LIBERALS IN GOVERNMENT

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Not the first time Barry O'Farrell's memory has failed him

Date: April 16, 2014

Anne Davies

Barry O'Farrell: what a difference a day makes

On Tuesday the NSW Premier was at ICAC
denying he'd been given a $3000 bottle of Grange. On Wednesday morning
he was back to apologise having resigned already.

It seems so harsh. A forgotten gift allegedly left on the
porch while the O'Farrells were on holiday has brought down a well liked
Premier.

But the problem for Barry O'Farrell is that this is not the
first time he's forgotten a thing or two about Nick Di Girolamo, the
chief executive of Australian Water Holdings whose affairs are now being
investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Nick Di Girolamo, whose links to the NSW government have come under scrutiny at the ICAC. Photo: Sasha Woolley

And with each memory lapse a little more paint comes off the
Premier, who has prided himself on running a shiny new style of
government, entirely different from the tawdry and corrupt Labor that
NSW endured for 16 years.

Advertisement

The obfuscation began early on, when Mr O'Farrell gave the
impression that he barely knew Nick Di Girolamo, a big wheel in the
Liberal Party, a major fund-raiser and also head of Australian Water
Holdings (AWH).

Last year as the ICAC prepared to launch an inquiry, Mr O'Farrell told the Australian Financial Review he had attended only one meeting with Mr Di Girolamo on AWH, with then finance minister Greg Pearce, in May 2011.

Barry O'Farrell responds to questions after his appearance at the ICAC hearing on Tuesday. Photo: Sasha Woolley

The remark left the impression Mr O'Farrell barely knew Mr
Di Girolamo. In fact, the Premier had attended three private
fund-raising dinners before the election, been photographed with Mr Di
Girolamo at an Italian function, attended West Tigers functions with him
and it turns out accepted a $3000 bottle of Penfolds Grange.

Soon after the gift, Mr O'Farrell's chief of staff
recommended Mr Di Girolamo be appointed to the board of the
government-owned Water Corp. He was also granted a meeting with the
Premier and his finance minister, Greg Pearce, to discuss AWH's contract
with Sydney Water. Mr Pearce described the meeting as “cosy”.

Nine months later, AWH was awarded a 25-year contract worth $100 million. The awarding was done by Sydney Water, not cabinet.

Tim Koelma leaves an ICAC hearing on April 7. Photo: Rob Homer

But the scandal over water contracts and wine is only part
of the problem. A second inquiry into former Liberal resources minister
Chris Hartcher and a slush fund operated by his former staff member Tim
Koelma also promises to raise more questions about the influence of Mr
Di Girolamo.

By March 2012, Mr Di Girolamo had become a lobbyist for
Kores, which owns the highly controversial Wallarah 2 coal mine on the
central coast. The project was denied approval by the former Labor
government just before the March 2011 state election.

As opposition leader, Mr O'Farrell and his central coast
spokesman, Mr Hartcher, had held a rally in 2009 opposing the project.
"The next Liberal-National government will ensure mining cannot occur
here ... no ifs, no buts. A guarantee," Mr O'Farrell said.

In January 2012, Kores resubmitted its plans - soon after Mr
Hartcher, as the new resources minister, told Parliament all mining
proposals should be subject to "merit-based assessments".

Earlier this year, the NSW Department of Planning announced
it was recommending the approval of Wallarah 2, subject to strict
conditions.

AWH has also been revealed as one of the major contributors to a slush fund, Eight by Five, operated by Mr Koelma.

More is certain to emerge in the separate ICAC inquiry, due after this one.

Corruption and ethics Queensland style

Alex McKean 17 April 2014, 12:00pm

Crime Law Politics Queensland

Add

While the ICAC in NSW claims the scalp of a
sitting Premier yesterday, concerns increase about the Queensland
Government's planned changes to its corruption watchdog, as well as the
conduct of its handpicked acting chair. Barrister Alex McKean comments.

DID DR KEN LEVY chuckle quietly to himself as he set in motion the processes to have Ros Bates
referred to the Ethics Committee of Parliament? Did he grin or grimace
as he signed off on the paperwork to have the troubled MP investigated.

The thought ‘there but for the grace of the Premier go I’ may have
crossed his mind as his pen scratched the parchment, consigning Ms Bates
to the tender mercies of the Queensland Parliament's Ethics Committee.

But Ros never really had to worry.

The bar is not set all that high in terms of expectations of the
ethical conduct of MPs of the Deep North in this savage year of our Lord
2014. It takes an accumulation of allegations of naked corruption, in
the style of the unlamented Scott Driscoll to prompt the government into action.

