Due to illness North Coast Voices will not be posting daily again until Monday 16 August 2021.

How the Prime Minister is reorganising our lives in 2019

On the day Scott Morrison arranged to be sworn-in as Australian prime minister for the second time he also made a few administrative changes.

From now on the Dept. of Human Services, which delivers social and health payments through such services such as Medicare, Centrelink and Child Support, will have the word "Human" erased from its title.

It will now be called Services Australia. A neutral name which will probably make privatisation of its more human service components that much easier down the track.

Services Australia has also been expanded to include responsibility for whole of government service delivery. 

The new Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is noneother than the Qld Liberal MP for Fadden Stuart Robert, who in 2016 resigned as the Minister for Human Services after questions were raised over his fitness for office. Thus proving that when it comes to political probity it's not what you did in the past but who you pray with now that matters.

The new Minister for Families and Social Services was listed on 26 May 2019 as Liberal Senator for South Australia Anne Rushton. However, there is no mention of that title in her official parliamentary profile to date. 

Morrison has also decided that settlement services for refugees and humanitarian migrants are being transferred from the Social Services portfolio to the Home Affairs portfolio, giving the Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton control of every aspect of the lives of those seeking asylum or resettlement in Australia.

These and other changes are set out below........

Commonwealth of Australia: Administrative Arrangements Order Summary of changes, 29 May 2019 by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/411837160/Commonwealth-of-Australia-Administrative-Arrangements-Order-Summary-of-changes-29-May-2019

Wibbling widgets, Clarencegirl!

Sometimes the moon and stars just don't align and blogging becomes an obstacle race rather than a pleasant ride through cyberspace.

This is one of those times.

Most of North Coast Voices' regular contributors are down for the count at present due to injury or illness and, that leaves me holding the fort for the next week or so.

However, my PC has taken full advantage of this opportunity to create mischief and become highly dysfunctional - my apologies in advance for any spotty postings over the next few days.

It's raining on our blog!

Due to prolonged wet weather here on the NSW North Coast at least two of North Coast Voices regular authors are having problems with their phone lines and Internet connections.

We are hoping that the problem will be resolved by Wednesday.

Our apologies if posts on this blog are rather erratic over the next few days.

Thought police rule: Senate internet surfing spy blocks senators from reading gay newspaper website

The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration budget estimates hearing on Monday 26 May 2008 is throwing up some strange instances.

Apparently the desire to stop senators accessing inappropriate material on the internet, also known as research censorship, had resulted in a well-known gay newspaper being blocked from view.
It took Senator Nettles' staff a good week to get permission for, wait for it, "temporary access to the site".

Senator Nettles was also blocked when researching the ramifications of recently announced NSW Government policy on the agricultural production of industrial quality hemp. The site she was attempting to access was considered in the category of "illegal drugs".

It seems that the Senate IT filtering program is being supplied by Websense.

This is what Websense, with its head office in California and an office in North Sydney, has to say about itself.
Websense provides a unique combination of Web, content, and user intelligence to stop threats at their source, and accurately control the "who, what, where, and how" of network security.

The Senate appears to have opted for a filtering program which has the following features:
Websense Client Policy Manager (CPM) provides a comprehensive endpoint security solution for desktops, laptops, and servers that proactively protects organizations against known and unknown endpoint security threats. CPM prevents the installation and execution of unauthorized applications and enforces application use policies with its comprehensive database of categorized applications, which is updated daily. CPM is an easy-to-implement, low risk, and highly effective alternative to behavior-based Host Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS). The comprehensive coverage of both “whitelist” (good) and “blacklist” (bad) applications allows for granular, dynamic, and highly flexible application policies. This provides a critical layer of application awareness that complements desktop antivirus and personal firewalls while stopping today's fast-moving and blended security threats.

Websense Client Policy Manager benefits:
Addresses weaknesses in existing antivirus, anti-spyware, personal firewall, and patch management processes to render today’s attacks harmless.
Provides application awareness and usage policy enforcement on the endpoint for blocking malicious software while ensuring compliance and productivity.
Prevents malicious applications from changing registry settings and tracks suspicious registry activities.
Protects remote and mobile users operating outside of the network or without standard security updates or patches.
Includes protection from the threats and compliance risks around web access and URL content for remote and mobile users.
Works with Network Access Control (NAC) solutions to enforce policy on devices trying to enter the network, denying access to non-compliant endpoints.
Via integrations, enables network-level protection from inbound threats and creates dynamic and application-aware firewalling.
Provides multiple levels of control to prevent the launch or mitigate the propagation of security attacks.

