.bmp)
SAY NO TO RACISM
Ms. Penny Wong,
Minister for Finance,
senator.wong@aph.gov.au
Dear Minister,
We refer to the report below for your information.
You are to be congratulated for calling a spade a spade when you said: Racial abuse was not unusual in Australia.
Although the White Australia policy was completely dismantled in theory but in practice, it remains the same and Labor is more racial than the former racist Howard government because it increased the English Test from 4.5 to 5.0 to day.
Racism destroys the quality of life.
Would you like to comment, please?
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 06-Oct-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Wong Defeats Race-Sex Prejudice as Australia Minister Set to Erase Deficit
Australia’s finance minister may need to reprise the toughness she showed in overcoming racial abuse and gaining control of a university political club to succeed in her new role.
Penny Wong is now charged with meeting Australia’s goal of becoming the first major developed nation to return its government budget to surplus. At stake: sustaining investor confidence in a country that avoided a recession during the global crisis and now seeks to end its deficits by fiscal 2013. Wong’s main mission is holding the line on cabinet colleagues’ budget requests to maintain a 2 percent cap on spending growth.
“She will have no problems saying no” to funding requests, said George Karzis, whom Wong ousted in 1989 as head of the Labor Club at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and now works at law firm Norman Waterhouse in Adelaide. He said the two had embarked on a “campaign of enthusiastic recruitment” of new members to help gain control of the club, with Wong emerging the victor.
Australia’s economic growth, accompanied by the lowest debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio among advanced economies, has helped make its dollar the second-best performing major currency this year, climbing about 8 percent against its U.S. counterpart.
The economy, which is now in its 20th year of expansion, surged 1.2 percent last quarter, the fastest pace since 2007 as growth spread from the mining industry to households.
Smaller Deficit
Wong started her job last month with one advantage: The deficit has so far turned out to be smaller than the government had anticipated. The shortfall was A$54.8 billion ($53.2 billion) in the fiscal year that ended June 30, compared with a forecast in May this year of A$57.1 billion.
“The key is to ensure we get the budget back into surplus and ensure the strict spending rules,” Wong, 41, said in a telephone interview on Sept. 28. “We have to deliver fiscal consolidation and that will require enormous discipline.”
Wong was born in Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, Malaysia, to a Cantonese father and an Australian mother. Her parents met at the University of Adelaide when her father traveled to South Australia on a scholarship in the 1960s and returned to Malaysia together. When they separated, Wong moved to Australia at age eight with her mother and brother.
Wong’s brother died 10 days after her election to parliament in 2001. In her maiden speech the following year, she made reference to his passing, saying, “Your life and death ensure that I shall never forget what it is like for those who are truly marginalized.”
Migrant Difficulties
Wong alluded in her speech to the difficulties migrants faced when she arrived 25 years earlier.
“It was a hard time to leave a familiar place and come to somewhere where you and your family were seen as so different,” she told lawmakers. “Racial abuse was not unusual. It used to lead me to wonder, ‘How long do you have to be here and how much do you have to love this country before you are accepted?’”
Australia’s discriminatory immigration program, known as the White Australia policy, was completely dismantled in 1973. As late as 1988, John Howard, who went on to become Australia’s second-longest serving prime minister, called for reduced Asian immigration for the sake of “social cohesion.”
Wong wasn’t deterred. She won a scholarship to Scotch College in Adelaide, where Prime Minister Julia Gillard also hails from, and later became a captain of the school, the most prestigious position for a student. Di Hill, deputy principal at the time, recalls that some other students viewed the young Wong as “different” and she got “some teasing” as a result.
‘Intellectually Smart’
“Penny always said what she thought, in a way she probably wouldn’t now as a politician,” said Hill, whose husband, Robert, was a cabinet minister under Howard and who says she encouraged Wong to enter school politics, a process that ended with her being elected president of the student representative council by a record majority. “Sometimes that could aggravate people. She’s incredibly clever. Intellectually smart.”
Wong planned to become a doctor after graduation, winning a spot in medical school before deferring to go overseas. She returned to the University of Adelaide a year later and studied arts and law.
“I did a gap year and did some work in hospitals in Brazil and decided medicine wasn’t for me,” she said in the interview. “Not liking the sight of blood was one of many reasons.”
Wong worked part-time as an organizer for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union through the concluding stages of her law degree, while still managing to graduate with honors.
Legal Officer
She was a barrister and solicitor at an Adelaide firm for three years and then spent three years as a legal officer at the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union in South Australia before being selected as a Labor candidate for the Senate.
Wong served as the party’s spokeswoman during Labor’s 2007 election campaign and became Australia’s first ethnic Asian cabinet minister when then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed her to the climate-change portfolio after he led the party into government.
As climate-change minister, she drafted legislation proposing that Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter and driest inhabited continent, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the next decade by between 5 percent and 15 percent from 2000 levels. The Senate defeated the bill in December after a revolt in the opposition Liberal party led to a leadership change, and it turned against the plan.
Shrug Off Failure
While the defeat helped to bring down Rudd, Wong was able to shrug off the failure and continue her political ascent, partly because of the perception that Rudd’s poor judgment contributed to the bill’s collapse, said Haydon Manning, an associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Policy at Flinders University in Adelaide.
“I’ve always thought she’s been harshly judged, given it was a very complex piece of legislation,” Manning said in an interview. “Rudd should have helped her sell it; instead, he left her to face the pressure.”
Wong’s promotion to finance minister in Gillard’s government now places her among the country’s top officials. The post is akin to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the U.S., with Treasurer Wayne Swan occupying the equivalent of Treasury secretary.
Her ascendance is a rarity: Australia has a dearth of Asian-born representatives, even as the group’s share of the population climbed to 8.5 percent of country’s 22 million people in 2009 from 5.3 percent in 1999, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
Public Servant
A member of the Uniting Church, Wong is also Australia’s first openly lesbian Cabinet member. She lives in Adelaide with her partner of three years, Sophie Allouache, a public servant who, like Wong, went to Scotch College. Allouache attended both of Wong’s swearing-in ceremonies.
Wong will have to display “a reckless degree of toughness” in her new role, Nick Minchin, finance minister from 2001 to 2007 in Howard’s government, said in a Sept. 29 interview.
As finance minister, “you have to be able to stand up to your colleagues and say no and be able to make the case,” said Minchin, who oversaw the sale of the final 35 percent stake in Melbourne-based Telstra Corp., Australia’s largest telephone company and is also from South Australia. “In a minority government like this, there are going to be enormous demands for what can only be described as pork barreling: inappropriate and irresponsible spending.”
‘Real Risks’
There are “real risks and she has a tough job ahead of her,” he added.
Wong replaced former Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, who quit politics to work at Lazard Ltd., an investment bank. Tanner was credited with helping lead Australia’s response to the credit crisis, pressing to get stimulus into the economy quickly.
“Tanner was very well respected in the market,” said Stephen Halmarick, who helps manage about $135 billion as head of investment markets research at Colonial First State Global Asset Management in Sydney. While Wong’s appointment came as a surprise to some investors, “she is obviously someone who is very smart and can master her brief and will bring a new dimension to the role.”
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
Ms Julia Gillard,
Prime Minister of Australia
info@pm.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you shortly,
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 09-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
September 8, 2010 - The Age
THE uncomfortable irony surely has not been lost on the Gillard government: the Labor Party, which is so weakened that large segments of its own electoral base are simply marching away, holds on to office only because four men who have never been part of the ALP have decided to give it a bare parliamentary majority.
Labor's own supporters across Australia couldn't do it. Not even the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Labor people who now back the Greens could help the ALP over the line through their preferences. In the end, two ex-Nationals in Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the ex-Liberal and ex-Green Andrew Wilkie, and the Marxist-turned-Green Adam Bandt have allowed the Gillard government to live again.
This is the foundation on which Australia's new national government is built. As Oakeshott said yesterday afternoon, the concept of a mandate is not operational in this parliamentary term. The voters made the judgment on August 21; the ongoing vote count between Labor and the Coalition is as close to 50-50 as you can get. Neither of the major parties could attract an endorsement from a majority of voters.
So the political system must now, in many important respects, rebuild itself. It will not be a wholesale rebirth. The viciousness, the personal attacks, the cheap shots, the hyperbole, the resentments, the glossing over of mistakes and uncomfortable facts - none of this will vanish. It will remain. Indeed, it's likely that the intensity of the 17 days between election day and yesterday's declaration of a result in Labor's favour will bring about even more heat in the contest between Labor and the Coalition.........
First cracks appear
Tom Arup, Katharine Murphy and Michelle Grattan
With NICK O'MALLEY - September 9, 2010 - Age
THE first cracks have appeared in the Gillard government's alliance with the crossbench MPs, with the Greens signalling they may side with the Coalition on some issues, and a country independent clashing with Treasurer Wayne Swan over the mining tax.
Less than 24 hours after Julia Gillard secured the last pledges of support needed to form government, Bob Brown raised the potentially destabilising prospect of the Greens working with the Coalition on legislation to boost mental health spending and to alter Labor's paid parental leave plan.
Senator Brown, whose party will have the balance of power in the Senate from July, also put the politically emotive issue of death duties on the agenda, suggesting next year's tax summit should consider the issue.
The spectre of a more assertive and powerful Greens came as the Prime Minister waited on Rob Oakeshott, one of two country independents propping up her government, to decide whether he will join her cabinet as a minister for regional Australia. He is seeking advice on whether the convention of cabinet solidarity can be changed so he could vote against a government bill outside his area.
As the difficulties became apparent, the opposition went on the attack. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said: ''If a newly married couple are arguing on day one, it doesn't augur too well for the rest of the marriage.''
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis said the government ''has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team''.
Amid the drama, Ms Gillard was preparing to reshape her ministry, which is now likely to include Kevin Rudd - whom she deposed earlier this year - as foreign minister. Mr Rudd's return to cabinet, which Ms Gillard has consistently promised, will further complicate her management challenge.
Senator Brown said the reality of the hung parliament was that the opposition could propose and pass legislation with the support of the Greens and independents, even if the government objected. ''This is part of the new paradigm,'' he said.
He nominated mental health and biosecurity as areas where the opposition and Greens shared similar policies.
Asked whether the Coalition and Greens could also combine to extend Labor's paid parental leave program, Senator Brown said the issue could be discussed with the government and opposition. ''There's good potential there for bipartite agreement for improving that legislation.''
Constitutional experts told The Age it was legally possible for the opposition to drive a legislative agenda, including bills that would require budget spending.
George Williams, of the University of New South Wales, said Tony Abbott's private member's bill to strike out Queensland's wild rivers laws was an example of legislation that, if passed, could be implemented without the support of the government.
The ability of the opposition to legislate will be enhanced by proposed rules allowing more private member's bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives.
The opposition would need the support of WA National Tony Crook plus three independent or Greens MPs to pass legislation in the lower house.
Until July 1 next year the Coalition will only need the support of independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding to pass bills in the Senate. After that it would need the support of the Greens.
