Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Friday, 23 January 2009
Blind woman claims Government has ripped her off over compo
LOSING out ... Queensland grandmother Anita Dawson's pension was cut after she won compensation.
THE Rudd Government has been accused of ripping off a blind
woman by cutting her pension to claw back money awarded to
her in compensation.
Anita Dawson, 54, was recently awarded Government compensation
after she was injured while working at a Queensland TAFE. But before
the money could even be deposited into her bank account, the
Government had helped itself to $30,000 - the equivalent of two years'
pension.
In a second stinging blow, Mrs Dawson was told she was also
being stripped of her pension for a further two years thanks to her
winning a six-figure compensation payout."I was told by the Government
that they couldn't have me double dipping into workers' compensation
funds and the pension pot," she said."They said I shouldn't think I'm
any different to anyone else just because I have a disability."I find it just
absolutely appalling. It is just a way for the Government to get away
with not paying me the compensation I am owed for the accident.
"Grandmother Mrs Dawson, of New Beith, south of Brisbane,
previously received $565 a fortnight from the Centrelink pension,
which is not supposed to be income tested.Without it she is unable
to claim pharmaceutical benefits, mobility allowance, up to 40 per
cent off her rates bill, and discounts on public transport and taxis.
Her pension will not automatically be restored to her in two years.
Instead she will have to undergo painful tests to determine whether
she remains eligible.Requests for help from the Government and
Centrelink officers have fallen on deaf ears.
Yesterday she was reduced to tears after speaking to a public servant
from Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin's office.
The department refused to comment when contacted by The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Centrelink described the situation as a "policy matter"
and said that although the blind pension was not income tested, compensation
payments had to be taken into account when pensions were issued.
Mrs Dawson's former husband Lee is disgusted."The Government is
ripping off a blind woman," he said. "It's nothing short of victimisation.
"Details of Mrs Dawson's accident and compensation amount cannot be
revealed for legal reasons but Mrs Dawson said it was a low six-figure
sum.
WCV's: This is so typical of the Government! How blind do you need to be?
Centrelink recuperate what they have paid to any injured
worker or TAC victims from any compensation payments, so you lose out
again, by having to repay part of what you would have earned had you not
been injured and still able to work, then you have to give up part of your
compo as well. Does this ever end?
Don't get injured at work readers because if you do, your life will be totally
stuffed,you will have no job and no ability to work, and your income will be
reduced to the poverty line levels by the DSP or sickness
benefits and you will be treated like a leper by many, and that's the reality
of a workplace injury!
This is not a way of life nor is it a living, so to all of those who judge injured
workers, "up yours" and "get a life" because injured workers are not enjoying
themselves here or is it a lifestyle, they are suffering at the hands of all they
encounter, so readers next time you are speaking to someone who is injured,
take a minute to walk in their shoes, before you judge them.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
National OHS Law Review - First Report released - Duty of Care, OHS, business, executives, government, law, safety, union, workplace.
The first report of the National OHS Law Review panel was presented to
the Australian Government yesterday. The best initial assessment of the
report can be found at a safety blog operated by Deacons law firm.
In that report by Michael Tooma and Alena Titterton, the following
points are made:
For a type of legislation that is intended to be readily understood by a layman, this legalese is disappointing however it is likely that clarification will come from the OHS regulators as it has already in some States.
The review panel supports this type of clarification.
Interestingly, the report says on “the primary duty of care” that it ”should not include express reference to control” and that ‘Control’ should not be included in the definition of reasonably practicable. The panel says that “control” will be discussed in the second report as will the definition of a “workplace”.
The Deacon’s authors remind us that reports of this type are not automatically implemented by governments and that the review process has several months to
run. The report needs to be read carefully by OHS professionals as the
recommendations will set the scene fro OHS law in Australia for, perhaps,
decades. Also, going beyond the list of recommendations allows readers to
see which of the issues considered were contentious and which had uniform
acceptance.
The trade union movement is yet to release public statements but according
to one media report, Geoff Fary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is
“disappointed that a qualified duty of care would continue to rest with the
employer”. That same report is headed “Prison time for unsafe bosses”
raising the spectre of industrial manslaughter. That does not seem to be case
and may say more about the readership of The Australian or the politics of the
sub-editors. However, it will be interesting to see the responses of the employer
associations over the coming days.
Written by "Kevin Jones", OHS Consultant and Freelance Writer.
November 6th, 2008.
the Australian Government yesterday. The best initial assessment of the
report can be found at a safety blog operated by Deacons law firm.
In that report by Michael Tooma and Alena Titterton, the following
points are made:
- There should be a general duty of care for health and safety
- “Worker” is defined more broadly as ‘person who works in a business or undertaking’
- “The Report recommends that a defined ‘reasonably practicable’ be built into the offence in the model OHS Act which reflects the current approach taken in all jurisdictions except New South Wales and Queensland.”
- “The prosecution will bear the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt on all elements of an offence”
- Offences could be indictable and heard in front of a Judge and jury.
- Increased penalties in line with those for environmental breaches - Corporation = $3 million, Individual = $600,000 Imprisonment - up to five years
- An appeals process where cases could be taken to the High Court of Australia
- “Reasonably practicable” remains a concept with a floating meaning for most business owners and OHS professionals.
For a type of legislation that is intended to be readily understood by a layman, this legalese is disappointing however it is likely that clarification will come from the OHS regulators as it has already in some States.
The review panel supports this type of clarification.
Interestingly, the report says on “the primary duty of care” that it ”should not include express reference to control” and that ‘Control’ should not be included in the definition of reasonably practicable. The panel says that “control” will be discussed in the second report as will the definition of a “workplace”.
The Deacon’s authors remind us that reports of this type are not automatically implemented by governments and that the review process has several months to
run. The report needs to be read carefully by OHS professionals as the
recommendations will set the scene fro OHS law in Australia for, perhaps,
decades. Also, going beyond the list of recommendations allows readers to
see which of the issues considered were contentious and which had uniform
acceptance.
The trade union movement is yet to release public statements but according
to one media report, Geoff Fary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is
“disappointed that a qualified duty of care would continue to rest with the
employer”. That same report is headed “Prison time for unsafe bosses”
raising the spectre of industrial manslaughter. That does not seem to be case
and may say more about the readership of The Australian or the politics of the
sub-editors. However, it will be interesting to see the responses of the employer
associations over the coming days.
Written by "Kevin Jones", OHS Consultant and Freelance Writer.
November 6th, 2008.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Something to think about and to ask our government, "what happened, this system was not what they fought and gave their lives for?"
