Poll shows more people now want Gillard Government to run full term

Essential Report* on 30 April 2012:

48% think the Labor Government should run its full term until the 2013 election and 42% think an election should be held now.

10% don’t know.

*This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online between the 25th and 29th April and is based on 1,051 respondents.

Bob Carr, Federal Minister for Stoopid

Some people never learn that you can’t undo the Internet and Australia’s Foreign Minister designate Bob the Builder Carr has just shown that he belongs in that digitally stoopid group.

The Telegraph reported this on 4th March 2012:

“BOB Carr has removed an attack on the Dalai Lama from his personal blog where he described the spiritual leader as a "cunning monk."

Australia's next foreign minister, Mr Carr said his views on the Thoughtlines blog were personal ones, but he did not want them to distract from his plum job.

"I thought it might have been better expressed," Mr Carr said….”

Although Google Cache may be the first to give up what pollies intend to hide, The WayBack Machine is no slouch either when it comes to the contents of blogs like Thoughtlines with Bob Carr.

Snapshot of Google Cache for

Thoughtlines with Bob Carr

5^th March 2012

“The Prime Minister should feel no obligation to meet the Dalai Lama, indeed should feel an obligation not to meet him. He is a religious leader but also a cunning one with a political agenda. His agenda is not in Australia’s interest.
First, his plan for Tibetan autonomy goes well beyond religious affairs and veers close to separatism. Tibet has been part of China since the Manchu dynasty. There is no more reason China would accept a loosening of its ties with Tibet than we would accept West Australian autonomous status within the Australian federation.
Second, his definition of Tibet includes parts of Yunnan and Sichuan provinces – because they have Tibetan minorities. The Chinese cannot see this as anything other than an attack on their territorial integrity, their very sovereignty. It is an outrageous claim. It is designed to antagonize the Chinese.
His strategy is to keep coming here and forcing his presence on Canberra, presumably to generate ill-feeling between us and the Chinese. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to see him, no more than she would to accept a courtesy call from the Archbishop of Canterbury if he insisted on being here every 18 months. No, the case for not seeing the Lama is stronger: behind the self-effacing shuffle and the grins he has a mischievous agenda in pursuit of theocratic power.
Reinstating a theocracy over Tibet in opposition to China – and the UN and the entire world recognize Chinese sovereignty in Tibet – is not remotely a matter of Australian interest. Sorry, but the PM has a full agenda and other priorities.”

Meet Bob Carr, Australian Foreign Minister Presumptive

Given how much former NSW Premier Bob Carr likes the sound of his own voice, I wager conservative meeja types will be scouring his old lectures, talks, speeches and off-the-cuff remarks for months to come on the off chance that he will become an embarrassment for the Australian Prime Minister.

Here are the man’s views on a variety of subjects at his own blog Thoughtlines with Bob Carr:

Labor Leadership February 27, 2012The public reaction against Labor if leadership speculation is resumed will be catastrophic. It will be branded the “New South Wales disease”.
Uranium Mining in NSW February 15, 2012

Of course the O’Farrell Government is right to attempt legislation to permit uranium exploration in NSW. I said this two months ago.

The Federal Government has expanded uranium mining and opened exports to India. South Australia boasts what will become the world’s largest uranium mine. The ban for NSW reflected the anti-nuclear sentiment of the 1980s and it is irrelevant today when to beat global warming we urgently need every available source of carbon-free energy.

Shooters Party MPs and the Christian Democratic Party would be well-advised to vote for this legislation on common-sense grounds.