Senator Xenophon said he was open to legislation from all sources, saying it should be judged on the quality of the idea, not its political shade.
The tax summit, part of the deal between Labor and two of the country independents, has given renewed impetus to criticism of the mining tax.
Yesterday morning Mr Swan signalled the mining tax would not be discussed at the summit, but later he said it might be. He said he was ''relaxed'' about this.
The switch came after Mr Oakeshott insisted the tax would be on the summit agenda, and Mr Windsor expressed surprise that Mr Swan thought otherwise.
After speaking with Mr Swan, Mr Windsor said the misunderstanding had been cleared up.
Opponents of the mining tax want to use the summit as a platform to reopen the debate.
Meanwhile, Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said the business community did not want a hung parliament. ''We have a group of interests here that aren't necessarily always headed in the same direction,'' she said. But she said a more difficult reform process might actually improve any changes made.
She hoped the country independents would be a counterweight to the ''ambitious'' and less business-friendly ideas of the Greens.
Prime Minister of Australia
info@pm.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you shortly,
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 09-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
September 8, 2010 - The Age
THE uncomfortable irony surely has not been lost on the Gillard government: the Labor Party, which is so weakened that large segments of its own electoral base are simply marching away, holds on to office only because four men who have never been part of the ALP have decided to give it a bare parliamentary majority.
Labor's own supporters across Australia couldn't do it. Not even the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Labor people who now back the Greens could help the ALP over the line through their preferences. In the end, two ex-Nationals in Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the ex-Liberal and ex-Green Andrew Wilkie, and the Marxist-turned-Green Adam Bandt have allowed the Gillard government to live again.
This is the foundation on which Australia's new national government is built. As Oakeshott said yesterday afternoon, the concept of a mandate is not operational in this parliamentary term. The voters made the judgment on August 21; the ongoing vote count between Labor and the Coalition is as close to 50-50 as you can get. Neither of the major parties could attract an endorsement from a majority of voters.
So the political system must now, in many important respects, rebuild itself. It will not be a wholesale rebirth. The viciousness, the personal attacks, the cheap shots, the hyperbole, the resentments, the glossing over of mistakes and uncomfortable facts - none of this will vanish. It will remain. Indeed, it's likely that the intensity of the 17 days between election day and yesterday's declaration of a result in Labor's favour will bring about even more heat in the contest between Labor and the Coalition.........
First cracks appear
Tom Arup, Katharine Murphy and Michelle Grattan
With NICK O'MALLEY - September 9, 2010 - Age
THE first cracks have appeared in the Gillard government's alliance with the crossbench MPs, with the Greens signalling they may side with the Coalition on some issues, and a country independent clashing with Treasurer Wayne Swan over the mining tax.
Less than 24 hours after Julia Gillard secured the last pledges of support needed to form government, Bob Brown raised the potentially destabilising prospect of the Greens working with the Coalition on legislation to boost mental health spending and to alter Labor's paid parental leave plan.
Senator Brown, whose party will have the balance of power in the Senate from July, also put the politically emotive issue of death duties on the agenda, suggesting next year's tax summit should consider the issue.
The spectre of a more assertive and powerful Greens came as the Prime Minister waited on Rob Oakeshott, one of two country independents propping up her government, to decide whether he will join her cabinet as a minister for regional Australia. He is seeking advice on whether the convention of cabinet solidarity can be changed so he could vote against a government bill outside his area.
As the difficulties became apparent, the opposition went on the attack. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said: ''If a newly married couple are arguing on day one, it doesn't augur too well for the rest of the marriage.''
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis said the government ''has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team''.
Amid the drama, Ms Gillard was preparing to reshape her ministry, which is now likely to include Kevin Rudd - whom she deposed earlier this year - as foreign minister. Mr Rudd's return to cabinet, which Ms Gillard has consistently promised, will further complicate her management challenge.
Senator Brown said the reality of the hung parliament was that the opposition could propose and pass legislation with the support of the Greens and independents, even if the government objected. ''This is part of the new paradigm,'' he said.
He nominated mental health and biosecurity as areas where the opposition and Greens shared similar policies.
Asked whether the Coalition and Greens could also combine to extend Labor's paid parental leave program, Senator Brown said the issue could be discussed with the government and opposition. ''There's good potential there for bipartite agreement for improving that legislation.''
Constitutional experts told The Age it was legally possible for the opposition to drive a legislative agenda, including bills that would require budget spending.
George Williams, of the University of New South Wales, said Tony Abbott's private member's bill to strike out Queensland's wild rivers laws was an example of legislation that, if passed, could be implemented without the support of the government.
The ability of the opposition to legislate will be enhanced by proposed rules allowing more private member's bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives.
The opposition would need the support of WA National Tony Crook plus three independent or Greens MPs to pass legislation in the lower house.
Until July 1 next year the Coalition will only need the support of independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding to pass bills in the Senate. After that it would need the support of the Greens.
Senator Xenophon said he was open to legislation from all sources, saying it should be judged on the quality of the idea, not its political shade.
The tax summit, part of the deal between Labor and two of the country independents, has given renewed impetus to criticism of the mining tax.
Yesterday morning Mr Swan signalled the mining tax would not be discussed at the summit, but later he said it might be. He said he was ''relaxed'' about this.
The switch came after Mr Oakeshott insisted the tax would be on the summit agenda, and Mr Windsor expressed surprise that Mr Swan thought otherwise.
After speaking with Mr Swan, Mr Windsor said the misunderstanding had been cleared up.
Opponents of the mining tax want to use the summit as a platform to reopen the debate.
Meanwhile, Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said the business community did not want a hung parliament. ''We have a group of interests here that aren't necessarily always headed in the same direction,'' she said. But she said a more difficult reform process might actually improve any changes made.
She hoped the country independents would be a counterweight to the ''ambitious'' and less business-friendly ideas of the Greens.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Australia better be ready
Manager,
Perth Channel 9
ninenews@perthtv9.net.au
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Australia better be ready.
"I've just seen the 60 min. program last Sunday night (5, Sept. 2010 at 7.30p.m. on your station and the way it was presented is definitely quite provocative, especially for all those westerners who do not understand the derivatives of China's history and culture. The title itself is very provocative and this should be pointed out to the media - this reflects some negative view about China. Most of the Australian media had been irresponsible and very unethical in their reports on China in the past and even so today. What has China done to Australia or the world for that matter except helping it's economic?
The so-called exercise as reported claimed to be a joint one with participations from most of the Eastern countries, but no mention about which are these countries. I do not believe that Taiwan, Indonesia, S-E countries like Thailand, Malaysia and even Japan and Singapore are the participating countries.
If it is just a naval exercise, why broadcast it as a "Australia better be ready"? This is very unethical and irresponsible of Channel 9. Knowing more about the derivatives of China's history and culture (me being part of that and also a by-product of Western derivatives) where China has never been in its history initiated any proactive aggression against any country in the world, then why accuse it of being a potential 'threat' to Australia and the world?
The fact that China has increased its military strength is more believable to be based upon "defence" rather than 'offence' because of its history of having been a victim of some of the worse onslaught of aggressions from the West - eight Power Allied Forces on September 7, 1901. The 8 countries were Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria and Italy, and Japan again in the immediate past (the Rape of Nanking as examples).
The Rape of Nanking - Japanese Holocaust
Another vital point to look at is - what if China were to conduct such a similar exercise in the Pacific ocean, how would Australia and the US governments react to that? Understanding the derivatives of the Western culture, I am 100% sure that the US and Australia will put up a very strong protest and may even threaten reprisal actions against China.
We must stand up for any potential act of provocation of aggression of any country if we were to 'fight' for Peace in the World. If China were to conduct such an exercise and broadcast it as 'Preparing War against US or Australia or the World' I will definitely be the first to protest!
This is to adopt a universal and holistic position."
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 07-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Perth Channel 9
ninenews@perthtv9.net.au
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Australia better be ready.
"I've just seen the 60 min. program last Sunday night (5, Sept. 2010 at 7.30p.m. on your station and the way it was presented is definitely quite provocative, especially for all those westerners who do not understand the derivatives of China's history and culture. The title itself is very provocative and this should be pointed out to the media - this reflects some negative view about China. Most of the Australian media had been irresponsible and very unethical in their reports on China in the past and even so today. What has China done to Australia or the world for that matter except helping it's economic?
The so-called exercise as reported claimed to be a joint one with participations from most of the Eastern countries, but no mention about which are these countries. I do not believe that Taiwan, Indonesia, S-E countries like Thailand, Malaysia and even Japan and Singapore are the participating countries.
If it is just a naval exercise, why broadcast it as a "Australia better be ready"? This is very unethical and irresponsible of Channel 9. Knowing more about the derivatives of China's history and culture (me being part of that and also a by-product of Western derivatives) where China has never been in its history initiated any proactive aggression against any country in the world, then why accuse it of being a potential 'threat' to Australia and the world?
The fact that China has increased its military strength is more believable to be based upon "defence" rather than 'offence' because of its history of having been a victim of some of the worse onslaught of aggressions from the West - eight Power Allied Forces on September 7, 1901. The 8 countries were Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria and Italy, and Japan again in the immediate past (the Rape of Nanking as examples).
The Rape of Nanking - Japanese Holocaust
Another vital point to look at is - what if China were to conduct such a similar exercise in the Pacific ocean, how would Australia and the US governments react to that? Understanding the derivatives of the Western culture, I am 100% sure that the US and Australia will put up a very strong protest and may even threaten reprisal actions against China.
We must stand up for any potential act of provocation of aggression of any country if we were to 'fight' for Peace in the World. If China were to conduct such an exercise and broadcast it as 'Preparing War against US or Australia or the World' I will definitely be the first to protest!
This is to adopt a universal and holistic position."
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 07-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Friday, September 3, 2010
Troops withdrawal from Iraq
Dear President Obama,
You are to be congratulated for bringing those 100,000 US troops home where they belong. Former President Bush should not invade a sovereign country - with the hope of getting more oil for America and he failed badly.
As the Commander-in-Chief, we do not believe that you will make the same mistake.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie
----- Original Message -----
From: Barack Obama
To: Eddie Hwang
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Iraq
Dear Eddie --
Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.
As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.
Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we've brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We've closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.
As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.
By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.
Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest -- it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq's future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.
We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.
In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.
Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.
What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.
For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.
Our promise to them -- to each woman or man who has donned our colors -- is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.
Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation's history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
You are to be congratulated for bringing those 100,000 US troops home where they belong. Former President Bush should not invade a sovereign country - with the hope of getting more oil for America and he failed badly.
As the Commander-in-Chief, we do not believe that you will make the same mistake.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie
----- Original Message -----
From: Barack Obama
To: Eddie Hwang
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Iraq
Dear Eddie --
Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.
As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.
Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we've brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We've closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.
As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.
By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.
Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest -- it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq's future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.
We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.
In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.
Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.
What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.
For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.
Our promise to them -- to each woman or man who has donned our colors -- is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.
Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation's history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Hung parliament let the people decide
Mr. Stephen Gageler,
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Hunt parliament - let the people decide
Mr. Stephen Gageler,
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Friday, August 20, 2010
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
SAY NO TO RACISM
Mr. Pino Migliorino,
FECCA - Chairman
admin@fecca.org.au
Dear Mr. Migliorino,
You are to be congratulated for standing up for multiculturalism and it is so sad that both political parties have been using "anti-multiculturalism" to win votes!
How low can they go in Australia?!!
The media is not doing much better during this campaign.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 20-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
August 20, 2010 - 6:54AM
The portrayal in this election of diversity as a villain that threatens the comfortable lives of Australians urgently needs some political will to defend multiculturalism.
This campaign has been hijacked by appeals to the odd marginal vote and pits vulnerable groups against each other, a remnant of the old habits of colonisation.
When the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia consulted its membership to gauge reactions to these elections, many bemoaned the "divide and conquer" principle of the rhetoric.
Politicians have appealed to the lowest common denominator of fear among migrants by portraying new arrivals as people who stay in hotels, are provided housing, jump metaphorical queues and take away the jobs of the other vulnerable migrant communities.
Australia's last multicultural policy expired in 2006. The Rudd government appointed the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council to advise the government on multicultural issues with a view to fostering better social cohesion. The council produced The People of Australia report in April, but since then there has been mostly silence about its recommendations from all sides.
In this campaign, migrants have been approached to affirm the anti-diversity stands of political parties. In some sort of diabolical logic, this seems to legitimise xenophobia. One quote from a migrant Ola Abdelmaguid in the council's People of Australia says it all: ". . . the media makes a lot of myths. They often select the most extreme person. And people believe what they hear and see."
Multiculturalism is a global phenomenon, perhaps this is why it is not popular in the current election debates, which have been focused (in the words of the Nobel prize winning Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore) within the "narrow, domestic walls" of Australian politics.
If anyone bothers to go to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which is where one should logically go for information about such matters, it will clarify some of the numbers being bandied about regarding population.
The fact of the matter is that two-thirds of our migration intake in recent years are temporary migrants including students and highly skilled 457 workers. The latter form part of the global labour market and are influenced by factors beyond Australia's control. This information is available to the public. So how come we persist in holding 4000 odd vulnerable people fleeing life threatening situations responsible for the future of Australia's living standards, resources, infrastructure and border security? What is the real intention of this unrealistic premise?
Australian policy has been in retreat from multiculturalism for some time now. The divide and conquer strategy of the elections might deliver a short term win for politicians but in the long term it turns communities against each other and will undo any good that governments have tried to do in building social cohesion. The challenge for Australia is to learn from some of our Asian neighbours and conceptualise population and diversity as assets rather than as threats.
For some time we modelled multiculturalism to the world, we need to find the confidence to do this again.
Pino Migliorino is chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia.
Mr. Pino Migliorino,
FECCA - Chairman
admin@fecca.org.au
Dear Mr. Migliorino,
You are to be congratulated for standing up for multiculturalism and it is so sad that both political parties have been using "anti-multiculturalism" to win votes!
How low can they go in Australia?!!
The media is not doing much better during this campaign.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 20-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
August 20, 2010 - 6:54AM
The portrayal in this election of diversity as a villain that threatens the comfortable lives of Australians urgently needs some political will to defend multiculturalism.
This campaign has been hijacked by appeals to the odd marginal vote and pits vulnerable groups against each other, a remnant of the old habits of colonisation.
When the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia consulted its membership to gauge reactions to these elections, many bemoaned the "divide and conquer" principle of the rhetoric.
Politicians have appealed to the lowest common denominator of fear among migrants by portraying new arrivals as people who stay in hotels, are provided housing, jump metaphorical queues and take away the jobs of the other vulnerable migrant communities.
Australia's last multicultural policy expired in 2006. The Rudd government appointed the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council to advise the government on multicultural issues with a view to fostering better social cohesion. The council produced The People of Australia report in April, but since then there has been mostly silence about its recommendations from all sides.
In this campaign, migrants have been approached to affirm the anti-diversity stands of political parties. In some sort of diabolical logic, this seems to legitimise xenophobia. One quote from a migrant Ola Abdelmaguid in the council's People of Australia says it all: ". . . the media makes a lot of myths. They often select the most extreme person. And people believe what they hear and see."
Multiculturalism is a global phenomenon, perhaps this is why it is not popular in the current election debates, which have been focused (in the words of the Nobel prize winning Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore) within the "narrow, domestic walls" of Australian politics.
If anyone bothers to go to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which is where one should logically go for information about such matters, it will clarify some of the numbers being bandied about regarding population.
The fact of the matter is that two-thirds of our migration intake in recent years are temporary migrants including students and highly skilled 457 workers. The latter form part of the global labour market and are influenced by factors beyond Australia's control. This information is available to the public. So how come we persist in holding 4000 odd vulnerable people fleeing life threatening situations responsible for the future of Australia's living standards, resources, infrastructure and border security? What is the real intention of this unrealistic premise?
Australian policy has been in retreat from multiculturalism for some time now. The divide and conquer strategy of the elections might deliver a short term win for politicians but in the long term it turns communities against each other and will undo any good that governments have tried to do in building social cohesion. The challenge for Australia is to learn from some of our Asian neighbours and conceptualise population and diversity as assets rather than as threats.
For some time we modelled multiculturalism to the world, we need to find the confidence to do this again.
Pino Migliorino is chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia.
Monday, August 2, 2010
A 3rd World War looming?
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
UN Secretary General,
BanKimoon@un.org
Dear Secretary General,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
We urge the United Nation to investigate whether the US in conducting "military exercise" in the Far East is instigating "instability and unnecessary provocation" of no International benefits to all Man kind.
A 3rd world war must be prevented at all costs!
We look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Updated)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Updated)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 02-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Mr. Barack Obama,
President of America
info@barackobama.com
Dear President Obama,
Remembered you asked us for support before your election and we have supported you because we did not like former George Bush's warmongering activities.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon to see through America's pathetic excuse to conduct military exercises in the Yellow Sea. The Americans used
the Gulf of Tonkin incidence as an excuse to get involved in the Vietnam War. Looks like history is repeating itself and the Americans still have not learn those lessons from the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan. America is no better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait some years ago.
It is so obvious to the whole world that the sinking of the Cheonam is a fabrication of South Korea and the US to implicate North Korea (see first video clip). The planned military exercise is none other than an exercise to intimidate North Korea and to send a provocative message to China. Why is the US sending over whelming military forces to exercise at the Yellow Sea which is an area close to the Chinese territory? Would America accept a similar situation if the Chinese and Russian navies conduct military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California or Florida?
Mr President, your country is in a economic crisis. Do you think it would be better off concentrating your energies getting your country out of the economic doldrums and leave China alone as this country has been a role model to many peaceful nations in forging world peace and harmony? It seems that nearly every American president that comes into office has to be involved in a war or wars of some sort in order to prove to be macho and in control. This strange American psyche is a blot to your nation and as such, America has lost the respect of people in many countries.
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the world looks upon you as a leader in forging peace. We hope that you will go for total disarmament of nuclear weapons including those nations that are nuclear armed at present. If America and any other country have nuclear weapons, they have no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons as well. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
You are to be congratulated for getting the Senate to pass the Wall Street Reform Bill and no doubt you will sign it at your earliest opportunity.
Eddie Hwang
27-Jul-2010.
UN Secretary General,
BanKimoon@un.org
Dear Secretary General,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
We urge the United Nation to investigate whether the US in conducting "military exercise" in the Far East is instigating "instability and unnecessary provocation" of no International benefits to all Man kind.
A 3rd world war must be prevented at all costs!
We look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Updated)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Updated)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 02-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Mr. Barack Obama,
President of America
info@barackobama.com
Dear President Obama,
Remembered you asked us for support before your election and we have supported you because we did not like former George Bush's warmongering activities.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon to see through America's pathetic excuse to conduct military exercises in the Yellow Sea. The Americans used
the Gulf of Tonkin incidence as an excuse to get involved in the Vietnam War. Looks like history is repeating itself and the Americans still have not learn those lessons from the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan. America is no better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait some years ago.
It is so obvious to the whole world that the sinking of the Cheonam is a fabrication of South Korea and the US to implicate North Korea (see first video clip). The planned military exercise is none other than an exercise to intimidate North Korea and to send a provocative message to China. Why is the US sending over whelming military forces to exercise at the Yellow Sea which is an area close to the Chinese territory? Would America accept a similar situation if the Chinese and Russian navies conduct military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California or Florida?
Mr President, your country is in a economic crisis. Do you think it would be better off concentrating your energies getting your country out of the economic doldrums and leave China alone as this country has been a role model to many peaceful nations in forging world peace and harmony? It seems that nearly every American president that comes into office has to be involved in a war or wars of some sort in order to prove to be macho and in control. This strange American psyche is a blot to your nation and as such, America has lost the respect of people in many countries.
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the world looks upon you as a leader in forging peace. We hope that you will go for total disarmament of nuclear weapons including those nations that are nuclear armed at present. If America and any other country have nuclear weapons, they have no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons as well. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
You are to be congratulated for getting the Senate to pass the Wall Street Reform Bill and no doubt you will sign it at your earliest opportunity.
Eddie Hwang
27-Jul-2010.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Gillard's smartest move: becoming another Hanson
Gillard's smartest move: becoming another Hanson
John Pasquarelli - The Australian - July 20, 2010 12:00AM HOW many more solutions will there be as Liberal and Labor stand toe to toe over the constant stream of boats illegally entering our waters?
Long ago, we should have seriously reviewed our membership of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as changing times have swept the original motives for its creation aside.
Australia benefitted hugely from the many post WWII migrants and refugees who came here, rapidly assimilated and locked arms with the rest of us.
Before he was garrotted by Labor thuggees, Kevin Rudd came out in favour of a "Big Australia", but that set the alarm bells clanging with mainstream Australia, as it coincided with his disastrous policy on people smuggling that resulted in boats arriving almost every day, as well as a continuous stream of media reports detailing the ethnicity of criminal offenders despite the PC brigade, including some senior police, trying to censor such material.............
In 1996 when Pauline Hanson called for "all Australians to be treated equally" and for ATSIC to be abolished, most politicians and the media vilified her in the most venomous way for her attack on the Aboriginal industry, but when Noel Pearson made similar comments 10 years later, he was warmly embraced.
Remember Hanson on how she had the right to invite who she wanted into her home and the famous "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" statement?
Labor's polling has obviously shown that ordinary Australians are mightily concerned about these issues more than ever and in a breathtaking act of gross hypocrisy, Julia Gillard has dumped Rudd's Big Australia, as well as veering away from his asylum-seeker policy.
So much for Rudd saying that he would never move to the right on such matters and expecting Gillard to heel to his command.
Gillard's brazen echoing of Hanson has her encouraging mainstream Australia by exhorting it to debate issues such as border security and the boatpeople without fear of being labelled racist and intimidated by the agents of political correctness.