The matter then proceeds along the well-worn path from wholehearted
support, via cautious defensiveness, to opprobrium, expulsion and
desperate claims of ignorance by those who well knew not all of the
apples in the barrow smelled so sweet.

The Ethics Committee’s report
shows that within hours of the Premier achieving victory in March 2012,
Ms Bates sent emails to five MPs who looked set to be given ministries
in the government, and to Michael Caltabiano, then DG of the Transport
Department.

Her son was subsequently employed.

Where Ms Bates came unstuck was when she read a letter from her son into the record in Parliament on 15 October 2013.

That letter contained the sentence:

'... at no stage did my mother employ me, nor did she ask anyone to give me a job.'

In light of the earlier emails, Dr Levy clearly took the view this may amount to a misleading of Parliament.

Ms Bates submitted in her defence that her emails had not contained any express request that anyone give her son a job.

The Ethics Committee however referred to authority to the effect that it is possible:

‘... that a factually correct statement could also be misleading…
by, for example, the deliberate omission of relevant information.'

Reading that part of the Ethics Committee’s decision may give Dr Levy pause.

The Ethics Committee said that although there was no express request
for employment, the emails were sent for the purpose of Ms Bates getting
her son a job and that a reasonable person, hearing the statement in
the House in October 2013, could have been misled in substance.

It was conceded there was an argument that Ms Bates should have known
she may be misleading the House, in October 2013, where she was the
author of the earlier emails and where those emails had to be provided
to the CMC, in the intervening period, as part of the investigation into
Ms Bates.

The Ethics Committee, however, was apparently swayed by Ms Bates’
submissions that she was focused on her son’s letter, his state of
health and the intense media interest in the matter.

An astute observer might say that the intense media interest in the
case and the fact Ms Bates knew there was a CMC investigation going on
should have alerted her to give careful consideration to each line of
the letter she subsequently read in the Parliament.

So, because Ms Bates did not intend to mislead anyone, she is cleared and need only deliver an apology to the House — again.

Perhaps the Attorney should introduce a three-strikes rule for recidivist Parliamentarians?

But Dr Levy need not even concern himself with the prospect of being
exposed to the ineffectual ministrations of the Ethics Committee for his
transgressions.

Seemingly a protected species, a special Select Committee on Ethics was called into existence to deal with the allegations Dr Levy misled the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.

That Select Committee appears to have been concerned to both delay its investigations[1] into Dr Levy and to ensure there is the minimum possible level of transparency involved in its deliberations.

Now it appears that Dr Levy need not even worry about the Select Committee. The government has recently introduced a Bill that will not only bring the CMC finally to heel, it will also guarantee Dr Levy’s tenure until 29 October 2014.

One of the policy objectives of the Bill is that it will

‘...lead to an improvement in public confidence in the CMC.'

It certainly seems that an injection of public confidence is required.

The actions of the Premier in dismissing the entire membership of the PCMC
in an apparent effort to avoid further investigation of Dr Levy and the
referral of that investigation to the Select Committee on Ethics, which
has resisted all attempts to give even the appearance of transparency,
have significantly eroded public confidence in the CMC.

Guaranteeing Dr Levy a job through legislation would achieve
precisely the opposite of the professed policy objective, where his
continued appointment constitutes a serious threat to public confidence
in the CMC.

The provision of a legislative imprimatur guaranteeing his
appointment, while Dr Levy remains under investigation by the Select
Committee would be a serious blow to what confidence remains.

Dr Levy authored an article in the Courier Mail on 31 October 2013. The article supported the anti-association legislation introduced by the Government.

In it, Dr Levy said:

'... the Attorney-General and the Premier – with support of the
Queensland Government – are taking the strong action that is required.'

This unprecedented move by a CMC head was at the very best naïve. The
real source of Dr Levy’s problems lies, as so often in these cases, in
the steps he subsequently took to obscure the input of highly-placed
people in the government into that article.

On 1 November 2013, Dr Levy appeared before the PCMC.

The Opposition Leader, Ms Palaszczuk, asked Dr Levy if he had any discussions with "anyone from the government" before he submitted the article to the Courier Mail.

Dr Levy denied that suggestion several times.

On 2 November 2013, Dr Levy called the chair of the PCMC to correct
the record, saying there had been one contact between Mr Lee Anderson
and a junior person in the CMC media office. He also wrote a letter to the PCMC chair apologising and setting the record straight.

Critically, there was no disclosure of any other contact which may
have been relevant to Dr Levy’s responses in the exchange, either in the
telephone conversation or letter to the chair of the PCMC.

On 13 November 2013, Dr Levy again appeared before the PCMC.

