Category Archives: pissing money down the drain

Will this have a happy ending?

Posted on by

Given the government has a one seat majority in parliament, and that only with the votes of a Green and 2 independents, I’m not seeing a happy ending for Craig Thomson, the ALP member for the seat of Dobell.  Nor for the Prime Minister and her government.

Mr Thomson has been accused in Federal Parliament and in newspapers of using a union credit card to pay for prostitutes. During defamation proceedings begun by Mr Thomson against one of those newspapers in the NSW Supreme Court, credit card vouchers with Mr Thomson’s signature, phone records and his driver’s licence details were alleged to reveal how he had used his union credit card to pay escort agency services in April 2005.   He has denied that it was him that used the card for prostitutes, and said another man – who he would not name – had incurred the charges, forged his signature but later paid money back to the union.   Mr Thomson later discontinued his defamation action.

The attraction to the Opposition of Mr Thomson is in a scandal forcing him to resign his seat, leading to a by-election, which most likely would be won by the Opposition, overturning the government’s one seat margin in parliament.

Today shadow attorney-general George Brandis told the Senate there were a number of undisputed facts that were now public.

"That on two occasions, on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007, calls were made from Mr Thomson’s mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcall, an escort agency.

"That on April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007 the HSU (Health Services Union) credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls."

He said the payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively, and the credit card vouchers were signed in Mr Thomson’s name and Mr Thomson’s driver’s license number was endorsed on the receipt. He also said that a handwriting expert has concluded the signature on the credit card voucher and Mr Thomson’s drivers license were made by the same person.

"If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood (the expert) and who also had Thomson’s driver’s license,"

he said.  Senator Brandis asked how could Mr Thompson’s credit card, driver’s license and mobile phone "find their way into the possession of another person".  Then there is a final pertinent question which has not been answered:

"Why was their loss or misappropriation not reported?"

This article by Senator Brandis spells out his points against Mr Thomson in full.

Now this is all embarassing for Mr Thomson, and by association, the government.  Snicker, snicker, loser, has to pay for sex.  But there is also the strong possibility that the union’s funds were used unlawfully, or at least outside the union’s rules, not to mention questions over whether Mr Thomson had fulfilled his duties as a union official with appropriate diligence.  At worst, there is a possibility that charges relating to fraudulent use of union funds, or misappropriation or something like that could be laid.  And if so, and if Mr Thomson were to be convicted of a serious enough crime, he would be disqualified from parliament.  But that would take time, and I think it very unlikely that even if Mr Thomson were charged today, any trial and conviction would not be finalised until after the next election is due anyway.

But, things got interesting this week when it was reported that Mr Thomson’s legal bills related to his discontinued defamation action, have been funded by the NSW branch of the ALP, to the tune of $90,000.  This was apparently because had he been forced to pay them himself, there was a chance it would have forced him into bankruptcy.  And that is also a disqualifier to being in parliament.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard got involved yesterday when she defended Mr Thomson, saying she has full confidence in him and looks forward to continuing as the member for Dobell "for a very long, long, long time to come".

I think that was a very bad decision on her part.  If he goes down by virtue of his alleged dodgy dealings as a union official prior to entering parliament, she has tied herself to his wagon, and will inevitably crash with him.  And I think it unconscionable that she try to defend him and brush glibly over his alleged misbehaviour, as it is also unconscionable that the ALP pay his private legal bills.  These legal matters are nothing to do with his role as a member of parliament or indeed in performing any role for the party.  The party has no justification in supporting him in the way it has.

The prime minister is looking like a slippery weasel trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion to this matter. In any other circumstance other than  Mr Thomson being essential to the government holding its majority in parliament, it is hard to imagine him not being forced to stand aside pending some sort of independent investigation, if not being asked to resign.  That is the right thing to do, regardless of the circumstances.  It is not right to defend him now whereas nothing would be surer than him being thrown overboard if the government had any sort of comfortable majority.

Ms Gillard is tarred by association with Mr Thomson if she continues to defend him.  The right thing for her to do is face up to the inevitable, demand that he resign his seat and take the consequences of a by-election.  If she won’t do it, I would hope that one of Mr Windsor or Mr Oakeshott force the government’s hand and demand she take firm action.

It really is a no win position for the government.  There will be no happy endings for them from this.  But they can choose to act with some honour.  Failing that the prime minister may cling to power for a short while longer – but it will inevitably end badly for her government.

