Sunday, June 29, 2014

Tony Abbott, the ALP and progressives

Tony Abbott, the ALP and progressives

Tony Abbott, the ALP and progressives



Catherine Magree 29 June 2014, 8:00pm 21



The ALP and the Liberal Party collude in the persecution of asylum seekers.


While progressives direct their righteous anger against
repetitive rightwing sloganeer Tony Abbott, Catherine Magree asks
whether they are ignoring a more insidious threat.




It’s all there — the creepy smile, the shifty eyes, the stiff walk.
The blatant lies, the tinder box temper, the gaffes that expose social
attitudes fifty years out of date.




Tony Abbott’s the cloak-wearing villain we all love to hate and we’re
the kids at the Sunday afternoon pantomime who scream in unison when
the villain arrives on stage:




“Look! He’s right behind you.”




Sure, he’s been temporarily pushed aside by the Clive Palmer and Al
Gore circus and even made to look relatively accommodating and centrist,
with the revelation that he was willing to negotiate with Palmer on
climate change legislation and the two held a meeting on Thursday to
discuss Palmer’s demands. But Abbott’s hamfistedness and ideological
extremism make him an easy target and will no doubt re-emerge.




In the lead-up to his recent overseas trip, comedian John Oliver’s video about ‘Tony dumb dumb’, went viral while domestic commentators like Bill McKibben called him the new George Bush. His every move is greeted with
howls of derision from the progressive press, which have accused him of
killing off the fair go with the savage welfare cuts in the recent
Federal budget.




Even those who voted for him don’t like him.



His personal approval rating following the budget – only 30 per cent, according to Newspoll – wasn’t too far behind the worst of Gillard’s. The Hoopla’s Corinne Grant has labelled John Howard a hero in comparison. Even parts of his own party are rebelling.



The public’s revulsion for the Federal Budget has boosted the fortunes of the progressive cause.



Its measures are so extreme – such as under-30s having to wait for the dole for six months
– that they’ve become a rallying point for progressives of all stripes.
Students have marched in the streets against the deregulation of uni
fees and pensioners are furious after being assured by Abbott before the
election that there would be no changes to pensions or Medicare in his
first term.




Meanwhile, commenters on online journals are urging Greens supporters
to stop criticising the ALP and stand in solidarity against the
Coalition menace.




Responding to the reporting of Scott Ludlam’s anti-Labor comments at a Greens conference, ‘Alpo88urged Ludlam to:



‘… understand that the common political foes are the Liberals ...
try not to play the stupid game of ... repeating Liberal nonsense
against Labor.’







Bill Shorten must be rubbing his hands together with glee. Like
Abbott before him in relation to Julia Gillard, he doesn’t have to do
anything to attract the electorate’s support — just not be Tony Abbott.
Sure, there are rumblings in the ranks about asylum seekers but he knows
he can represent the Australian ideal of the fair go without having to
do much besides oppose the Coalition’s harshest measures.




But we have to ask: who’s really pulling the strings here? And is the
ALP really the answer to the country’s woes? If we look at its policies
and recent actions rather than its rhetoric and origins, can it really
be called a progressive party at all?




When it comes to taxation revenue, Australia has a structural deficit
— yet the ALP has only ever fiddled around the edges to tackle it.
Readers will remember the huge build-up that preceded the proposed tax
increases to the superannuation nest eggs of millionaires that the ALP
foreshadowed in 2013 — and the anti-climax when it became evident the
changes would only affect 16,000 people and would fail to claw back the billions foregone due to the generous concessions introduced by Peter Costello.




Negative gearing remained untouched during the ALP’s entire time in office.



Instead of getting rid of the Government subsidy to private health
insurance, Labor merely means tested it. In the lead-up to the 2007
election, Kevin Rudd matched most of the Howard Government’s tax cuts to
the tune of 31 billion dollars — and once in office the ALP government boasted about being a low-taxing government.




Cancelling tax cuts and reducing tax breaks for the rich would have
funded much-needed welfare increases. By 2012, even business groups and
right-wing economists like Judith Sloan,
as well as ACOSS, the Greens and unionists, were calling on the ALP
government to increase the dole by fifty dollars a week — a chance that
is now lost.




Instead, the ALP kept dole payments stagnant and hit single-parent
families the following year, moving them from the parenting payment onto
the lower Newstart rate.
If the Abbott–Hockey changes to Newstart get passed, the suffering will
be even more extreme, but the roots of it will have already been sown.