On that occasion, Dr Levy said, when the error was first brought to
his attention, he still did not recall the contact with Mr Anderson. He
then added that once he recalled the approach to the CMC media people,
he felt guilty and "highly embarrassed" about it and thought about clearing out his drawers and leaving.[2]

Dr Levy said:

"'If one asks ‘Did the Premier or anybody from his office ask me to write an article?’ The answer is, no."[3]

Dr Levy similarly denied that anybody else had made any contribution
to the article, tried to tell him what to write, or to influence him in
any way to write the article.[4]
He said the telephone call to ask Mr Anderson about Mr Houghton was the
only other contact he had with Mr Anderson and for only that purpose.[5]

Already Dr Levy was in trouble. His revelation about the phone call
to Anderson to ask about Houghton was a contact not referred to in his
letter.

Dr Levy’s difficulties were compounded when Lee Anderson fronted the PCMC on 18 November 2013.

Anderson gave evidence which directly contradicted that of Levy in a number of important points, including:

the number of times there was contact between them prior to the publication of Dr. Levy’s opinion piece;
whether Anderson suggested that Houghton should conduct the interview with Dr. Levy;
Anderson making initial contact with Houghton to discuss the proposed interview; and
Anderson seeking to provide input into what the article would and would not discuss.

Most significantly, Anderson told the PCMC he had a face-to-face
meeting where the article was discussed, just a few days before it was
published. The meeting took place on the 15^th floor of the Executive Building, where the Premier’s office is located.

On 21 November 2013, the Premier sacked the membership of the PCMC.

This was an unprecedented move. The sacking meant the PCMC was unable
to further investigate manifest inconsistencies between the evidence of
Dr Levy and Mr Anderson to Dr Levy.

The inquiry into Dr Levy’s evidence to the PCMC was removed from the
reconstituted PCMC and taken over by the Select Committee on Ethics on
the same day.

For a period of time in February 2014, the website
for the Select Committee on Ethics (‘the Select Committee’) initially
informed the public that public hearings would be held in the week
beginning 20 January 2014, if required.

On 17 March 2014, the chair of the Select Committee wrote a letter
saying it had sought additional information from relevant persons and
had determined it would not be seeking submissions from interested
members of the public, because:

'...it is considered unlikely that persons with no direct
involvement in the matter would be in a position to add value to the
Committee’s deliberations.'

At the time of writing this submission, the Select Committee has not
released any further information. It certainly has not cleared Dr Levy
and has taken an approach entirely lacking in transparency.

It is impossible to reconcile the versions of Dr Levy and Mr Anderson
about the number and nature of discussions between the two men. If Mr
Anderson’s testimony is accurate, then Dr. Levy has misled the PCMC on a
variety of issues on two separate occasions.

These are issues that were the subject of sustained questioning by
the PCMC and Dr Levy has provided answers to questions before the PCMC
directly contradicting the evidence of Mr Anderson.

Even more disturbing, there appears to have been a tendency on behalf
of Dr Levy to ‘drip-feed’ information to the PCMC about his contacts
with government figures prior to the publication of the article. It is
trite to say that the situation of giving evidence before the PCMC is
one in which the utmost candour and frankness is required of someone in
Dr Levy’s position.

It is inconceivable that Dr Levy cannot have known he was speaking to
someone from the Government when he was having discussions with Mr
Anderson. The same can be said of any contacts he had with people from
Department of Justice and the Attorney-General, a department of which he
was the director-general for a period of several years.

So, would Dr Levy be able to avail himself of the ‘Ros Bates defence’
if he were ever subject to a transparent investigation. It is difficult
to see how he could.

Firstly, the events which Dr Levy appears not to have had in his
consciousness occurred only a few days before the exchange with the
Opposition Leader. It can be said with some confidence that Dr Levy
would need to be capable of recalling such significant events occurring
so recently in order to fulfil the requirements of his role.

Secondly, Dr Levy possesses significantly higher qualifications than
those of the redoubtable Ms Bates. In his role as acting chair of the
CMC, he certainly should have an acute awareness of the issues
surrounding the possibility of misleading a Parliamentary Committee.

While these questions remain unanswered about the conduct of Dr Levy
and there is no transparent process in place where the inconsistencies
and apparent withholding of information can be properly investigated,
there can be little public confidence in a CMC of which Dr Levy is
Acting Chair.

[1]
The matter of Dr Levy was referred to the Select Committee on 21
November 2013. More than 4 months later no report has been forthcoming.
The Select Committee, unlike other Committees, has only one inquiry
ongoing at this time.

[2] PCMC public hearing 13 November 2013 transcript at page 4

[3] PCMC public hearing 13 November 2013 transcript at page 8

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

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

It's about to get much worse

THE NEW NSW LIBERAL PREMIER IS WORSE

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Faulty O'Farrell's scandalous premiership

Peter Wicks 16 April 2014, 8:00pm

Crime NSW Politics

Add

Barry O'Farrell was rolled out of the NSW premiership
today, yet according to his colleagues he was more honest than Gandhi
and his Government as pure as driven snow. Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks corrects the record.