Rural welfare

Posted on by

Once again, I see that when the rural sector has business problems, it has its hand out for welfare from the government.  Rural socialism (of the risks and losses) strikes again – of course when it comes to the good times, everyone wants to keep the profits and for the government to butt out.

The government today announced a $30m assistance package to those affected by the ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia.  Those affected would be able to apply for an immediate cash injection of $5000 and make a further claim for up to $20,000 of financial assistance.  No means test will apply to the package because it was "a hardship grant" for business, unlike the income subsidy arrangements announced previously.

I’m struggling to see why the cattle industry deserves special payments from government at a time like this.  They blame the government for suspending exports to Indonesia, but the reality is that the problems that led to the ban seem to have largely been ones that the industry’s own marketing and export body, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (owned by producers), either turned a blind eye to, or was incompetent in failing to detect over a period of some years.  So if producers and others in the industry are suffering losses, it is MLA where they should be looking to for compensation, not taxpayers in general.

If I own a shop and my market collapses, especially if I am complicit in the causes of it, does the government come to my aid?  Apart from providing standard Centrelink benefits, no.  So why are cattle producers different?  Why do their businesses deserve special treatment?  Can’t they manage their own ups and downs in the course of business?

On the job?

Posted on by

Interesting claim for workers’ compensation this week before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).  I must say I think the woman making the claim must have a lot of hide – I wouldn’t think of trying to claim the injuries she suffered were work related.

The woman was in Nowra for a conference in November 2007 when she and her partner engaged in sexual activity in her motel room and pulled a glass light fitting from the wall. It fell on the woman, injuring her nose and one of her teeth.  Now, I’m rather curious about the layout of the room, where the light fitting was and how exactly they managed to pull it from the wall on top of her.  They must have been having a pretty good time of it!  Swinging from the chandelier perhaps?

Comcare, which is defending the claim, argue, quite reasonably in my opinion, that the activities that led to her injuries were “quintessentially private”.   She of course seems to be arguing that as the injuries happened during a work related conference at the motel, they should be covered by workers’ compensation.  Pretty long bow to draw in my opinion – I really can’t see any connection between shagging a bloke and her job – a bit of networking maybe?

I’m interested to see what the AAT makes of this claim – will they agree with the woman’s claim or not?

Making shit up as you go

Posted on by

That’s what the proposal to have an offshore refugee processing facility in East Timor looks to have been.  Something our new prime minister, the ranga queen, Julia Gillard, made up the other day as a response to political pressure to do something about the problem of asylum seekers illegally entering Australia by boat.

East Timor’s Deputy Prime Minister, Jose Luis Guterres, says his country is ”very unlikely” to accept a refugee processing centre.  He says they flatly rejected it initially but are now only considering it because Ms Gillard put it formally to East Timor.  In fact Ms Gillard seems only to have raised the subject with Timorese president Jose Ramos Horta on Monday night, before announcing it as government policy at a speech on Tuesday, ie:

"Today I announce that we will begin a new initiative. In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region."

She announced this policy before consulting with the Timorese government, led by prime minister Xanana Gusmao.  There is significant opposition to the plan among other politicians in East Timor, including members of the prime minister’s own party. Aderito Hugo da Costa said he did not support the idea, regardless of whether it would bring a financial windfall for East Timor.

"The issue is how we have time to look at (other countries’) problems, rather than look at our own people’s problems,"

Mr da Costa said. Not an unreasonable position in my view.

Mr Guterres echoed much the same sentiments:

”East Timor is one of the poorest countries in the world. We have huge problems. It is difficult for any government to invite, for any politician, to invite any problem to another country that he is not prepared to face, to solve,”

”As a citizen and a member of cabinet, I can advance to you that it’s very unlikely that East Timor will accept the proposal.”

It seems too that the regional part of Ms Gillard’s plan hasn’t got much behind it either.   She discussed her plan with the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, during a five-minute phone call on Monday night. Mr Key was cautious about embracing the proposal and yesterday the NZ Labour opposition said the nation should keep out of what is an intense domestic political debate in Australia.   PNG doesn’t seem too interested either – and have indicated they won’t be reopening the Manus Island detention centre that operated to process asylum seekers during the period of the Howard government.

