Australia's 44th Parliament opens today with Tony Abbott leading a Coalition Government

Alan Moir

Abbott to adjust rules governing parliamentarians' entitlements, but known rorters remain untouched

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's minimalist approach to the cancer in parliamentarian ranks.

Media Release

3/13
9 November 2011

Strengthening the Rules Governing Parliamentarians' Business Expenses

The system of funding the work costs of parliamentarians in carrying out their responsibilities must work in a way that ensures senators and members are accessible to their electors while ensuring taxpayers' money is well spent and maintaining public confidence in the system.

For this reason, the Government will act to strengthen a range of measures governing the funding of parliamentarians' work costs.

The Government will proceed with the following sensible reforms to improve the system's integrity:

• Strengthen the declaration a parliamentarian is required to make when submitting a travel claim. The new declaration will read: "I declare that this travel was undertaken in my capacity as an elected representative and I acknowledge that a financial loading will be applied if subsequent adjustment to this travel claim is required."
• Require that if parliamentarians make an adjustment to any claims made after 1 January 2014 they will be required to pay a loading of 25 per cent in addition to the full amount of the adjustment. This will not apply where the adjustment is the result of an error made by the Department of Finance.
• From 1 January 2014, mandatory training will be provided for parliamentarians and their offices if more than one incorrect claim is lodged within a financial year.
• The Special Minister of State may table in parliament the name of any parliamentarian who fails to substantially comply within a reasonable time with a request for further information as part of a departmental enquiry.
• Ask the Remuneration Tribunal to review the entitlement to a one night stopover which is currently available to some Queensland, Western Australian and Northern Territory parliamentarians. A stopover should only be required when it can be established that no connecting flight is available.
• Ask the Remuneration Tribunal to review the determination that a family member or designated person has only to spend three hours at the same location as the senator or member to qualify for the existing Family Reunion Travel Entitlement.
• The Government will move to limit the 'additional travel for children' entitlement for senior officers to children under the age of 18 from where it currently stands at 25 years of age.
• Review the entitlement for a spouse or partner to travel overseas on parliamentary delegations.
• Remove the seldom used entitlement to travel allowance for travel connected with the office of second deputy speaker.
• Prevent employment of a spouse, partner, parent or child of a senator or member, a child of the spouse or partner of a senator or member, or a son or daughter-in-law of a senator or member within that MP's own office.

The Government believes that these reforms will improve accountability and strengthen the existing system.

As part of this process, the Government has considered the recommendations of the 2009 Belcher Review that were not adopted by the former Government.

---

Media Contact:	Phone:
Brad Rowswell	(02) 6277 7820 or 0417 917 796

BACKGROUND

Julie, Teresa, Barnaby, Scott, Stuart and Tony join George in the parliamentary entitlement rort corner - will more MPs follow?

Can Australian taxpayers afford Tony Abbott's sense of entitlement?

Taxpayers were handed the bill when Shadow Attorney-General Brandis 'conspired' against the Gillard Government at a private wedding

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott caught out charging Australian taxpayers for his own book promotion expenses

Attorney-General George Brandis and his bravura performance as Pot-Kettle-Black

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis in opposition and government on the subject of members of parliament and honest/ethical conduct.

In Hansard 17 August 2011:

Finally, it was only yesterday, when this matter was brought to light, that the member for Dobell sought to amend his register of a member's interests by lodging with the Register of Members' Interests for the House of Representatives a letter that identified the payment of a sum of money in May 2011 by the Australian Labor Party's New South Wales branch, in settlement of a legal matter to which I was a party. Why was that amendment made only after its disclosure was revealed?

On ABC The Drum 29 August 2011:

Senator Brandis has pursed the ALP backbencher Thomson with a vigour that is disturbing on a number of levels.

Firstly, there are the telephone calls to ministers and police commissioners. Senator Brandis called New South Wales Attorney-General Greg Smith, a fellow Liberal, in early August. Smith says that Brandis was alerting him to a forthcoming media story which would reveal Brandis had asked the New South Wales DPP to look at the Thomson matter.