The Primary in Florida February 1, 2012
The victory for Romney confirms that dominance in money and organization still counts. So much for the Gingrich insurgency. They confirm the Republican establishment is not in fact on the run from whooping and hollering members of the Tea Party.
The Dumb Demo Looks Dumber: The Nostalgic Left at Work January 29, 2012
UPDATE. Oh my God, so Unions ACT was the tip-off party. No revelation could make my point below more apt. The myth of the demo. The bankruptcy of old Left culture – paint the placards, stoke the anger and abuse, confront the police, produce scuffles. Create a lovely day out for the local anarchists and Trots. For them, a picnic excursion. This is the point I have been making: this outdated, campus-days, Teachers Federation amateur politics helps the Right. It makes Abbott look good.
Tent Embassy Demo January 27, 2012
I agree with Tony Abbott and think his remarks entirely sensible. The tent embassy in Canberra says nothing to anyone and should have been quietly packed up years ago.
Guns and Bibles January 23, 2012

That Rick Santorum is polling double figures in Republican contests confirms this is a B Team contest. But I warmed to the line from his election night speech in support of Americans who live for their guns and Bibles.

It does inspire this thought, however.

Imagine if a senior Iranian politician – a candidate for leadership – said his people should rally around the Koran and their guns.

And imagine the huffing and puffing on Fox, the op eds from the neo cons, the grim faced commentary from the Washington elite that this confirms the threat from Teheran and that war was all the more likely as a result.

There is little sense in the great republic, the US, of how its domestic antics get projected in the wider world.

Anthony Albanese displays grace under pressure

Transcript of Press Conference

Sydney Feb 25, 2012

ISSUES: Labor leadership

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Thank you for joining us. I intend to make a statement. I will then take a limited number of questions and to save media outlets some phone calls over coming days, these will be my only public comments before the ballot on Monday.

I love the Labor Party.

I was raised by a single mum and I was told that you always had to stand up for what you believed in, regardless of the odds.

I hope that when I leave politics people will regard me as a straightforward politician who said what he thought, who acted in the interest of the Labor Party. Not because that was an end in itself, but because it is only the Australian Labor Party that can advance the long-term national interests of this country.

Mum raised me with three great faiths: the Catholic Church, the South Sydney football club and Labor. She said to be true to all three. Well, with regard to the Catholic Church, I believe that the social justice values that I was raised with, I have kept. With regard to South Sydney, in spite of 41 years of constant disappointment, I have remained faithful. I have also remained faithful to the Labor Party. I have devoted my life to advancing the cause of Labor.

I have despaired in recent days as I have watched Labor’s legacy in government be devalued. We have been a good government since 2007.

Under Kevin Rudd, we had the apology. We brought the troops home from Iraq. We ratified the Kyoto Protocol. We advanced the National Broadband Network.

In my portfolio, we established Infrastructure Australia, we doubled the roads budget. We increased the rail budget by more than 10 times. We committed more to urban public transport than all governments combined since federation.

We have been a good government since 2007. Under Prime Minister Rudd we advanced a great deal. Most importantly, we got through the Global Financial Crisis better than any economy anywhere in the world. We should be proud of our record and not undermine it.

Under Prime Minister Gillard, she has led a government that has achieved outstanding things, particularly under the circumstances of minority government. Two hundred and sixty-nine pieces of legislation. Finally we have a price on carbon; we have structural separation of Telstra; the Minerals Resource Rent Tax and just in the last fortnight, reform of private health insurance. Making sure that my private health insurance isn’t subsidised by working people in my electorate. And, of course, the ABCC legislation to get rid of that unfairness in the workplace.

I believe we’ve been a good government since 2007 and it’s incumbent upon members of the Caucus to advance that – each and every one of us.

Over recent days I’ve had a difficult decision to make. I’ve consulted friends, colleagues, branch members. Members of the community have come up to me, have written to me, have rung me.

Yesterday in my electorate office I rang a number of constituents who’d emailed me cold – people who had given particularly thoughtful contributions – just to have a chat about their thoughts on these issues because at the end of the day while it’s a decision for the Caucus, it’s also a decision for the nation.

Last night upon talking to family, I came to a decision. I rang the Prime Minister this morning and had a lengthy conversation with her. I informed the Prime Minister that I would be voting for Kevin Rudd in Monday’s ballot.

