Why are NSW taxpayers forking out for this man's salary?

Why are we paying this man's salary? Must be a question many NSW taxpayers ask themselves whenever they come across statements made by arch-buffoon the Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC.

Excerpt from Hansard transcript  for NSW Legislative Council, 10 May 2012:

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [10.57 a.m.]: I agree with the Hon. Trevor Khan when he said that Mother's Day allows for an expression of love and commitment to one's mother. The nature of motherhood is unconditional love, irrespective of circumstances, irrespective of facts and irrespective of what foibles and faults our mothers have. I am pleased that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann has expanded the motion because I would like to talk about a different form of motherhood.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Talk about Lee Rhiannon and Mother Russia.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: There is no better example of this than Lee Rhiannon and her love of Mother Russia. Lee Rhiannon and the Brown family's love of Mother Russia is a wonderful example of an unconditional, irrational love that transcends all boundaries. The Brown family have loved Mother Russia for many, many years, despite all that they know. They loved Mother Russia when Mother Russia executed 20,000 people per month in the two years immediately following the Bolshevik revolution. They loved Mother Russia when the bayonets were driven into the Romanov family, including the children.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: My point of order refers to relevance. The motion is about Mother's Day. It has nothing to do with the country of Russia, which is clearly the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' line of argument.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The motion has been expanded by way of an amendment moved by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. I may well have my own motion at the end of this debate that may seek to amend the amendment. I am speaking to both the amendment and the substance of the original motion.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Members have not gone outside the purview of talking about women in this country and the relevance of Mothers Day. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is well outside the leave of this motion; he is well outside the purview of any debate within this Chamber. He is specifically talking about international relations and Russia. It has nothing to do with this debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Lynda Voltz is incorrect. The Hon. Trevor Khan spoke about the origins of Mothers Day in the United States. So we are talking about Mothers Day around the world.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion. If he intends to move an amendment I suggest he do so quickly. His comments would be relevant if they related to his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am speaking about the love of Lee Rhiannon for her family, who were staunch members of the Communist Party for many years. I can only presume that it could not have been her own intellectual rationalisation of communism which caused her to do that. It must have been a blind and unswerving adherence to her own mother, Freda Brown, a staunch member of the Communist Party, which prompted her to do it. After all, no sane and rational human being, knowing of the murder of Trotsky or the disgraceful behaviour of the Communist Party after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was announced, could possibly have done this. It must have been her mother and her love for her mother.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: In your last ruling on relevance, you advised the member to move his amendment if he wished to be generally relevant to the debate. I have not heard the member move his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I am speaking specifically about a relationship between a mother and her daughter, and the close relationship occasioned by that relationship.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Earlier you ruled that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps needed to move an amendment to be relevant. He is flouting your ruling; he has not moved the amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Further to the point of order: I am no longer speaking of international relations; I am speaking about a relationship between a mother and her daughter. If I am not allowed to use practical examples of the relationship between a mother and a daughter in an examination of Mothers Day and the nature of motherhood, then I am not sure how I can further progress the argument in relation to the original motion.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I do not uphold the point of order. While members are participating in a lively debate, I encourage them to be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: We can envisage the quaint and delightful evening scene—an idyll of bliss—around the dinner table where Bill and Freda Brown would be discussing with Lee, their young daughter, the wonders of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and how the glories of the Five-year Plan had led the Soviet Union into a new, peaceful and wonderful era.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance again. The member is now talking about the Five-year Plan in Russia. At no point in his last statement has he drawn the attention of the House to either Mothers Day and its relevance to our community or to the women of Australia.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Earlier members—including the Hon. Cate Faehrmann—raised the issue of domesticity and the enforced domesticity of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, with some critical aspect to it. During those 1940s, 1950s and 1960s there was a level of enforced domesticity where women were supposed to stay at home, cook, sit around the dinner table and chat, and look after their children. The Brown family is an example of this. I can imagine them sitting around the table, justifying the Rosenbergs' treason against the United States with their nuclear espionage.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: While the Government Whip may take great sport in defaming a woman who has been dead for three years, I do not see the relevance of this individual to the debate. The member is out of order by making references to somebody who is not relevant to this debate. What happened in the Brown household is not part of a Mothers Day debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann has previously raised issues of enforced domesticity and I am going through examples of the sort of situation you would find in a 1950s family.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is flouting your ruling on relevance. On numerous occasions he goes directly back to talking about Russian foreign policy. That is of no relevance to this debate on Mothers Day. At no time has this member spoken in regard to Mothers Day and its relevance to women in this country.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: It was clearly recognised at the time—and indeed by some left-wing academics today—that domesticity and the role of females is an integral part in understanding class theory. If one does not address this, one is basically saying that this Feminist-Marxist interpretation has no validity. I am quite happy for the Hon. Lynda Voltz to say that Feminist-Marxist interpretations have no validity whatsoever but I do not believe she is going to say that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: The member has not spoken about domesticity in the 1950s. He has constantly referred to one family and referenced that to Russia and Russian foreign policy. I appreciate that the member has now found the feminist view of history useful to him. However, I ask you to bring him back to the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member's comments need to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: As people become older, they move away from their mothers—the traditional phrase is "moving out from behind one's mother's skirt". But it appears that, for many people—especially in the 1960s—they did not merely move out from behind their mother's skirt but they took up the causes which had so enlivened their mothers. There is no better example of this than Lee Brown, as she then was, and her maintenance of strong links with Communism. She supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I feel obliged to do this and will perhaps end up doing this all day. The member is constantly flouting your ruling. He is constantly referring back to Russian foreign policy, which has nothing to do with the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Teenagers move into adulthood, and adulthood brings with it a greater understanding—especially when one becomes a mother—of one's mother's position. Certainly, that was the case of Lee Brown. As she moved into adulthood she came to appreciate her mother's position on a range of issues far greater than she had in the past. In relation to the State of Israel, the invasion of Czechoslovakia—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: If the member thinks that the particular political position of one particular mother in New South Wales is relevant to this debate, then I am mystified. This is a debate about motherhood. How could offensive remarks about one particular individual be relevant to this debate?

