Are all governments control freaks?

When John Howard 'ruled' Australia he had government departments and agencies so cowed that they rarely stepped too far from the right-wing message. Even the CSIRO at times appeared to self-censored itself in order to save some grief. Nobody wanted to place either their promising careers or somewhat pedestrian jobs at risk.

But what the Rudd Government is attempting right now seems to be a new twist.

 

"A directive was issued this week by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to about a dozen statutory agencies.

Recipients include the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Australian Research Council, the Co-operative Research Centres and Invest Australia. Even the Questacon science museum in Canberra was sent the directive.

It says the Prime Minister's office has instructed that "all strategic media releases which relate to the Government's key messages" must be forwarded to the department which will then submit them to the office of the minister, Kim Carr.

If necessary, Senator Carr would send the release to the Prime Minister's office. The department would contact the agency "regarding required changes".

The directive says releases "of a more pedestrian nature" need not be vetted but anything to do with climate change, industrial relations policy, education and science reform, tax policy, national security and health must be submitted."

The Sydney Morning Herald today:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-takes-control-to-new-highs/2007/12/20/1197740472726.html

 

It makes one wonder if Rudd Government ministers are not being welcomed with open arms by the now highly politicised public service and its agency cousins.

 

Adding insult to injury

Saw an ad on the tellie last night. It was an attempt to sell the Iemma Government's high-handed plan to begin the basement sale of state-owned electricity assets.

Yup. Really believe you, Morrie. This sale will make everything rosie - high level of service, reasonable costs, customer satisfaction, pensioners and rural Australia safe. 

Yup. Just like the sale of Telstra, eh Morrie. Now that one really made everything rosie in the bush didn't it?

Morris Iemma is obviously going to retire before the next NSW state election. Why else would he be pushing the electoral suicide of Country Labor.

Six new Victorian senators announced

The Australian Electoral Commission has announced that the count for the election of six Senators for Victoria was completed earlier today. 

The successful candidates for the six Senate vacancies for Victoria are (in order of their election):

1. Jacinta Collins (ALP)
2. Mitch Fifield (Liberal)
3. Gavin Marshall (ALP)
4. Helen Kroger (Liberal)
5. Scott Ryan (Liberal)
6. David Feeney (ALP)

December 19 media release regarding AWB prosecutions

"07-332 ASIC launches civil penalty action against former officers of AWB

Wednesday 19 December 2007

ASIC has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against six former directors and officers of AWB Limited (AWB).

ASIC alleges that the defendants contravened section 180 of the Corporations Act, which requires company officers to act with care and diligence, and section 181, which requires company officers to discharge their duties in good faith and for a proper purpose.

ASIC is asking the Court for declarations that each defendant has breached the law, the imposition of pecuniary penalties (for each breach a maximum of $200,000), and disqualification of each defendant from managing a corporation.

These actions arise out of investigations following Cole Inquiry. The structure of those investigations is as follows:

(a) The AFP and Victoria Police are investigating criminal breaches of both Commonwealth and Victorian law (which investigations continue).

(b) ASIC is responsible for investigations under the ASIC Act, possible civil and criminal breaches of the Corporations Act.

Investigations into civil penalty proceedings was given more priority by ASIC because of the statute of limitation periods which apply to those actions and which do not apply to possible criminal proceedings (which investigations by ASIC continue). Commissioner Cole examined 27 contracts between AWB and the Iraqi Grain Board (IGB). The Corporations Act limits the time for the commencement of civil penalty proceedings to six years. The time limit had expired for 20 of the contracts when the Cole Inquiry concluded in November 2006 and two expired in February and June 2007.

The contracts covered by ASIC's proceedings were entered into between 20 December 2001 and 11 December 2002 and involved the payment of AUD$126.3 million in breach of UN sanctions.

The defendants in the ASIC actions are:

• Andrew Lindberg, the former Managing Director of AWB;
• Trevor Flugge, the former Chairman of AWB;
• Peter Geary, the former Group General Manager Trading of AWB;
• Paul Ingleby, the former Chief Financial Officer of AWB;
• Michael Long, the former General Manager of International Sales and Marketing for AWB (2001-2006); and
• Charles Stott, the former General Manager of International Sales and Marketing for AWB (2000-2001).

ASIC alleges that these officers breached their duties under the Corporations Act in connection with AWB's contracts with the IGB under the United Nations (UN) Oil-for-Food Program, which contained payments for purported inland transportation fees (ITF). The ITF payments were made to Alia, a Jordanian company partly owned by the Iraqi Ministry of Transport.

ASIC alleges that Messrs Long, Geary and Stott were officers of AWB who:

• knew of and implemented various AWB contracts that included the purported inland transportation fees;
• were aware or ought to have been aware that the fees were not genuine; and
• knew or ought to have known that the fees were, or were likely to be, contraventions of the UN sanctions upon trade with Iraq.

ASIC alleges that Messrs Lindberg, Flugge and Ingleby:

• knew, or ought to have known, about the AWB contracts that included the purported inland transportation fees;
• had obligations to make reasonable inquiries to ensure that AWB complied with obligations under UN sanctions upon trade with Iraq;
• were aware, or ought to have been aware, that the fees were not genuine; and
• knew, or ought to have known, that the fees were, or were likely to be, contraventions of the UN sanctions.

The regulator further alleges that all defendants caused harm to AWB through their conduct.

ASIC Chairman, Tony D'Aloisio said 'We have commenced these actions as we believe that the conduct of the directors and officers in these circumstances fell short of what the law requires in relation to the management and supervision of corporations'.

