Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is distressed by the stabbing death of an Indian national in Melbourne.
Permanent resident Nitin Garg was stabbed in a park at West Footscray as he walked to work at a nearby fast food outlet.
The 21-year-old accountancy graduate staggered to the fast food store before he collapsed. He died later in hospital.
The death comes after a string of attacks on Indian students.
Julia Gillard says so far there is no evidence the stabbing was a racist attack, but the Government is worried.
"We want to make sure that people who come to our country, whether
they come as migrants, as students, as visitors, are made welcome," she
said.
Opposition spokeswoman on foreign affairs Julie Bishop says the police should do more.
"I hope that as well as solving the crime, the Victorian police will
work with the community to educate people about personal safety," she
said.
Recent forecasts suggest the number of Indian students coming to Australia could drop by 20 per cent because of the violence.
Mr Garg's killing has provoked a furious reaction in India, with
external affairs minister SM Krishna saying it will "certainly" have an
effect on the ties between India and Australia.
Posted Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:21am AEDT Updated Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:32am AEDT
Federal Opposition Leader
Tony Abbott discusses the motivation behind his decision to challenge
Kevin Rudd to an early election on climate change.
Tony Abbott is a pugilist, both in the sporting ring and in the political arena.
The one-time university boxing champ has no trouble with his image
as one of the hard men of the Liberal party; in his recent political
tome on conservatism he proudly admits he was John Howard's headkicker
in the Parliament. His term, not mine. And let's not forget, he branded
that policy blueprint Battlelines.
You get the picture...
Abbott is not afraid of a fight and from the moment he was elected leader he made that clear.
"This is going to be a tough fight but it will be a fight. You
cannot win an election without a fight," he declared in his first press
conference, within hours of being voted Liberal leader. ".... Now I
cannot promise victory. Obviously this is going to be very tough. But I
can promise a contest."
Throughout that day and the next he repeated the mantra that the
Opposition's job is to oppose the Government, not agree with it and
that the electorate wants a real opposition not an echo.
There was a time when the political wisdom went a bit differently....
After Paul Keating was defeated in 1996 Kim Beazley took over the
job of uniting a demoralised Labor party. He also tried to reassure the
electorate that the street fighting ways of the last Labor leader were
a thing of the past, in the belief that aggressive politics were a
turn-off to the voters who were in the mood for a more respectful,
civilised contest.
Beazley was all of that, but it didn't win him an election. So Labor
eventually abandoned that amiable and well-mannered leader. And so...
enter Mark Latham with his sometimes foul mouth and feisty ways.
Labor insiders who were around when Latham took the leadership say
these early days of Tony Abbott are reminiscent. They had welcomed Mark
Latham in 2003 because he was a straight-talking politician prepared to
take the fight up to the Government. He had a story to tell and would
get the political argument back on Labor's turf.
In the end Mark Latham imploded and Labor's dreams of victory went
up in smoke too. He was just too erratic, too aggressive. A little bit
scary.
Funny, scary is exactly the word one senior Liberal used the day
before Tony Abbott was elected leader, when I raised the faint
possibility of an Abbott victory. So why are Liberal strategists so
confident now that the Abbott story will be a successful one when the
Latham experiment was such a disaster for Labor?
Apart from the fact that they think he's just more likable, and more
strategic than Latham, they are banking on one quality giving Tony
Abbott the edge over Kevin Rudd: he's unpredictable.
So was Latham of course, though erratic is the word usually applied
to him, and that did wrong-foot John Howard for a few months. But
Howard was a tough, seasoned, confident politician with a lot of
victories under his belt.
Kevin Rudd, in contrast, is a relative political newbie. He's also a
more cautious personality and a less instinctive politician who likes
to be in control of all the facts before he makes a move.
In Tony Abbott, he'll face a moving target. Floats like a butterfly,
stings like a bee? Already, in the three short weeks he's been leader
Tony Abbott has made an instant about-face on an ETS, jabbed with a
sharp new slogan about a great big tax, ducked on climate policy and
weaved on exactly where he stands on IR reform.
And when he speaks you can understand what he's talking about. He
doesn't do weasel words. That's a big plus against a political
opponent, aka the PM, who drops the occasional linguistic gem, such as
"programmatic specificity" and frequently baffles his audience with
many words, that his critics say too often contain little substance.
So straight talking he may be... but Tony Abbott is also aggressive.
He is uncompromising and sometimes his mouth runs away with him in a
way unbecoming for a political leader. Remember his sledge against
terminally ill asbestos sufferer Bernie Banton for engaging in what
Abbott dismissed as a stunt? Later in the same election campaign he was
caught after a debate swearing sotto at the then Shadow Health Minister
Nicola Roxon.