I went through the reasons why and, given my position as Leader of the House, I also offered my resignation to her. As Leader of the House, in particular, I think it’s a different circumstance to which other ministers find themselves in. We had a good constructive discussion. She thanked me for the way that I had conducted myself and expressed confidence that I should remain as Leader of the House due to the loyalty that I had shown, the tenacity that I had shown in that position and said that I would continue to be able to have her confidence – her full confidence – if she was successful in Monday’s ballot.

In recent times, I’ve argued against the predicament that the party now finds itself in. I’ve argued against the spill. I’ve argued against those people who argued we should ‘bring it on’, as it were called, whether they be forces inside or outside the Labor Caucus. I also argued against a challenge against the Prime Minister and indicated that I would not support any challenge against the Prime Minister, should someone seek to bring it on. I believe that the last few days have done damage to our party – there’s no doubt about that.

I have argued against this sort of action before, on the night of 23 June 2010. I believe the Government’s difficulties can be traced to that night. Labor is the party of fairness. It was not fair. It was wrong. We cannot have a situation whereby a first-term elected Prime Minister is deposed, without warning, under the circumstances in which it was done, and I think that anyone who analyses those circumstances objectively would agree with that regardless of the personalities involved.

We’ve only had three leaders lead us from opposition into government since the Second World War: Kevin Rudd, Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam. Each of those three gentlemen deserved our respect. That’s important. Each of those three gentlemen were formidable campaigners indeed. It is tough. It is tough to take Labor from opposition to government. Kevin Rudd showed in 2007 that he could do that.

I argued that night to Kevin Rudd that he shouldn’t contest the ballot because it was in the interests of the party that we get a clean change, given that the circumstances were that he would not have been successful had he contested, and given the proximity to a federal election. That was a difficult thing to do.

Monday’s ballot is the only opportunity I have, therefore, in a ballot to express my dissent from the actions of that night. And I intend to do so.

I do so with a heavy heart. In politics, as in life, you cannot just consider the past; you have to also look to the future and I also believe that our future prospects would be stronger with Kevin Rudd as leader.

We need to win in 2013 to entrench our reforms. We’ve had, under both Prime Ministers Gillard and Rudd, a big agenda. But in order to entrench the reforms that are there, the equity changes that we’re making in education, in health, in my area of infrastructure, you need a long period of time in order to achieve change. All of that, all of that is at risk. All of that is at risk if Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister.

Can I conclude with this: that I have made my decision and it has not been an easy decision. I respect those who disagree with me. It is a judgement call. Both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are formidable politicians and good human beings with good hearts and smart heads. They are formidable people, both of them, and both of them have my utmost respect.

Can I say this also: that no one has fought the Government’s critics harder than myself. Day in, day out, in the Parliament, on the floor of the House of Representatives, in Question Time, in suspension motions, outside of Question Time in the public. When a convoy of very hostile people came to have a demo outside my office, I fronted up. Months ago I said we had to front up to our critics and take them on.

I’ve seen a lot of passion over the last few days from members of the Australian Labor Party. What I want after Monday morning is for that passion to be channelled, regardless of the outcome, into defeating Tony Abbott at the next election. Unless we do that and move forward, we will deliver a Government to someone who – I disagree here with Kevin Rudd, who said he was the most conservative leader that the Liberal Party have had. He’s not a conservative. He is a reactionary. He is a reactionary who has modelled himself on the far right of US politics, and we’re seeing some of that played out at the moment.

I won’t make any further comment after this. So now is your chance if journalists have any questions.

QUESTION: Why have you gone against of the majority of the ministry to support a leader who is so unpopular internally?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: We’ll wait and see the outcome of the ballot on Monday. I don’t pre-empt what Caucus members do. But let me say this: I have not taken this decision in any opportunistic fashion. I think that most people who have observed what’s going on in recent days would have to acknowledge that this is a tough call for me to make. This is not the easy option. This is certainly not in my personal political interest. I am doing it because it’s right.