The Commonwealth of Australia's armed forces during World War I displayed
a fighting ability, courage, and endurance which made them a legend wherever
they fought. All of them were volunteers. Sixty-one thousand, seven hundred
and twenty of them died and ennoble the soils of France and Gallipoli. Over
155,000 of them were wounded. All carried the scars of war for life as a badge
of honour. "By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a
family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our
soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played
their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia.
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, William Morris
Hughes, House of Representatives, Wednesday, 10th September 1919.
a fighting ability, courage, and endurance which made them a legend wherever
they fought. All of them were volunteers. Sixty-one thousand, seven hundred
and twenty of them died and ennoble the soils of France and Gallipoli. Over
155,000 of them were wounded. All carried the scars of war for life as a badge
of honour. "By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a
family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our
soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played
their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia.
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, William Morris
Hughes, House of Representatives, Wednesday, 10th September 1919.
Monday, 3 November 2008
Your Will Be Done Letters
Introduction
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and
replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to
be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying
the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that
the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State
Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.
This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of
Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and
duties of the institution of the Monarchy, the offices of Governor-General
and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State
Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the
electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both
Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians
to a full sudden stop "for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for
a general election . ."
It may be contended that the people have been denied the above mentioned
knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform,
as have the new media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political
party, few, If any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and
political text book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge
that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control
over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political
dictatorship over the machinery of parliament.
Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are
advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of
denial would have no legal validity.
Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss
Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible,
to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed
essential to clarify a legal point.
What is the Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member
of Parliament?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector, has no legal right,
whatever to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of
Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.
Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a
Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting
to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary
to their judicially defined function and duty.
As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for
the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in
a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to
vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your
vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting
is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.
Although such an action is classed as 'casting an informal vote", you have
legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with
your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of
them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a
fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the
electors were casting their votes with care.
Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their
votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only
party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal
vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab
for power.
Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the
next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and
Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence,
is to make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws
will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep
your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon
What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Parliamentarian?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on
what is the true legal function and duty of a Member of Parliament it will
be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations
has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.
The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C. 1910, at p.
110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely.
By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money
payment which is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or
imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the
very constitution of Parliament.
The second is from a High Court case ('Horne v Barber' (1920) 27 C.L.R.
p. 500): 'When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes
high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he
cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties.
One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community
the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to
account in the constitutional by censure from his place in Parliament.
Censure which if sufficiently supported means removal from office.
That Is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone
our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community
possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the
Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not
sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament
where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public
Interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due
watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration."
What is Parliament, and it’s Function?
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift
into a habit of using words and phrases without stopping to think what they
really mean and convey.
Take the word "Parliament"... We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or
sitting", or that "So and so is going to Parliament" ' At first sight it may seem
a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the Parliament
(Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor General or State
Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a
Parliament to meet.
This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically
consists of the Queen or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor General in
the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State and both Houses of the
Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.
Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely
and simply a law making machine, and nothing else, the pivot of that machine
is the institution of the Monarchy or in Australia in the Monarch's absence
the Governor General in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the
States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.
It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the
operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminster
System. Indeed, in the inter party confrontations and power struggles, the
phrase 'the Westminster System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that
the other side is destroying that 'democratic system'.
Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship what ever
to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of
us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last
paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this book).
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminster System',
themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it
means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in
controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British
What is Parliament, and it’s Function?
Parliament in the interest, and for the sole purposes, of party political
Ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, 'the Westminster System' has nothing to do with the legal law
of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is
only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly
used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and
must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.
To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal
responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of
Parliament):
1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation.
2. The so called, and mistakenly called, Lower House, i.e., the House of
Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New
South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia
and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
3. The mistakenly called Upper House, i.e., the Senate and the
Legislative Council, in each State except Queensland.
4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of
Constitutional and legal responsibility?
(a) The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your
State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law
that, within the limits of statute and where applicable common law, YOU,
and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you
believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are
too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect
and retain those freedoms and privileges provided always that you
demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and
privileges then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness
and indifference.
(b) The So Called "Lower House"
If the Members of the, so called, Lower House strictly carry out their
judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the
of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" do so and
so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are
constantly before the "bar of public conviction", not mere opinion.
What is the True Legal Role of the Queen & Her Vice Regal
Representatives?
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has
surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground
campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that
a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy
is an out dated medieval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking,
whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real
power or authority in our Parliamentary system.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has
the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may
protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the
unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may
directly request of Her.
Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for
the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the
institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor General and
State Governors: Is to give the people what the people ask for, Not what
others think the people ought to have.
If the Australian people are too lazy and Indifferent to ask for what they
want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties
impose their own ideologies on them.
It is legally un-challengeable that the party system, with its direct and
indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally
striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all
their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy,
as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the
hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the
final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control
What is a Political Party?
If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a
political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and
, eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final
in the apex of that pyramid.
The mass at the base being subject to manipulation, by those in the apex
or by those who control the apex from outside of party organisation.
It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through to
the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to
become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of
at the top.
A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not,
and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party
politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic,
despite beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.
Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used,
and much abused, word "democracy". Consensus has it that "democracy
" is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However,
whilst Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and
reads well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces
the opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex.
It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy"
would be that it is: The administration of the affairs of the country to
produce the specific results that the people request, not what politicians
promise they will give if elected to power.
In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes
indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition;
that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by
party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the
transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming
more painfully obvious each day.
Is there a Practical Democratic Alternative to the Party System?
The only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the
only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy,
and the offices of the Governor General and State Governors is to give the
people what the people ask for, not what others think the people ought to
have.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but
closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for
the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament as
previously defined:
The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen or her Vice Regal
Representatives acting in concert with both Houses of the Parliament.
Including the Senate, but excepting the so called Upper Houses of the
five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power
to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower
Houses.
The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down
rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and,
subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State
Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the
order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed,
the written WILL of the people.
As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the
sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal
power available to them short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so is
to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or
Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her
not to do so.
The removal or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean
the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently
A few thoughts on Extra Constitutional Safeguards for the People.
In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available to
the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the
manipulators or party politics, have been outlined.
The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards are
required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are
advanced. Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give
the people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at
any time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:
a) For the Upper House to be sent back to face the electors when they so
WILL it.
b) For any Senator or Legislative Councillor to be forced to face re-election
at any time the electors so WILL it.
c) For any electorate to have its existing Member, Federal or State, sent
back to re contest his seat if a majority of his electors so WILL it.