Perhaps that explains his problem with women...
The popular wisdom is that Abbott is a turn-off for female voters,
due to his conservative views on abortion, his opposition to RU486, and
his constant pitch to strengthen traditional family values.
In 2004 women didn't go for Mark Latham much either... In his case,
it was not because of Latham's social views and values, but because
they found him too aggressive. Remember that menacing handshake with
John Howard in the dying days of the election; a turn off according to
the party strategists at the time.
Tony Abbott is keen to shrug off his Captain Catholic tag, and
stresses his belief in a woman's right to choose, but he's doing little
to temper his persona as a battle-hardened and aggressive political
contender.
When he announced his new front bench he bragged about the
hardliners he was resurrecting, acknowledging that the controversial
returnees, Phillip Ruddock, Kevin Andrews and Bronwyn Bishop ",all
three of them in their own way, have been polarising",and boasted his
new line-up would give the Government "the fright of its life."
Is this the way to excite the electorate?
Without a doubt the tough clear Abbott narrative will reinvigorate
the Liberal heartland but what about the contest for the hearts and
minds of the middle ground? The centre is where elections are won in
this country.
Kevin Rudd is there already but there's still a question mark over
whether Tony Abbott will ever really genuinely qualify for that
territory.
John Howard rated Tony Abbott as perhaps the smartest person around
his Cabinet table when he was in Government, but is Howard's
self-proclaimed political heir smart enough to temper himself and his
message?
Tony Abbott's great strength - agreed by political admirers and
enemies alike- is his authenticity. He's engaging, upfront,
straight-talking and smart.
History will show if the speedo-wearing Rhodes scholar -
conservative in values, but colourful in style - proves too loose in
his language, too keen to win the debating point and altogether too
punchy for the electorate to trust with running the country.
Comments
for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would
like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
Leeroy Jenkins:
18 Dec 2009 8:54:59am
I ah, don't think Tony, ah, will ever become Prime Minister, ah, because the way he speaks is, ah, just too damn annoying.
His boring hairstyle doesn't do much for him either.
He's an angry, aggressive, male chauvinist God-botherer and right wing extremist
He'd
sell our kids into SlaveChoices, pooh-pooh any need to halt climate
change, and would antagonise our neighbours and trading partners with
his warlike rhetoric.
In short, a dangerous misfit, who will find himself roadkill at the next election.
"Roadkill" - that's his own aggressive turn of phrase.
Abbott
is all the things you say, and he's resurrected the undead of Howard's
last administration, all people who have demonstrated their complete
lack of sympathy with the living.
But we need to give Abbott a stint in office just to kill off KRudd's internet censorship scheme.
Desperate
measures, I acknowledge. But with guaranteed evil on KRudd's side, and
only 99% chance of evil on Abbott's side, the lesser evil must win.
I'm
afraid 1 evil policy from the current (albeit dissapointing) government
is highly preferable to the evil that could be unleashed by an Abbott
government. I shiver at the mere idea.
paulw,
it is likely that a double-dissolution will have reworked the senate to
be Labor-friendly by the time this legislation hits. I don't believe
the senate can be relied upon to save us.
The only option I can
think of is to vote in whoever opposes this. This will be Abbott and
his lunatic friends, assuming they continue the policy of opposing for
the sake of opposing.
It
is highly unlikely that there will be a double dissolution election due
the the fact that it gets the Senate out of kilter with the lower
house, the election will be after July next year so that both can be
held at the same time
Abbott is a very dangerous man who is more in love with the mirror and the bible, in that order
However the more simplistic in the electorate will no doubt fall for his one line policies and general good old Aussie boy image
What this country really needs is an intelligence test before people can vote
What is it they say about gettign the govt we deserve
I'm
normally a Liberal voter, but Tony Abbott scares the hell out of me. He
is a violent loose cannon who would do great harm to the social fabric
and foreign relations of this country.
I couldn't in all conscience vote for him. Next election I will hold my nose and vote Labor.
With
the proposed Internet censorship, Australia will soon join North Korea,
Iran, China and Saudia Arabia as one of the few nations in the world to
do so, PM Rudd's personal idealology seems far more extreme than Tony
Abbott's.
A
little bitter there, Rose? Have you not seen our own PM at Churych
getting his photo taken at every opporuntiy? Is he not a god-botherer
as well - to use your expression.
Your surname wouldn't be Coloured-Glasses, by any chance?