QUESTION: If Kevin Rudd loses the ballot, what ramifications do you expect there to be for you in the new Cabinet?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: None at all. I have had a good discussion with the Prime Minister this morning. I rang her first. We have obviously spoken at other times in recent days but I rang her to inform her of my decision. I then rang Wayne Swan and told him and had a discussion with him.

Then I told Kevin Rudd. I’m old fashioned. I tell people who I’m not voting for them first. I think that what happens in a process like this – and this is a very important process in terms of restoring Caucus processes –people should go along, they should vote whatever way they themselves think and people should then respect the decision.

The problem with what occurred in June 2010 was that no one had the time to consider the circumstances, to make a reasoned decision. No one, not just inside the caucus but outside the Caucus as well, which is why there was such a reaction to it. My view, and I’ve spoken to Kevin Rudd. He has indicated that if he is not successful, he will not challenge again. He will go the back bench. Julia Gillard has said the same thing.

QUESTION: Do you think your decision could influence other ministers to change their vote for Kevin Rudd?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I’m not lobbying for anyone. Indeed to be frank my preferred position, and we should have a discussion about this in the fullness of time, is that we’ve got to get real about the amount of TV and internal discussions which take place during one of these processes.

It is my preferred position to go into the Caucus and cast a secret vote in a secret ballot. However, given that every single minister has done stand-up TV interviews, I was of the view – and it was suggested to me that I didn’t have to do this press conference, not by the Prime Minister, she respected my views – but some of my closest friends suggested that. I was of the view, given that every single person was out there stating their position, that for me and the sort of politician I am, to not go public with my position now that I have determined what it would be, is not what my electorate would want and not what my branch members would want.

I fully understand that there are those who will disagree with my position, particularly some people in the electorate. I say this to them: this is not the easy option. All the indications are that Julia Gillard will be successful in Monday’s ballot. The easy thing to do, and what often happens in these ballots is that people like to go with the big group, not the small group and maybe just because I’m from the New South Wales Left – by definition, that is something that doesn’t worry me at all.

I have thought really genuinely and seriously about this. And there are no hidden agendas. You won’t hear any criticism of Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd from me because I think they have both been outstanding Labor Prime Ministers.

QUESTION: You’ve been very emotional here today. What sort of personal toll has this taken on you?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well this is tough. I like fighting Tories. That’s what I do. That’s what I do. And I have lifelong friends who disagree with me on this. It has been very difficult. I knew that if I came to this position I had to be in the position of being comfortable with offering my resignation to the Prime Minister as the Leader of the House. That was the position I came to and it’s a big call. Those people who watch Question Time might notice that I quite like being Leader of the House and, what’s more, I think I’m good at it. I think I’m good at it and I serve the government well.

I was pleased that under the circumstances, and I made it clear to the Prime Minister, that it would be perfectly reasonable for her that, under the circumstances where I indicated I was going to make my position public, she accept that resignation. She refused to on the basis that she had absolute confidence that I would continue, were she to continue as Prime Minister to hold her confidence that I would serve her loyally, as I have. As I have each and every day.

I remind people that after the ballot, well, the non-ballot or the change of Prime Minister on that Thursday, I ran Question Time. I did it while those processes were going on, on that Thursday.

But it is difficult. The truth is it has been very traumatic. I would just simply rather have arguments with those people who I disagree with so strongly.

We have a good record. We have a good record in government. We have a good story to tell. We need to tell the story. We need to take on our conservative critics, at each and every level, inside the Parliament and outside the Parliament.

That is the basis for why this has been difficult. I’m not singling myself out. This has been difficult for everyone and most difficult for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd and their families.

QUESTION: Have you spoken to Kevin Rudd today at all?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I have.