Calling for openness in public debate to be a mark of her prime ministership as long as people spoke with goodwill and were not critical of other's race or culture tells me that after all her clever and too-smart plagiarism of Hanson, Gillard fails to understand that it is cultural incompatibility that is the root of all the problems connected with refugees and migrants, the element that hinders us bringing in, in her words, "the right type of migrant".
It was suggested to Tony Abbott months ago that he should embrace the mainstream by encouraging people to debate all those issues connected to multiculturalism and immigration via dedicated postal and email addresses, but nothing happened and now Gillard has gazumped him.
Neither Gillard nor Abbott have an effective solution to the people smugglers as the successful way would be far too hard for most politicians to handle.
Our laws must change and people smugglers and their clients would be warned that they face arrest on criminal charges and serious time in prison: no visas, no "Hotel Australia". All boats would be destroyed and big bounties for bringing people smugglers into Australian jurisdiction would be advertised.........
She is now standing in front of the cameras like an automaton delivering her spin words "sustainable" and "moving forward" but her cynical intent to morph into Hanson may prove to be one of her best moves.
John Pasquarelli is a former adviser to Pauline Hanson.
John Pasquarelli - The Australian - July 20, 2010 12:00AM HOW many more solutions will there be as Liberal and Labor stand toe to toe over the constant stream of boats illegally entering our waters?
Long ago, we should have seriously reviewed our membership of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as changing times have swept the original motives for its creation aside.
Australia benefitted hugely from the many post WWII migrants and refugees who came here, rapidly assimilated and locked arms with the rest of us.
Before he was garrotted by Labor thuggees, Kevin Rudd came out in favour of a "Big Australia", but that set the alarm bells clanging with mainstream Australia, as it coincided with his disastrous policy on people smuggling that resulted in boats arriving almost every day, as well as a continuous stream of media reports detailing the ethnicity of criminal offenders despite the PC brigade, including some senior police, trying to censor such material.............
In 1996 when Pauline Hanson called for "all Australians to be treated equally" and for ATSIC to be abolished, most politicians and the media vilified her in the most venomous way for her attack on the Aboriginal industry, but when Noel Pearson made similar comments 10 years later, he was warmly embraced.
Remember Hanson on how she had the right to invite who she wanted into her home and the famous "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" statement?
Labor's polling has obviously shown that ordinary Australians are mightily concerned about these issues more than ever and in a breathtaking act of gross hypocrisy, Julia Gillard has dumped Rudd's Big Australia, as well as veering away from his asylum-seeker policy.
So much for Rudd saying that he would never move to the right on such matters and expecting Gillard to heel to his command.
Gillard's brazen echoing of Hanson has her encouraging mainstream Australia by exhorting it to debate issues such as border security and the boatpeople without fear of being labelled racist and intimidated by the agents of political correctness.
Calling for openness in public debate to be a mark of her prime ministership as long as people spoke with goodwill and were not critical of other's race or culture tells me that after all her clever and too-smart plagiarism of Hanson, Gillard fails to understand that it is cultural incompatibility that is the root of all the problems connected with refugees and migrants, the element that hinders us bringing in, in her words, "the right type of migrant".
It was suggested to Tony Abbott months ago that he should embrace the mainstream by encouraging people to debate all those issues connected to multiculturalism and immigration via dedicated postal and email addresses, but nothing happened and now Gillard has gazumped him.
Neither Gillard nor Abbott have an effective solution to the people smugglers as the successful way would be far too hard for most politicians to handle.
Our laws must change and people smugglers and their clients would be warned that they face arrest on criminal charges and serious time in prison: no visas, no "Hotel Australia". All boats would be destroyed and big bounties for bringing people smugglers into Australian jurisdiction would be advertised.........
She is now standing in front of the cameras like an automaton delivering her spin words "sustainable" and "moving forward" but her cynical intent to morph into Hanson may prove to be one of her best moves.
John Pasquarelli is a former adviser to Pauline Hanson.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Unmarried Gillard wedded to a nation that upholds injustice
Unmarried Gillard wedded to a notion that upholds injustice
SAMANTHA STEVENSON - July 17, 2010
When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, many of us were triumphant at this ultimate smashing of the glass ceiling in Australian politics. Some chose to see it as a progressive step forward for those of the marginalised red-haired population, who now had an Australian celebrity to celebrate with more serious credentials than Nicole Kidman or Cameron Ling from the Geelong Cats.
One person declared ''Gillard is doing it for all the unmarried, barren atheists'', and that she clearly understood ''the church and the state should butt out of people's private relationships''.
Amid this optimism that Gillard's difference to her prime ministerial predecessors apparently represented, Australian gays dared to hope the refreshing lack of religious affinity at the highest level would mark a new approach to gay marriage rights that differed to the social conservatism of the Howard and Rudd years. It was wrong.
Gillard took time out from her mining tax deal-brokering to declare it was still the government's view, as well as her personal one, that gay marriage should not be legalised in Australia. She told Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O on morning radio that: ''We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is, recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.''
Yet treating marriage as some grand prize of heterosexuality reinforces the ultimate dichotomy between a man and a woman. While extending the right to marry to gay couples would be a progressive step forward for the homosexual community, it would also smash another cultural norm - the gender inequality of marriage. Even in today's most liberated households, women predominantly take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing duties, even if they work in some capacity outside the home.
Some may choose to do so. But while fighting over whose turn it is to clean the toilet after mutually busy days at the office may seem mundane compared to fighting (as our mothers did) for the right to work outside the home in the first place, for many married women choices remain dangerously limited.
Bettina Arndt recently chose to deride Gillard's de facto status, claiming as Australia's most significant female role model, Gillard was doing it all wrong. Apparently the idea of Julia and Tim ''playing house'' in The Lodge without a marriage certificate set a bad example for us women, as de facto relationships limit our choices whereas marriage strengthened them.
Yet under Gillard, same-sex relationships will remain de facto by default, and they, obviously, cannot be characterised by a lack of choice for one partner based on gender difference. There is more at play than the absence of wedding rings...........
SAMANTHA STEVENSON - July 17, 2010
When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, many of us were triumphant at this ultimate smashing of the glass ceiling in Australian politics. Some chose to see it as a progressive step forward for those of the marginalised red-haired population, who now had an Australian celebrity to celebrate with more serious credentials than Nicole Kidman or Cameron Ling from the Geelong Cats.
One person declared ''Gillard is doing it for all the unmarried, barren atheists'', and that she clearly understood ''the church and the state should butt out of people's private relationships''.
Amid this optimism that Gillard's difference to her prime ministerial predecessors apparently represented, Australian gays dared to hope the refreshing lack of religious affinity at the highest level would mark a new approach to gay marriage rights that differed to the social conservatism of the Howard and Rudd years. It was wrong.
Gillard took time out from her mining tax deal-brokering to declare it was still the government's view, as well as her personal one, that gay marriage should not be legalised in Australia. She told Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O on morning radio that: ''We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is, recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.''
Yet treating marriage as some grand prize of heterosexuality reinforces the ultimate dichotomy between a man and a woman. While extending the right to marry to gay couples would be a progressive step forward for the homosexual community, it would also smash another cultural norm - the gender inequality of marriage. Even in today's most liberated households, women predominantly take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing duties, even if they work in some capacity outside the home.
Some may choose to do so. But while fighting over whose turn it is to clean the toilet after mutually busy days at the office may seem mundane compared to fighting (as our mothers did) for the right to work outside the home in the first place, for many married women choices remain dangerously limited.
Bettina Arndt recently chose to deride Gillard's de facto status, claiming as Australia's most significant female role model, Gillard was doing it all wrong. Apparently the idea of Julia and Tim ''playing house'' in The Lodge without a marriage certificate set a bad example for us women, as de facto relationships limit our choices whereas marriage strengthened them.
Yet under Gillard, same-sex relationships will remain de facto by default, and they, obviously, cannot be characterised by a lack of choice for one partner based on gender difference. There is more at play than the absence of wedding rings...........
Sunday, April 4, 2010
"Yellow peril" racism rear its ugly head
Professor David Day,
Vice Chancellor - La Trobe University,
david.day@latrobe.edu.au
Dear Professor Day,
We refer to the report by Professor Marilyn Lake for your information.
We wish to congratulate Professor Lake for her historian’s balanced and responsible report as she is acknowledging the fact that as Australians, we must continue to practice gentleness, self-sacrifice and generosity as our exclusive possessions of no one race or religion but as belonging to all.
However, as a historian, she forgot to be objective enough to point out that due to various unions pressures, Labor is already seen to be reverting to its former White Australia Policy by raising the English Dictation Test score from 4.5 to 5 last year. As a result of this discriminatory policy, no 457 Visa workers from China can now land on our shore.
This reminds us that racist Arthur Caldwell’s statement seems to us to be still well and alive: "Two Wongs don't make a White" and we would add that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 04-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
MARILYN LAKE - April 3, 2010 - Age
Chinese were once vilified in Australia, a travesty we'd do well not to repeat.
THE harsh sentence handed down to Stern Hu this week and radio talkback on Chinese investment in Melbourne real estate have converged in focusing attention in Australia on the consequences of the rise of Chinese power in the contemporary world.
Business leaders join would-be home owners in waxing indignant at the new turn of events. Australians are complaining about being sidelined. Suddenly it seems that Charles Pearson's remarkable prophecy of almost 120 years ago has come to pass.
In 1893, Pearson, a leading Victorian Liberal politician and journalist, predicted in what would become probably the most influential book ever written by an Australian - National Life and Character: A Forecast - that the day would surely come when the Chinese, victims of colonial persecution, would become a great power in the world. White men would be humiliated, ''elbowed and hustled, and perhaps even thrust aside by peoples whom we looked down upon as servile''.
Across the world, startled readers took notice. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to Pearson from Washington praising his book, but asserting that the timid colonial was surely mistaken. In any contest between East and West, according to the future American president, white men, soon to embark on new imperial conquests, would certainly prevail.
The Athenaeum magazine in London, on the other hand, urged its readers to heed the new insight deriving from Pearson's different perspective: ''He regards the march of affairs from the Australian point of view, and next to Australia what he seems to see most clearly is the growth of Chinese power.''
But Pearson's forecast was not as original as it seemed. In fact, he borrowed the idea and, in some cases, the exact words from the Chinese colonists among whom he lived in Melbourne.
Subject to relentless discrimination and humiliation at the hands of Victorians accusing them of alien customs and cheap labour, Chinese community leaders such as Lowe Kong Meng and Cheok Hong Cheong were moved to write numerous letters, booklets and petitions demanding fair treatment and recognition of their common human rights. They pointed out that Chinese worked just as hard and enjoyed material comforts just as much as other Australians.
They were often well educated, literate and usually law-abiding, and they objected strongly to the insults heaped upon the Chinaman solely because of the ''colour of his skin''. But perhaps the time for forbearance was past. Evil treatment, they said, would bear bitter fruit and wounds would fester.
''A time may come … probably will come sooner than is supposed, when the presence and power of China as a great nation will be felt in these seas.'' Pearson made the warning his own.