I
was never really an Abbott fan myself but I admit that his credentials
both politically and intellectually are impeccable and his performance
to date is encouraging.
His willingness to back his beliefs and
take the fight to the Govt is commendable and I think it's refreshing
to have an Opposition leader with a bit of back bone.
The fact
that he evidently gets up both Leeroy's and Rose's nose (obviously both
"True Believers') suggests to me that he must be the right man for the
job. There's hope for the Coalition yet.
Yeah, instead he just blatantly changes his position.
He
backed an ETS at the last election, he believed in climate change,
still did a month ago, wanted to pass an ETS - then he switched over,
termed it rubbish, opposed an ETS, denied climate change... now he says
he will have a climate change policy (despite thinking climate change
is rubbish) and two days ago he termed himself an "environmentalist"!
If that's straight talking, then a straight line is a circle.
don't
forget my favourite; the 'rock solid iron clad guarantee' that the
Medicare safety net thresholds wouldn't rise made before the 2004
election and scrapped 2 weeks after being returned to government. Tony
did say sorry though. Thanks Tone.
Tony Abbott is the Liberal's "Mark Latham Experiment".
He and those from the right who elevated him to leader have grossly overestimated the opposition to an ETS.
If
the Coalition thought that the polls were bad under Turnbull, there
will be much sphincter clenching when they witness the poll plunge
about to happen.
Does Tony Abbott really expect that Australian
voters will accept his "Great Big Con" climate policy to be hacked
together in just a few short weeks?
Opposition for opposition's
sake has not worked for the Coalition for the last two years, so why
does he think it is going to work now? They have been a policy free
zone since the last election and have done nothing except carp, and
whinge, and moan, and whine about anything and everything - complete
and utter negativity, including trying to talk down the economy and
almost chanting and wishing for it to fail.
An despite his comments to the contrary, they are still behaving like an aggressive government in exile.
Regardless
of when the election is called, get set to watch the Coalition get
massacred. They have learned absolutely zero from their 2007 election
loss.
...and
he has his attack dog (as perceived by cartoonist, Alan Moir), Barnacle
Joyce barking at everything that moves and annoying the gentler folk on
the Liberal Party left.
And
the way in which Kev speaks is any more engaging? The way in which
people speak is one thing, but its what they actually say and mean that
means a hell of a lot more.
Ah
yes, but Howard didn't have any 'Copenhagen/ETS failure' of gigantic
embarrassing proportions at the same time as Latham emerged either.
The
eagerness to compare with 'Latham' is wishful thinking of the
denigrators. Abbott, an experienced politician of long standing in a
Party that successfully governed for 12 years and is of no comparison.
He's no new talentless/inexperienced buck put up by some deal making
faction. If aggressiveness is the only similarity then it's drawing a
long and irrelevant bow to make comparisons.
Those that insult
with 'Lathamism's (the still smarting Laborites) are usually the same
ones who were so taken in (by Latham) heralding him as their saving
champion in the first place. Too funny. They can't seem to get over the
fact they were so wrong and bitterly disappointed and it was the worst
feeling for them....so they now eagerly seek to transfer that
'hurt/poisoned chalice' to their opponents as some sort of weapon.
The
fact that it is of no relevance or that it is so far off the mark
eludes them. They wish...and can do so all they like....but it doesn't
make it so.
Abbott standing up in defiance ( and acknowledging
widespread grass root Party sentiment ) to quit biting his tongue and
toeing the wrong Party directive (ala Turnbull) that seemed popular
with the populace and Labor's sycophantic media, was courageous, honest
and very brave....and loyal to the Liberal Party.
He went
against seemingly popular universal opinion to honour the Party
membership.... Thank goodness he did so as it turned out....and that
'opinion' of the populace was actually also 'biting it's tongue' and
kowtowing in the false belief/guilt it should be doing just that.
He
is to be commended...not compared with a thuggish imbecile prematurely
and desperately propelled from nowheresville as Labor did with Latham. He
may or may not win....but the Liberal Party is again proud to have
representation and a 'say' now with renewed confidence in itself and
it's capabilities/beliefs as the better alternative for Australia....as
it is.
I'm
a Labor supporter by nature, though this Abbott fellow is doing a good
job of trying to convert me- Nearly there. Then again, it could be the
inane Rudd who is turning me away.
I've
seen Abbott compared to Latham elsewhere too. Their political values
are completely different, but their style is similar. In particular
both speak strongly to their respective parties' rusted on supporters
and marginalise the swinging voters.
Latham lost the vote of the
swinging voters and the more right-leaning Labor voters. Abbott will
lose the vote of moderate Liberals and swing voters if he isn't careful.