Today was a day that will linger in the memories of NSW voters long after the election next March.

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has resigned after some severely damaging revelations emerged during Independent Commission Against Corruption hearings.

Another day that might suddenly come back to mind is the 28 March 2011.

That was the day in 2011 that the day the voters of NSW bought a lie — and what a whopper it was.

Barry O’Farrell had run a campaign based around allegations of Labor Party corruption and scandal.

In his own words, Barry promised voters a government that was “scandal free”.

What a lie that turned out to be.

In the short time O’Farrell has been Premier there has been almost more scandals and scandal prone ministers than you can count.

Some of these include:

The alleged public masturbation of Arts Minister George Souris;
Environment Minister Robyn Parker, who thinks logging is good for koalas;
Health Minister Jillian Skinner, whose office is evacuated at the threat of a few nurses delivering her a cake;
Education Minister Adrian Piccoli, a man who publicly signs a pledge to maintain TAFE funding in his campaign and then slashes TAFE services as part of the Coalition's $1.8 Billion education cuts, which cost 800 TAFE workers their job;
Piccoli is also famous for leaving disabled children stranded by the side of the road when he changed their transportion service;
Emergency Services Minister Michael Gallacher, who I believe is the
first minister in Australia to ever have his Party actually booed out
of Parliament by a gallery full of police;
Gallacher also made the decision to close fire stations around the state during a heat wave and spate of bushfires, forcing communities to rely on volunteer services and fire services from other areas which were left unprotected.

But wait, there's more.

There's Attorney General Greg Smith who insults the victims of paedophiles and supports priests charged with sexually assaulting multiple young children, then puts forward legislation, now passed, so that most of the victims of these paedophile priests will never be compensated.

And we shouldn't forget Community Services Minister Pru Goward, who has overseen what many have described as a public housing crisis and has brought about such chaos in the Department Of Community Services that child welfare is at arguably its lowest point ever and there now talk that Federal intervention will be required.

On top of that, we have seen three NSW Liberal Party MP’s forced to stand down after ICAC hearings and raids — one of those being Chris Hartcher, a front bench Minister.

It is not often that we see a premier forced out of office due to
ICAC findings; the last time it happened was back in 1992, when another
Liberal Party Premier, Nick Greiner, fell on his sword.

The corruption in NSW that has to this point centred around Eddie Obeid has now spread like a rumour at a girl's school.

The allegations of corruption in NSW have been known as the NSW Labor
disease, but now that it is clearly a plague on both houses maybe that
will stop — though given News Ltd's obvious agenda, I doubt it.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article on the differences between the corruption allegations against Labor and Liberal MP’s that
went into how the trail of alleged corruption within the Liberal Party
led to the offices of two Prime Ministers. It seems that we can now add
the Office of the NSW Premier to that as well.

So let's have a look at what was the final straw for Barry O’Farrell.

The talk has been all about the $3,000 bottle of wine that slipped his mind, but it is more than just that.

The man who sent the bottle of 1959 Grange to O’Farrell is a man by the name of Nick Di Girolamo.

Mr Di Girolamo has seen himself in the news quite a bit lately none of it I’m sure would have been pleasing for him.

Di Girolamo is a Liberal powerbroker and major party donor and was also a Director of the notorious Australia Water Holdings (AWH).

AWH is a firm that is tied to Eddie Obeid through family ownership
and ICAC has heard that Obeid himself lobbied strongly for the company
in parliament, although he was shut down by the Premier at the time Nathan Rees.

This is the same AWH that saw the former chief of staff to Prime
Minister John Howard, former Liberal Party NSW President and, recently, Former Federal Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos resign after ICAC exposed his role in the whole sordid affair.

Di Girolamo is a man who O’Farrell claimed to have never met and,
when it turned out he had, then claimed it was merely once and he hadn’t
recalled.

"Who's that guy? I've only met him 10 times this year."

It then emerged that O’Farrell had indeed met with Di Girolamo at 10
functions when photos emerged, leading to claims O'Farrell had misled
Parliament twice in a week.

So much for Tony Abbott's man of "honour and integrity",
which a series of NSW Liberal figures have emerged today to declare was
the most honest politician since Gandhi and one who was done in – to
quote Abbott again – by an "innocent and inadvertent" mistake.

Now we have the bottle of wine that Barry forgot, the handwritten note saying thanks on the Premier's personal notepad (pictured right), he can’t remember writing, the delivery to his front door that escaped his attention and, of course, the phone call made to Di Girolamo that was made from Barry’s phone the same week the wine was delivered that he somehow also can’t quite recall.

