Hating the Abbott government II | Catallaxy Files

Hating the Abbott government II | Catallaxy Files

As I’ve argued before many bureaucrats and government agencies seem to have taken the view that it is their job to take on the government.

No doubt, next week some other government agency will step up and belt the Abbott government for good measure.

To be fair, it has taken more than a week – but, I suppose, we can’t
expect too much over the summer break. Nonetheless it has happened as
Nick Cater explained in the Australian:

In December, at a forum of health ministers from
Australia and New Zealand, assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash made it
clear that she was sceptical about a plan to place a health star rating
on the front of food packets.

She was concerned that the Regulatory Impact Statement, requested by
the Office of Best Practice and Regulation in the middle of last year,
had not been produced. Nash ordered the department to calculate both
costs and benefits and to report back to the forum in June.

The Blob was having none of it. Kathy Dennis, the assistant secretary
in charge of the Healthy Living and Food Policy branch, decided to
press ahead anyway.

Two weeks ago, the department launched a website,
www.healthstarrating.com.au, explaining the forthcoming health star
rating system that the minister had yet to approve.


A ministerial adviser contacted Dennis expressing the minister’s
concern, but the website remained in place. Nash’s chief of staff,
Alastair Furnival, called Dennis to reinforce the message. Dennis stuck
to her guns.

The minister was obliged to take the matter to the acting head of the
department, Mark Booth. On Booth’s instructions, the website was taken
down and Dennis was moved to other duties.

That is bad enough – but get the next part of the story:

The excuse for the outbreak of insubordination, if you
believe The Guardian, was that bureaucrats believed they answered to a
ministerial forum (which includes, incidentally, New Zealand’s Health
Minister Tony Ryall) not Nash, the minister accountable to the
Commonwealth Parliament.

The fact that Australian public servants could even imagine that they
are not accountable to the Australian government, or the minister, is
astonishing. That is a huge governance failure. Now maybe the previous
government led them to that view – although I seriously doubt that.




Now Kathy Dennis should be sacked – and several of her mates too for
good measure. At present the Abbott government does not have control
over the bureaucracy. As Nick tells us:

The mutiny at Sirius House is not an isolated case. The progressive establishment clearly has it in for the Abbott government.

Across the board, from the Climate Change Commission to the ABC, the
Human Rights Commission and even Infrastructure Australia, all are
openly hostile to the popularly elected government.

Unfortunately the Liberals have a history of weakness in this area.
Failing to sack Ken Henry in 2007 was a huge mistake – that we all came
to regret, and pay for, through his advice during the GFC, his mining
tax proposal etc.

Should a military officer REALLY be spending his days in Canberra surfing the internet, fiddling on facebook, stalking people (including a woman- a circumstance of aggravation) as his self-admitted "hobby"?

Quite the statement of facts shaping up over a particular cyberstalker.

And for someone who, through what epic incompetence or corruption we don't know, has had his behaviour ignored by his mates in military intelligence (are they a law unto themselves?), it's going to be pretty weird when he gets served with the AVO etc. if that's the way it goes...

When will we name and shame?

When indeed...

ALP scourge, Union scum : Lid lifted on the ugly '80s - National - smh.com.au

Lid lifted on the ugly '80s - National - smh.com.au

Lid lifted on the ugly '80s

By Kate McClymont
November 25, 2005

The victim Peter Baldwin and, inset from top, Tom Domican, Graham Richardson and Joe Meissner.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

While the graphic photo of the bruised and bloodied face of left-wing Labor MP Peter Baldwin has remained etched in the public conscience since his bashing 25 years ago, those responsible have never been brought to account.

Now, Joe Meissner, one of the central figures in the controversy, has broken his silence. Meissner, an importer as well as one of Australia's top-ranked poker players, claims it was "suggested to Tom [Domican] that Baldwin be fixed up and it developed from there". Meissner claims that Domican organised two associates to do the bashing.

