Australian Politics General...

[wayneL]

Getting a bit ahead of yourself their bud, being a newcomer.
The medical system before the last Government, was the same medical system that had been in place for the last 50 years.
Queues stuck in corridors on beds, in Royal Perth Hospital, while many sat for 12 hours in emergency, to get into the ques in the corridors, a mate who looked after his 92 year old mum and her 94 year old sister told some horror stories.
Barnett spent hugely on hospital infrastructure, despite a disparaging media and opposition, now we find the same opposition being derided because it isn't enough. How ironic.
By the way the bell tower cost $5million, it is the only real antique we have, apart from Brian Burke, Laurie Connell, Allan Bond etc.

$5 million bucks isn't a lot for a piece of history IMO, we are so keen here to bowl it over and build something new, that becomes old 20 years later.

The story of the Swan Bells - St Martin's Society of Change Ringers

How the historic twelve bells of St-Martin-in-the-Fields, London, came to Western Australia and are now rung at the Bell Tower, Perth.

stmartinssociety.org.au

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

From the story:
The economy under Barnett, however, continued to grow strongly — only dipping slightly during the global financial crisis — and the government found it difficult to slow spending as it strove to meet the needs of a fast-growing population.

An early warning sign came when the government, just months after being elected, decided to splash some of its cash by agreeing to a new pay deal for WA’s teachers that made them the highest paid in the nation.

Few begrudged the teachers a higher salary, but the generous agreement prompted other public servants to demand similar pay rises and made it much harder for the government to bring recurrent spending under control. Then in 2011, WA Police threatened industrial action during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth unless pay demands were met. The result? A 13.25 per cent pay rise over three years, making the state’s police the best paid in the country.

The Barnett government’s other big drain on spending also had its genesis in 2008. To secure power after the cliffhanger election, Barnett agreed to Nationals leader Brendon Grylls’s demand for a new scheme, Royalties for Regions, that would redirect 25 per cent of the value of WA’s mining royalties to projects in the bush.

Much of the program’s spending helped to revive neglected regional centres. But as the state’s royalty revenue soared, Royalties for Regions was flooded with money, becoming a slush fund that the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs found had “formalised pork-barrel politics on a massive, perhaps unprecedented scale’

Barnett also tapped into the boom-time mood by spending big on projects — roads, hospitals, schools, public transport, a glitzy new sports stadium and a Perth riverfront development — that he said were needed in a modern city.
Barnett has also ruled out big-ticket privatisations such as the sale of electricity assets.

He argues that WA’s utilities — including Western Power, Synergy and the Water Corporation of WA — should stay in public ownership because they are essential in promoting development across a sprawling state. Moreover, they provide a steady income stream for the government.
Asked how WA could find itself is such a difficult financial position after the biggest boom in history, Nahan said this week the government had used the windfall on the services and infrastructure required to support a population that has grown 30 per cent in the past 10 years.

“We have undertaken the largest renewal of assets in the state’s history. You name it, we’ve done it — up and down the coast,” he says.

“And we’ve had the highest paid, best-staffed and best conditions in the public service by far of any state. We spend more on every aspect of the public sector — education, health, mental health, disability services, child protection.

“The beneficiaries of the boom are people who use public services — and I think that is what people wanted.”

Funny how memories are so short lived IMO. McGowan doesn't have to spend much, because it was already done and he got the bonus of the increase in GST reabate.
really if Mcgowan had any humility he should be putting Barnett forward for a State award, but hey that not how politics works unfortunately.
I think they would be better off, if they did remove the tribalism.

Newcomer? Don't forget I do come from here

Yeah jeez I forgot about the stadium too. Meanwhile over the winter and across the road, we bitched about the state of Belmont Park (still know half of the old b@stards in the members there).

But I'd be willing to STFU about that if McStalin would lash out a bit on health.

 

[mullokintyre]

As is a fairly frequent occurrence in the forums, my original post about the draconian laws that the Daniel Andrews government have bought in got hijacked into talking about the evils of COVId, but will try to bring it back.
It is quite obvious, that given the enormous size of the Bill, the Andrews government has been working on this for months.
This is not a quick response to a pandemic, rushed in an emergency, its a full blown assault on civil liberties.
The victorian Bar association has come out with a scathing attack in a letter to its members.
From ABC NewsThe president of the Victorian Bar has slammed the government's proposed pandemic law, calling it the biggest challenge to the rule of law in the state in decades.