The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and State
Constitutions is essential to give the electors even more effective control
over their Parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make
both more sensitive to the requirements of the people.
To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a re
contesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in
each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Governor-General or
State Governor which ever is appropriate that it is MY WILL that "so and
so be sent back to re contest his seat in his House of Parliament."
It many be contended that such a constitutional provision would make the
Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups
would involve members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a
contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested
in recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully
performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal
Appendix 1
(a) Magna Carta 1215
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or
outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send
against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
(b) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters,
November 5, 1297 "...; and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers,
which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters,
pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great
Charter as the common law "
(v) Bill Of Rights 1689
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all
Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
(d) Crimes Act 1914
(24F) nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful
for a person:
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor
General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the
advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of
another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or
their counsels, policies or actions;
(e) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor General and the
State Governors:
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left
corner of envelope to the Governor General or State Governors. All
information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
EXEMPT POSTAGE Post. Serv. Act. 1975, Part 111; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).
Appendix 2
Sample Petition to the Governor General. You may change the details to suit
your purposes although, taking this line is pledging to the british allegence
therefore, this is also a questionable action to take but we have still included
it.
AN HUMBLE PETITION TO HIS EXCELLENCY.
His Excellency, the Honourable William George Hayden, O.A.,
Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia and
Commander in Chief of the Defence Force,
Government House,
CANBERRA, ACT. 2600
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter
that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.
The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the
purpose of persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the
Commonwealth Constitution as propagated by the republicans and their
supporters in the community.
The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect
of our lives, which in turn will destroy the freedoms, which have come
down to us from the ancient Statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of
Rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701, through
the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.
The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the
Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of
the Constitutional Commission in which the Council will be suggesting
amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular according to their
draft submission of February 1987.
It is not a question of being against the State Councils of Agriculture,
Marketing Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People
preventing the ultimate centralisation taking from their hands the right
to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.
It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the
Commonwealth Constitution without the consent and express will
of the Australian People by Referendum.
I do most humbly and respectfully Pray and Beseech Your Excellency
to convey MY WILL to both Houses of the Parliament.
I am one of Her Australian Majesty's respectful servants, (questionable)
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! (questionable)
Signature ...............................................
PRINT NAME ......................................
ADDRESS ..............................................
STATE...................................................
POSTCODE...........................................
DATE.....................................................
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and
replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to
be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying
the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that
the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State
Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.
This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of
Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and
duties of the institution of the Monarchy, the offices of Governor-General
and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State
Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the
electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both
Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians
to a full sudden stop "for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for
a general election . ."
It may be contended that the people have been denied the above mentioned
knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform,
as have the new media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political
party, few, If any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and
political text book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge
that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control
over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political
dictatorship over the machinery of parliament.
Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are
advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of
denial would have no legal validity.
Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss
Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible,
to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed
essential to clarify a legal point.
What is the Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member
of Parliament?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector, has no legal right,
whatever to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of
Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.
Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a
Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting
to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary
to their judicially defined function and duty.
As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for
the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in
a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to
vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your
vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting
is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.
Although such an action is classed as 'casting an informal vote", you have
legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with
your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of
them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a
fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the
electors were casting their votes with care.
Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their
votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only
party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal
vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab
for power.
Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the
next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and
Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence,
is to make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws
will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep
your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon
What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Parliamentarian?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on
what is the true legal function and duty of a Member of Parliament it will
be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations
has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.
The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C. 1910, at p.
110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely.
By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money
payment which is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or
imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the
very constitution of Parliament.
The second is from a High Court case ('Horne v Barber' (1920) 27 C.L.R.
p. 500): 'When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes
high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he
cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties.
One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community
the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to
account in the constitutional by censure from his place in Parliament.
Censure which if sufficiently supported means removal from office.
That Is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone
our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community
possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the
Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not
sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament
where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public
Interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due
watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration."
What is Parliament, and it’s Function?
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift
into a habit of using words and phrases without stopping to think what they
really mean and convey.
Take the word "Parliament"... We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or
sitting", or that "So and so is going to Parliament" ' At first sight it may seem
a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the Parliament
(Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor General or State
Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a
Parliament to meet.
This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically
consists of the Queen or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor General in
the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State and both Houses of the
Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.
Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely
and simply a law making machine, and nothing else, the pivot of that machine
is the institution of the Monarchy or in Australia in the Monarch's absence
the Governor General in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the
States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.
It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the
operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminster
System. Indeed, in the inter party confrontations and power struggles, the
phrase 'the Westminster System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that
the other side is destroying that 'democratic system'.
Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship what ever
to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of
us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last
paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this book).
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminster System',
themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it
means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in
controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British
What is Parliament, and it’s Function?
Parliament in the interest, and for the sole purposes, of party political
Ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, 'the Westminster System' has nothing to do with the legal law
of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is
only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly
used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and
must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.
To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal
responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of
Parliament):
1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation.
2. The so called, and mistakenly called, Lower House, i.e., the House of
Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New
South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia
and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
3. The mistakenly called Upper House, i.e., the Senate and the
Legislative Council, in each State except Queensland.
4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of
Constitutional and legal responsibility?
(a) The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your
State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law
that, within the limits of statute and where applicable common law, YOU,
and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you
believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are
too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect
and retain those freedoms and privileges provided always that you
demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and
privileges then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness
and indifference.
(b) The So Called "Lower House"
If the Members of the, so called, Lower House strictly carry out their
judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the
of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" do so and
so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are
constantly before the "bar of public conviction", not mere opinion.
What is the True Legal Role of the Queen & Her Vice Regal
Representatives?
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has
surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground
campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that
a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy
is an out dated medieval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking,
whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real
power or authority in our Parliamentary system.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has
the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may
protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the
unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may
directly request of Her.
Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for
the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the
institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor General and
State Governors: Is to give the people what the people ask for, Not what
others think the people ought to have.
If the Australian people are too lazy and Indifferent to ask for what they
want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties
impose their own ideologies on them.
It is legally un-challengeable that the party system, with its direct and
indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally
striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all
their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy,
as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the
hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the
final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control
What is a Political Party?
If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a
political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and
, eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final
in the apex of that pyramid.
The mass at the base being subject to manipulation, by those in the apex
or by those who control the apex from outside of party organisation.
It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through to
the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to
become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of
at the top.
A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not,
and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party
politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic,
despite beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.
Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used,
and much abused, word "democracy". Consensus has it that "democracy
" is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However,
whilst Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and
reads well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces
the opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex.