When asked who had suggested this to Domican, Meissner replied: "Who else, our good friend Graham [Richardson]. Ask him."

Richardson, who later became a federal minister and a powerbroker within the ALP, was state secretary of the party at the time. He categorically denies knowing anything about the bashing of Baldwin. "I've got no knowledge of who did it or who organised it but they were obviously acting on a frolic of their own because it was madness."

Jabberjaw the effeminate spits dummy over fixedy fix fix fix fixed fiddle fix fix fix: WONG WAY, GO BACK Labor fury: Wong beaten in Senate vote | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Labor fury: Wong beaten in Senate vote | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Unions’ corrupting power

Unions’ corrupting power

In most countries, it is unions versus the big end of town. Have you noticed though, how in Australia, unions are the big end of town? How do you explain their dominance despite their tiny membership?
It helps an awful lot that the (ex- union lawyer) prime minister is accustomed to taking instruction from union secretaries. It helps again that two-thirds of the federal ministry are ex-union officials or lawyers. But then that is no surprise, it is after all, the over-arching imperative of unions to represent working people and there is no better way of doing this than getting their own elected to parliament so that they can pass laws favourable to themselves.

Unions control the big industry superannuation funds. The savings of almost five million people comprise more than 17 per cent of all superannuation assets in Australia.

At the coal face, the same union official that makes agreements with employers to push employees into the union super fund knows that one day, they have a good chance of sitting on the board of that fund.

In the construction industry, a large builder seeking capital is just as likely to seek it from the industry fund as from a bank. Think about what that might mean for the company and the other resulting deals they will have to then make with the union that controls that fund and you start to find new meaning to the words “cosy club”.

Unions have their chosen law firms too, known as “union firms”; those like Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon. These firms are large and closely identify with their union clientele. Links between big law firms and policy makers are also strong.

Industrial relations lawyers and consultants will tell you it is now more lucrative to work for unions and employees than for business. Not only is there more money to be had in pursuing unfair dismissal and adverse action claims than in defending them, it is far easier.

To defend a claim, you have to have facts and get your act together.

Years ago, unions abhorred lawyers and preferred to sort things out in the workplace using industrial muscle. Now that dwindling membership has meant the industrial muscle has atrophied, legal muscle is an essential part of the standard union armoury for exerting pressure on employers.

Unions have deep pockets; small and medium business cannot match their spending power and so law firms are emerging as enforcers for union dominance and might.

In the past few years, unions have shed many previous activities; their role as the “industrial police” has been replaced by the Workplace Ombudsman, who does a far better job. Unionists now have more time to focus on organising in the workplace through collective bargaining; the core activity enshrined in the Fair Work Act. Collective bargaining lets unions raise funds in many ways.

When collective agreements made with employers provide income protection insurance for staff and allow only union-preferred contractors to be used, you can be sure significant income flows back to the union. Often, unions will force employers to have staff “trained” in safety and other matters through union-owned companies. Gone are the days when membership income provided the sole income stream to unions.

Unions appear to be wealthier now because they are; many have alternative income streams, investments, businesses and property. More recently, unions have benefited from government grants for training and education. They are more cashed up now.

There is nothing wrong with unions having assets, wealth and power as they are an important feature of a free and democratic society. The problem is the regulations are sadly lacking; the local girl guides chapter is run by a person who has more financial accountability than a union official. There is no transparency in the kickback deals gained by collective agreements.

Do unions have more money and power than business? Maybe not, but they are better organised and have the advantage of an environment with almost no regulation.

The community wonders whether Craig Thomson’s alleged behaviour is an isolated incident. Sadly, in the current regulatory framework, it is naïve to expect it to be anything but run of the mill but it is hardly the big issue. People who aren’t in unions should not worry about what union money is spent on. Rather they should turn their attention to where the union money comes from and why.

Grace Collier is the principal consultant with Adelhelm and Associates.

grace.collier@adelhelm.com.au

The Australian Financial Review