The bill, which was tabled on Tuesday, seeks to replace the state of emergency powers with authority handed over to the premier and health minister.

Christopher Blanden QC said he had "grave concerns" about the proposed legislation.

"The bill confers powers that can be appropriately described as draconian in authorising virtually unlimited interference with the liberties of Victorian citizens," Mr Blanden said.

"Yet, the bill lacks the appropriate checks and balances to ensure the proper exercise of these powers.

"This represents the biggest challenge to the rule of law that this state has faced in decades."

Mr Blanden said the government's claims of consulting the barristers' peak body was over the bill was a "gross misrepresentation".

"The president of the Victorian Bar participated in a 45-minute Microsoft Teams meeting organised by the Department of Health," Mr Blanden said in a statement.

"The broad issue of the declaration of pandemics was raised. There was no further contact."

The proposed legislation will include an independent committee made up of public health and human rights experts to examine future government decisions during pandemics.

However, the opposition has labelled the new laws a "grab for power" by Premier Dan Andrews.

Earlier, Will Partlett, from the University of Melbourne's Law School, said plans for an independent committee to review public health orders were weak and there should be more oversight from parliament.

"My main concern about the proposed laws is the lack of meaningful parliamentary oversight. Real oversight is not an appointed committee; it means a committee that is actually tied to parliament," Dr Partlett told the ABC.

In a series of tweets, civil liberties group, Liberty Victoria, criticised the penalty of up to two years jail for people who knowingly breached a health order and caused serious health risks to another individual.

"We are concerned about the introduction of an aggravated offence with imprisonment as a penalty," it tweeted.

"The focus of responding to public health risks should always be health not police based.

The "independent committee" has no coercive powers at all. Another toothless tiger.
And of course there is almost zero analytical time to give people a chance to see what other gems are in this bill.
The parliament has already excluded three members who refuse to disclose their health status.
Where are the Julian Burnsides , the Tim Tim Soutphommasane, the Victorian Human rights commission.
All missing in action.
What the fools don't seem to realise is that if by chance they were to be turned into the opposition, the then incumbent government could turn this legislation back onto them and make life enormously difficult to for them say the least.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Yet he bagged the $hit out of Barnett, for spending all the money on the hospitals and getting the State into deficit, ah politics don't you love it. ?

When SP?

In answer to Wayne they are throwing money at the health system if it will help who knows, I do know they have the ward space available right now (told by an insider) but don't have the staff or the time to train up not sure if that also includes equipment.

Media statements | Western Australian Government

Media statements

www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au

Apparently the problem isn't just WA its Australia wide again as told by some one in the game.

 

[IFocus]

As is a fairly frequent occurrence in the forums, my original post about the draconian laws that the Daniel Andrews government have bought in got hijacked into talking about the evils of COVId, but will try to bring it back.
It is quite obvious, that given the enormous size of the Bill, the Andrews government has been working on this for months.
This is not a quick response to a pandemic, rushed in an emergency, its a full blown assault on civil liberties.
The victorian Bar association has come out with a scathing attack in a letter to its members.
From ABC NewsThe president of the Victorian Bar has slammed the government's proposed pandemic law, calling it the biggest challenge to the rule of law in the state in decades.

The "independent committee" has no coercive powers at all. Another toothless tiger.
And of course there is almost zero analytical time to give people a chance to see what other gems are in this bill.
The parliament has already excluded three members who refuse to disclose their health status.
Where are the Julian Burnsides , the Tim Tim Soutphommasane, the Victorian Human rights commission.
All missing in action.
What the fools don't seem to realise is that if by chance they were to be turned into the opposition, the then incumbent government could turn this legislation back onto them and make life enormously difficult to for them say the least.
Mick

Haven't followed this but on the face of it seems strange and unnecessary.

 

[mullokintyre]

Haven't followed this but on the face of it seems strange and unnecessary.

What seems strange and unnecessary , the law that they want to pass or my post??
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

When SP?

First thing that came up, IFocus, I'm rushing ATM, but if you want specifics, I will look them up later.