The
partisan diatribe you have offered up is excruciatingly painful to
read. Abbott is the quintessential imbecile, a man committed to
workchoices (something rejected by the Australian populace at the last
federal election), committed to serving the interests of the
anti-abortion lobby (keep your rosaries off my ovaries), a man who was
wholeheartedly supportive of Peter Reiths policy of training thugs
abroad to make war on Australian waterfront workers at the behest of
Chris Corrigan, a man who is a total advocate for Howards
"Concentration camp" policy for political assylum seekers, a man who is
against stem cell research, a man who had stated that Saddam's WMD
stockpiles posed a threat to world peace. a man who refuses to confront
the climate change reality and admits to not being particularly
knowedgleble on the issue (ABC Lateline interview).
Abbot is
Howards political reincarnation and as moronic and backward as ever
Latham was. At least latham was prepared to break the mold and stand
for revolutionary change, as absurd as it was. Abbott doesn't have that
kind of courage, he is happy to remain locked into outdated and
rejected political philosophies. I hope you get your wish and he
remains leader of the Co-alition because Rudd is a certainty to be
returned to office while "Punch drunk" Tony is busy telegraphing his
political right hook.
Jane, I
agree with you completely that Labor is trying to attack him as like
Latham, however, there is so much difference, e.g. Tony is an
experienced politician and has held important ministership in the
Howard government while Latham is an inexperienced loose cannon.
Bruce, Do
you still support Labor even though in the two and a half years in
government have not made a single action to benefit the people. Tony
Abbott made the right judgement when he backed away from supporting the
ETS. Look at how Australia would look now in Copenhagen if Rudd got his
way, embarrassing!!! Tony Abbott actually saved him. In Copenhagen,
Rudd is being accused of arrogance, bullying, lying and worst of all
Australia being called the Ayatollah, shame!!! When election time comes
there will be a long list of broken promises, inaction and wasteful
spending by Rudd and his government along with debt and debt interest
running in the billions of dollars, shame!!!
I
am not a Labor Voter. Moreover, it is wrong to say that Rudd and his
cohorts have done not a thing to benefit the people. The legislative
program has been frustrated by a hostile senate in most respects but
you must be forgetting the national literacy program, the ITEA's,
economic stimulus etc etc ad nauseam. me thinks you are as partisan as
Jane.
re ETS and Copenhagen - Rudd, and almost every other
delegate, rep or leader at Copenhagen is challenged by balancing
national interest and international obligation. I would never be
opposed for leading the way on action re climate change. It is wrong to
intimate that legislation can't be ammended or changed if it is found
not to be serving the interests of the people or the planet.
Actually
I liked Mark Latham and now I feel very sorry for him. He was right
about getting our of Iraq, his first question to Howard was "will you
get the kids out of detention before Xmas" to which Howard snapped
"NO".
He apologised to the families Ruddock accused of
throwing their kids into the sea, which is more than any other
politician of any stripe did.
His schools campaign was spot on,
it was a media beat up pretending he was being elitist that sees the
richest schools still getting the most government money.
He is now ill. That is painful and distressing enough without the continual mis representation of him as a crazy.
Let's
get practical, folks. The real reason that the Libs lost the last
election was John Howard, with both him and his party having reached
their use-by date. By and large people were not just turfing them out
for their specific policies, though a few of them were well right of
what people wanted to accept.
My view is that Labor will get a
second term, Tony Abbott and team or not. People won't be ready to turf
them out yet. Whether the public punishes the coalition for being
political chameleons is the question. Climate change, Workplace
Relations, Stimulus Spending, Health Reform and a host of other issues
seem to be things that Abbott, Hockey and his "scary team" change their
minds about all the time. You can't trust what they say, because it's
not based upon principle...just political considerations. I find the
coalition slimy, untrustworthy, purely political, neo-conservative and
anything but representatives - servants of the people. These are power
hungry lawyers, and I'm going to be entering the ring against Mr Abbott
come the next election. I only wish I could do that in person as well.
Abbott
and the reactionary Conservative Party really worry me. They have
turned their backs on Menzies and his advice that the government is not
always wrong and that opposing everything just for the sake of it will
mean you stay out of power. Abbott's have left so much of the middle
ground that Rudd can now easily move further to the right knowing he
will easily pick up votes. The Conservitives might like their new
found hairy chests, and the testosterone is obviously flowing through
their veins, but they are adding nothing to the debate but fear and
that is not what the country needs.