The superannuation industry was just one of the many powerful lobbies
that the ALP ultimately failed to stand up to, which also included the
gambling, mining and banking industries. In fact some ALP ministers made
an art form of attacking powerful industry lobbies as if they were running the country rather than the Government.








It’s worth also asking what would be happening now if the ALP had managed to scrape into power at the last election.



What would the party’s stance have been on the development of Abbot Point
and the dumping of dredge spoil into the Great Barrier Reef, as well as
the expansion of coal mining in the Galilee Basin, for example? Some
indications may be gleaned from the fact that, in February 2014, the ALP
voted with the Coalition
to grant environment ministers future immunity against court challenges
to environmental decisions. And, while in government, the ALP stated
clearly that it intended for Australia to keep shipping coal overseas till the cows came home and bugger climate change policy.




As progressives, we’ve become too focused on parties as brands.



We still expect Labor to deliver because we assume that it’s part of
the broad progressive movement. Yet it’s been clear from day one that
Rudd’s and then Gillard’s ALP was doing just enough to appear
progressive without changing the fundamentals.




We all know that Abbott is a creature of the Murdoch press
and the IPA and the business interests they represent. But the Murdoch
papers supported Kevin Rudd in the 2007 election campaign and, with the
unprecedented level of reach of these papers, it’s fair to assert that
they helped to create him as the ALP leader — commentators noted at the
time that he was ‘John Howard lite’.




Rudd’s proposed emissions trading scheme was a fossil fuel friendly
scheme that locked in failure, with carbon emissions reductions that
were conditional on international agreements and massive compensation to
polluters. It was indicative that Rudd was willing to negotiate with
Malcolm Turnbull on the scheme but refused to talk to Bob Brown.




Rudd did try to stand up to the mining industry with the 2010 mining tax, but the original aim of the tax was to lower the Australian dollar
and strengthen the non-mining sectors of the economy. Gillard
eviscerated the tax and promised to cut ‘green tape’. In the 2013
election campaign, resurrected Rudd Mark II showed who the real masters
were, promising ‘a small business friendly’ government and an asylum
seeker policy that only the Daily Telegraph and Pauline Hanson could love.




The online commenter ‘Alpo88’ urged Scott Ludlam to ‘be mature’.



Perhaps it’s we who have to face the painful truth that a one-term
Abbott Government would not mean a progressive Australia, where the fair
go is more than just a slogan.




Perhaps it’s time to throw our support behind parties and individuals
like Ludlam who don’t cave in to the big end of town, and who
consistently produce, and vote in favour of, progressive policies.






Creative Commons Licence

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



The Weird World Of Abbott's Australia - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Weird World Of Abbott's Australia - - The Australian Independent Media Network



The Weird World Of Abbott’s Australia














While Googling Tony Abbott – now there’s something I wouldn’t have
imagined myself doing twenty five years ago – I came across an
interesting quote that I thought was refreshingly honest:



“It’s my job between now and polling day to remind the
Australian people just what a hopeless, unreliable, untrustworthy,
dishonest, deceptive Government this has been. It just doesn’t get
democracy.”

Unfortunately, on closer examination, I discovered that the quote was from the Alan Jones program,
and it was made in July, 2010. Unfortunate, because I thought this
might be the beginning of a more honest approach by the government,
where they actually admit that the Budget would be back in surplus if we
simply went back to the tax rates of 2007. You know, back when John
Howard was in charge, before Labor slashed our taxes.



Still, we are getting rid of that great big tax on everything, so
that should help the Budget bottom line. I did hear a couple of Liberal
politicians express the view that balancing the Budget would be a lot
easier with the Carbon Tax gone. I wonder if they realise that the
government doesn’t actually have to pay the Carbon Tax and that it
receives the revenue. In fact, according to Liberal pamphlets, it
receives an enormous amount of revenue from this source. But hey, let’s
abolish this “King Kong” of taxes (to quote Mr Abbott again) and make
pensioners pay to visit the doctor.



Yes, I’m being emotive. After all, some of these pensioners would
still be working once the pension age goes to seventy. As Mr Abbott said
just last week:



“We think this is right and proper and we think older
people should be economic contributors, not just social and
cultural contributors.”