It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy"
would be that it is: The administration of the affairs of the country to
produce the specific results that the people request, not what politicians
promise they will give if elected to power.
In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes
indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition;
that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by
party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the
transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming
more painfully obvious each day.
Is there a Practical Democratic Alternative to the Party System?
The only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the
only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy,
and the offices of the Governor General and State Governors is to give the
people what the people ask for, not what others think the people ought to
have.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but
closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for
the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament as
previously defined:
The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen or her Vice Regal
Representatives acting in concert with both Houses of the Parliament.
Including the Senate, but excepting the so called Upper Houses of the
five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power
to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower
Houses.
The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down
rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and,
subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State
Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the
order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed,
the written WILL of the people.
As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the
sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal
power available to them short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so is
to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or
Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her
not to do so.
The removal or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean
the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently
A few thoughts on Extra Constitutional Safeguards for the People.
In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available to
the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the
manipulators or party politics, have been outlined.
The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards are
required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are
advanced. Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give
the people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at
any time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:
a) For the Upper House to be sent back to face the electors when they so
WILL it.
b) For any Senator or Legislative Councillor to be forced to face re-election
at any time the electors so WILL it.
c) For any electorate to have its existing Member, Federal or State, sent
back to re contest his seat if a majority of his electors so WILL it.
The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and State
Constitutions is essential to give the electors even more effective control
over their Parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make
both more sensitive to the requirements of the people.
To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a re
contesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in
each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Governor-General or
State Governor which ever is appropriate that it is MY WILL that "so and
so be sent back to re contest his seat in his House of Parliament."
It many be contended that such a constitutional provision would make the
Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups
would involve members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a
contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested
in recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully
performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal
Appendix 1
(a) Magna Carta 1215
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or
outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send
against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
(b) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters,
November 5, 1297 "...; and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers,
which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters,
pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great
Charter as the common law "
(v) Bill Of Rights 1689
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all
Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
(d) Crimes Act 1914
(24F) nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful
for a person:
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor
General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the
advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of
another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or
their counsels, policies or actions;
(e) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor General and the
State Governors:
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left
corner of envelope to the Governor General or State Governors. All
information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
EXEMPT POSTAGE Post. Serv. Act. 1975, Part 111; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).
Appendix 2
Sample Petition to the Governor General. You may change the details to suit
your purposes although, taking this line is pledging to the british allegence
therefore, this is also a questionable action to take but we have still included
it.
AN HUMBLE PETITION TO HIS EXCELLENCY.
His Excellency, the Honourable William George Hayden, O.A.,
Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia and
Commander in Chief of the Defence Force,
Government House,
CANBERRA, ACT. 2600
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter
that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.
The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the
purpose of persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the
Commonwealth Constitution as propagated by the republicans and their
supporters in the community.
The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect
of our lives, which in turn will destroy the freedoms, which have come
down to us from the ancient Statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of
Rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701, through
the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.
The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the
Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of
the Constitutional Commission in which the Council will be suggesting
amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular according to their
draft submission of February 1987.
It is not a question of being against the State Councils of Agriculture,
Marketing Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People
preventing the ultimate centralisation taking from their hands the right
to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.
It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the
Commonwealth Constitution without the consent and express will
of the Australian People by Referendum.
I do most humbly and respectfully Pray and Beseech Your Excellency
to convey MY WILL to both Houses of the Parliament.
I am one of Her Australian Majesty's respectful servants, (questionable)
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! (questionable)
Signature ...............................................
PRINT NAME ......................................
ADDRESS ..............................................
STATE...................................................
POSTCODE...........................................
DATE.....................................................
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
AUSTRALIANS AGAINST CORRUPTION. JEFF KENNETT - PREMIER OF VICTORIA - CRIME, CORRUPTION, OTHER ILLEGAL DEALINGS
Kennett's Infractions and Crimes come under Fire.
There is substantially more coverage of Jeff Kennett's questionable activities
in chapters 36-41 of the book Victoria Police Corruption that was released
in July 1999.
While the Kennett (Victoria) Government has made it known
through the mainstream media (which he appeared to control) that it has an
allegedly hard-line on law enforcement and integrity issues including so-called
'zero-tolerance' for many kinds of crimes, to some observers, Jeff Kennett
appears to be exempt from all this.
In 1993, Kennett and his wife were exposed as having used a government
car to conduct private business for the advertising agency, KNF owned by
Kennett and wife Felicity. Under normal circumstances such isn't allowed,
but it goes without saying that Kennett wasn't punished or fined in any way
for doing so.
A further conflict of interest was that highly lucrative government contracts
were being awarded to KNF, possibly in violation of correct procedures.
On 29 May 1996, Kennett assaulted a number of journalists by shoveling dirt
on them and their cameras at a City-Link ground breaking ceremony.
After attacking the journalists he said 'which will be the first one to charge
me with assault'. It is perhaps notable that the usual responsibility for such
charges rests with the state Police. The Police did not charge Kennett,
even though the assault was televised may have had something to do with his
backing them in refusing to hold a Royal Commission into the force, in spite
of repeated cases of Victoria Police Corruption at the highest levels.
On January 3, 1996, Kennett was able to avoid being charged for driving
143 km in a 100 km zone on the Hamilton Highway, near Lismore, Western
Victoria. Normally, the minimum penalty for such an offence in Victoria is
automatic licence suspension and a hefty fine. Jail is also an alternative.
Kennett got no licence suspension - the Police refused to charge him.
It has since been revealed that another man, a publican at Colac, was pulled
over for allegedly doing 133 km in the same area. The Police officer refused to
use his discretion to drop the alleged speed by a mere 3 km to allow him to
keep his licence.
In yet another case, Mr. Clive Goodenough was taken to court for doing
more than 30 km over the limit. He was jailed for two months following
an ex-parte hearing. There he was bashed and raped. Kennett refused his
application to have the case reopened.
Protection of unethical and/or illegal/criminal activity by Police and others
of Kennett, appears to go beyond himself and seems to extend to his family.
In December 1995, Kennett confirmed that his children had been involved
in the illegal drug trade by smoking marijuana and yet they too, have escaped
charges. Currently Victorian prisons are full of others who have similarly used
drugs.
Kennett also made comments on the Ray Martin Show (Channel 9) about
a rape trial still in progress that were evidently in contempt of court. Again
he was not charged. After making these statements, Kennett used taxpayer's
funds for lawyers in a bid to avoid being charged.