QUESTION: And what did you say?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I told him that I had rung the Prime Minister and that I’d be voting for him on Monday.

QUESTION: What was his response to that?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: He thanked me for my support and that was it. It wasn’t a very long conversation. You tend to not need to have as long conversations with people who you are telling that you are voting for them as you do with people who you are telling that you’re not voting for them.

QUESTION: You know by going public with your decision you will influence others. How many others do you think?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: This isn’t aimed at influencing anyone. This is aimed at indicating clearly, transparently, what my position is.

QUESTION: Did you ask the Prime Minister not to stand in the ballot?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: It’s not up to me to do that.

QUESTION: [Inaudible]…nature of the feedback from your electorate… [Inaudible]?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Look, some of those remain confidential obviously. In general, there was a consistency with the position that I’ve taken. I mean people can see the polls in today’s paper. There is no reason to suggest, I know there’s this great science always about internal polling. Guess what? It’s a scam made up by political apparatchiks such as me to pretend that we know more than you do. You know, read the paper. It’s there but certainly not uniform. There are some people in my electorate who will strongly disagree with my position.

QUESTION: [Inaudible]…is this the first time you’re voting against the leader…[Inaudible]?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I’m trying to think. I’ve been through a few, a few too many, but I don’t have a great record of backing winning candidates. So, if you go back and look at who’s been defeated, chances are I voted for them.

QUESTION: How do you respond to…

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I supported Kim Beazley against Kevin Rudd for example very openly and I supported Kevin Rudd against, when Julia Gillard challenged him in 2010. My general view is that it’s incumbent to back leaders – that’s my gut instinct. But these are circumstances which are pretty unique. You essentially have two former prime ministers. Had the circumstances arisen whereby Kevin Rudd announced that he was challenging the Prime Minister, then I would not have taken the position that I have.

Kevin’s position was made pretty difficult I think. My view is that this shouldn’t have happened. My view was the Prime Minister was doing her job; the Foreign Minister was doing his job. It is other people’s interventions that caused this to be brought to a head and I don’t think it was inevitable as much as the media tried to talk it up because it gives you something to talk about for all these days. But I don’t think it was inevitable. That was my strong view and that was conveyed to anyone who would listen.

QUESTION: How do you think the numbers are going?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I’m not counting numbers.

QUESTION: You’re not doing anything [indistinct]?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I am not counting, I am not counting numbers. I am not doing that.

People will find out on Monday. Once again, there are various things in the papers and stuff. Can I say this about the various lists and, I’ve been on all of them in different positions. There isn’t a single journalist who I have spoken to about what way I’m voting. The person who heard that I was voting the way that I was first was the Prime Minister. That was this morning and that was appropriate.

Thanks very much.

The Daily Examiner editor calls the Federal Opposition on its private health insurance scare campaign

Click on image to enlarge

eHealth - when "We told you so" gives no satisfaction

First it was privacy concerns which headed the list of reasons why the proposed eHealth scheme could be one of the worst ideas Federal Labor has come up with in the last one hundred years – now it seems the very wheels are thought to be falling off the national database wagon and it may even be dangerous to patient health.

The Australian 6 February 2012:

THE private corporation established by the federal and state governments to roll out the proposed electronic health records system has been savaged by the software industry and privacy advocates.

Both the Medical Software Industry Association (MSIA) and the Australian Privacy Foundation have told a Senate inquiry hearing in Canberra that personally controlled e-health records should not go live on July 1 as planned.

MSIA president Jon Hughes says industry has lost confidence in the ability of the National eHealth Transition Authority (NEHTA) to deliver the program.

"There is evidence of a lack of probity, ineffective governance and an inability to deliver targeted programs," he told the inquiry.

"The program risks falling into disuse from the very first day of live operation."

Industry argues the federal health department has not provided the support needed to maintain the e-health records in the longer-term………

Dr McCauley told the committee if data was reformatted as envisaged it could create havoc when it came to listing medications on e-health records because the so-called Australian medicine terminology still had serious issues.