Right
on the money Yank. The HR Nichols Society and the neo hawks must be
turgid with optimism. Pity the USA cleaned the cupboard out with Bush
juniors departure. They are going to be even lonelier than the
proverbial shag.
Perhaps the answer is to fill the massive vacuum over there to the left.
Like
Rudd, the US are getting sick of rhetoric and symbolism rather than
real actions and results. They got into office on a protest vote and
the "voting for change" platform.
Felix, pulling "facts" out of the air, are we? Rudd is ahead in the polls as you wouold know if you looked. As for Obama do a search for Gallup polls, he has a favorable rating of 56% his nearest Republican rival is Palin on 41%.
The
biggest problem for the Liberal party is they still haven't figured out
why the lost the last election. As a result, they're just trying to
rehash the old style of leadership which had them voted out in the
first place - fear, smear and good ol fashion bs.
Maybe you could tell us why they lost the last election what the?
The media and most people here have got it wrong.
There
were several reasons. Probably the biggest was they had been in power
too long, the other (that many people refuse to acknowledge) is the
Howard was retiring.
How many people do you know that voted Liberal the previous election and changed it to the ALP?
What were their reasons?
The people I know who switched voted didn't because of Workchoices. There reason was Howard retiring
I am not talking about those people who have always voted ALP. Their opinion is largely irrelevant.
Oh and before you start with the lame "Howard lost his seat" stuff, Howard lost his seat due to an electoral redistribution.
The seat boundries of 20 years ago shows virtually nothing of what it is today. It is a safe ALP seat. (Or it will become one)
There
is a simple reason. Look at the polls prior to the 2001 and 2004
election (and the fact Howard lost the popular vote in 1998) and you
see an electorate willing to turf out the government if given a
suitable alternative. They finally found that in Rudd. Howard had been
deeply unpopular in large sections of mainstream Australia for a long
time but those same sections still trusted the government to be
competent, and didn't trust the opposition to be so. A vote does not
(as either party will try to spin) constitute endorsement.
I
personally believe that Australians are what I'd call quietly
conservative, but not in the radical sort of conservatism the last
government promoted. So any government that goes too far to the left
(Whitlam) or too far to the right (Howard) ends up getting on the
nerves of voters. Interesting to note that the 1972 election, often
called the "It's Time" election, represented a very small swing indeed
and according to most opinion polls for the year before that election,
Whitlam had 39% approval, 39% disapproval and 22% undecided. As recent
as August 72, the polls suggested Libs were in an election winning
position. It was just that the Prime Minister of the day was
approaching stratospheric disapproval ratings (e.g. 29% approval to 52%
disapproval!). Once in, Whitlam had a bounce, but polls plummetted.
1974 was a lucky save and, although the dismissal was wrongheaded, he
was on track to an epic loss at the next election anyway.
So
Mark by saying that people voted Labor in because Howard was retiring
do we infer from this that they were tired of the 12 year old govt OR
concerned about the lack of leadership post-Howard?
It isn't the problem at all. It is called an election cycle. The ALP went through it in the 90's...Liberals in the 80's and the ALP in the late 70's....
Abbott will never be elected PM...just as Gillard will never be ELECTED PM (note I said ELECTED)
If
Gillard becomes PM, she WILL will be elected to that position - by
members of the Labor party. That's how it works in our system. John
Howard was elected as member for Bennelong, his party made him leader
and PM. This aint the USA and we don't have a President. People in
Tasmania who say they voted for Kevin Rudd are deluding themselves.
What
he means is that she will never be elected by the wider public after
leading the party into an election (and I suspect you know the
difference).
While you are correct that Howard was elected by
the Liberal Party as its leader, he was elected PM by the public as he
led the party into an election.
After
her pitiful performance on Lateline last night where she couldn't even
answer a simple question I don't think she's a credible alternative
and, in fact, is just ther to keep the women on side.
I put "ELECTED" to emphasise that I think she will be PM but she will never be elected into office when leader of the ALP.
I thought it was quite clear and their was no need to be pedantic.
Although we do not directly elect our PM's. It has become increasing important who the PM is rather than what party. Both major parties are imilar on more points than either would care to admit, and it has come down to "personalities".
Iy
is why the Liberals lost the last election (Howard retiring) andit is
why the ALP could not compete in the mid 90's with the Liberals
Trouble is I, and I am sure many other ordinary Australian, still do not understand why the Liberals lost the last election.
I
can only presume that we Aussies were all so comfortable and well
provided for that we were easily conned into believing we could line
our pockets even more by letting the Unions back in.
But in two short years, the lush of Rudd and his Unions managed to wet that dream.