But back to the Carbon Tax. In reporting Clive Palmer’s decision to
back its abolition, the Herald-Sun – in a straight news story, under the
Headline “The Weird Al and Clive Show” – began with: “Climate change scaremonger Al Gore and big polluter
Clive Palmer combined  in a bizarre press conference as Mr Palmer
revealed revealed he would back the Government’s bid to abolish the
carbon tax – with conditions.” (Emphasis added.)



For some reason, we were treated to a list of Mr Palmer’s assets, as
well as being told that Mr Gore used the phrase “climate crisis” three
times in his “3min 30sec speech” (sic).



Mm, I’m waiting for the article that begins “Budget Crisis
Scaremonger Joe Hockey” or when the phrase “Big Polluter” is applied to a
member of one of Tony’s advisory groups.



The article went on to suggest that journalists were wondering
whether Mr Gore had been paid to attend. However, it left me wondering,
whether the writer of the article, Ellen Whinnett, was paid to put such a
slant on it, or whether writing such tabloid rubbish is consistent with
her principles.



More articles by Rossleigh:


Some things’ll Never Change. Unless We Decide to Change Them.


We Need to Talk About Tony!


Abbott Government Declares Unity Ticket With Obama on Climate Change!


Abbott’s Groan-Up Government!

Friday, June 27, 2014

The Truth Trashers - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Truth Trashers - - The Australian Independent Media Network



The Truth Trashers














A tortuous travail through a tangled web of tall tales.


The three stooges ABBOTT, HOCKEY, AND CORMAN:  “Labor left a debt of $667 billion and deficits as far as the eye could see”


When the Abbott Government came to power in September 2013, the situation was:


$270 billion in Commonwealth securities on issue (gross debt).


Net debt in 2013-14 was estimated to be $184.0 billion (11.7 per cent of GDP).


An underlying cash deficit of $30.1 billion (1.9 per cent of GDP) was
estimated for 2013-14 with a return to budget surplus in 2016-17.



SOCIAL DISSERVICE MINISTER KEVIN ANDREWS: “With
the population ageing at the rate that it is, we’ve got to ensure in
the future that we’re able to sustain the welfare system, otherwise
we’ll find ourselves in 10 or 15 years’ time in the situation that some
of the countries in Europe are in.”



Australia currently has the fourth-lowest level of public pension spending of any OECD country and is projected by 2050 to have the third-lowest level of pension spending.


OECD data shows Australia is “relatively low in terms of social security and around average in the terms of spending on health”.


In 2013 Australia’s public spending on the age pension was 3.5 per
cent of GDP.  Many European countries spend a significantly higher
percentage on age pensions. Italy spends 15 per cent of GDP, France 14
per cent, Belgium 10 per cent, Sweden 8 per cent and the United Kingdom 6
per cent.



The 2010 Intergenerational Report says government spending on
pensions and income support payments in 2009-10 was 6.9 per cent of GDP.
It predicts that there will be minor fluctuations and it will still be
6.9 per cent in 2049-50.



The report says Australia is facing an increase in age-related
spending by 2050, but more in health and aged care services than in
welfare payments.  Over the same period, spending on other welfare
programs – unemployment benefits, widow pensions, parenting payments,
carer payments and study allowances – is expected to fall.



MINISTER FOR STEALTH PETER DUTTON: “The
threshold question is whether people want the health system of today
strengthened for tomorrow, because at the moment the health system is
heading to a point where it will become unmanageable.”



As a percentage of GDP, Australian government spending on health is the tenth lowest of the 33 countries in the OECD database and the lowest among wealthy countries.


The 8.3% of GDP spent by the US government, for instance, is higher
than the 6.4% spent by the Commonwealth and state governments in
Australia.



Australia’s total health expenditure, government plus private, is about 9.5% of GDP; the United States spends 17.7%.


The RAND Health Insurance Experiment showed that co-payments led to a
minimal reduction in demand for services with the effect falling
disproportionately on low-income groups.



ASSISTANT TO THE GRUB SUSSAN LEY“Unlike
Labor, the Coalition is genuinely committed to delivering better
education opportunities and working conditions in the childcare and
early learning sector.”



One of the first things the Abbott government did on taking office was to axe Labor’s $300 million fund to improve the quality of child care education. It also decided to fight a wage claim by child care sector workers in the Fair Work Commission.