Kennett's use of taxpayer's funds for his own purposes and to gag
investigation seems to be a common trait of government in Victoria.
He successfully sued Packer for an estimated $400,000 in an out of court
settlement for a broadcast few can remember. As a rule, defamation actions
by Politicians are funded by the taxpayer, and in the event that they win,
the payout goes in the pocket of the politician. In the event that the politician
loses the case, the taxpayer picks up the tab. In other words, defamation is
a no-lose lottery for Victorian State Politicians.
More recently Kennett was accused on 4 Corners (ABC-TV) of using
undue influence to gain shares in his wife's name in a company (Arthur
Yates and Co.) after it was announced that the share offer had formally
closed. He subsequently made a substantial paper profit.
In a separate incident, Kennett entertained representatives of the
Guangdong Corporation - one of the directors of which is the biggest
poker machine operator in Victoria. He accepted an invitation to buy
highly sought after shares in the company (again in his wife's name) at
about the same time his Government released another 5000 Poker
machines onto the market.
Again in relation to Kennett's share dealings, it was revealed he was
on the Mayne Nickless share register when a State Government contract
was awarded to a consortium involving the company. In spite of the fact
that Kennett bought the shares in February 1992, he failed to disclose
his interests in the September 1992, Parliamentary register. Under
normal circumstances, "willful contravention" of the Members of Parliament
(Register of Interests) Act, is punishable by fines of up to $2,000.
Kennett's actions in relation to other matters have also come under fire,
including alleged breaches of confidentiality in the tendering process for the
2 Billion Dollar Crown Casino (possibly in violation of state laws), and the
subsequent allowing of the successful tenderer, to have extra gaming tables
at reduced rates. Notable is how the winning tenderer's, including senior
executives Lloyd Williams and Ron Walker, appear to be close personal
friends and/or associates of Kennett. The Senate (Federal Government)
looked into this, but the inquiry was apparently sabotaged because
potential witnesses were fearful of reprisals should they give evidence
unfavourable to Kennett and/or others with close links to the State
Government. On related matters, the Casino appears to be allowed to
have more than the usual four signs on roads directing motorists to it
(a legal restriction on all other businesses) and appears to have sought
and received tax breaks/concessions far over and above those obtained
by most, if not all other businesses in Victoria.
It has been alleged that Kennett has resorted to allowing the State
Government to be used to prop up businesses of friends and political allies
(line their pockets) at the expense of other Victorian businesses to create an
un-level commercial playing field in the state. Another apparent infraction by
the Crown Casino was their running a lottery without a permit.
In spite of this illegal activity, there is absolutely no doubt that the Casino
operators or their casino will have their business in any way interrupted.
If an ordinary citizen of Victoria attempted the same thing (running a lottery
without a permit) a likely result would be jail. Crown Casino also came
under fire for giving a highly lucrative "sponsorship" for activities involving
one of Kennett's sons.
Kennett's role in the tendering process for another lucrative government
deal, the "transurban" tollway system, called City Link has also come
under serious speculation. Again questions about the tendering process
have not been adequately answered by Kennett. His excuse has been
"commercial confidentiality". However because these are Government
contracts involving taxpayer's funds, the "commercial confidentiality"
clause doesn't hold water. That this could be due to corruption in the
tendering processes cannot be discounted. For example it was recently
revealed that the alleged tendering process of some lucrative Vicroads
road construction contracts were being perverted to allow favoured
parties to get the contracts, which some say are a licence to print money.
The State government privatisation and sell offs of other assets has come
under strong fire on the basis of political opposition. This is not of concern
to AAC unless it involves issues of probity. However these issues have been
raised in terms of a certain USA-based private prison operator, namely
Wakenhut Corp. and other buyers of State assets. Kennett has refused to
allow any proper independent investigation of these matters, again on the
alleged basis of "commercial confidentiality". However corruption matters
and those involved in legal infractions by companies and/or their directors
(in Australia and/or elsewhere) have nothing to do with "commercial
confidentiality" but rather whether the given group is fit and proper to
be issued a government contract and/or funds in the first instance -
issues that are unresolved and therefore a matter of serious question.
So-called government "watchdogs" such as the State Ombudsman's
Department, Auditor general and FOI Laws have all been perverted
to prevent the public from finding out details about alleged and/or possible
corruption in the Kennett government. A concerted effort to find out
about one of the State Government "licences to print money" failed on
November 6, 1997. An FOI claim was rejected by the government and
it's rubber stamp the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT),
(refer to The Hoser Files for a chapter that details the charade of the AAT).
The FOI claim sought details about a $24 million dollar payment to
Troughton Swier and Associates. The payment (described by some
as a "gift"), was made in relation to what the Government labelled a
so-called "energy consultancy" by Kennett and his treasurer, Alan
Stockdale. In violation of government protocol, no public tender had
been called before the so-called "energy consultancy" or payment
was made. Attempts by public interest groups to find out details
about the matter have been wilfully sabotaged by Kennett's government.
It has been said, that the private enterprise system in Victoria has now
been superseded by a system based on patronage and corruption akin
to that of the Bjelkie Peterson years in Queensland or the Wran/Unsworth
years in NSW or even that of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, whereby
only the politically well connected can make large amounts of money and
effectively control all key sectors of the economy. No doubt more facts
will become clear over time although this may be some years and after
Kennett leaves the political scene. Finally it should be noted that
Government corruption in the state of Victoria did not start the day Jeff
Kennett became State leader. However what is clear is that there has
been no effort to reduce this corruption and all obvious indicators show
that it appears to have increased markedly since his coming to
Government in late 1992.
Kennett's wife also went on a taxpayer funding spending binge with
her State Government issued Visa credit card. Among her many purchases
was a pair of $315 sunglasses from Optika Tarasoudis in Greece in
September 1995. When asked by the media why Felicity Kennett had
used taxpayer's funds for her own indulgence, Mr. Kennett stated on
20/11/97 that his wife had used the Visa card as the shop had not
accepted American Express, which was another card his wife had.
The (routine?) falsity of Kennett's statement was shown by the
rebuttal by shop manager Andreas Tarassoudis the next day when
he said that his shop had been accepting American Express for about
ten years. Perhaps of greater significance is the simple act of issuing
Mrs Kennett with a taxpayer funded credit card in the first instance.
In at least five other states, no spouses of leaders are issued taxpayer
funded credit cards. NSW Premier Bob Carr told the media that there
was no reason why the taxpayer should pay the expenses of his wife.
Kennett's wife accepted as a "gift', free use of a BMW allegedly as part
of a so-called "promotion' for the company.