Barnett takes aim at Perth hospital 'grizzlers'

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett blasts critics of Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, saying he is sick of people complaining about what is "probably the best hospital in the southern hemisphere".

www.abc.net.au

And the new stadium, that everyone now is taking credit for.

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/7be23eca5a8f9dd948257cf6001f25c2/$FILE/A39%20S1%2020140610%20p3585a-3597a.pdf

 

[Humid]

Yet he bagged the $hit out of Barnett, for spending all the money on the hospitals and getting the State into deficit, ah politics don't you love it. ?

The price of health in WA

HOW Perth’s pre-planned super hospital ended up late, costing more and having 400 fewer beds.

www.perthnow.com.au

Before Barny this one

 

[IFocus]

What seems strange and unnecessary , the law that they want to pass or my post??
Mick

Haha... the law of course

 

[StockyGuy]

When Berejiklian resigned there were some bewilderment why she didn't just step aside temporarily during the hearings. Then there was talk about a possible federal career. I know politics is full of extreme survivors and political warriors, but could there really be any electoral future for someone on tape promising to "throw money" at the fair township of Wagga (Wagga)?

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[IFocus]

When Berejiklian resigned there were some bewilderment why she didn't just step aside temporarily during the hearings. Then there was talk about a possible federal career. I know politics is full of extreme survivors and political warriors, but could there really be any electoral future for someone on tape promising to "throw money" at the fair township of Wagga (Wagga)?

MSN

www.msn.com

I actually feel for Gladys (sort of) busted for throwing a lazy $40 mil or more around that actually benefited local communities.

Compare that to the behaviour of the Federal Government, a federal ICAC would end many of the ministers careers not to mention the PM which is a shame as state politics was always corrupt to some degree, federal politics largely free of this behaviour which now seems run of the mill.

 

[SirRumpole]

I actually feel for Gladys (sort of) busted for throwing a lazy $40 mil or more around that actually benefited local communities.

Compare that to the behaviour of the Federal Government, a federal ICAC would end many of the ministers careers not to mention the PM which is a shame as state politics was always corrupt to some degree, federal politics largely free of this behaviour which now seems run of the mill.

To me she only did what all politicians do, try to stay in power by pork barrelling.

If Wagga needed another hospital or better facilities at the old one, what's wrong with that ?

Corruption is stealing money from taxpayers for yourself. If she did that then she deserves all she gets but I haven't seen that yet.

 

[mullokintyre]

To me she only did what all politicians do, try to stay in power by pork barrelling.

I really don't understand all the fuss.
Why do we have members for the electorates?
They are there to represent the electorate, not the nation at large.
What do the electors want?
They want them to represent them and make sure their town, city or region gets the best facilities possible.
If my local MP gets new swimming pools, hospitals, better roads, a new library, football fields etc by rooting the premier, thats fine by me.
If my local MP is rooting the premier so as he/she or his/her friends get a benefit, then thats the definition of corruption.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Seems as if more than few posters can't see any problem with a political process that bypasses notions of assessing grant applications for need, economic value, and comparison against a hundred other applications. Essentially " who do I have to xuck to get this approved?"

This analysis looks at how the Gladys story is unfolding.

Gladys Berejiklian’s Icac performance has horrified federal Liberals – but only for exposing ‘normal’ political practice​

Hugh Riminton

The former NSW premier’s plight has only reinforced federal distaste for a properly functioning national integrity commission

• ‘Part of the love circle’: 10 memorable moments from Gladys Berejiklian’s Icac appearance
• Anne Davies: ‘The public heard another Gladys Berejiklian at Icac – one who threatened to sack bureaucrats and bossed colleagues’
• ‘They’re dodgy’: Gladys Berejiklian warned secret boyfriend about associates in tapped phone calls played to Icac

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian outside the Icac hearing in Sydney. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP
Sat 30 Oct 2021 09.15 AEDT
Last modified on Sat 30 Oct 2021 10.15 AEDT


Gladys Berejiklian’s performance at Icac has been watched in horror by her federal Liberal colleagues.

Not her lack of curiosity while her lover mapped out his plans for corrupt profit from a land deal; nor the way this fastidious lister of potential conflicts failed to see – or declare – the conflict in front of her, in the wheeler-dealer man she loved; nor even the way she revealed – again – how routinely pork-barrelling is woven into political practice.