My opinion on the Barry O’Farrell’s saga may surprise some. I genuinely feel a bit sorry for the bloke.

The way I see it, O’Farrell was a premier holding onto power by his
fingernails. Barry was not a leader with strong factional ties and he
was leading a party with a bitter factional war raging from within.

Barry, I feel, was placed in the unenviable position of not being
able to afford to make enemies in either faction in case they withdrew
support for his leadership. In order to do this, I believe, Barry has
been trying to turn a blind eye to much of the corruption within the
Liberal Party but has been unable to keep it completely at arm's length
and some of the stench has reached him.

There are those, including Tony Abbott, who are saying O’Farrell is
doing the honorable thing in resigning, I couldn’t disagree more.

O’Farrell thought he could stretch, bend and distort the truth and it came back and bit him.

Hard.

If O’Farrell had done the honorable thing, he would have gone the
route that Nathan Rees took and sacked those he thought corrupt and
publicly named them and gone out with dignity.

Instead, O’Farrell supported those alleged to be corrupt and was
caught out trying to deceive the public. For this he resigns in shame.

I also question how much of Barry’s resignation is to do with the
wine and how much may be related to other revelations yet to come from
ICAC.

What we do know is that the Coalition has now effectively delivered
us an empty chair for a Premier due to their alleged corruption and
dishonesty.

What is probably even worse than that empty chair is the idea of Mike Baird becoming Premier — which seems highly likely.

For those interstaters who don’t know Baird, he is the NSW Treasurer
that despite inheriting a surplus and landing his job after the Global
Financial Crisis was over, has delivered nothing but deficits in the
hob. He is also infamous as being the Treasurer who lost a $1 billion.

Just as well there’s an election next March.

Peter Wicks is an ALP member and a former NSW State Labor candidate. You can follow him on Twitter @madwixxy.

Barry and Tony's Bizarro home on the Grange

Ross Jones 16 April 2014, 4:00pm 3

NSW Politics

Add

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell has resigned after being
found to have brazenly misled ICAC about a $3,000 gift, yet according to
PM Tony Abbott it's all a sign of his great "honour and integrity".
Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones tries to reconcile these events.

OLDER READERS might recall a sub-theme of DC’s Superman comics involved a planet called Bizzaro World, also known as Htrae, where everything was the opposite to Earth.

The planet was cubed – not round – and ruled by the Bizarro Code, whose adherents’ credo was:

'Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love
ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!'

In this world, repressive right-wing vandals are referred to as Liberals and small town parochials as Nationals.

In this world, the prime minister, who came to power on the back of a series of major pre-election lies, claims liars are honourable.

But there seems to have been some shift in the universe — Earth and Htrae are changing places.

According to Prime Minister Abbott (or is that Ttobba?), NSW Premier Until Next Week Barry O’Farrell and former Assistant Treasurer (!) Arthur Sinodinos are both good guys — even though neither can remember a thing.

Barry, for example, completely forgot writing a thank-you note for a gift of a $3,000 bottle of Grange bottled on the day of his birth, while poor old Arthur can hardly remember his name.

Happily, ICAC’s Watson SC remained firmly grounded on Earth and was – when needful – able to jog their faulty memories.

Barry’s memory got quite a jolt when a thank-you note he had written to AWH managing director Nick Di Girolomo for a vintage bottle of Penfolds was presented by Watson.

Oh, that note.

Up until then, Barry had denied any knowledge of the wine, despite a courier invoice showing it had been delivered to his home.

Musta been nicked, speculated Barry.

After Barry was sprung by ICAC, Ttobba stepped up:

“I have enormous respect and admiration for Premier Barry
O’Farrell. I’ve known Barry for two decades, he’s been a friend of mine
throughout that time."

According to Ynot, it was all just an innocent misunderstanding:

"Obviously as we now know he innocently, inadvertently, misled
ICAC yesterday and he has taken the utterly honourable step of resigning
today."

O'Farrell's acts in accepting $3,000 bottles of wine, denying he ever
received them in a corruption hearing and then resigning when he was
found, in short order, to be lying through his teeth was an act of
incredibly ethical display, according to the PM:

“We are seeing an act of integrity and honour, the likes of which we have rarely seen in Australian politics.”

He went on to call O'Farrell a "man of great honour".

Of course, Ttobba also called Senator Arthur Sinodinos a "man of great of integrity" and "honourable" before and after he was forced to stand aside as assistant treasurer over his links to Eddie Obeid and alleged corruption.

Bizzaro.

Back on Earth, O’Farrell had nowhere left to go; he had no choice.
He’d been shown to have been swimming in the same rank cesspit as Di
Girolomo and his Liberal Party associates.