The government plans to save nearly a billion dollars by freezing the
thresholds at which child care rebates and benefits are paid. This
means that as child care costs rise, government subsidies will stay at
2013 levels which will hurt lower-income families the most.



By 2016-17, industry group Early Childhood Australia estimates low-
and middle-income families paying for child care will be thousands of
dollars a year worse off.



TONY ‘CLIMATE CHANGE IS CRAP’ ABBOTT“Just
as the carbon tax is massively boosting power prices, the renewable
energy targets are also having an impact on prices — not as great, but
still not insignificant.  We do need to do everything that is reasonably
within our power … to bring power prices down.”



The federal government’s case to scrap or weaken the Renewable Energy
Target (RET) has been dealt a blow, with modelling it commissioned for
the review showing consumers will be better off if the target is kept.



ACIL Allen, the firm hired by the government’s handpicked panel
reviewing the target, has presented preliminary figures showing
household bills will be higher in the years to 2020 but after that they
will start to fall and consumers will be better off by an average $56 a
year from 2021 and $91 a year from 2030.



Extending the goal to sourcing 30 per cent of electricity from
renewable sources by 2030 has even larger savings in the 2021-2030
period, averaging $109 a year, more than offsetting an initial $47
increase from 2015-2020.



The repeal case is the most expensive, and the one with the most
renewables deployed – the RET target of 30 per cent by 2030 – ends ups
being the cheapest for consumers.



TONY ‘WHO NEEDS SCIENCE’ ABBOTT“It
is only through sustained investment that we can retain our scientific
talent, generate health discoveries and fully reap the benefits of
health and medical research.”



Many CSIRO programs will
be lost as a result of the $111 million in cuts and staff reductions of
about 800, including research into neuroscience and colorectal cancer,
water safety and advanced manufacturing.



The Government will reduce the Research Training Scheme (RTS)
funding from 1 January 2016 and allow higher education providers to
introduce student contributions for students undertaking higher degrees
by research (HDR), including doctoral and masters degrees.



The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Program will be cut by $80 million over the forward estimates.


Savings of $1 billion over five years from 2013‑14 are expected to be
achieved from ceasing ten existing skills and training programmes.



To be fair, Tony occasionally gets it right, even if his timing is slightly out.


We
have to choose a new government: a new government with a positive plan
to restore the hope, reward and opportunity that should be your birth
right.”


Thursday, June 26, 2014

Sitting in Judgement of Abbotts First Year - - The Australian Independent Media Network

Sitting in Judgement of Abbotts First Year - - The Australian Independent Media Network



Sitting in Judgement of Abbotts First Year














The first anniversary of an Abbott led government is almost upon
us. What yardstick do we use to judge its performance? For me there is
only one. That being that all governments exist to serve the people and
by extension the common good. In this respect the current government is a
wretched failure.

Tony Abbott as leader has, probably because of his natural disposition
toward negativity, failed to ignite the imagination of the Australian
people. He has tried to adapt his pugilistic depressive personality
characteristics to leadership, and it simply hasn’t worked for him.
Abbott has never been a popular politician. He is universally perceived
as a revengeful vulgar liar, and untrustworthy. His disposition towards
saying anything that suits him with an expectancy that he should be
believed has done nothing but reinforce people’s aversion of him. It may
have been a special brand of hate politics that won him victory but
once in power people expect governance not vindictiveness. All of this
is reinforced in a preferred PM status of just 30%.

Judging Abbott’s first year to date is made somewhat easy (if based on a
criteria of common good fairness) because it has, or will, impact on so
many vulnerable people.

First and foremost in the public’s mind has been the blatant lying. All
of which is well documented and authenticated. So much so that Abbott
and those of the same ilk, his ministers, cannot deny it.

However, Abbott try’s to do so with a stoic stony faced indignation
which takes a certain type of megalomania. And it’s his
self-righteousness, the inability to concede another view in the face of
contrary evidence that earns the wrath of people.



‘‘Why is the Prime Minister lying and why is he lying about lying?’’

Bill Shorten.

The Hocky/Abbott Budget is still craving legitimacy weeks after its
presentation. Even genuine dyed in the wool LNP voters (41% of them
thought it unfair) were taken with its broken promises and its
dishonesty. Its ideological assault on the poor, young folk, pensioners,
education and the sick in favor of the rich and privileged alienated
people.