Then a couple of weeks later Brandis was on the phone again, this time to speak with New South Wales Police Minister Michael Gallacher to again alert him to the fact that Brandis would be sending a brief to the Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. Gallacher himself alerted Scipione to look out for the Brandis brief.

Then there was Brandis's call to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus last week. Brandis apparently wanted to clarify whether the AFP would be investigating the matter.

On Channel 7 Sunrise:

"Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis has provided information to police in relation to a number of matters concerning a federal Labor MP," police said in a statement on Tuesday.

"This correspondence has now been referred for internal assessment to determine whether a criminal offence has occurred."

In Hansard 5 February 2013:

Meanwhile, in the coming week there are the fraud charges against the other man upon whose vote the Gillard government depends, Mr Peter Slipper.

In The Sydney Morning Herald 23 September 2013:

he regarded the wedding as a chance to ''foster collaboration'' over Mr Smith's work covering the then prime minister and the Craig Thomson scandal

In the Herald Sun 30 September 2013:

Yesterday, Senator Brandis said he would repay the money to avoid any uncertainty about the circumstances of Mr Smith’s wedding in December 2011.

But he said he still considered he was within parliamentary entitlements to make them.

“I considered that those costs were within parliamentary entitlements, since they were incurred in the course of attendance at a function primarily for work-related purposes. I remain of that view,” he said in a letter written today to the Finance Department.

George Brandis’ July-December 2011 Parliamentarian’s Expenditure Record covering the period in which he travelled to and from the private Smith wedding at taxpayers’ expense:

                                

Domestic Travel 4 Dec 11 Brisbane Sydney 5 Dec 11 Sydney Brisbane $1,191.06

Com Car Brisbane 4 Dec 11 $82.83 Brisbane 5 Dec 11 $44.23

Hire Car Sydney 4 Dec to 5 Dec 11 $143.40

TOTAL $1,461.52

News.com.au 8 April 2013:

Mr Slipper, who stood down from the role of Speaker of the House of Representatives amid controversy last year, faces charges relating to three occasions in which he allegedly dishonestly used Cabcharge dockets to visit Canberra wineries in hire cars in 2010, amounting to $1194 in charges to the taxpayer.

It would appear that the more a member of parliament or senator owes the Department of Finance, the less likely he or she will be held accountable at law.

While the Attorney-General’s attitude seems to be that it is fraud when someone considered a political enemy makes a dubious claim for expenses over and above his/her parliamentary salary or fails to accurately record financial details, but it is perfectly alright when he or a member of his party does so. Additionally, Brandis appears to believe he is entitled to use his expense claims to hide the cost of actively pursuing such a perceived enemy.

The rules relating to parliamentarians' travel allowances/entitlements can be found here.

Federal Parliamentary allowances are clear cut

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 10 October 2013:

Fred Perring (DEX, October 2013) quotes Malcolm Turnbull on the alleged vagueness of rules concerning travelling allowances available to federal parliamentarians.

I don't think the rules are in any way ambiguous, as is seen by Clause 3.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal's August 2012 determination:

"Travelling allowance shall be payable to a senator or member for each overnight stay in a place other than his or her home base when that stay is occasioned primarily by:

(a) sittings of the House of Parliament or direct travel to or from such sittings; or

(b) meetings of or the formal business of parliamentary committees of which he or she is a member or direct travel to or from such meetings; or

(c) attendance at functions representing a Minister or a Presiding Officer on official business as a Minister or Presiding Officer, or direct travel to or from such functions, provided the Minister or Presiding Officer nominates the function in advance in a written request to the senator or member to represent him or her; or

(d) meetings in Canberra of his or her parliamentary political party, of its executive or of its committees (see clause 1.5.2) or direct travel to or from such meetings; or

(e) meetings of his or her parliamentary political party executive (see clause 1.5.2) outside Canberra or direct travel to or from such meetings; or

(f) meetings, other than in Canberra, of a parliamentary political party, or of its executive, or of its committees, attendance at the national and state conferences of a political party, of which he or she is a member (see clause 1.5.2), and meetings outside the electorate on electorate business up to a maximum of ten overnight stays per annum in total, and direct travel to or from such meetings or conferences; or

(g) attendance at official government, parliamentary or vice-regal functions; or

(h) meetings of a non-statutory body which a senator or member has been nominated to attend by resolution of either House, where the senator or member performs duties principally as a representative or alternate representative, of the Parliament; or

(i) attendance at properly constituted meetings of a Government advisory committee or task force provided that the senator or member is a member of the committee or task force."