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order. If we are not permitted to illustrate the development of an individual, from her first contact with her mother through to becoming a mother herself and understanding the nuances and complexities of one's life as we move along that journey, how can we give true appreciation to the heartfelt sentiments behind this motion?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Once again, I uphold the point of order. I again remind the member to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Finally, I would like to say: Happy Mothers Day.

Peterintg Time was right to call Phelps a troll and it would appear from the above Hansard quote that his nasty habit is not just confined to Twitter.

Oakeshott follows Abbott's lead to the detriment of the Australian electorate

My personal views is that those findings [in the FWA report] are damning enough that the Parliament does have to respond in some form," Mr Oakeshott said.

Only in an Australian Parliament irrevocably tainted by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s politically opportunistic and totalitarian world view, would an Independent Member of the House of Representatives so forget himself as to decide that action should be taken against a fellow parliamentarian BEFORE any criminal charges were laid and the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided to go forward with criminal court proceedings which resulted in a conviction.

Are waters being muddied already in the Clarence Valley campaign to improve mental health services?

According to yourhealth.gov.au:

Northern Rivers General Practice Network Ltd, in partnership with Tweed Valley General Practice, Hastings Macleay General Practice Network, Mid North Coast Division of General Practice, North Coast GP Training and Many Rivers AMS Alliance has been selected to establish the North Coast NSW Medicare Local.

It went on to outline North Coast NSW Medicare Local's agenda in relation to mental health in this November 2011 document:

Establishment of a regional low intensity mental health service “Stress Less”……Continuation of support to clinicians and service providers delivering a range of programs including headspace, Mental Health Nurse Funding and Access to Allied Psychological Services.