The revulsion is that all this is being revealed.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ents-from-gladys-berejiklians-icac-appearance
“The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption is an obscenity,” Berejiklian’s fellow north shore Liberal federal MP Jason Falinski told ABC radio. “It is star chamber, kangaroo court, crowd-sourced McCarthyism all rolled into one.”

Falinski claims to support a national integrity commission but sees more value in a “beefed-up” auditor general.

“You will tend to pick up corruption not in intercepted phone calls, but when when you see money transactions happening that don’t make sense,” he says.

Never mind that it was intercepts that flushed out Berejiklian’s corrupt former lover Daryl Maguire. The tapes left him no option but to reply with a curt “yes” when counsel assisting the commission Scott Robertson invited him to agree that he’d used his position “to benefit yourself and those close to you”.

In a moment of grim comedy, one chat with Berejiklian captured Maguire railing against Icac. “It’s worse than the Spanish Inquisition,” he moaned. “They could be taping your conversation with me right now and you wouldn’t know.”

The lesson Scott Morrison has taken is that an Icac brings down leaders who are otherwise doing a good enough job.

Berejiklian’s plight has reinforced his distaste for a properly functioning national integrity commission. The model offered up, initially by Christian Porter, is much tougher on corrupt law enforcement officials than politicians. Its design gives the government of the day exclusive control over which MPs, senators and staff might face investigation.

The Centre for Public Integrity calls it “a sham designed to hide corruption”.

“If you no longer care about corruption, then you are corrupt,” says Centre director Geoffrey Watson SC, a former senior counsel with the NSW Icac.

“Trust is the glue,” he says. “If you start losing that, you are taking a step towards losing why we’re bonded together as a community.”

Icac put corrupt former NSW Labor ministers Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald in jail. Labor is still paying the price for failing to face down those sucking at its teat. In Victoria, Labor is yet to get the final bill for the branch-stacking scandal working its way through Ibac.

The Morrison government is trailing a dismal chain of scandals. But no one seems to get called to account. Ministers refuse to be interviewed by the AFP. Even a debate about referring Porter to the privileges committee over the secret sources of his legal funding is voted down by the government numbers.

No wonder cynics stalk the land.

Gladys Berejiklian’s Icac performance has horrified federal Liberals – but only for exposing ‘normal’ political practice | Hugh Riminton

The former NSW premier’s plight has only reinforced federal distaste for a properly functioning national integrity commission

www.theguardian.com

 

[mullokintyre]

Seems as if more than few posters can't see any problem with a political process that bypasses notions of assessing grant applications for need, economic value, and comparison against a hundred other applications. Essentially " who do I have to xuck to get this approved?"

The problem is , the concept of assessing need, economic value, and comparison against hundreds of other applications is a purely subjective concept. All the potential recipients will think their project should get up, and may well put up a good case in their own eyes.

I don't see how any bunch of Public servants are any better than politicians or the inhabitants of a particular electorate at assessing projects.
The people who missout are not going to blame the bureacrats, they are going to blame thir local member for not being able to get the project through.

This is highlighted at a local level in my particular LGA. The elected councillors dont really decide what gets put into the budget. The CEO and his underlings decide what should be in the budget, the councillors read the supporting budgety papers, and in most instances support the budget expenditure. The problem is, the vast bulk of the money is spent in the areas where the CEO and his immediate underlings live.
In a large LGA where there is usually one central city, the smaller satellite towns tend to miss out. This year, the town where I live has about 12% of the total population of the LGA, but got about 0.3% of the discretionary spending. The main town got somewhere around 87% of spending. Now the CEO and underlings will give a myriad of reasons why the funding projects were worthy, needy, of economic value etc etc. But as far as those living outside that main town, we have been screwed again.
I doubt my LGA is any different from the myriad of others.
Mick

 

[basilio]

The problem is , the concept of assessing need, economic value, and comparison against hundreds of other applications is a purely subjective concept. All the potential recipients will think their project should get up, and may well put up a good case in their own eyes.

I don't see how any bunch of Public servants are any better than politicians or the inhabitants of a particular electorate at assessing projects.
The people who missout are not going to blame the bureacrats, they are going to blame thir local member for not being able to get the project through.