The
emergence of a Tony Abbott is the inevitable antidote for Australians
whose hip-pockets are hurting. We Australians, in general, are not very
bright.
First
off Australian voters are not dumb. In my opinion they tend to look at
the political goings and comings as well as other country's voters,
heads above those in the USA. If you can't figure out why Howard
lost just put it down to people growing tired of someone in power for
around 12 years. One could go into the issue deeper but why bother. You
might well think that Rudd is not doing well but with polls showing
Labor up by 12 points and his popularity streets ahead of Abbott one
might ask you if you don't have a pair of blinkers on. Wet dream?
With less then 6% unemployment while countries like the USA are
experiencing 10% or more I can't see Labor losing because of their
ability to handle the economy. The problem that Abbott presents is
that he is no problem for Labor, which lets Labor get away with some,
in my opinion, weak policies. Not a situation that anyone wants. Bring back Turnbull.
The
reason why they got voted out was because the business sector who
normally vote liberal party could see the financial trouble looming and
moral waning. The transfer of govt spending to citizens manifests as
increased household debt. Combine this with a government actively
promoting high-level consumption of life's most expensive items, such
as houses and their contents and you have the recipe for a major
portion of your population to put their head down and bum up and put a
stop on their own spending.
The business community could see a
slowdown having to occur because the federal govt was pushing along
spending and debt within the community to breaking point. Add this with
tax breaks for high income earners, children overboard and other lies,
as well trying to take Australia back to 1950 and history tells the
rest, landslide, election night over 3 hours.
"Trouble is I, and I am sure many other ordinary Australian, still do not understand why the Liberals lost the last election."
The
answer is that John Howard miscalculated! He failed to understand that
his "Battler's" were more afraid of having their wages and conditions
reduced by work choices than they were of asylum seekers on the MV
Tampa!
One of the Liiberal indsiders said it best - "we lost the 2007 election when we won control of the Sennate in 2004!"
One
thing that Australians will always be good at is picking a bs artist.
Howard with his non-core promises, and Abott with his backflipping
within days of picking up leadership of the Liberal party. It's pure
fantasy to think that the Libs will be in power after this election.
I'm
not sure what the unions have managed to do in two years to the
country? What I do know is they can be thanked for the excellent
working conditions we have today.
Given
the multiple re-elections of Labor parties in Qld, NSW and Vic, led by
the best bs artists in the country, I very much doubt your assertion
that Australians are good at picking them.
While you are
mentioning non-core promises, I always find it amusing, but
disappointing at the same time, that Labor parties around the country
so shamelessly take political advantage from tough, unpopular decisions
made by Liberal parties to clean up the messes left behind by Labor
(ie. Kennett and Howard).
Australians
whose hip pockets are hurting? Do you mean from the extra money they
have, either because of 1) Labors tax cuts or 2) they still have a job
because of Labors avoided 8.5% unemployment
Tony
Abbott has added bite to the Coalition's attack on PM Rudd and Labor.
At least I can understand what he is saying, and agree with most of it.
Walking in the shadows of this Labor government was no way to win the
election, something the talented Malcolm Turnbull failed to understand.
It will be a tough electoral contest next year, something that will
test PM Rudd and Labor. Already the unions have promised a repeat of
the millions of support dollars to Labor, which is a dilema for the
coalition parties. But a fight we are ensured, and Abbott is sure to
leave his mark - win or lose!
A
rabid dog adds bite to an attack - but soon gets put down. Trouble with
Abbott's approach (bite anything that moves) is that it resembles a
rabid dog
Abbott
is appealing to the right wing of the party. He speaks exactly what
they want to hear, which whilst it will mobilise the parties true
believers, it won't get them into government. It would be nice to have
somebody on the left who can perform the same megaphonic trick in
dragging the conversation in that direction.
Anyone
who could appoint Bronwyn Bishop, Kevin Andrews and Phillip Ruddock to
the shadow ministry, following their appalling track records while in
government, cannot be trusted to run a chook raffle, let alone the
country.
See, whatthe - that's the problem. You make comments based on your limited and incorrect understanding.
FYI
- Hockey is the Shadow Treasurer, Joyce is Shadow Finance and Debt
Reduction. As he is a qualified accountant, it makes sense - although
obviously not in your expert opinion.
Here's a link to the shadow cabinet so you can verify your info before embarrassing yourself again:
Tony
Abbott places himself in positions verbally that obtain a reaction,
either positive or negative, it matters not, at least he is a
participant. Though he may have leadership qualities at opposition
level it is hard for me to visualise him as a PM. His team, anchored
with the dysfunctional Nationals will be his biggest handicap, Barnaby
is cementing that position already, his outburst regarding investment
by China was a clanger. ( I could not help thinking of "Old joe" and
all of the Asian investment in Queensland under his regime.)