On its own website North Coast NSW Medicare Local states:

Medicare Locals are part of plans to shift the focus of health care away from hospitals, instead providing better coordinated primary care (out of hospital care) in the community.

Over the next little while, our CEO Vahid Siberi will be taking to the road to meet politicians, VIPs and media and explain NCML's vision and aims and how the community can get involved. Not everything will happen overnight, it will take time for NCML to gather the information required on primary health care services to enable it to make a difference to the patient journey.  

On 9 May 2012 The Daily Examiner reported:

Though NCML can't help directly with The Daily Examiner's latest push for an overnight mental health facility at Grafton Base Hospital, the organisation's chief executive Vahid Saberi said he would listen to all concerns at a planned public meeting on mental health set down for Tuesday, June 5 at the Grafton District Services Club.

"I am familiar that there has been a need expressed for an overnight mental health facility in Grafton ... but bed-based services need to be funded through the state," he said. "But I would be happy to advocate for it." "My jurisdiction is outside hospital walls."

One has to wonder what NCNSWML’s principal government partner, the federal Dept. of Health & Aging, thinks of  Mr. Saberi moving so far from his brief next month by advocating for increased in-hospital care – no matter how much it may possibly be needed.

Well intentioned though he may be, this CEO is creating a situation which may yet get both federal and state agencies off-side.

Teh Kouk kicks out at Abbott's economic credentials and Pure Poison follows with a boot to the rear

Stephen Koukoulas of Market Economics had this response to the Australian Leader of the Opposition’s Budget Reply Speech on his blog on 10 May 2012:

ABBOTT: People who work hard and put money aside so they won’t be a burden on others should be encouraged, not hit with higher taxes.
FACT: The tax to GDP ratio of the first 5 Labor Budgets averaged 21.1%. The lowest ever tax to GDP recorded under the Howard government was 22.2% and the average was 23.4%. The last time a Coalition Government delivered a tax to GDP ratio below 21.1% was in 1979-80. Cannot see where the “hit with higher taxes” statement fits these facts in the current Budget context.

ABBOTT: And people earning $83,000 a year and families on $150,000 a year are not rich, especially if they’re paying mortgages in our big cities.
FACT: Average annual earnings are around $53,500 in NSW and $51,500 in Victoria. Maybe they are “not rich”, but someone on $83,000 is earning around 60% above the average wage whether they have a mortgage or not.

ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, from an economic perspective, the worst aspect of this year’s budget is that there is no plan for economic growth; nothing whatsoever to promote investment or employment.
FACT: After registering a 19^th straight year of economic growth in 2010-11, the Budget shows Australia growing at 3% in 2011-12, 3.25% in 2012-13 and 3% in 2013-14. Having risen a Chinese-type 18% in 2011-12, business investment is forecast to rise a further 12.5% in 2012-13. Employment is forecast to rise by 1.25% in 2012-13, which will see the creation of around 175,000 new jobs from now until June 2013.

Read the rest here.

The full transcript of Tony Abbott's budget reply (containing no specific economic/funding information concerning his own inchoate policies) can be found here.

Over at Pure Poison they are wondering when the press gallery is finally going to call Abbott out on the rubbish he's spouting:

Contrasting the GFC deficits with the pre-GFC boom as if there wasn’t a GFC – surely someone could ask Abbott if he even noticed the existence of a global financial crisis or if he’s a weirdo conspiracy theorist who thinks the rest of the world just made it up.

The “cuts to defence” line, which are mainly to do with delaying the disastrous Joint Strike Fighter that’s running late and is a step backward anyway. Could someone ask Abbott whether he’d insist on going ahead with it right now while other buyers are backing away?

The “we’ll find savings” line – could someone ask Abbott just why any Australians should believe that he’ll find $70 billion savings in a way that none of us will mind? And why he thinks we shouldn’t all be very worried that something we or a family member or friend rely on might not be one of the things he slashes in order to give “incentives” to big polluting companies?

How about his “trickle down” theory, where you don’t need any actual plan for growth other than slashing taxes for big business (except when Labor proposes them) and the super rich?