How, exactly, does the PM know O’Farrell’s misleading of ICAC was innocent and inadvertent?

It doesn’t read that way.

It reads as a deliberate attempt to mislead the Commission to cover corrupt collusion.

But according to Ttobba any suggestion of that is baseless smear:

Neither Barry nor Arthur
knew anything about the thousands shunted from AWH to the Liberal Party
— especially not the truckloads that poured into the NSW branch coffers
just before the March 2011 election.

The question ICAC should now pursue is how far the rot has set in at
the Coalition. We know Sinodinos, a man at the very heart of the whole
ideological Liberal thing, has a cloud over him the size of Texas.

We know Liberal Party fundraisers – providers of the life-blood – are in it up to their necks.

We know the Liberal Party Premier of NSW is in deep shit.

We know from Ashbygate the depths to which adherents to the Liberal philosophy will stoop in the exercise of power..

Meanwhile, back on Htrae…

Monday, 7 April 2014

Fears of electric shock after Premier Barry O'Farrell ends power price cap

Date: April 8, 2014

Nicole Hasham

State Politics reporter

View more articles from Nicole Hasham

Email Nicole

"From now on,
retailers will need to work harder and
offer better deals to win customers": New South Wales opposition leader Barry O'Farrell.

"From now on, retailers will need to work harder and offer better deals to win customers": NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell. Photo: Jon Reid

Household power bills will go ''through the roof" after the
O'Farrell government lifts a cap on electricity prices, the state
opposition has warned.

Labor says the O'Farrell government's announcement on Monday
that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal would no longer set
power prices removes a safety net that ensures electricity consumers
get a fair deal.

But the stance is at odds with federal Labor's position in
government, when it said NSW must find the ''political courage'' to
deregulate electricity prices to stop power bills soaring.

Premier Barry O'Farrell said deregulation would increase
competition in the energy market and push down prices for more than 1
million electricity customers.

''From now on, retailers will need to work harder and offer better deals to win customers,'' he said.

The decision affects about 40 per cent of electricity customers - those on standard contracts, where the price is set by IPART.

The remaining customers are on market-based contracts and can shop around for the cheapest deal.

The deregulation process will begin on July 1. The government
says IPART will continue to monitor the electricity market. However, it
would not commit to reintroducing controls if its reform does not lead
to more competition or lower prices for consumers.

Labor leader John Robertson said energy companies could now
charge families ''whatever they want'' and deregulation had failed in
other states.

''South Australia has the highest electricity bills, on average, in the country and prices have risen in Victoria,'' he said.

A spokesman for Energy Minister Anthony Roberts said that
since 2009, the average Victorian competitive market price has increased
less than the NSW regulated price. He said the South Australian market
was only deregulated a year ago and it was too early to measure the
reform's success.

In late 2012, federal Labor's then minister for resources and
energy, Martin Ferguson, said retail price deregulation allowed more
competition and easier switching between electricity retailers. He
called on the states to find the ''political courage'' to deregulate the
market.

Consumer watchdog Choice said the main cost drivers of
electricity bills were infrastructure costs, such as upgrading poles and
wires. Mr O'Farrell has said he does not intend to take a policy to
sell the poles and wires to next year's election.

A Choice survey in 2012 found that a third of consumers who
had joined their retailer in the previous three years had tried to
compare providers but found it too difficult.

Public Interest Advocacy Centre chief executive Edward Santow
said well-implemented deregulation should lead to lower prices. But he
called on the government to review fees charged by retailers and
concessions and rebates for households struggling to pay bills.

The NSW electricity market is dominated by Origin Energy, EnergyAustralia and AGL.

A report by the Australian Energy Market Commission last year
found households could be as much as $400 better off a year if they
moved to market-based electricity contracts. It said there was enough
competition in the state's energy markets for price controls to be
removed.

Sunday, 6 April 2014

The erosion of our democratic system

By The AIMN Network on April 7, 2014 •

Unless
you own a newspaper or a mining company, or are happy to turn a blind
eye to the erosion of our democratic values then it would be difficult
to get an argument from you that the Abbott Government continues to go
from bad to worse.

But one of worse characteristics of this government, and one that
receives little attention, is its determination to silence any dissent.
It is this silencing of dissent and the erosion of our democratic
values that prompted ‘Joe W’ to write this letter to The AIMN:

I’m sick of being called anti-democratic, or a ‘sore loser’ (among
other insults) over the election result and told to swallow this
government’s lies whole. My response to this incorrect assertion and
attempt to silence me is as follows: My complaint is not over the
election result, rather how the election was won and that the Abbott
Coalition is using this result as justification for the erosion of our
democratic system. Here are a few examples off the top of my head from
the few short months under the Abbottocracy:

1. Disbanding of expert governmental panels that give government best
scientific and economic advice from which to enact policy, which is a
way of not being held to account for their decision in the public forum
e.g. Climate Council.