"That medication list (on records) is going to become a major mish-mash of sources of information from different people in different places describing the medication using different names and it's going to be extremely confusing."

Senate Community Affairs Committees Inquiry into Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 and one related bill

MSIA has repeatedly asked for the information contained in the comprehensive safety report that NeHTA has stated was performed prior to the Health Identifier service going live. This has not been made available. The results of a recent FOI request to DoHA by The Australian, demonstrated that DoHA does not have such a report. The recently discovered design flaws suggest that the safety report, if completed, was not sufficiently comprehensive.
[Medical Software Industry Association submission (PDF 438KB)]

A brief history of the debate on North Coast Voices:

Friday, 17 April 2009  So you want to look through my medical records?

Wednesday, 10 June 2009  Federal Labor and Health Minister Roxon crossing a bridge too far

Thursday, 28 January 2010  e-Health: something's rotten in the State of Kevin

Sunday, 7 March 2010  And these are the people Rudd & Co intend to trust with access to a national database containing all your sensitive personal information?

Monday, 15 March 2010  Who's guarding the guards guarding your personal information?

            Thursday, 14 April 2011  PCEHR opt-in provision expected to allay privacy concerns. Pull the other one!

Copy of formal agreement between Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then MP-Elect Andrew Wilkie, 2 September 2010

As the political waters are likely to be muddies by vested interests of all political persuasions this week - here is the Gillard-Wilkie Agreement 2010. Read the source and then read those media opinions on current poker machine gambling policy and political rants as they roll out over the next few days.

Page MP welcomes new national personal property register

Page MP Welcomes New National Personal Property Register

Page MP Janelle Saffin has welcomed a new national register for personal property securities (PPS) which will help Australian consumers and businesses ensure the property they buy doesn’t have a security interest over it.

The Federal Government has announced the new register will open for business on 30 January 2012. Stakeholders, including the major banks, have confirmed that they are ready to proceed.

“The new register will allow you to check that the goods you are considering buying, like a car, boat or machinery—almost anything except real estate—doesn’t have a security interest over it,” said Ms. Saffin

“Nobody wants to goods they have bought in good faith to be repossessed. This new register provides easy and affordable access to information before you purchase.

The new register will also provide additional protection for businesses that lease or supply goods, in the event that a debtor defaults or goes bankrupt.

“The national register will replace more than 70 different Commonwealth, state and territory acts and registers used to regulate personal property used as security,” said Ms. Saffin.

“The simplification of all these different registers will help make secured financing more accessible and reduce transaction costs, making lenders more willing to accept different kinds of personal property as security for loans.”

The existing registers transferring their data to the new register include the ASIC Register of Company Charges, the State Registers of Encumbered Vehicles (REVS) and Vehicle Securities Registers, and various other Bills of Sale, stock mortgage and crop lien registers.

Businesses and individuals that hold security interests will have up to two years to register their security.   

“Business can get ready to use the national register before it opens for business on 30 January by setting up their accounts from now until 15 January,” said Ms. Saffin.

Prior to the reforms commencing on 30 January, the Government will continue to communicate with business and consumers about the changes through advertisements on national radio, online and in print media.

Further information on PPS reform and access to the new register is available at http://www.ppsr.gov.au/ or by calling 1300 007 777.

6 January, 2012

The Plibersek Industrial Relations Philosophy - I own you body and soul

The not-for-profit workforce

It was estimated that 5.2 million Australian volunteered in 2007 (ABS 2007b). Of these, 4.6 million were estimated to volunteer with the NFP sector. Around two-thirds of these volunteer with NFPs that do not have employees. The volunteer workforce was estimated in the ABS satellite accounts to provide over $14.6 billion of unpaid labour in 2006-07.