The Department Of Finance defines official business for the purpose of plane, train, hire car/taxi travel entitlement as attendance at: "properly constituted meetings of a Government advisory committee or task force provided that the Senator or Member is a member of the committee or task force; and functions representing a Minister or a Presiding Officer on official business as a Minister or Presiding Officer, provided that the Minister or Presiding Officer nominates the function in advance in a written request to the Senator or Member to represent him or her."

It is plain to see that there is no leeway for expenses associated with high-profile weddings, off-the-record meetings with journalists, birthday parties, winter holidays or ironman events.

Sincerely,

Judith M. Melville

Is Joe Hockey a repeat offender when it comes to non-disclosure of pecuniary interests?

It must have irked the Murdoch media to have to run with this:

“Aspiring treasurer Joe Hockey has been caught breaching parliamentary rules after failing to declare a family interest for almost his entire 17-year career in federal parliament.

Mr Hockey declared the directorship of Steel Harbour Pty Ltd held by his wife, Melissa Babbage, in May last year among a series of "new positions" under spouse declaration rules. But business records show Ms Babbage was appointed to the role in 1998. Pecuniary interest register declarations are supposed to be made within a month. The revelations come after News Corp Australia revealed earlier this year Arthur Sinodinos, tipped to be Mr Hockey's right-hand man as finance minister in an Abbott government, failed to declare six company directorships in his first year in the upper house. The directorship blunder has emerged ahead of a key economic debate showdown between Mr Hockey and Treasurer Chris Bowen at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday. Mr Hockey yesterday suggested he was clueless about his wife's business interests for 14 years and would not explain what the company did.”

However, what the Murdoch media failed to mention in that article was the fact that Mr. Hockey had been down this road before if the House of Representatives Hansard of 26 March 2007 is any guide:

Ms GILLARD (3:09 PM) —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you relating to the obligation of members to declare registrable interests. Can you investigate the reasons why the member for North Sydney did not declare his interest in Babbage Hockey Pty Ltd until 19 February 2007, more than 12 months after the company’s registration? Can you also investigate the reason why the member has failed to disclose his previous directorship of the company? Finally, can you advise the House whether the member’s claim that he was not required to declare the company because ‘we did not know what we were going to do with it’ is consistent with the obligations on members—

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms GILLARD —they are quite simple questions—to comply with House resolutions relating to the disclosure of interests? It is in the interests of all members of the House to be clear on these things.

The SPEAKER —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that question time is the time to raise that issue; however, I will examine the points that she has raised. I will take those on notice and I will give further consideration to them.

Then there is this trading partnership (shown in the snapshot below) which perhaps requires further explanation, as it does not appear that in his Register of Members' Interests statement Mr. Hockey has informed the Parliament that the partnership has apparently been reactivated.

Click on image to enlarge

Looking back on the day Tony Abbott became the first federal minister to be ejected from the Australian Parliament in 40 years

House of Representatives Hansard 21 June 2000:

Mr ABBOTT—I am confident that the Job Network member in this case has acted quite properly, as has Centrelink. I agreed with the member for Dickson to keep the job seeker’s name and address confidential, and I have done so.

Mr Beazley—Sit him down.

Mr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition!

Mr ABBOTT—I have done exactly what I promised. You are a sanctimonious windbag.

Mr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.

Mr ABBOTT—You are—

Mr SPEAKER—Minister!....

-the Minister for Employment Services will excuse himself from the House.

Mr Abbott—I was just going to join my friend.

Mr SPEAKER—Minister!

The member for Warringah then withdrew from the chamber.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER—I beg your pardon, the member for Grayndler! The member for Grayndler will apologise.

Mr Albanese—I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Mr Latham—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarification, have you suspended the minister under a standing order in your ruling?

