'Letter from a Terrorist' sent to APN News and Media Chairman Peter Cosgrove

According to Independent Australia posting on 14 October 2013, this letter set out below was sent over a fortnight ago.

Given the relentless cost cutting that APN News and Media has undertaken in recent years, I am inclined to believe that part of this 27 year-old former journalist's complaint concerned with hours being routinely worked by staff on regional newspapers and lack of work-life balance.

This is supported by a comment under the post from another former APN employee living in the Northern Rivers region; I can testify my workplace at an APN regional newspaper was full of weary, broken down people who did a tremendous job under an uncontrollable workload that got heavier with each absence or resignation. The ones my age were counting the days to retirement. The young often returned to the office ashen-faced after being sent to a gruesome car accident or similar. Everyone’s dreams wilted.

While another remarked; Entirely validating – I want to buy former fellow employee #133,332 a beer, if he’d email me.

As for the allegations concerning company spying, I leave that for readers to evaluate.

Letter From A Journalist To APN News & Media's Board Chairman

APN Whistleblower Policy here.

Civics 101: How to micro manage a government into open revolt

First that Coalition power couple Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin sought to micro manage contact between government ministers, MPs and the media.

Then they decided to personally vet prospective staff of ministers and MPs.

Now these same ministers and MPs will even have their private leisure time constrained, unless they receive a permission slip for that family holiday from the Prime Minister's office.

The Herald Sun 16 October 2013:

The Prime Minister's chief-of-staff Peta Credlin emailed all Coalition MPs on Monday demanding they get approval at least four weeks before all overseas study trips, sponsored travel and private holidays.

But the move has triggered dissent in government ranks, with disgruntled MPs claiming their private lives are being invaded and the PM's office was indulging in a "power grab".

"It's one thing to ask ministers and parliamentary secretaries to seek permission but for backbenchers this is just ridiculous," one Coalition MP said.

"These people are adults, they can make their own decisions. More experienced hands will just laugh this Stalinist move off.".....

"This is the nanny state gone mad in the leader's office," the MP said.

UPDATE

ABC AM 18 October 2013:

After six years of hard work in opposition they say they're now expected to take on more responsibility, much more work, many more hours with far more scrutiny and pressure - all without a pay rise.
"It's an appalling way to treat people" one very senior Coalition source says. "Ministers get an automatic pay jump so they're alright. But financially cutting the throats of the staff they rely on is petty and stupid."...
one long-time Coalition staffer warns morale around Government ranks is "abysmal", and "resentment is festering". He predicts a bonanza for reporters because quote "the joint will leak like a sieve".

Abbott Government: Mandate? What Mandate?

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has challenged new Labor leader Bill Shorten to heed the verdict of voters by not opposing legislation to repeal the carbon tax.

Someone needs to remind Prime Minister Abbott that the combined first preference vote of all four political parties (Liberal, Liberal-National, Nationals, Country Liberals NT) which form the current Coalition Government only came to 42.85 per cent of all ballots cast at the 7 September 2013 federal election.

That leaves the bulk of the remaining 57.15 per cent of voters at that election with government policy aspirations which are highly likely to run counter to Abbott’s aspirations.

Any talk of a mandate is accepting myth as fact.

* Image from The Australian

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

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

Breaking an entrenched “entitlement” mindset is far from easy

taxpayers have a right to insist that their money is not wasted

Tony Abbott

17 November 2000

31 March 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald 11 October 2013

Between 1 July 2008 and 31 December 2012

in addition to his generous parliamentary salary

the Hon. Anthony John ‘Tony’ Abbott

was paid an est. $2.87 million in member ‘entitlements’

based on requests he submitted to the

Federal Dept. of Finance