Given the lukewarm response to her proposal, Ms Gillard now seems intent on demonstrating that she is just another politician more interested in appearances than substance, now claiming that the East Timor location proposed was not necessarily the only one the government was considering.  She now says:

“I did outline a vision and the vision was for a regional processing centre, and that is important because it completely undercuts the people-smuggling market because they no longer have a product to sell,"

"I’m not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location."

Yep, I’m convinced (not).  It looks to me that in her haste to appear to be doing something about the asylum seeker problem she took some half baked idea that she or her advisors dreamed up over the weekend and rushed to announce it.  Looks like Julia’s got things under control, doesn’t it?

Now, this whole asylum seeker issue is only a political hotcake because both main parties in Australia are out and out pandering to the racist bogan vote.  There is a group of people who believe asylum seekers are to be feared, and that they will overrun the country somehow if the arrival of refugees by boat is unchecked.  Rather than pandering to this view, our political leaders should be telling those voters to pull their heads in.  Basically the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia is a couple of thousand a year, literally a drop in the ocean in the global scheme of things, even in the context of Australia’s immigration levels.  There is just nothing to be paranoid about, people.

It’s funny how the refugees arriving illegally by boat are seen by many Australians to deserve to be treated harshly, basically shut out of the country, yet the same doesn’t apply for illegal immigrants who fly here, and overstay their visas or similar.  What’s the difference?  Surely not that the people coming by boat happen to be inconveniently dark skinned and Muslim, while the ones coming by plane are predominantly white skinned, or Asian?

The attitude of a significant number of Australians to asylum seekers, and the governments treatment of them since the Tampa incident is something that should be condemned and something this country should be deeply ashamed of.  It truly is disgusting!

M&M’s, or should that be E&E’s?

Posted on by

It could be one of those only in Tasmania stories.  Dwayne Grant Seabourne of Devonport may well be the world’s dumbest drug dealer.

dumbarse

He travelled from Tasmania to buy some ecstacy, paying $6,000 for 400 pills. When intercepted by police at Launceston airport, Seabourne admitted to having bought drugs and handed over a cylinder wrapped in masking tape.  However, its contents were a bit of a surprise, not ecstacy but blue M&M’s.

Despite actually turning out to be nothing more than a chocolate smuggler, he copped 3 months jail last year for attempting to traffic drugs.

He was back in court recently charged with actual trafficking of drugs.  This stems from a police raid on his home where they found 10 bags of cannabis weighing close to 23 grams and several plastic bags containing traces of speed.  Seabourne claimed these drugs were for his personal use.  However, the prosecution pressed ahead with the charges claiming the bags demonstrated an intent to sell the drugs.

Seabourne found the judge to be sympathetic however, and she raised concerns about the lack of evidence linking Seabourne to having intent to sell the drug, given the small amount of speed found in the plastic bags.  After discussing the matter with the prosecution and defence lawyers, it was agreed to drop the trafficking charges and change it to possession.  He pleaded guilty to this and received an 18 month supervised probation order, which requires him to undergo drug and alcohol counselling.

My feeling is that the judge actually took pity on the guy for being such a total moron.

Surely her 15 minutes is over?

Posted on by

I have no idea whether Nicole Richie is a nice woman, or not.  Nor do I have any clue what she is actually famous for.  I mean what has she actually done except be friends with Paris Hilton (another of those famous for being famous people who are famous for doing what exactly?).

878357-101880458gd011_nicole_richi

However, I see she was in Sydney last week, at the launch of a shopping centre, MidCity.  Reportedly she was paid a $200,000 fee for this, plus a whole swag of goodies, first class fares to Australia and her hotel suite which brought the total cost of her visit to around $300,000.  Nice work if you can get it I suppose.

Myself, I think its a sad reflection on our society, and the cult of celebrity that someone would see spending this sort of money on a B-grade celebrity with little in the way of actual achievements to justify her celebrity status, as worthwhile.  Nevertheless, MidCity project manager Sam Sproats said the co-owners were "absolutely chuffed" with the results.

"The whole thing has been fantastic and we’ve got far more in PR value than we expected,"

Mr Sproats said.  Its also rather sad that quite a crowd turned out to see her.  To them I’d say save your hero worship for someone worthwhile.

Was she worth it?

Posted on by

Mark McInnes, chief executive of retailer David Jones, resigned today in the wake of sexual harassment allegations by a female employee.