In February 1998, when Kennett officially announced his separation
from wife Felicity, he deceitfully blamed the media for the separation.
This is ironic as Kennett, perhaps more than any other previous Victorian
State leader has manipulated the media to suit his own interests more
than anyone else. He has even gone so far as to ring newspaper editors
themselves and tell them what he thinks should and should not be reported,
in what is clearly a breach of accepted protocol. The ever present threat of
defamation actions against journalists who dare question some of his activities,
as well as the ever-present threat on newspapers and TV broadcasters to
withdraw State Government advertising has further ensured a consistent
pro-Kennett line has been run by the mainstream media - a line which
deliberately and forcibly suppresses public knowledge of corruption
involving the Kennett government as well as other irregularities.
For several years there have been repeated rumors of Kennett
assaulting his wife. These rumors have been denied by both Jeff
and Felicity. Once a Labor MP spoke to Felicity Kennett in the State
Parliament House foyer and she performed a little dance and said
"See. No bruises!".
It was also reported to that Felicity arrived on the door step
of a prominent charity/safe house stating she has been assaulted
by her husband, Jeff Kennett.
WCV's: has also informed the DPP about Kennett's falsification of the
figures used to have the ACA act changed which excluded hundreds
maybe even thousands of injured workers.
The DPP has referred WCV's to the federal police for further examination.
Jeff Kennett illegally obtained these changes and committed fraud
whilst doing so, and we want him held accountable for his crimes,
just as we would be!
WCV's will follow this up and keep you informed of any outcomes.
There is substantially more coverage of Jeff Kennett's questionable activities
in chapters 36-41 of the book Victoria Police Corruption that was released
in July 1999.
While the Kennett (Victoria) Government has made it known
through the mainstream media (which he appeared to control) that it has an
allegedly hard-line on law enforcement and integrity issues including so-called
'zero-tolerance' for many kinds of crimes, to some observers, Jeff Kennett
appears to be exempt from all this.
In 1993, Kennett and his wife were exposed as having used a government
car to conduct private business for the advertising agency, KNF owned by
Kennett and wife Felicity. Under normal circumstances such isn't allowed,
but it goes without saying that Kennett wasn't punished or fined in any way
for doing so.
A further conflict of interest was that highly lucrative government contracts
were being awarded to KNF, possibly in violation of correct procedures.
On 29 May 1996, Kennett assaulted a number of journalists by shoveling dirt
on them and their cameras at a City-Link ground breaking ceremony.
After attacking the journalists he said 'which will be the first one to charge
me with assault'. It is perhaps notable that the usual responsibility for such
charges rests with the state Police. The Police did not charge Kennett,
even though the assault was televised may have had something to do with his
backing them in refusing to hold a Royal Commission into the force, in spite
of repeated cases of Victoria Police Corruption at the highest levels.
On January 3, 1996, Kennett was able to avoid being charged for driving
143 km in a 100 km zone on the Hamilton Highway, near Lismore, Western
Victoria. Normally, the minimum penalty for such an offence in Victoria is
automatic licence suspension and a hefty fine. Jail is also an alternative.
Kennett got no licence suspension - the Police refused to charge him.
It has since been revealed that another man, a publican at Colac, was pulled
over for allegedly doing 133 km in the same area. The Police officer refused to
use his discretion to drop the alleged speed by a mere 3 km to allow him to
keep his licence.
In yet another case, Mr. Clive Goodenough was taken to court for doing
more than 30 km over the limit. He was jailed for two months following
an ex-parte hearing. There he was bashed and raped. Kennett refused his
application to have the case reopened.
Protection of unethical and/or illegal/criminal activity by Police and others
of Kennett, appears to go beyond himself and seems to extend to his family.
In December 1995, Kennett confirmed that his children had been involved
in the illegal drug trade by smoking marijuana and yet they too, have escaped
charges. Currently Victorian prisons are full of others who have similarly used
drugs.
Kennett also made comments on the Ray Martin Show (Channel 9) about
a rape trial still in progress that were evidently in contempt of court. Again
he was not charged. After making these statements, Kennett used taxpayer's
funds for lawyers in a bid to avoid being charged.
Kennett's use of taxpayer's funds for his own purposes and to gag
investigation seems to be a common trait of government in Victoria.
He successfully sued Packer for an estimated $400,000 in an out of court
settlement for a broadcast few can remember. As a rule, defamation actions
by Politicians are funded by the taxpayer, and in the event that they win,
the payout goes in the pocket of the politician. In the event that the politician
loses the case, the taxpayer picks up the tab. In other words, defamation is
a no-lose lottery for Victorian State Politicians.
More recently Kennett was accused on 4 Corners (ABC-TV) of using
undue influence to gain shares in his wife's name in a company (Arthur
Yates and Co.) after it was announced that the share offer had formally
closed. He subsequently made a substantial paper profit.
In a separate incident, Kennett entertained representatives of the
Guangdong Corporation - one of the directors of which is the biggest
poker machine operator in Victoria. He accepted an invitation to buy
highly sought after shares in the company (again in his wife's name) at
about the same time his Government released another 5000 Poker
machines onto the market.
Again in relation to Kennett's share dealings, it was revealed he was
on the Mayne Nickless share register when a State Government contract
was awarded to a consortium involving the company. In spite of the fact
that Kennett bought the shares in February 1992, he failed to disclose
his interests in the September 1992, Parliamentary register. Under
normal circumstances, "willful contravention" of the Members of Parliament
(Register of Interests) Act, is punishable by fines of up to $2,000.
Kennett's actions in relation to other matters have also come under fire,
including alleged breaches of confidentiality in the tendering process for the
2 Billion Dollar Crown Casino (possibly in violation of state laws), and the
subsequent allowing of the successful tenderer, to have extra gaming tables
at reduced rates. Notable is how the winning tenderer's, including senior
executives Lloyd Williams and Ron Walker, appear to be close personal
friends and/or associates of Kennett. The Senate (Federal Government)
looked into this, but the inquiry was apparently sabotaged because
potential witnesses were fearful of reprisals should they give evidence
unfavourable to Kennett and/or others with close links to the State
Government. On related matters, the Casino appears to be allowed to
have more than the usual four signs on roads directing motorists to it
(a legal restriction on all other businesses) and appears to have sought
and received tax breaks/concessions far over and above those obtained
by most, if not all other businesses in Victoria.
It has been alleged that Kennett has resorted to allowing the State
Government to be used to prop up businesses of friends and political allies
(line their pockets) at the expense of other Victorian businesses to create an
un-level commercial playing field in the state. Another apparent infraction by
the Crown Casino was their running a lottery without a permit.