Mr SPEAKER—I have indeed.

Mr Latham—Thank you.

Jack the Insider The Australian 25 June 2013:

Abbott did not excuse himself from the House directly. Enraged, the former Oxford boxing blue veered ominously towards the Opposition benches.

For a man who has been involved in the odd stink, albeit on the fields of sporting contest, it did look awful or at least potentially so. But Abbott didn’t get far. He presumably thought better of engaging in a physical confrontation with his political opponents and left the chamber under escort.

Tony Abbott had become the first Minister to be punted from the parliament in forty years.

Alan Ramsey The Sydney Morning Herald 24 June 2000:

House of Representatives Hansard 24 May 2012:

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:10): We are not going to take lectures about parliamentary behaviour from this Leader of the Opposition, who is the only member of parliament to ever be thrown out of parliament for physically confronting a Vietnam vet with no legs, for marching across the chamber when he was out of control, to Graham Edwards. The Leader of the Opposition is not able to control his temper. He does not have the temperament to be the Prime Minister of this nation. He does not have the character to be Prime Minister of this nation.

Federal Election 2013: A noble promise freely given - or is it?

On 11 August 2013 ABC News reported that; He [Tony Abbott] made a first-term commitment to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, saying the nation's "soul would not be whole" until that happened.

I’m sure that Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott meant that statement made on the federal election campaign trail.

However, like many of his utterances it only tells half the story.

What Abbott does not say is that an act of Parliament passed during Julia Gillard’s’ term as Prime Minister obliges the House of Representatives by 12 November 2014 to begin consideration of the question of whether to call a national referendum on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution and, that this question is then be debated and put to the vote in both the House and the Senate.

As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 had bi-partisan support when it was passed, it is highly likely that a referendum will be called no matter who wins government on 7 September this year.

Whether the Yes vote wins such a national referendum is of course up to the Australian people and hopefully acceptance will prevail that there is a need to legally embed in the Constitution a recognition of the traditional owners of the land past and present and their cultures.  

Three faces of the Opposition under two different Australian Labor Prime Ministers

Liberal Party MP Christopher Pyne during the 

43^rd Australian Parliament – Julia Gillard is Prime Minister

Liberal Party Senator Michaelia Cash during the 

43^rd Australian Parliament – Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott during the 

43^rd Australian Parliament – Julia Gillard is Prime Minister

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott during the 

43^rd Australian Parliament – Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister

* Photographs found at Google Images

Women In Politics: Let's reach another milestone in the September 2013 Australian Federal Election

Source(s): Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2010

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2010:  

The proportion of federal parliamentarians who are women has risen markedly over the past 20 years. On 1 January 1986, one in twenty members of the House of Representatives were women (5%) rising to more than one in four (27%) by the beginning of 2008. Similarly, close to one in five senators were women in 1986 (18%) rising to more than one in three in 2010 (36%) (AEC 2009; Parliament of Australia 2010b).

In the federal government ministry, as at the end of June 2010, there were nine female ministers and parliamentary secretaries (representing 23% of ministers and parliamentary secretaries), including the Prime Minister The Hon Julia Gillard MP and a further three who were Cabinet members. Around 17% of shadow ministerial and parliamentary secretary positions were held by women (Parliament of Australia 2010b).  

The Sydney Morning Herald 29 March 2013:

When she announced her new ministry last Monday, Julia Gillard made history. For the first time, women make up one-third of the Australian government. Although the cabinet remains unchanged, the promotion of three women into the ministry has radically altered the gender balance of the government.

There are four women, including Gillard, in the 20-member cabinet which in itself is a record (and the numbers were even better before the resignation of Nicola Roxon as attorney-general this year).

But it is the outer ministry where the radical change has occurred. Gillard promoted three women: Sharon Bird, Catherine King and Jan McLucas. This means that six of the 10 members of the ministry are women. That's 60 per cent. That's unprecedented in Australia.