Background

ASIC alleges the payment of the inland transportation fees were in breach of UN Sanctions on Trade with Iraq, in particular Resolution 661, which prevented member states from making any payments that resulted in funds being made available to the Government of Iraq.

The regulator also believes Resolution 986 was breached. This resolution required funds from the UN Oil-for-Food program to be used exclusively to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population. "

http://www.asic.gov.au/ASIC/asic.nsf/byHeadline/07-332%20ASIC%20launches%20civil%20penalty%20action%20against%20former%20officers%20of%20AWB?opendocument

Commonwealth Ombudsman's report into Welfare to Work and Centrelink tales

Yesterday the Commonwealth Ombudsman released a report of his office's investigation into the application of penalties under Welfare to Work legislation.

 

"The report was critical of the practice of stopping a person's welfare payment before a decision was made about whether or not a penalty should apply. Under the Welfare to Work reforms, a jobseeker who does not comply with an activity (such as attending an interview) can face an eight-week non-payment period for a third or subsequent participation failure (or breach) in any 12-month period. Before a decision is made to stop payment, the suspected breaches must be reviewed by a specialist Centrelink officer to check if the person had a reasonable excuse for not completing the activity.

The Ombudsman's investigation queried whether the practice of stopping a payment before a decision is formally made was supported by the social security law. Timeliness in decision making was also raised as an issue.

The practices criticised in the Ombudsman's report could adversely disadvantage Centrelink customers, by depriving them of the following options:

* arranging their financial affairs in anticipation of a penalty being imposed

* applying for a review of Centrelink's decision (because no formal decision had yet been made)

* accessing the Financial Case Management scheme administered by Centrelink, which can assist a customer to meet the costs of essential household and living expenses."

Commonwealth Ombudsman media release 19 December:

http://www.comb.gov.au/commonwealth/publish.nsf/Content/mediarelease_2007_12

 

What is fascinating in all this is that Centrelink had been acting in breach of legislation for at least a 15 month period and there was apparently no oversight by any federal government department as to how this outsourced service was implementing the Welfare to Work penalty provisions.

 

Miraculously government bureaucrats and Centrelink management began to develop a conscience after being contacted by the Ombudsman and benefit payment is no longer stopped before the suspected breach is reviewed. 

However, I have to wonder if the imminent federal election made them all more amenable to the draft report.

The Howard era of blame-the-victim and all-the-unemployed-are-worthless-bludgers was obviously in full swing up to that point.  

 

Practically everyone on the North Coast has their favourite Centrelink story about a local trying to avoid being 'breached' when on unemployment benefits. This one was relayed to me a few years back by someone living in Iluka, a small town at the mouth of one of the largest rivers on the east coast of Australia.

It goes something like this.

ILUKA: I'm phoning to ask if I can fax in my lodgment papers today instead of attending the office in person, as the town where I live is cut-off by flood water at present. 

CENTRELINK: Which office do you usually attend?

ILUKA: I usually drop off at the agency in Maclean, but Grafton is the main office.

CENTRELINK: You can't get into Maclean or Grafton at all?

ILUKA: No, the only road out of town is cut.

CENTRELINK: Yamba has a Centrelink agency and it's close to you, why can't you go there?

ILUKA: Yamba is on the other side of the Clarence River.

CENTRELINK: Can't you take a boat or something across the river and hand in your papers?

ILUKA: You want me to get in a dingy and row across a mile-wide river in full flood just so that I can lodge my papers? There are whole trees whizzing down that river right now. If the flood didn't wash a small boat out to sea, one of those tree trunks smashing into the boat would demolish it and kill anyone onboard.

CENTRELINK: Well OK, but you can only fax your papers this once.

 

Commonwealth Ombudsman's full December 2007 report:

http://www.comb.gov.au/commonwealth/publish.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/reports_2007_16/$FILE/penalties_welfare_to_work.pdf

 

Heigh-ho heigh-ho, it's off to work we go

Kevin Rudd has recently announced an extra 15 sitting days for the 2008 federal parliamentary year and 14 of these will be Fridays.

This will be a total of 82 sitting days up from an average of 62 days each year under the Howard Government.

Good one, Kev. Time for those regular long-weekends to disappear. Time to make all pollies (specially those beggars now in opposition) work their tails off to address the backlog of unresolved national problems Howard and his mates left us with.

Fourteen Fridays is a good start, but remember that Federal Parliament started its life averaging around 95 sitting days a year.

From what I can gather it also took those earlier pollies around seven times longer to debate the merits of a bill than it does now. Must have been some serious debating back in those days.

Now, Kev - about those taxpayer-funded overseas 'study' tours pollies take when parliament isn't sitting........

Rudd Government lives up to its dubious promise regarding NT Intervention land grab

Under the NT Intervention the Howard Government promised a paltry $5 million over 15 years and 25 new houses over 2 years in its grab for pristine and valuable land on Bathurst Island in the Tiwi island group.

The deal struck was contentious and appears to have split the indigenous community.

The Rudd Government has lived up to its election promise to let this 99 year lease agreement on the Nguiu township stand and on 14 December did the necessary amendment to allow the land grab to go forward.

See:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/all/search/3C0A9B75972CCC03CA2573AF00196F8D?OpenDocument

It appears we can change the political colour of federal government, but we can't remove the cheapskate mentality.

Nor can we seem to impress upon the new Rudd Government that any planned measures to improve the lives of indigenous Australians did not require taking control of their lands for the next two generations.