It
is not Mr. Rudds career that interests me now, it is the career of
Julia Gillard. As far as both parties go, Libs and Labor, I think she
is the standout amongst the top four. Julie Bishop, by not advancing to
the leadership after having served under three opposition leaders, has
no credibility and is now only qualified as a token of femininity, not
a functional tactical strategist or anything else.
Mr Abbott,
I think, will fight tooth and nail to try and lift the Liberals but
shackled by the bulk of the remainder of his team, especially the
Nationals, I doubt he will achieve anything by the time the bell has
sounded at the end of the last round.
More
like a drunken clown than a moving target, Fran; and one with a
recorded message squeaking out of his mouth: Hit me, hit, hit ME! His
feet are too big, because he thinks he needs them so as to cover a
large ring but a butterfly he isn't, so his feet will almost always
land in his mouth. Crowds love a clown in a circus ring and they're
gonna love the abbott, right up until he turns into a ball and shot out
of a cannon. Then it'll be time for the crowd to go home. No one
knows what a clown is really like behind all that grotesque make up.
They don't know if he's meant to make that move to the left or was he's
just being clownish? That step to the right... was that really his
intention or was being funny? But we have some of his history -his
life before he donned the make up- to help us with such questions. I
think his managers at the red corner will be keeping a close eye on him
when the bell is tolled.
A
pugilist, I doubt it. It makes wonder if the metrosexual males and
females of today know what real men are. He was a wimp private school
boy. Go out to the western suburbs of sydney or Melbourne where you
find career pugilists. Tony never went near where the real alpha males
were, just hard nosed kid amongst a group of woozes. Then he chose a
life of politics dealing with nerds and other spineless jellyfish.
Sure, amongst his group of Liberal Party softies he looks like a
welterweight. All Abbott has done has polarised and marginalised the
Liberal Party in a more narrow political spectrum which must equate to
less votes, pure mathematics.
Monica, You
obviously have not read about Tony Abbot's educational and athletic
background. He is an intelligent person a scholar and what is Rudd's?
As a shadow minister Tony has talked to aboriginal leaders and visited
aboriginal townships. Has Rudd or any of his ministers done any of
these? You should look at what a person does and not what his is
thinking of doing. Rudd says sorry to aborigines but does he really
mean it? He is all talk but no action.
Rudd
is PM, Abbott is a soon to be deposed opposition leader. You obviously
don't understand the pecking order of male dominance across the Sydney
region. Ask anyone, the private school boys never go it alone with a
westie.
Felipe, we refer to our people as indigenous or by their
tribal name. Aboriginal is a term for anyone native to their locale.
Thus many Sicilians are aboriginal because they are born and never
leave Sicily.
Monica, Private
school boys are taught discipline not thuggery. I also have witnessed
how private school boys beat the "westie" schools in sports. Is this
why Rudd declines the debate on climate change with Tony Abbott because
Rudd has to use his brain? Aborigines or indigenous, the argument
here is... Rudd says sorry a populist stance but does he back this up
with real action? Tony Abbott will be in the contest for the next
election because Rudd will stumble over his ETS/TAX and all the broken
promises, inaction and wasteful spending by his government.
Monica,
Felipe -- what on Earth does private or public schooling background
have to do with this. I know people from both backgrounds who have a
nasty temperament, and I know others who are rather admirable. Ps. I'm pretty sure Rudd isn't a "westie" (at least from the Sydney definition).
I'm really not sure how 'The Abbott Experiment' is going to play out.
It
will shore up the Lib's conservative heartland, but it will push the
party to the Right which (as many have siad) leave the middle-ground
open to Rudd's Labor.
I suspect that Abbott knows he's not going
to win next year, and that gives him much more latitude to take it up
to the Government (paradoxically). If the Libs were in with a real
chance, they be much more cautious, and Abbott wouldn't be so
pugnacious - indeed, he probably wouldn't have been elected.
So,
we'll have one year of political fire-fights which will keep Rudd's
Government on its toes, shore up the Lib base and give the voters a
genuine choice at the next election.
The interesting question to
me is 'what will happen after ther next election?' Will Abbott stay as
leader, or will he stand down having served as the political
night-watchman? Who then will be elected to take on the Government with
a real chance of success in 2013?
Well one need only look at Tony Abbott's track record on what he advocates and what he actually DOES.