L–R: Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Jenny Macklin, Julia Gillard, Kate Lundy, Kate Ellis, Julie Collins

Australian Prime Minister with some of the federal ministers

Former Member for New England and Nationals candidate in the 2013 federal election has home raided by ICAC

The Armidale Express  27 March 2013

The Telegraph online 27 March 2013:

DUMPED nationals candidate Richard Torbay has had his house raided by ICAC, following revelations last week that he had been referred to the corruption watchdog.

UPDATE

The Coffs Coast Advocate 27 March 2013:

FORMER Northern Tablelands MP Richard Torbay was believed to be lying low at a property near Coffs Harbour today as ICAC officers reportedly performed a search of his Armidale home this morning.

The difference between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott

During the National Apology for Forced Adoptions held in the Great Hall at Parliament House in Canberra, the difference between the world views of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott was graphically demonstrated.

There were tears and applause for Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard:

http://youtu.be/aZ5gE_8TRzM

Full speech transcript

The first moment when approval of the Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott  turned to anger, interjection and shouting:

http://youtu.be/OAZywwaLR-o

Full speech transcript
Note: transcript appears to have been amended by author since first publication

A perspective from one of the many in the Great Hall that day:

Yesterday I stood proudly alongside my biological mother -- who I now call mum -- in Canberra to hear the historic national apology. It was a monumental occasion to be sitting next to my mother listening to Prime Minister Julia Gillard give an authentic and informed apology. Mum and I were both impressed, and you could tell by the response of other people affected by forced adoption that they were elated when she actually acknowledged the harm by talking about the loss of lives to suicide.
The emotions in the room were palpable. Gillard used the word illegal, which we were hoping for. Mum desperately needed to hear that word... 


When Abbott started speaking, immediately the tone of the room and the elated atmosphere disintegrated rapidly. Abbott obviously had not consulted with anyone. He didn’t understand the findings of the Senate inquiry and didn’t understand that language is so important when we’re talking about forced adoption. He spoke about "relinquishment" not "forced adoption". We were there for a national apology on forced adoption, not relinquishment. My mother did not relinquish me, I was taken.
He also used the term "birth mothers". For the majority, the mothers and fathers consider themselves parents, period. That’s when the heckling occurred, when he used the term birth parents. For my mother, it echoed the judgemental and insensitive practices of the past.
Everything that Gillard achieved in terms of validating all the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters was completely eroded by Abbott’s speech. One of the recommendations was to bring broader public awareness around the coercive and illegal practices that occurred. If our Opposition Leader couldn’t even understand what happened and use the appropriate words, then what hope do we have of the broader community understanding?

The ugly face of any future Abbott Government?

Hon. Christopher Pyne

Federal Liberal Member for Sturt and Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives

19 March 2013

House of Representatives Hansard Tuesday 19 March 2013:

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the  Leader of the Opposition asked a perfectly valid question. The Prime Minister answered the question and then she as an aside said for some unknown reason, 'Misogynist Tony is back'. I would ask her to  withdraw it because it is a slur on the Leader of the Opposition and a desperate play from a desperate Prime Minister!

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

Opposition members: Why?

The SPEAKER: Why? If anybody needs to ask that they might all just leave the chamber.

The member for Sturt then left the chamber.

So who was it that appeared to call the Australian Prime Minister a "moll"?

News.com.au 12 March 2013:

Three women sitting in the public gallery shouted separate interjections at different points during question time.

One woman appeared to call Ms Gillard a "moll".

Another called the Prime Minister "Ju-liar" and a third spoke about Ms Gillard's recent visit to western Sydney.

"You didn't visit us did ya," she said.

Hansard 12 March 2013:

14.52 hours: An incident having occurred in the gallery

15.12 hours Speaker of the House of Representatives: …I remind members of the gallery that they are not participants in question time and that calling out from the galleries will lead to a closing down. I think it would be an absolute disgrace if we had to curtail the rights of people to attend and see their own parliament. Like many Speakers and many members of parliament before me, I have had the  privilege of going around the world and looking at other parliaments. I do not think people in Australia appreciate the access they have to this building and I would hate to get to the stage where we had to curtail that in any way. If people want to get to interject in question time, they have to get elected and get on a green seat—that would be my advice to individuals.