What all this apparently means is that the Senate has blocked senators' PCs from seeing websites on a blacklist based on broad categories of 'bad' types (inclusion decided by Websense) and, that any use of a senator's PC can be tracked right down to the last millisecond of any search or email sent/received.

Although it is still rather strange that this supposed protection against security threats just happens to block the pet hates of Family First's only elected representative and self-appointed moral guardian of Australia, Senator Fielding.

A quick Google shows that Websense has a history of inappropriately blocking sites from Amnesty International, through to the Red Cross, Air America, service blogs and individual bloggers who make political comment. Last year it was blocking Yahoo mail.

As the problems with Websense seem to continue up to date, here is a website advising on how to bypass this filter.
Perhaps senators should consider using this information if the President of the Senate doesn't come to his senses, or alternatively switching to IE7 which Websense is said not to currently filter.

As it is unlikely that mere voters are going to get a straight answer from either Harry Evans or the Rudd Government on how much this gigantic invasion of privacy is costing or why it is even necessary, perhaps it's time to ask the source about blacklists, why it blocks certain content, why it takes so long to change instructions and costs associated with its security/filtering programs. Here is a Websense email contact.
Annoy the company as much as it is obviously annoying some senators.

Kevin Rudd needs to lift his game

A question for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

Why is an extremist cult, whose activities break up families, given a wide berth by the Australian Government?

Prior to the November 2007 election Mr Rudd described the Exclusive Brethren as an "extremist cult" whose activities "break up families" and called for investigations by police, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Electoral Commission and Austrac, the anti-money-laundering agency into the Brethren's activities.

So, Mr Rudd, what's changed? Why are there no inquiries?

Today The Age reports PM Kevin Rudd has rejected the pleas of former members of the Exclusive Brethren for a broad-ranging inquiry into the sect, saying such an investigation would "unreasonably interfere" with their right "to practise their faith freely and openly.

Former members of the Brethren seized on the comments and, in February, wrote to Mr Rudd asking for an inquiry, particularly into its "disproportionately high taxpayer funding of Brethren schools, dishonest political campaigning, their charitable status in relation to rate and tax exemptions, and their well-known intimidatory tactics during traumatic Family Court cases".

The letter was written by former Brethren member Peter Flinn and signed by 33 others. Attached were 13 stories outlining the misery inflicted by practices of the sect, including the doctrine of separation, which keeps lapsed members from contacting their families.

Mr Rudd's chief-of-staff David Epstein wrote in reply last week that the Prime Minister "does not resile from the views he expressed last year," and that he "remains concerned about the reported imposition of doctrines that weaken family bonds" and "prevent children accessing online learning tools".

Mr Epstein also added that religious observance "should not be regarded as a shield behind which breaches of the law can be hidden", and urged anyone with details of criminal behaviour within the Brethren to tell police.

However, he wrote, on religious freedom grounds, the Prime Minister would not be instituting an inquiry.

Mr Rudd's stance suggests the Government also will vote against a motion by Greens Senator Bob Brown calling for an inquiry into the sect, its tax concessions, public funding, and practices that may harm children or families.

Senator Brown tabled notice of the new motion, his third proposed inquiry into the Brethren, in the Senate on Thursday.

Senator Brown described Mr Rudd's position as "appalling", saying his priority "should be the welfare of children and families, and the taxpayers' money that is going to this organisation".

But Mr Flinn told The Sunday Age the Exclusive Brethren could take no comfort from Mr Rudd's response: "Whilst Mr Rudd did not give a specific commitment to an inquiry, he acknowledged the 'moving personal accounts'."

Mr Flinn also pointed out that Mr Rudd reiterated his Government's commitment to "enhancing transparency in the Australian electoral system, with reforms recently announced relating to the disclosure and sources of donations".

"We have no desire to interfere with the fundamental right of any religious group to freely and openly practise its beliefs. We just want to highlight other equally fundamental human rights, such as access to family who remain Brethren members, a right callously denied by the Brethren," Mr Flinn said.