You could question his complaints about not enough money going into the NDIS and dental care given that the Liberals haven’t promised to put in any more either.

How about asking him to reconcile his demand for “growth” with his previous fixation on interest rates being low? Is that suddenly not important now that interest rates are lower under Labor than they ever were under the Coalition?

Growing dirt pile is getting closer to NSW O'Farrell Government Resources and Energy Minister, Chris Hartcher

Something which places a different emphasis on Chris Hartcher’s open for business philosophy?

Sean Nicholls writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May 2012:

A SENIOR staff member of the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher, has resigned and his electorate officer has been suspended after election funding authorities launched an investigation into allegations against them.
Tim Koelma, who had worked for Mr Hartcher for a decade, and Ray Carter, Mr Hartcher's electorate officer in Terrigal, were suspended in late March after the NSW Liberal Party wrote to the Election Funding Authority alleging they had breached funding laws.
It is understood political donations to the NSW branch of the party were being sought through a trust connected to Mr Koelma……

The Craig Thomson Saga: He's in another universe?

Jackson (left) and Thomson (right)

Health Services Union officials have rejected Federal Independent MP Craig Thomson’s claim that he was set up by a member/s of the union with regard to allegations currently being investigated by NSW Police – one even saying that he’s in another universe.

Certain political commentators are also tending to openly scoff at the MP's claim.

However, it may pay to tread carefully because Thomson’s claim bears a remarkable similarity to another HSU official’s claim in 2009. The fact that there are two individual claims in a short time frame tends to support the idea that dirty tricks may be part of the internal life of this union. The Jackson allegations were also allegedly investigated by police.

The Weekend Australian article concerning allegations against Jeff Jackson, April 2009:

The statement of a Bendigo Gold Visa card allegedly issued to Jackson shows expenditure on services that fall far outside his normal duties. It includes a string of prostitutes, designer clothes, dental work, gourmet food and drinks at a favourite Melbourne hotel. Jackson challenges the authenticity of this credit card account and dismisses allegations he has misused any funds as part of a "dirty tricks campaign" mounted by opponents within his union…..

Last year Jackson granted himself a 9 per cent pay rise, more than double the percentage his members received, after instructing his office manager Rita Wills to give him $15,000. This additional money was officially described on the union payroll as "back pay". When Jackson's junior official and friend Alex Hicks took leave without pay last October, he ordered that she get a one-off payment of $5000. Jackson told his office manager to record the sum as a political donation because Hicks was "campaigning for

Barack Obama".

Over a 15-month period to November last year, Jackson was reimbursed $19,000 for branch expenditure…..

The Australian article concerning allegations against Craig Thomson, April 2009:

A FEDERAL Labor MP and former union chief is facing allegations that his union credit cards were used to pay for escort services and to withdraw more than $100,000 in cash.

Fairfax newspapers report today that Craig Thomson allegedly also used union credit cards to bankroll his election campaign for the NSW seat of Dobell in 2007, but that this use of the cards had not been disclosed under electoral law.

Mr Thomson, 44, is a former national secretary of the Health Services Union, officials of which had made the allegations, it was reported.

Thomson is to make a personal explanation in the House of Representatives during the week beginning 21 May 2012.

Photographs found at Google Images

Update:

I acknowledge that I have played internal union and ALP politics for 20 years - and played it hard according to the grubby rule book of those environments. [National Secretary of the Health Services Union and Executive President of HSUeast Kathy Jackson, Is Kathy Jackson a hero?: a personal explanation, 1 February 2012]

And now journalists keep ringing her, wanting to ask about the political storm she accidentally sparked the previous night on ABC-TV's 7.30 Report when she accused the Government of interfering in the investigation into Thomson being carried out by the independent industrial umpire Fair Work Australia. It was an accusation she had not planned to make, and one that was especially awkward given her partner Michael Lawler is vice-president of FWA. She now concedes she has no firm evidence to back up the allegation. "That just sort of happened," she giggles as she lights a cigarette.......
[The Australian, Union dues,18 February 2012]

On  21 December 2011 Joint Vice-President of Fair Work Australia and past Howard Government appointee to the former Australian Industrial Relations Commission which adjudicated under WorkChoices legislation, Michael J Lawler, makes a formal complaint to NSW Police in a private capacity against certain officials in the HSU, after Fair Work Australia received complaints about alleged inappropriate contact and interference by Lawler in union matters on behalf of Kathy Jackson.