If ever a budget characterised a government’s values and philosophical
intent it was this one. It’s called serfdom. A master servant philosophy
of another time. All in the face of growing world inequality that
learned social commentators and researchers believe together with
climate change will be the two greatest problems facing the world.

The Government has sought to justify its actions by insisting that the
budget is in crisis. That they have inherited a Labor debt and deficit
disaster beyond the electorate’s comprehension. Whilst everyone
acknowledges the need for fiscal responsibility commentators and
economists have dismissed the notion of a pending disaster as scare
tactics.

Abbott came to power on the back of an orchestrated media campaign by
the Murdoch press, his own negativity and Labor’s leadership
dysfunction. Not because the conservatives were a new shining example of
fresh democracy with policies to match. The fact is that surveys
suggested that people were comfortable with Labor policies just not the
leadership.



Abbott viewed if differently opting for no policies other than his
unpopular PPL scheme. He saw an opportunity to paint the political
landscape in pessimistic depressive terms. Blaming everything on
everybody else and pretending only he had the answers. He lied by
omission during the election campaign preferring to dump his IPA
inspired policies on an unsuspecting electorate when the electorate had
settled. He thought they would be compliant. He was wrong.



And so we are approaching the first anniversary of a government that
seems to be putting its foot in the political mire on a daily basis. It
is a government that has failed to spell out a narrative for Australia’s
future other that saying it will be built on coal. We have a Prime
Minister for undoing rather than doing. A person who has failed to
represent us internationally. One who imbues on the Australian political
scene a dour negativity when what we need is inspiration.

It raises this question.

Has Australia ever elected a Prime Minister so ignorant of technology,
the environment and science? So oblivious of the needs of women and gay
people. So out of touch with a modern pluralist society. And such a
perverted liar?

They are a Government on the nose, contemptuous of any view other than
their own. Simply playing politics as if it were some sort of plaything
dedicated to improving the lot of big business and the privileged.
Oblivious to the common good. It’s easy to understand why so many
Australians have disengaged from politics.

In short they are a government bogged down trying to justify an
ultra-right wing political ideology to an electorate whose only desire
is for government for the common good.


Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Irony at the ABC

Irony at the ABC

Irony at the ABC



David Horton 25 June 2014, 9:00pm 23





The release of the Lewis Review into the ABC yesterday putting the finishing touches to Abbott Government's plans to gut the ABC. David Horton explains how this lamentable state of affairs has come about.



Baldrick: I have a cunning plan to save the king.

Edmund Blackadder: Ha! Well forgive me if a don’t do a cartwheel of joy;
your family’s history in the department of cunning planning is about as
impressive as Stumpy O’Leg McNolegs’ personal best in the Market
Harborough marathon.




~ Blackadder: The Cavalier Years (Comic Relief, 1988)




SINCE JOHN HOWARD began stacking the board of what he was determined would become His ABC, there is absolutely no doubt that the political philosophy of, and reporting by, that once great neutral
public broadcaster has, like its role model the BBC, swung sharply to
the very right of the conservative end of the Australian political
spectrum and beyond into the wastelands of right wing think tankism,
libertarianism and tea partyism.




No doubt about the techniques used to achieve this, nor about the
result, but – just as in the choice between conspiracy and stuff up to
explain a disaster – some doubt about the logic behind it.




Well, doubt in my mind, anyway, as an avid consumer of ABC news and
current affairs for 60 years who has refused to watch any in the last
five years or so. A doubt brought into even sharper focus by the recent
Federal Budget brought down by the “Enemies of the ABC” Government,
which has slashed huge sums from the ABC budget and is now to force them to outsource all production and start charging for content. The end, as demanded by the Liberal Party scriptwriter, the IPA, is nigh for Australia’s public broadcaster.




The doubt?



Well we can look at it two ways. The change to the ABC could be the
result of fundamentalist political beliefs, or a cunning plan gone wrong
in catastrophic Baldrickian fashion.




The first theory would point out that, as Keating might say, if you
change the Board and senior management of an organisation you change the
organisation in a trickle-down effect. Boards appoint politically
simpatico senior managers who, in turn, appoint like-minded middle
managers who, in turn, appoint right-minded producers, editors,
reporters, presenters. By the time the last appointment is made, you
have a public broadcaster made in the unalluring form of the mind of
John Howard.