The Exclusive Brethren is a wealthy Christian-based group that practises a radical doctrine of separation from the world. Its leaders became very close to former Prime Minister John Howard over many years of lobbying and political activism, and, in 2004, they poured $370,000 into his re-election campaign.

Under Mr Howard, Brethren schools enjoyed similar funding to schools for disabled and Aboriginal students, even though, by their own admission, Exclusive Brethren members are in the top echelon of income earners. Mr Rudd has continued the funding arrangements, worth $50 million over the next four years.

Liberal Party determined to devour itself

If it wasn't enough that Brendan Nelson was declared leader of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party with a bloody knife visibly sticking out from between his shoulder blades which appeared to encourage the party to indulge in a fresh round of divisive state leadership games, now we have in-fighting at the Victorian state body level which has blood running in the gutters.
First it was discovered that the blog Ted Baillieu Must Go was administered by party members.
At least two staff sackings came out of that and it's rumoured that the party went directly to Google to have this blog snuffed.
Now a state campaign manager has been outed (in what looks suspiciously like internal payback) and forced to resign over an anti-Semitic email sent during the 2007 federal election.
Victorian Lib leader, 'Red' Ted Baillieu, is hitting out at all and sundry by pledging a 'purge', with Melbourne's The Age happy to oblige with publication of any details.
Red Ted's public hissy fit shows just how thin the Baillieu blood runs in the current generation.
Word is out that prominent names at state and federal levels will get an airing before the Victorian Libs stop devouring themselves.

Like just about everyone else I managed to get a look at the ditched blog and the Baillieu montage above comes from that site.

Meanwhile in New South Wales the cracks widen...

Yesterday Crikey reported:
Debnam has resigned from the Opposition’s front bench, paving the way for current Liberal leader Barry O’Farrell to announce a shadow cabinet reshuffle this morning (11.30am).
In an unexpected dummy-spit which has annoyed many of his colleagues, Debnam has sent a private email explaining his action:
I have been opposed to Michael Costa’s electricity privatisation and despite lacking the numbers in Parliament to stop it, I’ve argued for the Coalition to take a strong stand against the privatisation and in favour of clean renewable energy. However, in my view, the conditional acceptance announced late last week by the Coalition effectively surrenders to Costa’s privatisation. Given my strong views, it is untenable for me to continue as the Shadow Minister for Energy and remain on the frontbench simply biting my tongue.
Debnam has given an undertaking to stay in parliament and contest the next election in 2011 as the MP for Vaucluse – so there will be no embarrassing by-election.

Naked man to draw attention to his raw deal

This year's Anzac Day march in Ballina in northern NSW will be something different. It will see an 89-year old man 'march' naked.

John MacGregor told The Northern Star that he will be 'marching' naked because all other efforts he has made to draw attention to his plight have produced blanks.

Mr MacGregor, dismayed and angry about having his World War II service revoked, has decided to 'march' naked riding his mobility scooter draped in an Australian flag during the Anzac Day march at Ballina.

"I've let them know in Canberra that I'm intending to do something, but I shouldn't have to do all this," he said.

"There are 15 of us, it's not just for me, two of them died on duty and they've never been recognised.

"I've been fighting all my life and I will probably keep fighting."

Mr MacGregor worked with the Postmaster-General's Department and was part of a crew that established secure telephone lines across Torres Strait and the Gulf of Papua so that General MacArthur did not have to rely on radio in 1943.

The former engineer was recognised for his war service in 2004, and has been campaigning to have a purple star awarded to himself and the 14 others on this mission.

However, he recently found out that not only will he be denied his medal, but his war service has been revoked.

"I have a Gold Card as a military person, but that is dependent on my war service," he said.

"I'm aware of the fact that if they cancel my war service they might cancel my pension."

A request for medical compensation for war injuries was denied by the Veteran's Review Board, and in their refusal they stated:

"The Board noted that Mr MacGregor has previously been considered to have rendered 'operational service' during World War II as a civilian employee of the Postmaster-General's Department, but that this has now been revoked."

Mr MacGregor said the revocation was news to him and disputes the claim he was there as a civilian.