Board chairman Robert Savage told the press that an allegation was made by a current female staff member against Mr McInnes last week involving improper behaviour. Mr Savage said the complaint had come to light through normal human resources ”line management” processes.  The female employee had made the matter known to the company’s human resources management, who had gone directly to Mr McInnes. Mr McInnes then had gone directly to Mr Savage, as chairman of the board, to inform him of the matter.  The female employee, believed to a 25 year-old marketing staffer, complained about two incidents, one at a function in late and then 10 days later on June 8.  Mr Savage said Mr McInnes had immediately offered his resignation and the board had accepted it.

Whatever it was he did, be it get a bit touchy feely with the staff, or make sexual advances, it has certainly cost him plenty.  While he got a termination payout of about $2m he is believed to have forgone up to $4m in bonuses and long term incentives.  Poor darling, only $2m to get by on.  Not only that, it certainly looks to be a career killer for Mr McInnes, who at 45 had been David Jones chief executive for 7 years.  Not only that, but he appears to have some problems upcoming on the home front.  In a statement he issued Mr McInnes said:

"As a chief executive officer and as a person I have a responsibility to many, and today I formally acknowledge that I have committed serious errors of judgment and have inexcusably let down the female staff member. I have also let down my partner, my family, all my staff, the board and our shareholders. I apologise to everyone I have let down. "

It seems he will be doing his penance overseas.  Mr McInnes and his partner would spend the foreseeable future overseas, the company said in its statement to the media today.  I bet he’ll be spending a decent chunk of his $2m severance pay treating his partner to a very nice holiday.

Kevin the weasel

Posted on by

Something that Kevin Rudd made a big deal about in the 2007 election campaign was attacking the amount of government paid but really party political advertising that the then Liberal government undertook.  Mr Rudd was going to tighten things up, and ensure government moneys were only used for legitimate informational advertising, and not political advertising.

Once elected his government put in place a process whereby government advertising campaigns costing over $250,000 had to be reviewed and approved by the Auditor-General.  This process was changed earlier this year so that the review is now by a Independent Communications Committee, which comprises some retired public servants.  Okay, I would have thought, vetting advertising is not really what the Auditor-General is there for, so fair enough to put something else in place.

Now I saw some advertisements on TV a week or so back promoting the virtues of the government’s reforms to the Australian health system.  I did not see any useful information in these advertisements, thinking they were really puff aimed at making people feel good about the government.  I was certainly none the wiser about the changes being made to our health system.  Hmm, I thought at the time, government political advertising – obviously there’s an election coming up later this year.

But the news today that the government is spending $38 m on an advertising campaign defending its proposed resources super profits tax against the mining industry’s campaign against it, really does show that Rudd and his government are cut from the same cloth as the former government – once they have access to the resources of government they just can’t keep their fingers out of the till, and seem to lose the ability to see the difference between legitimate government advertising and party political advertising.

What’s worse is the weaselly way they got this advertising around their own guidelines and review process.  The rules allow for the Cabinet Secretary (Senator Joe Ludwig) to exempt a campaign from compliance with the guidelines on the basis of a national emergency, extreme urgency or other compelling reasons.  A spokesperson for Senator Ludwig said the minister had relied on extreme urgency or other compelling reason rather than the national emergency provision.

What was the extreme urgency, or other compelling reason?  Supposedly it was, in Senator Ludwig’s statement of reasons for approving the request from Treasurer Wayne Swan:

“I note and accept the Treasurer’s advice that there is an active campaign of misinformation about the proposed changes and that Australians are concerned about how these changes will affect them.

“I further note and accept the Treasurer’s advice that, as tax reform involves changes to the value of some capital assets, they impact on financial markets.”

How about the real reasons the government thought the need to run this campaign, rather than the bullshit justification?  Something along the lines of we have an election coming up, know we’re on the nose electorally right now, don’t like being criticised and need something to distract attention from other areas of our election commitments that we’ve failed to deliver on.  Plus, we’re getting into panic mode and desperately need to score some points.

The Howard government got kicked out of office in 2007 in part because they were seen to be out of touch and sneaky.  The Rudd government campaigned on this basis that they would not be those things.  Like a lot of things with Kevin Rudd and his government, this now looks to have been plenty of promises but bugger all delivery.  Reality is that they are just as much a pack of slimy weasels as Howard and company were.