The second, Baldrickian theory is this. Faced, once the Rudd-Gillard political totentanz began, with the inevitability, apparently sooner rather than later, of an Abbott Murdoch-puppet-government working through an IPA wish list featuring prominently the privatisation of the ABC, and the dismantling (or sale to Murdoch) of the Australia Network, senior management seized on a survival plan.





To begin with, all news bulletins would lead with:



“The Opposition [the Liberal Party] said today….”




thus restricting Government rebuttals.



No government policies or plans would be treated positively.



News items would be extensively derived from News Ltd papers, or radio shock jocks, each day.



Commentary would be obtained almost entirely from News Ltd reporters
and columnists, reliably right wing academics, former Howard ministers,
former Labor ministers known for their now hard-right views, IPA staff
current and former, vox pops chosen to be critical of
government. The same unholy chorus of right wing ideologues would appear
on every current affairs show, vastly outnumbering the occasional
presence of David Marr or a Labor minister.




Presenters and political reporters would be either known for their
anti-Labor proclivities, or be under instruction that all
reporting/interviewing was to be on the basis of: Liberal Good / Labor
Bad.






And, of course, no scurrilous rumour undermining the government
should be left unreported, while no examination of Liberal policies was
to occur.




Satirical programs ridiculing Gillard and Rudd were to be encouraged, while Abbott was to be given a golden Menzies aura.



Overall, ABC's credibility, build up over decades as a serious
independent neutral public broadcaster, was used to transfer credibility
to News Ltd, the IPA and the Liberal Party.




Thus, the prospect of the imminent arrival of an Abbott government
was turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy by the ABC on September 7,
2013.




But if the ABC had been turned into a Libertarian wet dream by a
trickle of neoconservative ideology, or if this was the cunning plan for
the survival of the ABC as a public broadcaster — what went wrong in
May and June 2014? After months of attacks on the mythical “left wing bias” of the ABC by ministers (including the prime minister) and News Ltd continued in the lead-up to the Budget in which the worst fears of the few remaining Friends of the ABC were realised.






Well, there was just one tiny flaw in the cunning plan (if cunning
plan it was) — hardly worth mentioning really. You see, it relied on
Government MPs sharing a belief with the rest of the country that the
ABC was a very important national institution, a fundamental part of
Australia and that pouring right wing ideology into it would be enough
to encourage the Liberal Party to keep it intact. That if they heard a
chorus of right wing voices singing from the Menzies House song book on ABC every day they would see it as useful in their plans for a thousand-year rule.




Trouble is, they didn’t and don’t.



With Murdoch and the shock jocks on side, they saw no need for an
ABC; that given, as it were, a choice between a real News Limited and a
public broadcaster who acts like a Murdoch mouth piece, a Liberal will
vote for his real Masters Voice every time.




So, whether a plan or not, moving to the Right won the ABC no
reprieve from the Liberal Government, while at the same time it lost it
all the support of those of the centre and left who were once friends of
the Corporation and once would have massively demonstrated in its
support.




Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what “irony” is?

Baldrick: Yes, it’s like “goldy” and “bronzy” only it’s made out of iron.




~ Blackadder The Third: Amy and Amiability (Series 3, Episode 5; BBC, 1987)




You can read more by David Horton on his The Watermelon Blog or follow him on Twitter @watermelon_man.



Creative Commons Licence

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








Saturday, June 21, 2014

The Jacksonville Standover Man

The Jacksonville Standover Man

The Jacksonville Standover Man



Peter Wicks 21 June 2014, 4:30pm 49



Marco Bolano at the the Union Royal Commission this week.


Kathy Jackson crony Marco Bolano threatened, intimidated
and harassed numerous people at the Union Royal Commission this week,
including Peter Wicks
 from Wixxyleaks, who gives his side of the story.




WHILST COVERING the hearings of the Royal Commission on the Health Services Union this week, some disturbing events occurred.



Some of you may have read reports in Fairfax or News Ltd, some of which I have been named in, of Marco Bolano's attempts to intimidate various people at the Royal Commission.



Bolano is, of course, a staunch ally of Kathy Jackson
and the man stood down from his position as secretary of the HSU Number
1 branch by a Federal Court judge. Though unemployed at present, he
allegedly earns a tidy income of approximately $2,000 a week via QBE
Insurance in workers compensation for being completely incapacitated by stress.




Despite Bolano’s alleged incapacitation, he managed to make it Sydney
to testify before the Royal Commission. Even more remarkable, the
ailing Bolano decided he’d stay in Sydney for the week rather than
returning home after he'd testified earlier in the week.