"We were working for the Allied Forces and if the Prime Minister of the day John Curtin is to be believed, he stated in his many press releases that 'any orders coming from General MacArthur, Supreme Commander Allied Forces Southwest Pacific Area, were to be regarded as coming from him'," he said.

"In fact, all of us in Australia were working for the Allied Forces."

Mr MacGregor has written to the Defence Minister and requested help from Federal Member for Page, Janelle Saffin.

A spokesperson for Ms Saffin said the MP is making representations on behalf of John MacGregor to the Veteran's Affairs Minister, but was yet to receive a response.

RSL Sub-branch rules state that Mr MacGregor cannot march as a returned serviceman with medals without proof of overseas service, but can march as an ex-serviceman, which the RSL recognises him for.

Mr MacGregor said he may take his fight to the High Court.

"I can take it to the High Court, but I have to get permission from the Chief Justice," he said.

Veterans Affairs would not comment on his case due to privacy reasons.

Amateur pyrotechnicians = dangerous nuisances

Many New Year celebrations featured FIREWORKS, but most of the fireworks were unauthorised and illegal.

Responsible individuals and organisations respect lawful directions associated with fireworks displays. In NSW this involves making application to WorkCover to conduct public displays of fireworks.

WorkCover's website provides a search facility that shows listings of notified displays. The listings enable authorities and members of the public to take appropriate action in preparation for the displays. The website is http//www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/fireworks_search.htm

In addition to the nuisance factor associated with illegal fireworks, the far more important factor of PUBLIC SAFETY need addressing.

Unauthorised and illegal fireworks should not be tolerated. Contact POLICE, LOCAL COUNCIL and WORKCOVER to report incidents of such activities.
Authorised fireworks displays between 01-Nov-2007 and 31-Jan-2008 were registered with WorkCover. The list isn't very long, so obviously most fireworks are unauthorised and illegal.

Why are greedy tax cheats accorded protected species status?

Adele Horin in The Sydney Morning Herald (December 15), has rightfully pointed out the slanted position taken by authorities when addressing the issue of moneys missing from the public purse.

Horin takes a look at how welfare cheats and tax cheats are treated in Australia.

Welfare cheats are soft targets so they get a hammering but tax cheats, who are a protected species, get easy runs home.

In part, Horin wrote:

If tax cheats were hounded as assiduously as welfare cheats, Australia would be better off. But under the old regime, welfare cheats - so-called - were pursued to the ends of the Earth while tax cheats slid under the radar.

Millions of dollars were poured into detecting welfare fraud while in the last years of the Howard government one-third as much was spent tracking down tax cheats, according to budget papers.

The inequity led Professor John Braithwaite, of the Australian National University, an expert on corporate crime, to remark last year that the DPP had taken "soft, easy cases and they are the frauds of poor people. The frauds of sophisticated rich people who are aggressively defended by the best lawyers money can buy deliver lower success rates [to the DPP]."

The government stood to recoup far more from tax cheats than from welfare cheats. On economic grounds alone, it should have ramped up the fight against tax avoiders. According to budget papers, for every dollar spent chasing tax avoiders, the government would recoup $7.53 compared with only $1.94 from the welfare fraudsters. In the end, fewer than 3500 people are convicted of welfare fraud in a year from a population of 6.5 million social security recipients.

Read the entire article "Tax dodgers laughing as the poor are hounded" at:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/tax-dodgers-laughing-as-the-poor-are-hounded/2007/12/14/1197568262862.html


Unfortunately, Horin didn't include superannuation cheats in her article. Although they didn't get a mention, superannuation cheats are out there in big numbers.

So, you ask, "Who are the superannuation cheats?"

Answer: These cheats are thieving employers who do not make the mandatory super contributions for their employees.

"Who's responsible for ensuring employers do the right thing and meet their responsibilities and pay their employees' super?"

Answer: The Australian Taxation Office.

"If the ATO doesn't address the issue of tax cheats properly how can it be expected to address the problem of super cheats?"

Answer: To use the words of Horin, "more hounding, and more tabloid headlines, would not go astray."

PS:
Memo to all employees - contact your super fund and check to see that your employer has paid your super in full. Unfortunately, many employees are being dudded every pay period. Their pay slips show how much super should be going to their fund BUT their employers are pocketing it for themselves.