Even then they would have to observe the standing orders which say, 'No interjections.

It would appear that someone styling herself Debski Bebski made the remark "You didn't visit us did ya" and one Linda Jones admits to calling out "Ju-liar".

So who hurled what sounded like "moll" at the PM?

Former Liberal Party candidate for Bendigo Anita Dolon
in the Bendigo Advertiser

Is this a photograph of the third woman seated in the House of Representatives’ visitors gallery who heckled Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard during Question Time on 12 March 2013?

Or was the "moll" interjector someone else connected to the Rotten To The Core rally held that day in Canberra?

These are unanswered questions, but what is not in question is the Leader of the Opposition's smirking response as these insults flew.......

https://twitter.com/mearesy/status/311329931651084288/photo/1

The 'alleged' defamation that NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell is now trying to spin

 

Premier O'Farrell appears to believe that saying "alleged" absolved him of all blame in this report by ABC News 2 February 2013:

 

Mr McCardle is demanding an apology from Mr O'Farrell and says his client will take him to court for defamation if he does not.

But Mr O'Farrell says he does not see any need to apologise.

"I hasten to explain to Mr McCardle, who is a lawyer, that I did use the word allegations," he told Macquarie Radio.

"I didn't prejudge the allegations."

 

The Premier’s original statements

 

Snapshot from The National Times article Thomson's lawyer demands O'Farrell withdraw comments 1 February 2013:

 

 

"I think Mr Thomson and his lawyer need to calm down a bit - after all, the allegations surrounding Craig Thomson is that he was all too ready to take his clothes off in front of strangers in exchange for money."

 

And at 4.17 minutes into this YouTube video when he had to quickly bite his tongue just before "in front of strangers" in an effort to avoid mention of money:

 

 

http://youtu.be/8Gj6trSfuo0

 

O'Farrell has been very silent since NSW Police had to admit that its statment to the media concerning the need to publicly arrest Federal Independent MP Craig Thomson at his electoral office had been incorrect.

 

Ashby lodges a tit for tat appeal in Ashby v Commonwealth & Slipper

 

James Hunter Ashby and his new legal team finally files his appeal in Ashby v Commonwealth & Slipper – asserting that the Rares judgment which found the original proceedings were an abuse of process was in error.

 

Sortius seeks answers

 

Sortius is a Geek sent this email below to the Department of Parliamentary Services on 18 December 2012. The next day Sortius alleged his website was being blocked so that staff at Parliament House could not read his opinions concerning Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

 

The email:

 

Hi,

 

My name is Kieran Cummings & I write for Independent Australia (& my own blog) about technology & politics.

I recently wrote an article in regard to the press release offered by Tony Abbott’s office regarding James Ashby’s case against Peter Slipper. During my investigation I have uncovered quite a lot of information about the PDFs & when they were produced.

Yesterday I was contacted by journalists to advise that DPS had made a statement in regard to when the PDFs were produced. I feel this statement raises more questions than it answers & I would like to get some more information from DPS on this.

What are “technical staff” using to determine when the files were created/converted to PDF? Are you monitoring every computer on the network & all file creations/accesses?

How is it possible for APH’s computers/servers to run on a time zone outside AEST/AEDT? To my knowledge this will cause all sorts of problems with appointments, logs, etc.

The original press release does not use a “z date” format for time stamping, so I ask which file is DPS referring to? The one modified on 23/04/12 or the original that does not include the “z date” formatting? (I have included the original file that was emailed out before the press release that has passed on from a journalist to myself)

No other files around the time this was created exhibit the same symptoms, if APH does indeed use UTC on all the computers this would be easily replicated. Why is this not the case?

When DPS notes that this was a “technical problem”, where is it arising from?

Tony Abbott’s office advised on 13/12/12 that they were aware of the problem in April 2012, yet DPS does not seem to have known about the problem until 13/12/12. Can DPS please confirm that this has been a continual problem?

Your prompt responses would be appreciated.

 

Regards,

Kieran Cummings

 

	sortius @sortius
@colinfry666 yeh, they are actually investigating it. Apparently my blog has been blocked at APH.