The current general manager of the HSU #1 Branch, Kimberley Kitching,
has alleged that she was spat on, harassed and intimidated by Bolano.
After making a complaint to police, they told her it may be in her best
interests to hire a security guard, which she did.




On Thursday, Kitching came to the hearing with a rather burly looking bodyguard by her side.



It was Tuesday that Kitching's problems first occurred; on the same day Fairfax journalist Ben Schneiders also had issues with Bolano.



Schneiders was allegedly chastised and harassed in the café next to
the Royal Commission venue as he sat down for lunch with Kitching. Among
other things, Bolano kept taking photos of the pair without asking
permission.




That afternoon, while Craig McGregor was testifying,
I was in the Commission hearing room after the feed to the media room
went down and witnessed first-hand Bolano attempting to intimidate
Schneiders whilst the hearing was in session. Bolano repeatedly referred
to Schneiders using unflattering terms and made faces and gestures
towards him, all of these were unprovoked as Mr Schneiders was clearly
trying to follow McGregor's testimony.




On the Wednesday at the first break in proceedings I went to grab a coffee at the café in the State Theatre next door.



After having a coffee, I was standing in a laneway that runs between
the Royal Commission venue and the café with three others when we were
approached by Marco Bolano.








The Commission venue is on left, the cafe on the far right and the laneway in the middle, next to underground car park entrance.



Bolano came over and, after saying he didn’t know who I was,
proceeded to try to intimidate me by telling me he knew who my sources
were, because the police had been keeping them (that is, Bolano's crowd)
informed.




One of those with me was Andrew Casey, who tried his utmost to placate Bolano politely.



Bolano, however, was incensed he did not know who one of the two
ladies was, he demanded to know who she was repeatedly before putting
his phone within inches of her face threateningly and taking her photo,
saying:




"We’re gonna find out who you are.”




And:



“We are gonna get you."




The lady, who has asked not to be identified, was shaken but
determined to see that Bolano was not allowed to get away with such
behaviour.




With that in mind, all four of us reported the matter to Royal Commission security and were individually interviewed.



 The irony of being intimidated and stood over at a Royal Commission
ostensibly set up for the purposes of stopping this sort of behaviour
was not lost on me.




Later, at lunch, I went to a sushi restaurant around the corner from
the Commission with Kimberley Kitching and the lady who does not want to
be named.




We had only been seated for about five minutes when Marco Bolano appeared next to us at the table taking photos of us uninvited.



Kitching told him that it was ridiculous what he was doing and took photos of Bolano in action, two of which are below.







After harassing and taking photos of us, he promptly left, without dining at the restaurant.



Later that afternoon, there was yet another incident, where Bolano
grabbed Andrew Casey around the waist and dragged him away from the
media pack whilst yelling at him.




Marco Bolano is the man conservative foghorns such as Michael Smith,
Ray Hadley, Chris Smith, Andrew Bolt and others would like to have you
believe is a saint.




He is also one of those comical Christopher Pyne apologised to on behalf of the Australian Parliament for being accused of this kind of behaviour in Craig Thomson's address to parliament.



The Royal Commission is an important legal process which should be above this kind of behaviour.



With any Royal Commission, it is vitally important to maintain its
integrity of the Commission and efforts should be made to ensure members
of the press and public are not subject to bullying and intimidation.




I also hope the Royal Commission was not paying for Marco Bolano's
accommodation for the entire week, given his testimony finished on the
Monday, as there are far better uses for taxpayers' money.




The police have been notified of events, as has the Commission.



Let’s hope this is the last we see of this sort of disgraceful behaviour.



Catch up on the full Jacksonville saga here. Follow Peter Wicks on Twitter @madwixxy.



Creative Commons Licence

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



Friday, June 20, 2014

Jacksonville conflict and birdsong

Jacksonville conflict and birdsong



UNION WHISTLEBLOWER A TRAITOR. IN COHORTS WITH CONSERVATIVES

Jacksonville conflict and birdsong



Peter Wicks 20 June 2014, 7:00pm 39



Kathy Jackson with Michael Lawler at the Union Royal Commission


This morning in a Melbourne court room, via telephone,
Michael Lawler attempted to represent his partner Kathy Jackson in a HSU
dispute.
Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks asks whether there is a conflict of interest.