[Dept. Prime Minister and Cabinet,research report,2011]

The theme of the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Volunteer is ‘Inspire the Volunteer in You’. Pierre, your work as an Australian Youth Ambassador for Development and your fundraising for Habitat for Humanity has certainly inspired many here today.

Thank you for asking me to be with you today to help launch the Australian Volunteers for International Development Program.

Australians are a generous and compassionate people. In 2006, over 5 million people – that’s more than one-in-three adult Australians – volunteered for an estimated 700,000 not-for-profit and non-government organisations.

[Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Inclusion Tanya Plibersek, Transcript: Launch of the Australian Volunteers for International Development, 2011]

LAST week, Tanya Plibersek challenged Australian governments and businesses to create a stronger and more sustainable volunteering sector. This week, 37,000 employees in her department were told that if they wished to engage in volunteering activities in the future, they would have to get their manager's permission first…..

For the first time, unpaid weekend volunteer work will come under the scrutiny of departmental supervisors, and public sector employees must get approval before undertaking such work. Employees must apply for a renewal of that approval every 12 months and will also be subject to a ''regular review'' of their activities.

The new policy also requires public servants to tell the department if the nature of their volunteering duties within a charitable or not-for-profit organisation changes during the 12-month period.

[Brisbane Times,10 December 2011, Public servants told to seek approval to volunteer]

Last week the Federal Department of Human Services tried to turn Australia’s volunteering culture on its head.

Ms. Plibersek denies any input into this new policy, however the minister of the day sets the tone for such changes to occur.

She personally, the department she heads and government generally need to recognise that their workers are neither serfs, indentured servants nor outright slaves – they do not own them body and soul.

An employer has a right to direct an employee for the period of each day which represents the agreed work day – not one jot more than that. Traditionally this broke each day of the working week down into Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.

The sort of skewed thinking which demands 24/7 allegiance to the wishes of an employer more properly belongs to the likes of the Liberal and National parties not the Australian Labor Party.

Ms.Plibersek needs to remember to which political party she actually belongs, as does the Prime Minister under whose leadership this attitude towards public servants has obviously been allowed to flourish.

Cartoon from ClipartOf

Something to ponder about the 2011-12 Federal Budget

An example of where the Australian Labor Party has lost its way.

The Punch and Jo Thornely on 2^nd December 2011:

“Wading through the bits of the 2011-2012 Budget that actually say actual things in actual English (that is, the bits that don’t say things like “continuing benefits to the bottom-line beyond the forward estimates”, which I assume means “um”) I was struck by some comparative numbers.

One of the numbers was $222 million, which has been earmarked to extend the National School Chaplaincy Program.

One of the other numbers was $53 million, put aside to improve access to public dental services, particularly for those with low incomes. In a (perhaps simplistic) summation, in financial terms the government is around four times more likely to give you access to divinity than dentistry. It will be easier to learn about Noah’s Ark than dental plaque.”

Citizen bloggers shouldn't panic just yet - no matter how far Teh Bolta throws his red herrings

This was Teh Bolta last Thursday; “You do realise that the Gillard Government may be thinking of laws to censor those of you who blog and tweet.“

And as usual you can find his faithful echoes out in the blogosphere trying to whip up a conspiracy.

However, nowhere do they explain how citizen blogs published on domains registered in other countries can be regulated or adjudicated by Australian Government agencies or the Press Council - outside of being placed on the mandatory ISP filter domain/website blacklist that Conroy has spectacularly failed to get off the ground. Google Inc (owner of one of the more popular hosting domains) for one was not impressed by Conroy's chilling policy.

Neither do they tell us on what their censorship fears are based when it comes to this new independent inquiry.