Australia's response to the prospect of Chinese power was the White Australia Policy. The passage of the Immigration Restriction Act and the ruse of a dictation test were aimed at barring all Asiatics from migrating to the new Commonwealth of Australia. A raft of state and federal legislation further discriminated in employment and welfare policy against those already in the country.
The number of Chinese-born Australians rapidly shrank to just a few thousand. With the end of racial discrimination in immigration, the numbers of Chinese migrating to Australia and arriving as visitors has risen again.
No longer accused of augmenting the ranks of cheap labour, they are now attacked for their apparent wealth and blamed for the difficulties experienced by young white Australians in buying their own homes, in realising the Australian dream.
The offence of the Chinese, it seems, is that they now have too much money. Increasingly, callers to talkback radio blame not just negatively geared investors exploiting Australian tax law, but Chinese buyers who speak Mandarin.
The visibility of Chinese buyers at auctions makes for good stories on the evening news - other foreign investors are not so easily identified.
A hundred years ago, warnings about the rise of China as a world power and the migration of thousands of Chinese people to southern Africa, Australasia and North America led to the adoption of racist policies of exclusion and discrimination, whose legacies continue to haunt us, as, for example, in Indian reaction to incidents of racial violence in Melbourne.
In responding to the housing crisis, let us be wary of reverting to type. Recent calls for tighter regulation of foreign investment in Australia, along with demands for cuts in the migration intake, deserve wide and open discussion, but we should not repeat the mistakes of the past by making race or nationality or colour the basis of our grievances and the ground on which we shape our policy.
Marilyn Lake is professor of history at La Trobe University.
Vice Chancellor - La Trobe University,
david.day@latrobe.edu.au
Dear Professor Day,
We refer to the report by Professor Marilyn Lake for your information.
We wish to congratulate Professor Lake for her historian’s balanced and responsible report as she is acknowledging the fact that as Australians, we must continue to practice gentleness, self-sacrifice and generosity as our exclusive possessions of no one race or religion but as belonging to all.
However, as a historian, she forgot to be objective enough to point out that due to various unions pressures, Labor is already seen to be reverting to its former White Australia Policy by raising the English Dictation Test score from 4.5 to 5 last year. As a result of this discriminatory policy, no 457 Visa workers from China can now land on our shore.
This reminds us that racist Arthur Caldwell’s statement seems to us to be still well and alive: "Two Wongs don't make a White" and we would add that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 04-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
MARILYN LAKE - April 3, 2010 - Age
Chinese were once vilified in Australia, a travesty we'd do well not to repeat.
THE harsh sentence handed down to Stern Hu this week and radio talkback on Chinese investment in Melbourne real estate have converged in focusing attention in Australia on the consequences of the rise of Chinese power in the contemporary world.
Business leaders join would-be home owners in waxing indignant at the new turn of events. Australians are complaining about being sidelined. Suddenly it seems that Charles Pearson's remarkable prophecy of almost 120 years ago has come to pass.
In 1893, Pearson, a leading Victorian Liberal politician and journalist, predicted in what would become probably the most influential book ever written by an Australian - National Life and Character: A Forecast - that the day would surely come when the Chinese, victims of colonial persecution, would become a great power in the world. White men would be humiliated, ''elbowed and hustled, and perhaps even thrust aside by peoples whom we looked down upon as servile''.
Across the world, startled readers took notice. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to Pearson from Washington praising his book, but asserting that the timid colonial was surely mistaken. In any contest between East and West, according to the future American president, white men, soon to embark on new imperial conquests, would certainly prevail.
The Athenaeum magazine in London, on the other hand, urged its readers to heed the new insight deriving from Pearson's different perspective: ''He regards the march of affairs from the Australian point of view, and next to Australia what he seems to see most clearly is the growth of Chinese power.''
But Pearson's forecast was not as original as it seemed. In fact, he borrowed the idea and, in some cases, the exact words from the Chinese colonists among whom he lived in Melbourne.
Subject to relentless discrimination and humiliation at the hands of Victorians accusing them of alien customs and cheap labour, Chinese community leaders such as Lowe Kong Meng and Cheok Hong Cheong were moved to write numerous letters, booklets and petitions demanding fair treatment and recognition of their common human rights. They pointed out that Chinese worked just as hard and enjoyed material comforts just as much as other Australians.
They were often well educated, literate and usually law-abiding, and they objected strongly to the insults heaped upon the Chinaman solely because of the ''colour of his skin''. But perhaps the time for forbearance was past. Evil treatment, they said, would bear bitter fruit and wounds would fester.
''A time may come … probably will come sooner than is supposed, when the presence and power of China as a great nation will be felt in these seas.'' Pearson made the warning his own.
Australia's response to the prospect of Chinese power was the White Australia Policy. The passage of the Immigration Restriction Act and the ruse of a dictation test were aimed at barring all Asiatics from migrating to the new Commonwealth of Australia. A raft of state and federal legislation further discriminated in employment and welfare policy against those already in the country.
The number of Chinese-born Australians rapidly shrank to just a few thousand. With the end of racial discrimination in immigration, the numbers of Chinese migrating to Australia and arriving as visitors has risen again.
No longer accused of augmenting the ranks of cheap labour, they are now attacked for their apparent wealth and blamed for the difficulties experienced by young white Australians in buying their own homes, in realising the Australian dream.
The offence of the Chinese, it seems, is that they now have too much money. Increasingly, callers to talkback radio blame not just negatively geared investors exploiting Australian tax law, but Chinese buyers who speak Mandarin.
The visibility of Chinese buyers at auctions makes for good stories on the evening news - other foreign investors are not so easily identified.
A hundred years ago, warnings about the rise of China as a world power and the migration of thousands of Chinese people to southern Africa, Australasia and North America led to the adoption of racist policies of exclusion and discrimination, whose legacies continue to haunt us, as, for example, in Indian reaction to incidents of racial violence in Melbourne.
In responding to the housing crisis, let us be wary of reverting to type. Recent calls for tighter regulation of foreign investment in Australia, along with demands for cuts in the migration intake, deserve wide and open discussion, but we should not repeat the mistakes of the past by making race or nationality or colour the basis of our grievances and the ground on which we shape our policy.
Marilyn Lake is professor of history at La Trobe University.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Ombudsmman's Duty to investigate Maladministration
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Commissioner -WA Police ; general@lpbwa.com ; Chair - legal pcc wa ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au ; Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au ; Ombudsman - WA
Cc: Premier - WA ; President - High Court
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
From: Unity Party WA
To: Commissioner -WA Police ; general@lpbwa.com ; Chair - legal pcc wa ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au ; Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au ; Ombudsman - WA
Cc: Premier - WA ; President - High Court
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
China reports on US human rights record
Mr. Barrack Obama
President of the United States,
president@whitehouse.gov
Dear President,
We refer to the report below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We wait for your reply in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 27-Mar--2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
China reports on US human rights record
2010-03-12 16:50:03
BEIJING - China Friday retorted US criticism by publishing its own report on the US human rights record.
"As in previous years, the reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China, but turn a blind eye to, or dodge and even cover up rampant human rights abuses on its own territory," said the Information Office of the State Council in its report on the US human rights record.
The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in retaliation to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009 issued by the US Department of State on March 11.
The report is "prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States," said the report.
The report reviewed the human rights record of the United States in 2009 from six perspectives: life, property and personal security; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; rights of women and children; and the US' violation of human rights against other countries.
It criticized the United States for taking human rights as "a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests."
China advised the US government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field.
This is the 11th consecutive year that the Information Office of China's State Council has issued a human rights record of the United States to answer the US State Department's annual report.
"At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity," the report said.
President of the United States,
president@whitehouse.gov
Dear President,
We refer to the report below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We wait for your reply in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 27-Mar--2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
China reports on US human rights record
2010-03-12 16:50:03
BEIJING - China Friday retorted US criticism by publishing its own report on the US human rights record.
"As in previous years, the reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China, but turn a blind eye to, or dodge and even cover up rampant human rights abuses on its own territory," said the Information Office of the State Council in its report on the US human rights record.
The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in retaliation to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009 issued by the US Department of State on March 11.
The report is "prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States," said the report.
The report reviewed the human rights record of the United States in 2009 from six perspectives: life, property and personal security; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; rights of women and children; and the US' violation of human rights against other countries.
It criticized the United States for taking human rights as "a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests."
China advised the US government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field.
This is the 11th consecutive year that the Information Office of China's State Council has issued a human rights record of the United States to answer the US State Department's annual report.
"At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity," the report said.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Gallop blasts Racism in Australia
The Editor,
The West Australian
westinfo@wanews.com.au
Dear Editor,
We refer to the report below and wish to congratulate the former WA Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop for telling the truth about Racism in Australia.
It is a strange, enigmatic and tragic problem happening in our society which does not seem to want to go away. None of us would like to see himself or herself as a racist, yet this strange enigmatic force is very real, and it persists in its tenacious ways with its tentacle-like structures that permeate even our justice system let alone the school systems and the government departments.
Just look at the treatment of our Members Ms Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas Chin. Their stories contain rich and meaningful lessons for us. Theirs are on our website: www.unitywa.org and http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ and the blogspot of Mr. Chin which you can access it by typing “nicholasnchin” on Google.
We are criticizing about Malaysia and its opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim being deprived of his rights in a country without true democracy but this very situation is happening in our own back yard. How can we be so hypercritical?
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 20-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Gallop blasts racism
PHILIPPA PERRY, The West Australian March 18, 2010, 5:02 am
Australia has significant pockets of racism and has seen a re- emergence of nationalism, according to former WA premier Geoff Gallop.
In a speech to be delivered to a Human Rights Arts and Film Festival breakfast this morning, Dr Gallop says Australia should have a charter of rights to benefit ordinary people as well as the marginalised and vulnerable in society.
"There are a lot of good things about Australia but one of them isn't the re-emergence of a form of political and cultural nationalism backed up at times by a particularly crude and nasty form of populism," he says.
"We describe ourselves as an egalitarian and tolerant nation but significant and unjustified inequalities remain as do not- insignificant pockets of racism."
Dr Gallop says Australia is the only democratic nation without a national bill or charter of rights and that while our rights receive some recognition nationally, it is very limited.
He says a charter of rights could be given a role in the legislative process, the administration of policy and the interpretation of the law.
Dr Gallop says there is a deep suspicion among elements of the political elite that a Human Rights Act will make it too hard for them to govern when faced with challenges such as terrorism and crime generally. "Not having a charter of rights legitimised by the Parliament sends a message to the community that the government itself is fearful of subjecting itself to serious human rights scrutiny," he said.
Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb -2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL LISTED FOR THE PUBLICATION OF REASONS AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS CANBERRA WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 2010 No. Applicant Respondent Court appealed from Result
4.
Chin
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (P36/2009)
Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2009] WASCA 117
Application Dismissed [2010] HCASL 4
The West Australian
westinfo@wanews.com.au
Dear Editor,
We refer to the report below and wish to congratulate the former WA Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop for telling the truth about Racism in Australia.