This morning, in a Melbourne court room, a strange thing happened.



Someone who has spent a long time claiming to have nothing to do with
anything concerning the Health Services Union or the allegations of
corruption that have surrounded the union, appeared to contradict his
own claims.




The name of this person is Michael Lawler, and readers of my investigation into the HSU saga would be familiar with who he is.



For those who aren’t, Lawler is the vice president of Fair Work
Commission (FWC), formerly the FWA. This is the same FWA that
investigated the Health Services Union and led to the allegations
against Craig Thomson. A recent article that gives a brief outline of
Lawler's involvement can be found via this link.




Lawler was appointed by Tony Abbott, who at the time was the industrial relations minister under PM John Howard.



Michael Lawler is also the partner of Kathy Jackson, the
self-proclaimed HSU whistleblower who now finds herself in the centre of
a corruption scandal, where the dollar figures she is alleged to have embezzled far exceed those she brags about blowing the whistle on.




More on that later.





Michael Lawler is vice president of the Fair Work Commission and is
an industrial judge of equivalent standing as a Federal Court judge.




This is a position that the taxpayers like us pay an enormous amount
of money for — somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 per annum. It is
the Fair Work Commission's responsibility to act in an independent
manner — otherwise you may as well drop the word “Fair” from their
title.




This morning in the Federal Court in Melbourne, Kathy Jackson was due to appear to give her defence against civil actions being taken by the national office of the Health Services Union to retrieve funds.



Part of this action relates to the employment contract for Rob Elliott, drawn up and signed by Kathy Jackson and Michael Williamson, the latter of whom now lives in a room with bars on the windows.



Kathy Jackson has so far failed to file a defence and was not in court this morning.



In order to avoid being charged with contempt of court, Jackson attempted to have the matter heard remotely.



Acting on her behalf, or seeking to act as Jackson's legal representative in this case, was Michael Lawler.







In other words, Mr Lawler, an industrial judge, who claims nothing to
do with HSU business, was seeking to act as a lawyer for a HSU union
official facing corruption allegations in an action against her by her
union. Though being heard in a different court, this sounds very much
like an industrial dispute.




The judge in the case was allegedly rather irritated by this
intervention from Michael Lawler, having to explain that Lawler could
not act on Jackson's behalf without being present in the court
— something one would have hoped and assumed someone in Michael Lawler’s
position would fully across.




Whatever potential damage Michael Lawler may wish to do to his own
reputation by his continued defence of Kathy Jackson is, of course, his
own concern.




However, it is of significant public interest when the independence
and integrity of the country's industrial relations watchdog and umpire
appears to be brought into question by the actions of one of Australia’s
highest paid public servants and judicial officers.




The public should have every right to feel concerned.



Surely, taxpayers dollars should not be spent on a public servant
meant to be an impartial indistrial judge who is freelancing as a
barrister for a union official with whom is in a long-term relationship
with that is facing civil action from her own union.




The conflicts of interest there should surely be obvious and manifest
to anyone. The fact that they are apparently not for Jackson and Lawler
is somewhat hard to fathom. Perhaps they feel above the law and
untouchable?




It should be noted that no other media organisation has so far reported on today's events, apart from Pia Akerman from The Australian, who did not mention any conflict of interest concerns.



Her report did have it moments, however, such as this melodious stanza:



Mr Lawler, who was often difficult to hear over birdsong from his
end of the telephone line, also asked if Mr Irving could intercede to
have a photo of Ms Jackson removed from the internet.




He said Andrew Landeryou, husband of HSU Victoria #1 branch
general manager Kimberley Kitching, had posted a photo online last night
of Ms Jackson’s face following a cosmetic skin treatment which had left
“unsightly scabs”.




Mr Lawler said Ms Jackson was distressed by the publication of
the photo which could only have come to Mr Landeryou in an “unlawful
fashion”, and asked that Mr Irving ask the HSU to take steps to have the
photo removed.




The case has been adjourned, with a December trial date preserved.








Birdsong? Could Jacksonville be any more bizarre?



But, more importantly, has Michael Lawler’s position within the Fair Work Commission just became untenable?



You be the judge.



Coming up soon: Peter Wicks explains what Jackson stand-over man Marco Bolano confronted him outside The Union Royal Commission this week. You can follow Peter on Twitter @madwixxy.



Creative Commons Licence

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