the “AFP may have
closed foreign bribery cases before thoroughly investigating the
allegations”.



The only foreign bribery investigation that has resulted in
prosecutions in Australia is the highly publicised case involving the
Reserve Bank subsidiaries Securency and Note Printing Australia over which, interestingly, Dick Warburton has been investigated as a former director of Note Printing Australia.



One must wonder about a police force that can spend hundreds of
thousands investigating and prosecuting Peter Slipper over $900 worth of
cab charges, that can mobilise over 800 police to conduct raids leading
to the arrest of one teenager who got a phone call from a bad person
and the confiscation of a plastic sword, but who refuse to investigate
widespread corruption in industry.



And every day it gets just a little bit worse.


A Sydney restaurant owned by Tourism Minister Andrew Robb
and his family is being promoted by a government-funded $40 million,
18-month Tourism Australia campaign that targets 17 key global markets
to sell the Australian “foodie” experience to the world.



The Robb family restaurant, Boathouse Palm Beach, is showcased on
Tourism Australia’s “Restaurant Australia” website, which was launched
in May, as the “ultimate day trip destination” just an hour from Sydney
and the “perfect place for a relaxed family outing”.



Perhaps Tony Abbott’s daughters earned their job at the UN and
$60,000 scholarship.  Perhaps the contract to BMW had nothing to do with
them giving an Abbott girl a gig.  We will never know.



This is only a sample of how the ruling class are using our nation as
their personal plaything, of how they openly flaunt convention and even
the law, of how they silence dissent and promote their agenda, of how
they bestow rewards.



Until this abuse of power is curtailed, politicians will rightly be reviled as the least trustworthy people in the country.


Share this:

Friday 17 October 2014

Trust Federal Parliament? Sure can - The AIM Network

Trust Federal Parliament? Sure can - The AIM Network



Trust Federal Parliament? Sure can














While Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten close ranks in assuring us that
the dealings of federal politicians are all above board and squeaky
clean, the reality is glaringly different and their refusal to realise
that reform is needed taints them both with the suspicion that they
rather like the current situation of factional groups being installed by
industry lobbyists to control our treasury.



In 1992 the former secretary to the Office of Governor-General, Sir David Smith, wrote: There
is much that is wrong with the way this nation is governed and
administered: never before have we had so many Royal Commissions and
other inquiries; never before have we had so many office-holders and
other figures in, or facing the prospect of prison; never before have
the electors registered their dissatisfaction with the political process
by returning so many independent and minor party candidates to
Parliament.



This quote from 22 years ago could have been written today.


In the Mackay Report of July 2001, social researcher Hugh Mackay stated: Australia’s
contempt for federal politics and its leaders has plumbed new depths.
If it (the Mackay Report) was a family newspaper, we would scarcely be
able to print the things Australian’s are saying about their politicians
… In the 22 year history of the Mackay Report political attitudes have
never been quite as negative as this.



Thirteen years on and, if anything, the situation is worse.


On 16 June 2013 in The Australian newspaper Tony Fitzgerald QC (who
chaired the 1987 Queensland Royal Commission) wrote an article The Body Politic is Rotten. He stated: “There
are about 800 politicians in Australia’s parliaments. According to
their assessments of each other, that quite small group includes role
models for lying, cheating, deceiving, “rorting”, bullying,
rumour-mongering, back-stabbing, slander, “leaking”, “dog-whistling”,
nepotism and corruption.”



He states in effect, that the dominance of the major parties by
little known and unimpressive faction leaders who have effective control
of Australia’s democracy and destiny… might be tolerable if the major
parties acted with integrity but they do not. Their constant battles for
power are venal, vicious and vulgar.



The 2010-13 Federal Parliament saw the major parties virtually
eliminate any real form of democratic debate substituting little but
character assassination of opponents. It was a three-year election
campaign of personal abuse and fear mongering. It was debased even
further with aggressive bullying by the media and special interests at
unprecedented levels.



The same period saw both state and federal governments pandering to
special interests allowing massive increases in the promotion of
gambling and alcohol. Pandering to the development and mining industries
and the seemingly endless privatisation of public assets often creating
private monopolies, continued irrespective of public opinion.



Over the last 30 years politicians’ staff has increased dramatically.
At federal level there are now some 17 hundred personal staff to
ministers and members. The states probably account for over two thousand
more. Add to this the direct political infiltration of federal-state
public services and quangos with hundreds more jobs for the boys and
girls, there is now a well-established political class.