In spite of this illegal activity, there is absolutely no doubt that the Casino
operators or their casino will have their business in any way interrupted.
If an ordinary citizen of Victoria attempted the same thing (running a lottery
without a permit) a likely result would be jail. Crown Casino also came
under fire for giving a highly lucrative "sponsorship" for activities involving
one of Kennett's sons.
Kennett's role in the tendering process for another lucrative government
deal, the "transurban" tollway system, called City Link has also come
under serious speculation. Again questions about the tendering process
have not been adequately answered by Kennett. His excuse has been
"commercial confidentiality". However because these are Government
contracts involving taxpayer's funds, the "commercial confidentiality"
clause doesn't hold water. That this could be due to corruption in the
tendering processes cannot be discounted. For example it was recently
revealed that the alleged tendering process of some lucrative Vicroads
road construction contracts were being perverted to allow favoured
parties to get the contracts, which some say are a licence to print money.
The State government privatisation and sell offs of other assets has come
under strong fire on the basis of political opposition. This is not of concern
to AAC unless it involves issues of probity. However these issues have been
raised in terms of a certain USA-based private prison operator, namely
Wakenhut Corp. and other buyers of State assets. Kennett has refused to
allow any proper independent investigation of these matters, again on the
alleged basis of "commercial confidentiality". However corruption matters
and those involved in legal infractions by companies and/or their directors
(in Australia and/or elsewhere) have nothing to do with "commercial
confidentiality" but rather whether the given group is fit and proper to
be issued a government contract and/or funds in the first instance -
issues that are unresolved and therefore a matter of serious question.
So-called government "watchdogs" such as the State Ombudsman's
Department, Auditor general and FOI Laws have all been perverted
to prevent the public from finding out details about alleged and/or possible
corruption in the Kennett government. A concerted effort to find out
about one of the State Government "licences to print money" failed on
November 6, 1997. An FOI claim was rejected by the government and
it's rubber stamp the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT),
(refer to The Hoser Files for a chapter that details the charade of the AAT).
The FOI claim sought details about a $24 million dollar payment to
Troughton Swier and Associates. The payment (described by some
as a "gift"), was made in relation to what the Government labelled a
so-called "energy consultancy" by Kennett and his treasurer, Alan
Stockdale. In violation of government protocol, no public tender had
been called before the so-called "energy consultancy" or payment
was made. Attempts by public interest groups to find out details
about the matter have been wilfully sabotaged by Kennett's government.
It has been said, that the private enterprise system in Victoria has now
been superseded by a system based on patronage and corruption akin
to that of the Bjelkie Peterson years in Queensland or the Wran/Unsworth
years in NSW or even that of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, whereby
only the politically well connected can make large amounts of money and
effectively control all key sectors of the economy. No doubt more facts
will become clear over time although this may be some years and after
Kennett leaves the political scene. Finally it should be noted that
Government corruption in the state of Victoria did not start the day Jeff
Kennett became State leader. However what is clear is that there has
been no effort to reduce this corruption and all obvious indicators show
that it appears to have increased markedly since his coming to
Government in late 1992.
Kennett's wife also went on a taxpayer funding spending binge with
her State Government issued Visa credit card. Among her many purchases
was a pair of $315 sunglasses from Optika Tarasoudis in Greece in
September 1995. When asked by the media why Felicity Kennett had
used taxpayer's funds for her own indulgence, Mr. Kennett stated on
20/11/97 that his wife had used the Visa card as the shop had not
accepted American Express, which was another card his wife had.
The (routine?) falsity of Kennett's statement was shown by the
rebuttal by shop manager Andreas Tarassoudis the next day when
he said that his shop had been accepting American Express for about
ten years. Perhaps of greater significance is the simple act of issuing
Mrs Kennett with a taxpayer funded credit card in the first instance.
In at least five other states, no spouses of leaders are issued taxpayer
funded credit cards. NSW Premier Bob Carr told the media that there
was no reason why the taxpayer should pay the expenses of his wife.
Kennett's wife accepted as a "gift', free use of a BMW allegedly as part
of a so-called "promotion' for the company.
In February 1998, when Kennett officially announced his separation
from wife Felicity, he deceitfully blamed the media for the separation.
This is ironic as Kennett, perhaps more than any other previous Victorian
State leader has manipulated the media to suit his own interests more
than anyone else. He has even gone so far as to ring newspaper editors
themselves and tell them what he thinks should and should not be reported,
in what is clearly a breach of accepted protocol. The ever present threat of
defamation actions against journalists who dare question some of his activities,
as well as the ever-present threat on newspapers and TV broadcasters to
withdraw State Government advertising has further ensured a consistent
pro-Kennett line has been run by the mainstream media - a line which
deliberately and forcibly suppresses public knowledge of corruption
involving the Kennett government as well as other irregularities.
For several years there have been repeated rumors of Kennett
assaulting his wife. These rumors have been denied by both Jeff
and Felicity. Once a Labor MP spoke to Felicity Kennett in the State
Parliament House foyer and she performed a little dance and said
"See. No bruises!".
It was also reported to that Felicity arrived on the door step
of a prominent charity/safe house stating she has been assaulted
by her husband, Jeff Kennett.
WCV's: has also informed the DPP about Kennett's falsification of the
figures used to have the ACA act changed which excluded hundreds
maybe even thousands of injured workers.
The DPP has referred WCV's to the federal police for further examination.
Jeff Kennett illegally obtained these changes and committed fraud
whilst doing so, and we want him held accountable for his crimes,
just as we would be!
WCV's will follow this up and keep you informed of any outcomes.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Premier dumps depressed Minister !
The Australian -Matthew Denholm - September 13, 2008
TASMANIAN MP Paula Wriedt has attacked Premier David Bartlett's decision
to sack her from cabinet while she is on leave battling depression as "deeply
distressing" and lacking understanding.
Ms Wriedt, on sick leave since trying to commit suicide on August 4,
responded angrily to her dumping. She had asked Mr Bartlett to give
her two more weeks to decide her future.
"I am deeply distressed by his refusal to do so, and am concerned by the
Premier's apparent lack of support and understanding," Ms Wriedt said.
"I have been a hard-working member of the Government for the last 10
years as a minister, holding several senior portfolios during this time, as
well as juggling the demands of family life." Depression was a "very real and
complex illness" and recovery was "not as simple as recovering from a
broken limb". "However, with the right medical treatment and management,
I have been told there is no reason why I couldn't make a complete recovery
and return to work," Ms Wriedt said. "I conveyed this to the Premier in my
meeting with him yesterday (Thursday)."