I have a feeling that Rudd is going to get smashed at the next election.  In a way he’s been worse than Howard.  After all, we knew he was a weasel.  Rudd raised expectations, and has really failed to deliver on them – all talk and no action might be a touch harsh on him, but clearly this government has great difficulty distinguishing between activity and results.  Yes they might have been very busy, but have they delivered on their promises?  I think raising expectations then failing to meet them, then trying to bullshit your way out, is going to see the voting public really take to the government harshly at election time.

And right now, I think Rudd deserves it!

Meanwhile in the land of the crazy litigants

Posted on by

How’s this for ridiculous misuse of the legal process?  An American man bought a clock on eBay, and wasn’t happy with what he got, so posted negative feedback.  The seller, of course, is suing him for damages.

Michael Steadman is being sued for $15,000 after posting negative feedback on the seller, Elliot Miller, accusing him of having the ethics of a car salesman.   Mr Miller claims the negative feedback has ruined his "100 per cent" eBay rating and commercial reputation.

Mr Steadman was looking for a clock that would time stamp his employees cards for his welding business.  He spotted one on Mr Miller’s eBay page, which sells electrical components and hardware, and send off his $44, the cost of the clock.  However, the clock arrived in three shipments and the parts appeared to be from different models and were incompatible. He filed a complaint with eBay and got his money back, but said he wanted to leave the negative feedback to warn other potential buyers.

Mr Miller says in his lawsuit that the clock was "plainly offered for sale with the following language: ‘We cannot give you any guarantees and must offer it on an as-is, where-is basis only’."

Mr Steadman said that the case had so far cost him $7,000 in legal fees.

A few observations on this case:

  1. Mr Miller is a lawyer – probably explains a lot.
  2. I can’t imagine that Mr Miller could waive away basic consumer protections like goods actually being fit for purpose, ie working as they are intended – perhaps in the US the principle of caveat emptor applies more strongly than in most other Western countries like Australia?
  3. I think if I was Mr Steadman I’d have withdrawn the negative feedback when the threat of legal action obviously became serious – I’d not have cared enough about bagging out the seller to spend one dollar on legals let alone thousands
  4. as with all of these stupid lawsuits, the courts need to tell the parties to grow up, sort it out themselves and stop wasting court time.

Protecting people from themselves

Posted on by

There is some sort of debate going on among the locals around The Gap in Sydney’s eastern suburbs.  The Gap is a scenic ocean cliff, and a well known suicide spot – some 50 people kill themselves each year by jumping off the cliff onto the rocks below.

Sydney Charter Bus - The Gap

The local council is lobbying the Federal Government to support its $3.5 million suicide prevention plan, which includes security cameras, lighting, a safety phone and a new fence stretching for more than 80 metres along the cliff line.  Woollahra Council Mayor Andrew Petrie claims:

“There is evidence that these types of measures we are putting in will have an effect on reducing suicides. There is no doubt about it,”

But others are not convinced.  Some believe the fence will just transfer the problem elsewhere, while others say the plan will compromise The Gap’s natural beauty.  One local resident said:

“It’ll look like a prison if it’s got cameras and a big fence and everything. I don’t think we need it,”

The council has committed $500,000 to the project, but its request for further money was denied in May by the Federal Government, which claimed it had more urgent spending priorities.

I think this debate raises some interesting questions about how far we as a community go in protecting people from themselves.  I’m particularly interested in the things authorities do with places like national parks in terms of making the wild safe.  Do we need fences in front of cliffs to stop people harming themselves, either accidentally or intentionally?  Do we restrict access to places for similar reasons?  Shouldn’t people be trusted to have enough commonsense to think for themselves “there’s a cliff edge there, its dangerous, I must be careful”, without having to have a dirty big fence way back from the edge to keep them safe? Or “don’t stand on these rocks, a big wave might sweep you out to sea”, “the ocean has sharks in it”, “this is a river in Northern Australia so it most likely has crocodiles in it”.  Most of these things should be bleeding obvious to a normal intelligent person, but no, we have to have barriers to stop people, or signs plastered all over things to warn people.  I think we make eyesores out of things to dumb the possible risks down to the lowest level, rather than accepting that people should be taking responsibility for themselves in potentially hazardous places.

I went to the Head of the (Great Australian) Bight many years ago, and stood right on the edge of the cliff to look down.  I haven’t been there since but I’m betting its almost certain that the same places now have paths and fences and these are well back from the edge.

As for The Gap being a favoured suicide spot, a fence isn’t going to change people’s propensity to kill themselves.  They’ll just go elsewhere or do it a different way.