Further update:

Wixxyleaks on the subject of Michael J Lawler 17 May 2012:

I contacted Fair Work Australia today after anonymous sources informed me that he had been stood down. Initially I spoke to Michael’s PA, who informed me she knew nothing, only that he was not in the office all day.
I again contacted FWA as rumors persisted. late this afternoon I was contacted by FWA’s Communications Manager, Judy Hughes who informed me that Michael was on “Long Leave”. Not Long Service Leave, Sick Leave, or Holidays, “Long Leave”.
She would not expand on this, citing “privacy reasons”, however based on my earlier conversations with both her and Michael’s PA, I was left with the impression that this decision had been taken rather suddenly. I was also left wondering who actually made the decision, as when I asked Judy if Michael had chosen to go on leave, I was told that Judy ”did not have that information”.
Reasons for his “Long Leave” are, as yet, unclear — however questions are being raised as to whether it is connected with the HSU investigation in which his partner Kathy Jackson was the Union “whistleblower”. Questions have been raised about Lawler’s relationship with Tony Abbott, and how this may have had an influence on any investigations taking place in FWA which involved Craig Thomson.

Updating the updates:

In which Kathy Jackson stretches credulity about what is fact, what she would have known about her ex-husband and admits to an inappropriate discussion....

The Telegraph online 2 February 2012:

Also included in the file is an affidavit from Lynne Russell, an HSU councillor, alleging Ms Jackson's ex-husband Jeff had blown the whistle on the shovel incident, which is the subject of a police investigation.
Ms Jackson claimed the shovel was left by union opponents as a warning for her to keep quiet over the allegations of financial wrongdoing.
In the November 23 affidavit, Ms Russell said to Mr Jackson: "I read about Kathy being admitted to hospital, are her and the kids OK?"
Mr Jackson was then alleged to have replied: "Yeah, they're OK, the f ... ing shovel has been in the shed for the last 10 years."
Ms Jackson denied the allegations and said she was "not commenting about any affidavit that I have not seen"

Excerpts from ABC TV 7.30 21 May 2012:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you aware of any union officials before Mr Thomson be accused of consorting with prostitutes?
KATHY JACKSON: No.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Has Michael Lawler ever been involved with you in any of the strategy meetings with the HSU about any of the actions that you have got going?

KATHY JACKSON: Well obviously as my partner I talk to Michael about what I’m doing and as my partner I talk to him about not just HSU issues but other issues as well.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is it that appropriate?

KATHY JACKSON: I think it’s very appropriate as my partner that I ask him advice and assistance. But he is not running the case for the HSU. I tell him what I’m doing, not the other way around.

NSW Nationals MP Chris Gulaptis' speech writer has him accept one aspect of climate change?

Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, has been providing endless amusement since he entered the NSW Parliament – not least because on the floor of the House he has suddenly developed a vocabulary, turn of phrase and occasional grasp of concepts which are totally foreign to his normal self and past utterance in the respective council chambers of the Maclean and Clarence Valley local governments.

One has to suspect that he is well-rehearsed by his ‘unofficial’ speech writer/s.

However one of his latest efforts is mindboggling, as it appears that in less than a month his climate change denialism has disappeared:

“Climate change is expected to affect the behaviour of invasive species as they shift in distribution and abundance in response to the changing environment.” [NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 8 May 2012]

Or has it? Cynics would say he wanted something on record to point to before the electorate’s laughter about his anti-science absurdities becomes too loud.