Mr Bartlett argued he had no choice but to sack Ms Wriedt after concluding
on the advice of her family, friends and doctor that she would not be fit to
return to work in the short term.
"I have not taken this decision lightly; in fact, decisions don't come any tougher
than this," Mr Bartlett said. He received support from former Victorian Liberal
premier Jeff Kennett, the chairman of depression support group Beyondblue.
After speaking to Mr Bartlett, Mr Kennett told The Weekend Australian, he
believed the decision was a very tough call for the Premier, but added: "When
you balance up all his responsibilities, the correct one. It might just be what
Paula needs to start rebuilding her health. "That is, she doesn't have other
ministerial responsibilities now and she can now focus more directly on her
recovery."
WCV's:What would Kennett know, he helped create this narrowminded mess
called worksafe. The blood of suicided Workcover Victims and their families is
on his hands alone!
What would Kennett know about Paula Wriedt? Does he know her personally or
enough to be able to make such a comment? Mr. Kennett is not a trained
psycholocogist and should not be aksed to comment or to provide any
experianced advice by any member of the Government.
The Weekend Australian understands Mr Bartlett will increase the size of
cabinet from eight to nine. He would not rule out a return by disgraced
ex-ministers Bryan Green and Steve Kons, but will probably turn to youth,
with parliamentary secretary Lisa Singh a favourite.
Upper house MPs Allison Ritchie and Lin Thorp are also in contention.
Mr Bartlett said Ms Wriedt was a good minister and that there was "a way
back to a ministerial position for Paula in the future". However, it was not
good governance to have already heavily burdened ministers acting in her
key portfolios, economic development and tourism, any longer.
Ms Wriedt, who remains an MP, tried to kill herself days after being informed
by Mr Bartlett that he could not keep secret her affair with ministerial driver
Ben Chaffey. This was because Mr Chaffey, like Ms Wriedt married with children,
had demanded a payout of about $140,000, arguing that fallout from the tryst
made his job untenable.
Mr Bartlett advised Ms Wriedt during a meeting at her office on Thursday
that quitting cabinet was in the best interests of her long-term health and of
good governance. Ms Wriedt, 39, was still a hospital patient and had been
unable to make a decision on her future, he said. "Therefore, I had no other
choice than to make that decision myself," the Premier said.
WCV's: Will this story bring the issues of unfairness to the attention of
Parliament? It may be different if it happens to one of their own?
This story clearly shows just how this government handles stress
claims within their own ranks (unfairly & unreasonably).
It shows just how, stressed workers are not supported
within the Government hierarchies and worksafe.
When is mental illness going to be looked upon as an illness?
If the Government don't acknowledge it then who will?
TASMANIAN MP Paula Wriedt has attacked Premier David Bartlett's decision
to sack her from cabinet while she is on leave battling depression as "deeply
distressing" and lacking understanding.
Ms Wriedt, on sick leave since trying to commit suicide on August 4,
responded angrily to her dumping. She had asked Mr Bartlett to give
her two more weeks to decide her future.
"I am deeply distressed by his refusal to do so, and am concerned by the
Premier's apparent lack of support and understanding," Ms Wriedt said.
"I have been a hard-working member of the Government for the last 10
years as a minister, holding several senior portfolios during this time, as
well as juggling the demands of family life." Depression was a "very real and
complex illness" and recovery was "not as simple as recovering from a
broken limb". "However, with the right medical treatment and management,
I have been told there is no reason why I couldn't make a complete recovery
and return to work," Ms Wriedt said. "I conveyed this to the Premier in my
meeting with him yesterday (Thursday)."
Mr Bartlett argued he had no choice but to sack Ms Wriedt after concluding
on the advice of her family, friends and doctor that she would not be fit to
return to work in the short term.
"I have not taken this decision lightly; in fact, decisions don't come any tougher
than this," Mr Bartlett said. He received support from former Victorian Liberal
premier Jeff Kennett, the chairman of depression support group Beyondblue.
After speaking to Mr Bartlett, Mr Kennett told The Weekend Australian, he
believed the decision was a very tough call for the Premier, but added: "When
you balance up all his responsibilities, the correct one. It might just be what
Paula needs to start rebuilding her health. "That is, she doesn't have other
ministerial responsibilities now and she can now focus more directly on her
recovery."
WCV's:What would Kennett know, he helped create this narrowminded mess
called worksafe. The blood of suicided Workcover Victims and their families is
on his hands alone!
What would Kennett know about Paula Wriedt? Does he know her personally or
enough to be able to make such a comment? Mr. Kennett is not a trained
psycholocogist and should not be aksed to comment or to provide any
experianced advice by any member of the Government.
Being the face of beyondblue does not qualify him to pass judgement.
Just because you had to quit Mr. Kennett doesnt mean that everyone else should; some of us have the nads to keep going!
A cabinet reshuffle will be announced early next week, the fourth this year.The Weekend Australian understands Mr Bartlett will increase the size of
cabinet from eight to nine. He would not rule out a return by disgraced
ex-ministers Bryan Green and Steve Kons, but will probably turn to youth,
with parliamentary secretary Lisa Singh a favourite.
Upper house MPs Allison Ritchie and Lin Thorp are also in contention.
Mr Bartlett said Ms Wriedt was a good minister and that there was "a way
back to a ministerial position for Paula in the future". However, it was not
good governance to have already heavily burdened ministers acting in her
key portfolios, economic development and tourism, any longer.
Ms Wriedt, who remains an MP, tried to kill herself days after being informed
by Mr Bartlett that he could not keep secret her affair with ministerial driver
Ben Chaffey. This was because Mr Chaffey, like Ms Wriedt married with children,
had demanded a payout of about $140,000, arguing that fallout from the tryst
made his job untenable.
Mr Bartlett advised Ms Wriedt during a meeting at her office on Thursday
that quitting cabinet was in the best interests of her long-term health and of
good governance. Ms Wriedt, 39, was still a hospital patient and had been
unable to make a decision on her future, he said. "Therefore, I had no other
choice than to make that decision myself," the Premier said.
WCV's: Will this story bring the issues of unfairness to the attention of
Parliament? It may be different if it happens to one of their own?
This story clearly shows just how this government handles stress
claims within their own ranks (unfairly & unreasonably).
It shows just how, stressed workers are not supported
within the Government hierarchies and worksafe.
When is mental illness going to be looked upon as an illness?
If the Government don't acknowledge it then who will?
Lets watch how they handle it, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)