It is a strange, enigmatic and tragic problem happening in our society which does not seem to want to go away. None of us would like to see himself or herself as a racist, yet this strange enigmatic force is very real, and it persists in its tenacious ways with its tentacle-like structures that permeate even our justice system let alone the school systems and the government departments.
Just look at the treatment of our Members Ms Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas Chin. Their stories contain rich and meaningful lessons for us. Theirs are on our website: www.unitywa.org and http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ and the blogspot of Mr. Chin which you can access it by typing “nicholasnchin” on Google.
We are criticizing about Malaysia and its opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim being deprived of his rights in a country without true democracy but this very situation is happening in our own back yard. How can we be so hypercritical?
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 20-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Gallop blasts racism
PHILIPPA PERRY, The West Australian March 18, 2010, 5:02 am
Australia has significant pockets of racism and has seen a re- emergence of nationalism, according to former WA premier Geoff Gallop.
In a speech to be delivered to a Human Rights Arts and Film Festival breakfast this morning, Dr Gallop says Australia should have a charter of rights to benefit ordinary people as well as the marginalised and vulnerable in society.
"There are a lot of good things about Australia but one of them isn't the re-emergence of a form of political and cultural nationalism backed up at times by a particularly crude and nasty form of populism," he says.
"We describe ourselves as an egalitarian and tolerant nation but significant and unjustified inequalities remain as do not- insignificant pockets of racism."
Dr Gallop says Australia is the only democratic nation without a national bill or charter of rights and that while our rights receive some recognition nationally, it is very limited.
He says a charter of rights could be given a role in the legislative process, the administration of policy and the interpretation of the law.
Dr Gallop says there is a deep suspicion among elements of the political elite that a Human Rights Act will make it too hard for them to govern when faced with challenges such as terrorism and crime generally. "Not having a charter of rights legitimised by the Parliament sends a message to the community that the government itself is fearful of subjecting itself to serious human rights scrutiny," he said.
Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb -2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL LISTED FOR THE PUBLICATION OF REASONS AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS CANBERRA WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 2010 No. Applicant Respondent Court appealed from Result
4.
Chin
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (P36/2009)
Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2009] WASCA 117
Application Dismissed [2010] HCASL 4
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
No reform for political funding
Mr. Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister of Australia
postmaster@pmc.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 01-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Corruption-buster slams the politics of deception
Tony Koch - The Australian - February 25, 2010 12:00AM
FORMER anti-corruption commissioner Tony Fitzgerald has hit out at what he sees in Australia as an amoral political culture run by a governing class preoccupied with amassing power for itself.
The man credited with cleaning up public life in Queensland through the corruption inquiry he headed in the late 1980s told The Australian yesterday that young people felt "totally excluded" from decision-making.
Mr Fitzgerald will return to the public stage in Queensland next Tuesday when he launches a biography by this journalist on former Queensland Liberal leader and businessman Terry White, and later that day launches another book of essays that analyses the legacy of his landmark inquiry.
In that publication, The Fitzgerald Legacy, he writes in the foreword that small groups control the Labor and Liberal parties "and indirectly the national destiny".
"Dynasties are emerging as politics become, for some, the family business," he writes.
"Misleading or deceptive conduct is barred in commerce, but secrecy and misinformation (euphemistically called spin) are routinely employed by politicians.
"Political debate is often marked by spiteful, juvenile point-scoring and attempts to discredit each other, inevitably discrediting all participants.
"Media management insults and confuses the electorate, which is denied the comprehensive, accurate information which is essential to the proper functioning of democracy."
Most pointedly, Mr Fitzgerald writes that (political) access and influence can be purchased and patronage is dispensed to supporters and used to silence potential critics.
That is a repeat of a warning Mr Fitzgerald issued last July when he addressed a Brisbane function marking the 20th anniversary of the delivery of his report.
He then criticised the plethora of "consultants" who fed off government -- most of them former MPs or party hacks.
Mr Fitzgerald said yesterday that "the political class" was interested in the acquisition and exercise of power, not democratic theory.
"Mature democracies restrain self-serving activities by dividing power and imposing effective constraints. Under our weaker system, whichever party is in government, with effective parliamentary control, can and routinely does indulge its adherents, supporters and ideology," he said.
"Well-connected individuals and small, usually wealthy, groups are provided with access to and influence on the political process. Decisions favouring special interests are common.
"Because all parties grasp opportunities when in power, opposition criticism is muted and the risk of an electoral backlash is low.
"Instead, the general public is becoming increasingly cynical, apathetic and disengaged."
Gifts lavished on senior WA public servants
Joe Spagnolo, political reporter - October 02, 2009 06:40pm
ALMOST 100 senior WA public servants and ministerial officers have been lavished with thousands of dollars in freebies from some of the State's biggest companies and organizations, it has been revealed.
The public servants - working in government agencies such as Treasury, Planning and the Department of Premier and Cabinet - received more than $30,000 in gifts and free travel from September last year until the end of July this year.
New figures show the fat cats were treated to cricket, football, rugby matches and golf days as well as ballet, circus and Leeuwin concert tickets.
They also received bottles of scotch and wine, chocolates and clothing.
Ministerial staff within the Office of the Premier helped themselves to chopsticks, scented candles and an ornamental fan courtesy of Japanese businesses, while others received stamp collections, silk scarfs and carvings from the Japanese.
Amongst those offering the freebies were banking institutions, real-estate groups and mining companies.
In one case, a Department of Treasury and Finance officer spent two nights at the Caves Hotel in Yallingup, valued at $500, as a guest of the Commonwealth Bank, which provides banking services to government agencies.
Details of the perks were released by the government following a series of questions by Labor MP Mark McGowan.
Premier Colin Barnett has refused to answer a series of questions put to him by PerthNow about the perks, issuing this statement through his media adviser: ``The receipt and giving of gifts throughout government and opposition is done in accordance with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.’’
The Premier’s adviser and the Office of the Public Sector Commission said this week that each individual government agency had its own code of conduct which dealt with freebies and that heads of agencies decided whether it was appropriate for gifts and travel should be accepted.
``In the case of the Department of Premier and Cabinet it conducted ethical and accountable decision making training for all departmental officers which included specific case studies on accepting gifts,'' a spokeswoman for the Premier said.
Mr McGowan this week raised concerns about freebies for public servants and other government officers.
``I don’t think there is a problem going to the footy but there is a serious issue when there is a business relationship between the provider and the receiver – such as the CBA providing free accommodation to an officer from Treasury,’’ he said.
Political bigwigs dined out in the lap of luxury
Patrick Lion - From: The Courier-Mail - January 27, 2010 4:00AM
MINISTERS and advisers were wined and dined by Australia's richest woman onboard one of the world's most exclusive cruise liners.
The incident took place while her project was under State Government review, the Courier-Mail reports.
Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, Mines Minister Stephen Robertson and Speaker John Mickel last month enjoyed hospitality aboard The World, a $350 million floating resort on which billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart owns a plush residence.
The office of Premier Anna Bligh yesterday backflipped on an earlier commitment and refused to release the full list of invitees for the dinner party but Transport Minister Rachel Nolan's chief-of-staff and Mr Robertson's policy adviser also attended.
Senior government sources said the Premier, Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe and Ms Nolan had to reject their invites to the dinner last month while The World docked in Brisbane.
Details have emerged amid an integrity debate over links between business and State Government decision-makers.
The intimate event was held shortly after the Premier met Ms Rinehart in her Executive Building office on December 17 to discuss and accept her application for the Government to declare an "infrastructure facility of significance" on a planned train line from her two proposed central-west Queensland mines.
It allowed Ms Rinehart's firm, Hancock Prospecting, to start a feasibility study into the projects this year.
A green light for the application would mean the Government would recognise the 500km rail corridor, between the company's Alpha and Kevin's Corner mines in the Galilee Basin to the coast at Abbot Point, as economically and socially important for the state.
Government co-ordinator-general Colin Jensen is also still conducting overall environmental assessments into the two projects, which are valued at $16.5 billion, as well as a nearby $7.5 billion proposal by Liberal Nationals' billionaire backer Clive Palmer.
Department sources said dinner guests had to provide passports when boarding the highly exclusive international vessel, which is home to millionaires and billionaires who each have spent up to $22 million on residences
To preserve democracy, political donations must be limited
December 20, 2009 - age
WHAT price democracy in Australia? As far as the broad mass of taxpayers are concerned, not that much, it seems. For the 2007 federal election, taxpayers chipped in about $49 million to help political parties run their campaigns, up from $10.3 million in 1987.
That might sound like a lot, but compared to public funding for elections in other countries, it's relatively small beer.
This is not to say Australian elections are cheap. In fact, the cost of funding them has been rocketing. Labor's spending rose by 116 per cent in real terms over the 20 years to 2004. Liberal spending surged 136 per cent.
Public funding makes up just 20 per cent of election spending in Australia. The rest comes from a morass of donations, membership and affiliation fees, investments and fund-raising.
Ask Premier John Brumby and he might say that this is all part of the democratic process. Is it not a basic freedom for individuals and companies to contribute to a political party if they wish?
But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether that ''basic freedom'' carries with it an even bigger cost: the erosion of the democratic process itself.
John Faulkner, previously special minister of state and now defence minister, warned in a green paper on electoral reform that ''spiralling costs'' of electioneering had created a campaigning ''arms race''.
This has heightened the danger that fund-raising pressures would open the door to donations that might attempt to buy access and influence.
Consider a recent report in The Age that coal company Exergen paid Victorian Labor for a private briefing with Brumby, before its $1.5 billion scheme to export 12 million tonnes of brown coal to India was examined by a state cabinet committee. Then there was Latrobe Fertilisers chairman and ALP donor Allan Blood, who reportedly paid $10,000 to sit next to Brumby at a fund-raising dinner. The company has proposed a $2 billion scheme to turn brown coal into fertiliser.
As Faulkner points out, there is a danger that ''third party'' participants could influence the electoral process without being subject to the same regulations that apply to political parties.
''Perceptions of the potentially distorting nature of large donations - either cash or resources - to political parties will degrade the public's trust in the integrity of the political process.'' The solution? Ban or severely limit political donations and increase the public funding of election campaigns to compensate for the lost revenue. And while we're at it, ban third-party advertising during campaigns.
This is what both major parties say they want to do. The Sunday Age reported last week that Labor had already drafted legislation to introduce reforms based on changes introduced in Canada and New Zealand.
The plan, which has become bogged down, would include limiting donations from individuals and organisations to about $1500. To make up for the loss, the taxpayer-funded contribution would be almost doubled from about $2.20 for each first preference vote to about $4.25.
All this sounds noble, but there are practical reasons too for the changes. In an age of growing cynicism, political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to raise the cash needed to fund election campaigns that include television and radio advertising, sophisticated use of electronic media and a blizzard of direct mail.
The NSW branch of the Labor Party is in a particularly parlous state because years of unrest and scandal in the State Government has cruelled their ability to raise corporate funds.
One Labor source said: ''It's being put in high-minded terms, but Labor federally is $8 million in debt, and Rudd point blank refuses to fund-raise. State branches are also in a parlous state.''