Despite the not-so-secret wish list of that notorious political anal retentive the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, it’s professional journalists and their ilk writing online newspaper articles/opinion ‘blogs’ (and perhaps even their broadcasting compatriots published in the online print version of radio or television programs and journalists with publisher-endorsed promotional Twitter accounts) whose pages will fall squarely within the terms of reference set out in the 14th September 2011 press release sent out by the Minister when he announced an independent inquiry into the Australian media:

Announcing the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, Senator Conroy acknowledged the pressures brought about by the advent of digital technologies and the 24 hour news cycle were threatening the traditional business models that support the essential role of the media in our democratic society……

"The Media Inquiry I am announcing today will focus on print media regulation, including online publications, and the operation of the Press Council.

"The Government believes a separate and distinct examination of the pressures facing newspapers and their newsrooms, including online publications, will enhance our consideration of the policy and regulatory settings Australia needs to ensure that the news media continues to serve the public interest in the digital age," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will be conducted independently of Government, led by Former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, Ray Finkelstein QC, with the assistance of Dr Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Journalism at Canberra University and a former practising journalist.

"The Government is delighted that these eminently qualified Australians have agreed to undertake this important task on behalf of the Australian people," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will provide its findings to the Convergence Review early next year, and the Government will take a considered approach to the recommendations of both.

Terms of Reference

An independent panel will be appointed to inquire into and report on the following issues, while noting that media regulation is currently being considered by the Convergence Review:

a) The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia, particularly in light of technological change that is leading to the migration of print media to digital and online platforms;

b) The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment;

c) Ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council, including in relation to on-line publications, and with particular reference to the handling of complaints;

d) Any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.

The panel will be required to provide a report to Government by 28 February 2012, while working with the Convergence Review committee to ensure that findings are able to be incorporated into the ultimate report of the Convergence Review by end March 2012.

Australian High Court: Federal Government has "no power" to remove asylum seekers to Malaysia [excerpts & link to full transcript]

On 25 July 2011 the Gillard Government announced an agreement with Malaysia to transfer asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia waters to Malaysian territory, after the agreement was legally in effect. This decision was challenged by application to the High Court of Australia.

Here are excerpts from Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32 (31 August 2011).  
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ presiding.

FRENCH CJ.:

Conclusion

68.         The ministerial declaration of 25 July 2011 was affected by jurisdictional error. It was not a declaration authorised by s 198A of the Migration Act. The plaintiffs cannot therefore be taken to Malaysia pursuant to the power conferred by s 198A(1). Nor is it open to any officer of the Commonwealth to remove the plaintiffs to Malaysia pursuant to s 198(2) of the Migration Act without first assessing their claims to be persons to whom Australia owes protection obligations.

69.         In relation to M106, I agree for the reasons explained in the joint judgment[72] that he cannot be removed from Australia without the prior consent in writing of the Minister under the IGOC Act. I agree with the orders proposed in the joint judgment.

GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND BELL JJ.:

Conclusion and orders

148.      For the reasons that have been given, the Minister's declaration that Malaysia is a specified country for the purposes of s 198A of the Act was made without power. There should be a declaration to that effect. The Minister may not lawfully take either plaintiff from Australia to Malaysia and the Minister should be restrained accordingly. In addition, in the case of the second plaintiff, the Minister should be further restrained from taking the second plaintiff from Australia without there being a consent in writing of the Minister given under s 6A(1) of the IGOC Act. The defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings to date before Hayne J and the Full Court.

KIEFEL J.:

Conclusion and orders

258.      There was no power to make the declaration of 25 July 2011. Because the declaration is invalid, there is no power to remove the plaintiffs to Malaysia. Any attempt to do so would be unlawful. In the case of Plaintiff M106, his removal from Australia to any country is also unlawful absent the consent of the Minister in his capacity as guardian of Plaintiff M106.

259.      I agree with the orders proposed in the joint judgment.

HEYDON J.:

Conclusion

199.       It is not necessary to deal with an alternative argument advanced by the defendants which relied on s 198 of the Act.
200.      Each Amended Application should be dismissed with costs.

Full judgment transcript here.

Judgement summary here.

* This post was emended for name error and dissenting judgment included