This is highlighted at a local level in my particular LGA. The elected councillors dont really decide what gets put into the budget. The CEO and his underlings decide what should be in the budget, the councillors read the supporting budgety papers, and in most instances support the budget expenditure. The problem is, the vast bulk of the money is spent in the areas where the CEO and his immediate underlings live.
In a large LGA where there is usually one central city, the smaller satellite towns tend to miss out. This year, the town where I live has about 12% of the total population of the LGA, but got about 0.3% of the discretionary spending. The main town got somewhere around 87% of spending. Now the CEO and underlings will give a myriad of reasons why the funding projects were worthy, needy, of economic value etc etc. But as far as those living outside that main town, we have been screwed again.
I doubt my LGA is any different from the myriad of others.
Mick

Mick I suggest you are conflating different "pots of money" and different processes of assessing submissions.

Local, State and Federal Governments and the various Health, Education, Community organisations that work for these authorities or independently of them are invited to make submissions for projects/programs they want to run. There are guidelines mapped out and many demands for costing, projected actions and outcomes. And in the end you have to acquit these grants to prove you have spent the money as you said and that the outcomes you projected were met.

Frankly it's a bloody nightmare. From my experience in education and community organisations the effort to construct these applications and then acquit them is often more trouble than the grant is worth. But that is the way the system works.

The point of having an independent assessment of grants is to ensure some sense of fairness and appropriate priority in governance. Yes there is input from local Councilors and MPs. But if you think for a second, one would realise how impossible it would be to fairly assess such grants if it was just a bunfight between MP's.

On the question of bigger allocations of funds there is more "discretion" by politicans to intervene in the processes. This is where favours get done. It is also where politicians attempt to curry favour with electorates to get votes. We saw the outcome of this situation when the Morrison government decided to intervene in $600 million dollars of community grants before the last election and directed funds to critical seats.

This situation also lends itself to politicians getting bribes or direct benefits from government decisions they have directed. The Obeid family are the current classic case of such corruption. Historically the Belke Petersen government was notorious for directing tax payers money to projects that benefited Ministers and friends. And there are plenty of other examples.

Local politics is always rife with self interest. It is a standing joke that Real estate agents and associated developers get on Councils to get land rezoned for themselves or their friends.

All of this experience is why an Independent Commission against Corruption is almost the only way to deal with politicians misusing their position for personal benefit. If you read the story I cited the most critical point was -

“If you no longer care about corruption, then you are corrupt,” says Centre director Geoffrey Watson SC, a former senior counsel with the NSW Icac.

 

[SirRumpole]

Seems as if more than few posters can't see any problem with a political process that bypasses notions of assessing grant applications for need, economic value, and comparison against a hundred other applications. Essentially " who do I have to xuck to get this approved?"

Wagga isn't exactly a rich area. North Sydney car parks are a different issue, but the voters will decide on that. I don't see how politicians can be sacked for it.

 

[StockyGuy]

Wagga isn't exactly a rich area. North Sydney car parks are a different issue, but the voters will decide on that. I don't see how politicians can be sacked for it.

Not sure if everyone commenting has heard the actual recording. The tone in which they discussed distributing tax payer funds was deeply disturbing. It's not about Wagga. I mean, seriously, if she had somehow battled on and contested the next election all the ALP would have to do is play that recording non-stop on radio and TV.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not sure if everyone commenting has heard the actual recording. The tone in which they discussed distributing tax payer funds was deeply disturbing. It's not about Wagga. I mean, seriously, if she had somehow battled on and contested the next election all the ALP would have to do is play that recording non-stop on radio and TV.

Agreed, but that's a decision for the electorate.

Is pork barrelling corrupt ? Many would say so but it's not against the law (yet).

 

[StockyGuy]

Agreed, but that's a decision for the electorate.

Is pork barrelling corrupt ? Many would say so but it's not against the law (yet).

Okay, but she's not being investigated by ICAC regarding vanilla pork barrelling of a marginal seat.

 

[Humid]

Wagga isn't exactly a rich area. North Sydney car parks are a different issue, but the voters will decide on that. I don't see how politicians can be sacked for it.

Ffs you pork barrel marginal seats not safe ones