2. The disbanding of committees representing the people and front
line workers of industries and peak bodies giving voice to policy debate
– across the board – silencing the voice of the people in their
respective fields e.g. law reform committee, alcohol and other drugs
council.

3. The aggressive and threatening rhetoric directed towards the
workers of Australian public agencies and expert committees, backed up
by severe cuts and summary disbandment and sackings. Clearly designed to
silence any dissent, even where it may be in the best interest of the
Australian people, adhere to scientific reason and well-founded economic
rationale e.g. latest example being the marine park authority.

4. The stacking of governmental panels with members with clear bias
or conflict of interest, thus ensuring predetermined outcomes of the
governments design. This is not democracy, it is exercise in the
sanitation of dictatorship e.g. a panel of review into renewables headed
by a fervent opponent of wind generated energy, yet another review into
education dismissing the findings of Gonski and headed by an avowed
critic of our open and secular curriculum, the head of the audit of
budget being a representative of big business with a myriad of vested
interest in privatization and corporate expansion.

5. Attacks upon the press, not just the unfounded accusations and
threats leveled against the ABC but also mainstream commercial media,
who are often derided into silence.

6. The attacks upon unions, which like it or not, represent the
interests of Australian workers and their families – many whom have lost
their jobs since the Coalition came to power e.g. setting up a royal
commission against unions, bringing back tough Howard era restrictions
and sanctions against union activities and members.

7. Increase costs to FOIs, increasing barriers for the press and
individual citizens to be able to gain information on governmental
action.

8. The increasingly secretive process of negotiations towards the TPP
– signing over our nation’s sovereign rights to the interests of
multinational corporations with no proper Senate oversight or
representation in these negotiations for representatives for the
interests of the Australian people.

9. Massive cuts to legal aid services. Equality before the law being a
basic principal of democracy and expert representation essential to the
rule of impartiality.

10. The undermining of international law and institutions designed to
protect our freedoms, support peaceful, cohesive and productive
relations, and to give forum to international negotiation and efforts
towards constructive and sustainable objectives e.g. snubbing
international climate change forum, dissing international conventions
and siding with the perpetrators of the most blatant breaches against
liberty.

11. Refusing to make government papers available to opposition
parties (representative of the people) an act of refusal not once seen
by the previous government, despite the numerous requests and attacks of
Australia’s most aggressive opposition.

12. The labeling of any dissent or questioning as unpatriotic and
insinuation of alignment with an ‘enemy’. The usage of the rhetoric of
war in a time of peace as means of shutting down inquiry. The
vilification of peoples, groups and attacks upon the right to protest
and public assembly. The framing of discussion in terms of us and them
and manipulation towards siding citizens against a common enemy. Fear
mongering and the fanning of the flames of hate. The examples here being
too numerous to mention but clearly designed to create a climate of
fear over threats to our way of life and orchestrating a divisiveness
preventing a reasoned examination of issues facing our nation.

Democracy encompasses more than one vote per person every 3 years.
The points listed above clearly demonstrate the aggressive silencing of
the people and an erosion of the institutions of democracy designed to
give a voice to represent the interests of all Australian citizens.

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

As with Sir Joh, Campbell Newman doesn't understand the separation of po...

CAMPBELL NEWMAN A FASCIST PREMIER

The lights go out over the Moonlight State

Alex McKean 3 April 2014, 1:30am

Law Politics Queensland

Add

The Queensland Government is about the use its numbers to
nobble the State’s corruption watchdog and slowly but surely rekindle
the days of Joh, writes barrister Alex McKean.

THE LIGHTS WILL NOT GO OUT the day after the Queensland Government passes legislation to nobble the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

A switch will not be thrown plunging the entire State into darkness.
The revenant of Sir Joh will not arise from the grave and walk down
George Street arm-in-arm with Sir Terence to remove the pretenders to
the throne.

No such dramatic scenes are likely to occur.

The change will creep. Standards will slip.

People in places where a lack of integrity really matters will know the era of the watchdog is over.

Newman and his mates will order up champagne, knowing the prospects
of their ever being held to account for their excesses have been
drastically reduced.

The changes to the CMC will not turn out the lights, but it will mean
a light can no longer be shone into some of the dark corners where
corruption flourishes. It will create the conditions where a slide back
into the swamp of political and police corruption, with all of its
attendant miseries, is inevitable.