So what's the hold-up? The major sticking point is that the Federal Opposition wants union affiliation fees included in the definition of ''donation''.
But unions fear that if they lose the ability to pay Labor such fees - which are said to account for up to 70 per cent of the cost of running some state branches - they will be disenfranchised and eventually lose political influence within the party.
Despite Kevin Rudd's anti-union tough talk, Labor seems unwilling or unable to completely sever the umbilical cord financially linking it to the union movement and is continuing to insist that affiliation fees should not be included in the definition of ''donation''.
As long as this is the case, Faulkner's high-minded reformist agenda will not see the light of day and Australia's political parties will remain increasingly reliant on big business and the union movement to pay for their big-spending campaigns.
Josh Gordon is national political reporter for The Sunday Age
Lobbying & Political donations
6-February 2010 - smh
.........Brad Pedersen is a former councillor and founder of Democracy Watch, a coalition of senior academics and prominent judicial and political identities from across the political spectrum, focused on ''cleaning-up'' the political donations systems. ''Financial donations to political parties and candidates is the most corrupting force in our political system,'' Pedersen says.
''This is the dark underbelly of our political system. These donations are a serious threat to our democracy. The policy outcomes of all our governments risk being improperly influenced by huge corporations, powerful trade unions and wealthy individuals. Some donors even secure their influence by making equally enormous donations to both parties."
$5000 access to Labor ministers
ANDREW CLENNELL STATE POLITICAL EDITOR - October 29, 2009 - smh
FOR $5000 a head, business people and lobbyists can get the opportunity to hobnob with federal and state ministers at Labor's state conference in a fortnight.
A pamphlet being distributed by Labor officials advertises membership of the Business Observers Centre at the conference as $5000 a head or $2000 to $4000 a head for members of the Party's Business Dialogue group.
Membership of the business observers centre gives you the right to ''pre luncheon drinks'' with federal and state ministers and the ability to attend a breakfast meeting with the general secretary of NSW Labor, Matt Thistlethwaite.
It also entitles developers, hotel owners and others who pay the fee to attend business forums with state ministers Kristina Keneally, Eric Roozendaal, Joe Tripodi, Carmel Tebbutt and John Robertson. Forums will also be held with the federal ministers Julia Gillard, Anthony Albanese, Lindsay Tanner, Martin Ferguson, Tanya Plibersek, Craig Emerson and Mark Arbib.
Places are restricted to 80 takers, so the Labor Party hopes to raise $400,000.
The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said yesterday: ''Yet again Labor is offering big business the opportunity to buy access that is not available to ordinary people. The Government appears to have learnt nothing from the string of political donation scandals …''
''The least the Labor Party organisers could do is to disclose who buys a $5000 pack to provide some transparency.''
The Labor Government is also under fire for hiring a director and shareholder in a major lobbying firm to become the chief of staff to the Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt.
Scott Gartrell, a cousin of the former Labor federal secretary Tim Gartrell, is a lobbyist who has resigned as a director of Government Relations Australia since his appointment, but still holds shares in the company. A spokeswoman for Ms Tebbutt said Mr Gartrell was ''in the process of disposing his shares … ''.
No reform for political funding
ROYCE MILLAR - January 13, 2010
THE Rudd Government has abandoned its promise of a new, cleaner system of political funding before the next election, prompting Opposition claims it has caved in to union pressure.
More than a year after the Government promised tougher controls on donations and expenditure in time for the next federal poll, Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig is refusing to back the promise.
Senator Ludwig would only say that the Government was still determined to achieve reform and was ''working with all parties'' to do so. He would not be drawn on the timing or likely detail of such legislation.
This marks a significant retreat on the pledge of his predecessor as special minister of state, John Faulkner, a champion of electoral reform who in September 2008 promised an end to the campaign finance ''arms race''.
At the time, Senator Faulkner told The Age: ''The electoral reforms will definitely be in place before the next election.''
Michael Ronaldson, the Coalition spokesman on electoral issues, accused the Government of crumbling under union pressure, saying ''momentum'' in negotiations stopped when unions started lobbying to shore up their ties with, and influence on, Labor.
Senator Ronaldson described Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's handling of the proposed changes as a disgrace. ''It is becoming clearer by the day that Kevin Rudd owes the unions and that they own him.
''It is increasingly clear that the level of union influence means that the reforms are all but dead in the water. And this is a great tragedy for this country.''
Senator Ludwig this week diverted attention to other parties involved in negotiations around the proposed Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. ''In order for legislation to pass the Senate, we need agreement between Labor and the Liberals, Greens, Nationals and Independents,'' he said.
''Constructive talks with each party are continuing in order to build further support for the Government's campaign financing reform," he said.
The Age understands that broad agreement had been reached between the major and minor parties, including the Greens, about the need for key reforms, including controls on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure, regulation of third parties such as lobby groups and unions, and increased public funding for elections.
However the talks appear to have been derailed after lobbying by unions and party machines, in particular Victorian Labor. Unions are upset that one proposal on the bargaining table was a ban on union affiliation fees to the Labor Party, a major source of income for Labor which also gives unions a key role in party decision-making.
Victorian Labor wants to protect its income from both unions and corporations and is keen to ensure revenue continues to flow from controversial but successful fund-raising arm, Progressive Business, particularly as it faces both state and federal elections this year.
Labor MPs are also believed to have pressed the point that the proposed reforms had the potential to hurt Labor more than other parties.
It is unclear how Tony Abbott's ascension to the Liberal leadership has affected the party's approach.In a written statement to The Age this week, he said: ''The Liberal Party is open to discussions with the Government on this issue if they are genuinely seeking our views. Any new arrangement has got to be fair, it can't favour one side or another.''
Such sentiment is at odds with a speech he made earlier this week, in which he said he would oppose all Labor initiatives unless convinced ''beyond reasonable doubt'' the Government was right.
Ken Coghill, an associate professor at Monash University, argues that the activity of lobbying, rather than individual lobbyists, should be registered. ''The very important thing is to have a very complete and comprehensive list of lobbying activity. So if a CEO of a large mining company … or a CEO of a building developer meet a minister, it should be on the public record.''
There is ''no question'' business can influence government through lobbying, he says.
''Sometimes it can be a very fine line of what is a problem and what is not.''
One former senator who was on the standing committee for the lobbying code of conduct, and who has made submissions in response to the Federal Government's electoral reform green paper of last September, believes the system needs to be overhauled.
"The practice of companies making political donations without shareholder approval and … unions making political donations without member approval must end. The practice of some companies and unions affiliating to or becoming members of political parties without shareholder or member approval must end. The UK has attended to both corporations and unions along these lines."
Prime Minister of Australia
postmaster@pmc.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 01-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Corruption-buster slams the politics of deception
Tony Koch - The Australian - February 25, 2010 12:00AM
FORMER anti-corruption commissioner Tony Fitzgerald has hit out at what he sees in Australia as an amoral political culture run by a governing class preoccupied with amassing power for itself.
The man credited with cleaning up public life in Queensland through the corruption inquiry he headed in the late 1980s told The Australian yesterday that young people felt "totally excluded" from decision-making.
Mr Fitzgerald will return to the public stage in Queensland next Tuesday when he launches a biography by this journalist on former Queensland Liberal leader and businessman Terry White, and later that day launches another book of essays that analyses the legacy of his landmark inquiry.
In that publication, The Fitzgerald Legacy, he writes in the foreword that small groups control the Labor and Liberal parties "and indirectly the national destiny".
"Dynasties are emerging as politics become, for some, the family business," he writes.
"Misleading or deceptive conduct is barred in commerce, but secrecy and misinformation (euphemistically called spin) are routinely employed by politicians.
"Political debate is often marked by spiteful, juvenile point-scoring and attempts to discredit each other, inevitably discrediting all participants.
"Media management insults and confuses the electorate, which is denied the comprehensive, accurate information which is essential to the proper functioning of democracy."
Most pointedly, Mr Fitzgerald writes that (political) access and influence can be purchased and patronage is dispensed to supporters and used to silence potential critics.
That is a repeat of a warning Mr Fitzgerald issued last July when he addressed a Brisbane function marking the 20th anniversary of the delivery of his report.
He then criticised the plethora of "consultants" who fed off government -- most of them former MPs or party hacks.
Mr Fitzgerald said yesterday that "the political class" was interested in the acquisition and exercise of power, not democratic theory.
"Mature democracies restrain self-serving activities by dividing power and imposing effective constraints. Under our weaker system, whichever party is in government, with effective parliamentary control, can and routinely does indulge its adherents, supporters and ideology," he said.
"Well-connected individuals and small, usually wealthy, groups are provided with access to and influence on the political process. Decisions favouring special interests are common.
"Because all parties grasp opportunities when in power, opposition criticism is muted and the risk of an electoral backlash is low.
"Instead, the general public is becoming increasingly cynical, apathetic and disengaged."
Gifts lavished on senior WA public servants
Joe Spagnolo, political reporter - October 02, 2009 06:40pm
ALMOST 100 senior WA public servants and ministerial officers have been lavished with thousands of dollars in freebies from some of the State's biggest companies and organizations, it has been revealed.
The public servants - working in government agencies such as Treasury, Planning and the Department of Premier and Cabinet - received more than $30,000 in gifts and free travel from September last year until the end of July this year.
New figures show the fat cats were treated to cricket, football, rugby matches and golf days as well as ballet, circus and Leeuwin concert tickets.
They also received bottles of scotch and wine, chocolates and clothing.
Ministerial staff within the Office of the Premier helped themselves to chopsticks, scented candles and an ornamental fan courtesy of Japanese businesses, while others received stamp collections, silk scarfs and carvings from the Japanese.
Amongst those offering the freebies were banking institutions, real-estate groups and mining companies.
In one case, a Department of Treasury and Finance officer spent two nights at the Caves Hotel in Yallingup, valued at $500, as a guest of the Commonwealth Bank, which provides banking services to government agencies.
Details of the perks were released by the government following a series of questions by Labor MP Mark McGowan.
Premier Colin Barnett has refused to answer a series of questions put to him by PerthNow about the perks, issuing this statement through his media adviser: ``The receipt and giving of gifts throughout government and opposition is done in accordance with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.’’
The Premier’s adviser and the Office of the Public Sector Commission said this week that each individual government agency had its own code of conduct which dealt with freebies and that heads of agencies decided whether it was appropriate for gifts and travel should be accepted.
``In the case of the Department of Premier and Cabinet it conducted ethical and accountable decision making training for all departmental officers which included specific case studies on accepting gifts,'' a spokeswoman for the Premier said.
Mr McGowan this week raised concerns about freebies for public servants and other government officers.
``I don’t think there is a problem going to the footy but there is a serious issue when there is a business relationship between the provider and the receiver – such as the CBA providing free accommodation to an officer from Treasury,’’ he said.
Political bigwigs dined out in the lap of luxury
Patrick Lion - From: The Courier-Mail - January 27, 2010 4:00AM
MINISTERS and advisers were wined and dined by Australia's richest woman onboard one of the world's most exclusive cruise liners.