This has provided the political parties with a career path for
members. In many cases it often produces skilled, partisan, “whatever it
takes” warriors with a richly rewarded life through local state and
federal governments to a well-funded retirement. Unfortunately while
this career path, as Tony Fitzgerald states, does include principled
well-motivated people … it also attracts professional
politicians with little or no general life experience and unscrupulous
opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue power, money
or both.



The taxpayer cost of federal elections has increased from $38 million
in 1984 to $161 million in 2010. Of the latter $53 million was public
funding to parties and candidates. Currently, in spite of massive
increases, public funding is less than 20 per cent of about $350 million
total election spending. We are now effectively the second best
democracy money can buy.



In an article in the Saturday Paper, Rob Oakeshott writes:


“Australia needs a royal commission into political donations.


It is not people in different clothing, of different cultures, with
different languages, or of different religions that anyone need fear. If
you look back on our political history, we have been divided by silly
suspicions before. The “fear and smear” of others has been tried on
South Sea Islanders, Chinese, Aboriginal Australians, and now women of
Islam. History shows the current debate is not new. It merely picks away
at that same old xenophobic scab our culture carries.



No, the greatest threat to Australia’s future is not among its
people. The people, when allowed to know each other, seem to get on
fine.



The real threat is within government itself. It is the increasing
corruption of our public decision-making by influence gained through
record levels of private donations. The only colour Australia needs to
fear is the colour of money in its democracy. Chequebook decision-making
is the silent killer of necessary reform.”

After the revelations from the NSW ICAC, Mike Baird
had an opportunity to lead reform.  Instead, with his proposed new
legislation, as has been pointed out by Anne Twomey, professor of law at
the University of Sydney, in effect the government wants taxpayers to
give political parties millions more to campaign at election time
without curtailing their ability to raise money from private interests.



Rather than action that places the public interest first, we have a
poorly thought-out proposal arguably designed more with politics and
self-interest in mind than good policy.



Political parties as they have developed over the last century seem
like two mafia families seeking control of the public purse for
distribution to themselves, supporters, the special interests who fund
them and for buying votes at the next election. Political parties are
not mentioned in the Constitution. They are effectively unregulated
private organisations but they now control government treasuries.



By centralising power as Tony Fitzgerald puts it: The public interest
is subordinated to the pursuit of power, party objectives and personal
ambitions, sometimes including the corrupt acquisition of financial
benefit. Branch stacking has become endemic and as Fitzgerald says “The parties gift electorates to family connections, malleable party hacks and mediocre apparatchiks”.



The former Howard government minister Jackie Kelly, who has resigned from the party in protest, cited “the corrosive control that self-interested lobbyists have over the NSW Liberal Party and how yet again reform will stall after the next election” in a letter to the state director.


Kelly told Guardian Australia disenchantment with the factional
control of the NSW state executive and the stalled reform process had
caused many party members in western Sydney to “down tools”.  In one
Sydney north shore branch, 80 out of 200 members have not renewed their
party membership in the past 12 months.



Critics such as Kelly and long time campaigner John Ruddick say the
Icac revelations were a natural outcome of concentrating power in the
hands of a few factional powerbrokers and lobbyists.



The two-party system stifles ideas, debate and decision-making within
the parties. The faction system often ensures minority views triumph
within both party rooms. In the case of the government, the minority
view will then be taken into parliament and become an even greater
minority law. Voting within parties is often based on what faction
members belong to, who wants to become or stay a minister or who wants
to be party leader. What the electors think is at best a secondary
consideration. Party members almost always follow the party line and are
often voting against what they really believe or what their electorates
would want.



As things stand Australian democracy consists of voting in a rigged
system every few years to elect others to make decisions for us. The
voters mostly know little or nothing about most candidates after the
“faceless men” and “branch stackers” have had their way. We are rarely
permitted to have any say on policies. Cabinet ministers, premiers and
prime ministers come and go without reference to us. We go to war and
sign treaties without even our parliament having a say let alone the
public. When the major parties agree, as they do when funding
themselves, and their mutual friends, we have no say whatsoever. It is a
pretty minimalist democracy and a long way from Abraham Lincoln’s
Government of the people, BY the people, for the people.



As Ted Mack says, we seem to have achieved “Government of the people, by the powerbrokers, for the mates”.