Tony Fitzgerald QC, in his submission
to the Parliamentary Committee considering the Bill, concluded that the
changes would mean partisan appointments would be made to the new body,
the Crime and Corruption Commission (‘CCC’). As a result, Government
politicians will not have to worry about their own conduct and can use
the CCC as a tool against political opponents.

Mr Fitzgerald QC concluded the Bill was the last step needed to

"... remove the Commission’s independence entirely and bring it completely under Government control."

This article is intended to delve into some of the detail of the Bill
to demonstrate how this objective will be achieved, by exploring how
the new beast the government intends to create ‒ the CCC ‒ will operate
in practice.

The primary purpose of the CCC will be to fight major and organized crime.

Fighting corruption is relegated to a secondary purpose of the body.
The CCC will no longer have the function of preventing official
misconduct. Funding would presumably follow these priorities, with the
crime-fighting arm beefed up and the corruption-fighting arm starved of
resources.

The premier, as leader of the party in government, would have, in his
sole discretion, the power to appoint the upper echelons of the CCC.
These would include a chairman, a deputy chair, and two part-time
Commissioners. The premier would also have the power to appoint a CEO.

The Opposition and the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) would have no input into these appointments.

The appointments would be for an extended period of time, up from five to ten years. This is despite the Callinan/Aroney review
expressing concerns about the length of tenure of senior CMC employees
and recommending they be truncated, to avoid possible corruption.

The chairman would still be required to be legally qualified. There
would be no stipulations as to qualifications of the other office
holders. In particular, the pesky requirements that the Commissioners be
from: civil liberties, social science and community services
backgrounds ‒ and that one of the Commissioners be a woman ‒ will be
swept away.

Indeed, there appears little prospect that any woman might be in line
for any senior role, where the Bill eschews gender-neutral language and
refers to a ‘Chairman’ being at the helm.

There can be no doubt whatsoever as to who will be Chairman — where
the Bill legislatively guarantees the incumbent ‒ Acting Chair Dr Ken
Levy ‒ will hold that position until 31 October 2014. This is despite
the fact that a Select Committee on Ethics has yet to report on its investigation into Dr Levy’s having misled the PCMC in November 2013.

It may be that the drafters of the Bill know something about the outcome of that investigation others do not.

The new structure will therefore see a tame Chairman and CEO,
appointed by the government of the day. This pair will be able to
control the agenda and there will be less need for input from the
part-time Commissioners, who will no longer reflect diversity of
community experience, and will also be selected by the Government.

Staff of the CCC will be subject to discipline from the newly created
position of the CEO. There is no avenue to appeal those decisions.

The CEO will also be able to issue a directive telling staff of the
CCC which cases are to be dealt with as ‘serious corruption’. This will
override the duties of CCC staff who are police officers to exercise
their own independent discretion as constables.

The CCC will not be able to decide into what areas it conducts research. Any research plan will have to be approved by the Attorney-General.

The CCC will be able to deter complaints it may not wish to investigate.

It will be an offence to make a complaint which is found to be:

vexatious;
not in good faith;
made for a mischievous purpose;
made recklessly; or
made maliciously.

Warnings to this effect will operate to prevent many whistleblowers from coming forward, for fear of prosecution.

The agenda of the Government is clear: the CCC will be a creature
which is, by turns, toothless when called upon to investigate government
and its cronies, and savage when used as a political weapon by
government against its perceived enemies.

Corruption will be allowed to flourish.

The old days of patronage will return.

It seems somehow tragic that the sacrifices of those brave people who
stood up and faced terrifying consequences by opening the lid on
corruption in this State is being squandered ‒ so freely ‒ 25 years
later.

There seems little understanding in the public that CMC exists to
protect all of us from the far-reaching consequences of official
corruption.

Will the last one out of Queensland please turn out the lights.

LIBERALS IN GOVERNMENT

Politics,Climate Change and Sundry issues

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Not the first time Barry O'Farrell's memory has failed him

Not the first time Barry O'Farrell's memory has failed him

Anne Davies

Barry O'Farrell: what a difference a day makes

Corruption and ethics Queensland style

Corruption and ethics Queensland style

It's about to get much worse

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Faulty O'Farrell's scandalous premiership

Faulty O'Farrell's scandalous premiership

Barry and Tony's Bizarro home on the Grange

Barry and Tony's Bizarro home on the Grange

Monday, 7 April 2014

Fears of electric shock after Premier Barry O'Farrell ends power price cap

Fears of electric shock after Premier Barry O'Farrell ends power price cap

Nicole Hasham

State Politics reporter

Sunday, 6 April 2014

The erosion of our democratic system

The erosion of our democratic system

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

As with Sir Joh, Campbell Newman doesn't understand the separation of po...

The lights go out over the Moonlight State

The lights go out over the Moonlight State

Translate