The incident took place while her project was under State Government review, the Courier-Mail reports.
Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, Mines Minister Stephen Robertson and Speaker John Mickel last month enjoyed hospitality aboard The World, a $350 million floating resort on which billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart owns a plush residence.
The office of Premier Anna Bligh yesterday backflipped on an earlier commitment and refused to release the full list of invitees for the dinner party but Transport Minister Rachel Nolan's chief-of-staff and Mr Robertson's policy adviser also attended.
Senior government sources said the Premier, Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe and Ms Nolan had to reject their invites to the dinner last month while The World docked in Brisbane.
Details have emerged amid an integrity debate over links between business and State Government decision-makers.
The intimate event was held shortly after the Premier met Ms Rinehart in her Executive Building office on December 17 to discuss and accept her application for the Government to declare an "infrastructure facility of significance" on a planned train line from her two proposed central-west Queensland mines.
It allowed Ms Rinehart's firm, Hancock Prospecting, to start a feasibility study into the projects this year.
A green light for the application would mean the Government would recognise the 500km rail corridor, between the company's Alpha and Kevin's Corner mines in the Galilee Basin to the coast at Abbot Point, as economically and socially important for the state.
Government co-ordinator-general Colin Jensen is also still conducting overall environmental assessments into the two projects, which are valued at $16.5 billion, as well as a nearby $7.5 billion proposal by Liberal Nationals' billionaire backer Clive Palmer.
Department sources said dinner guests had to provide passports when boarding the highly exclusive international vessel, which is home to millionaires and billionaires who each have spent up to $22 million on residences
To preserve democracy, political donations must be limited
December 20, 2009 - age
WHAT price democracy in Australia? As far as the broad mass of taxpayers are concerned, not that much, it seems. For the 2007 federal election, taxpayers chipped in about $49 million to help political parties run their campaigns, up from $10.3 million in 1987.
That might sound like a lot, but compared to public funding for elections in other countries, it's relatively small beer.
This is not to say Australian elections are cheap. In fact, the cost of funding them has been rocketing. Labor's spending rose by 116 per cent in real terms over the 20 years to 2004. Liberal spending surged 136 per cent.
Public funding makes up just 20 per cent of election spending in Australia. The rest comes from a morass of donations, membership and affiliation fees, investments and fund-raising.
Ask Premier John Brumby and he might say that this is all part of the democratic process. Is it not a basic freedom for individuals and companies to contribute to a political party if they wish?
But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether that ''basic freedom'' carries with it an even bigger cost: the erosion of the democratic process itself.
John Faulkner, previously special minister of state and now defence minister, warned in a green paper on electoral reform that ''spiralling costs'' of electioneering had created a campaigning ''arms race''.
This has heightened the danger that fund-raising pressures would open the door to donations that might attempt to buy access and influence.
Consider a recent report in The Age that coal company Exergen paid Victorian Labor for a private briefing with Brumby, before its $1.5 billion scheme to export 12 million tonnes of brown coal to India was examined by a state cabinet committee. Then there was Latrobe Fertilisers chairman and ALP donor Allan Blood, who reportedly paid $10,000 to sit next to Brumby at a fund-raising dinner. The company has proposed a $2 billion scheme to turn brown coal into fertiliser.
As Faulkner points out, there is a danger that ''third party'' participants could influence the electoral process without being subject to the same regulations that apply to political parties.
''Perceptions of the potentially distorting nature of large donations - either cash or resources - to political parties will degrade the public's trust in the integrity of the political process.'' The solution? Ban or severely limit political donations and increase the public funding of election campaigns to compensate for the lost revenue. And while we're at it, ban third-party advertising during campaigns.
This is what both major parties say they want to do. The Sunday Age reported last week that Labor had already drafted legislation to introduce reforms based on changes introduced in Canada and New Zealand.
The plan, which has become bogged down, would include limiting donations from individuals and organisations to about $1500. To make up for the loss, the taxpayer-funded contribution would be almost doubled from about $2.20 for each first preference vote to about $4.25.
All this sounds noble, but there are practical reasons too for the changes. In an age of growing cynicism, political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to raise the cash needed to fund election campaigns that include television and radio advertising, sophisticated use of electronic media and a blizzard of direct mail.
The NSW branch of the Labor Party is in a particularly parlous state because years of unrest and scandal in the State Government has cruelled their ability to raise corporate funds.
One Labor source said: ''It's being put in high-minded terms, but Labor federally is $8 million in debt, and Rudd point blank refuses to fund-raise. State branches are also in a parlous state.''
So what's the hold-up? The major sticking point is that the Federal Opposition wants union affiliation fees included in the definition of ''donation''.
But unions fear that if they lose the ability to pay Labor such fees - which are said to account for up to 70 per cent of the cost of running some state branches - they will be disenfranchised and eventually lose political influence within the party.
Despite Kevin Rudd's anti-union tough talk, Labor seems unwilling or unable to completely sever the umbilical cord financially linking it to the union movement and is continuing to insist that affiliation fees should not be included in the definition of ''donation''.
As long as this is the case, Faulkner's high-minded reformist agenda will not see the light of day and Australia's political parties will remain increasingly reliant on big business and the union movement to pay for their big-spending campaigns.
Josh Gordon is national political reporter for The Sunday Age
Lobbying & Political donations
6-February 2010 - smh
.........Brad Pedersen is a former councillor and founder of Democracy Watch, a coalition of senior academics and prominent judicial and political identities from across the political spectrum, focused on ''cleaning-up'' the political donations systems. ''Financial donations to political parties and candidates is the most corrupting force in our political system,'' Pedersen says.
''This is the dark underbelly of our political system. These donations are a serious threat to our democracy. The policy outcomes of all our governments risk being improperly influenced by huge corporations, powerful trade unions and wealthy individuals. Some donors even secure their influence by making equally enormous donations to both parties."
$5000 access to Labor ministers
ANDREW CLENNELL STATE POLITICAL EDITOR - October 29, 2009 - smh
FOR $5000 a head, business people and lobbyists can get the opportunity to hobnob with federal and state ministers at Labor's state conference in a fortnight.
A pamphlet being distributed by Labor officials advertises membership of the Business Observers Centre at the conference as $5000 a head or $2000 to $4000 a head for members of the Party's Business Dialogue group.
Membership of the business observers centre gives you the right to ''pre luncheon drinks'' with federal and state ministers and the ability to attend a breakfast meeting with the general secretary of NSW Labor, Matt Thistlethwaite.
It also entitles developers, hotel owners and others who pay the fee to attend business forums with state ministers Kristina Keneally, Eric Roozendaal, Joe Tripodi, Carmel Tebbutt and John Robertson. Forums will also be held with the federal ministers Julia Gillard, Anthony Albanese, Lindsay Tanner, Martin Ferguson, Tanya Plibersek, Craig Emerson and Mark Arbib.
Places are restricted to 80 takers, so the Labor Party hopes to raise $400,000.
The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said yesterday: ''Yet again Labor is offering big business the opportunity to buy access that is not available to ordinary people. The Government appears to have learnt nothing from the string of political donation scandals …''
''The least the Labor Party organisers could do is to disclose who buys a $5000 pack to provide some transparency.''
The Labor Government is also under fire for hiring a director and shareholder in a major lobbying firm to become the chief of staff to the Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt.
Scott Gartrell, a cousin of the former Labor federal secretary Tim Gartrell, is a lobbyist who has resigned as a director of Government Relations Australia since his appointment, but still holds shares in the company. A spokeswoman for Ms Tebbutt said Mr Gartrell was ''in the process of disposing his shares … ''.
No reform for political funding
ROYCE MILLAR - January 13, 2010
THE Rudd Government has abandoned its promise of a new, cleaner system of political funding before the next election, prompting Opposition claims it has caved in to union pressure.
More than a year after the Government promised tougher controls on donations and expenditure in time for the next federal poll, Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig is refusing to back the promise.
Senator Ludwig would only say that the Government was still determined to achieve reform and was ''working with all parties'' to do so. He would not be drawn on the timing or likely detail of such legislation.
This marks a significant retreat on the pledge of his predecessor as special minister of state, John Faulkner, a champion of electoral reform who in September 2008 promised an end to the campaign finance ''arms race''.
At the time, Senator Faulkner told The Age: ''The electoral reforms will definitely be in place before the next election.''
Michael Ronaldson, the Coalition spokesman on electoral issues, accused the Government of crumbling under union pressure, saying ''momentum'' in negotiations stopped when unions started lobbying to shore up their ties with, and influence on, Labor.
Senator Ronaldson described Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's handling of the proposed changes as a disgrace. ''It is becoming clearer by the day that Kevin Rudd owes the unions and that they own him.
''It is increasingly clear that the level of union influence means that the reforms are all but dead in the water. And this is a great tragedy for this country.''
Senator Ludwig this week diverted attention to other parties involved in negotiations around the proposed Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. ''In order for legislation to pass the Senate, we need agreement between Labor and the Liberals, Greens, Nationals and Independents,'' he said.
''Constructive talks with each party are continuing in order to build further support for the Government's campaign financing reform," he said.
The Age understands that broad agreement had been reached between the major and minor parties, including the Greens, about the need for key reforms, including controls on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure, regulation of third parties such as lobby groups and unions, and increased public funding for elections.
However the talks appear to have been derailed after lobbying by unions and party machines, in particular Victorian Labor. Unions are upset that one proposal on the bargaining table was a ban on union affiliation fees to the Labor Party, a major source of income for Labor which also gives unions a key role in party decision-making.
Victorian Labor wants to protect its income from both unions and corporations and is keen to ensure revenue continues to flow from controversial but successful fund-raising arm, Progressive Business, particularly as it faces both state and federal elections this year.
Labor MPs are also believed to have pressed the point that the proposed reforms had the potential to hurt Labor more than other parties.
It is unclear how Tony Abbott's ascension to the Liberal leadership has affected the party's approach.In a written statement to The Age this week, he said: ''The Liberal Party is open to discussions with the Government on this issue if they are genuinely seeking our views. Any new arrangement has got to be fair, it can't favour one side or another.''
Such sentiment is at odds with a speech he made earlier this week, in which he said he would oppose all Labor initiatives unless convinced ''beyond reasonable doubt'' the Government was right.
Ken Coghill, an associate professor at Monash University, argues that the activity of lobbying, rather than individual lobbyists, should be registered. ''The very important thing is to have a very complete and comprehensive list of lobbying activity. So if a CEO of a large mining company … or a CEO of a building developer meet a minister, it should be on the public record.''
There is ''no question'' business can influence government through lobbying, he says.
''Sometimes it can be a very fine line of what is a problem and what is not.''
One former senator who was on the standing committee for the lobbying code of conduct, and who has made submissions in response to the Federal Government's electoral reform green paper of last September, believes the system needs to be overhauled.
"The practice of companies making political donations without shareholder approval and … unions making political donations without member approval must end. The practice of some companies and unions affiliating to or becoming members of political parties without shareholder or member approval must end. The UK has attended to both corporations and unions along these lines."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)