True,
he is currently advocating a direct action model (i.e. "big government"
& extra regulation) on climate change. However, given his previous
promises and policies he advocated (right up until he decided he'd
support the opposite) - he cannot be trusted to implement ANYTHING he
puts forward.
I
don't think anyone can predict how what you call "the Abbott
experiment" will turn out. Personally I can't stand the man but it is
going to be interesting to say the least observing how Kevin Rudd
handles being under a real and sustained attack - I would hazard a
guess that the answer will be "not well".
Howard
suffered from it in 2007. Rudd has aterminal acse of it and will not
handle having someone coming after him in a sustained way. He's made
enough mistakes and has many skeletons in his past . Played properly
Rudd is eminently beatable.
The thing Tony will never overcome is the lack of trust the community hold in him.
According
to last weeks Essential Poll only 36% would call him trustworthy. That
is the lowest figure for any opposition leader and the lowest for any
leader since Keating.
And as he is a known figure, there is not
a great deal of undecided people in the electorate. So he will have to
change the minds of those who currently don't trust him.
Oh
Pen Pal, of course we trust Rudd more than Abbott. At least you know
who is running the country with Rudd. With Abbott, you just wouldn't
know which bits were Tony and which bits Pope Benedict. I certainly
don't trust the Pope to run our country.
Who would be running the country with Angry Abbott and Backblocks Joyce in power?
The
Pope, George Pell, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Austrian Institute of Public
Affairs, the Citizens Electoral Council, La Rouchites ("the Royal
Family are lizards"), Opus Dei, Exclusive Brethren ...
What
about the Archbishop of Canterbury? Rudd claims to be very religious so
why would he not defer to his spiritual leader. At least Abbott is
honest about his faith. Rudd is not. The grub turns up to a catholic
service with a photographer.
Typical of you ruddites to take the splinter out of abbotts eye while ignoring the log in rudds. Hypoctites.
The only other leader to have trustworthiness rating in the mid thirties was Keating. Not even Latham's rating slipped that low.
For
your information Rudds trustworthy rating is 51%. No politician is ever
viewed by everyone as trustworthy. But what it does come down to is who
do you trust MORE.
And currently Abbotts credentials on climate change, economy and social policies are weak.
The
ultra conservative Right of the Liberal Party, dominated by golden
oldies resistant to any policy change, just love the guy, at least for
the time being.
For them, they are so happy now that many do not
even care if they never see government again - which is a good thing
for them, because they will be in Opposition for a long, long time if
they drive policy and the party back to the unelectable extreme right.
The
Right simply do not understand that their time has passed and that
society today demands a more moderate approach to government,
particularly in areas of social policy. If they are not careful those
of the Centre Right will defect to the Centre Left position currently
occupied so successfully by Rudd. I predict they won't care though,
because they will have "their party" back.
It's
pretty scary going to a Liberal campaign meeting - I've been to a few.
The sort of hardened, divorced-from-reality, capital-C conservative
people that attend them are on an equal par of scariness with Green
devotees on the other side. There's almost a viciousness to it, and it
scares mainstream voters.
The
line "it is the job of the opposition to oppose the government" with
it's implied hostility, is one of the more scary things I have ever
heard a political leader say. It is scary because of it's implicit
belief in simplistic one dimensional views. It is scary because there
are a large number of right wing voters who would unequivovcally agree
with it and it is even more scary when you apply it to real national
problems. If Tony Abbott was the opposition leader after the Port
Arthur massacre we would never have had national gun laws.
"If Tony Abbott was the opposition leader after the Port Arthur massacre we would never have had national gun laws."
you base that statement on what facts.
Clearly you don't like him but don't let the truth get in the way of a dribble of a rave
The
FACT is Abott voted for the gun laws. The Fact also is that I doubt
Abbotts Conscience would ever let him vote for somethinmg he opposed
morally. (eg: abortion and contreceptives....check his record)
Mark from Launceston: I
think you missed the point made by Jonathan Shulman in that Tony Abbott
states the job of the opposition is to oppose the government. He just
gives an example of an attitude which is clearly not a smart thing for
Abbott to say.
Err,
Howard (ie the Liberals) brought those laws in - what makes you think
Rudd would have done it (unless a focus group said it would be popular
of course)?
Come
on mbc, don't assume that every commentary that isn't an electronic
orgasm is necessary critical or 'clouding the issue'. The ABC is
correct to put all viewpoints and not just the one you agree with. I
hope Abbott gets many opportunities to put his views, unvarnished, to
the electorate. It will ensure that the Liberals are returned with
cricket team sized numbers. After the way they created a structural
defecit, attacked working Australians, and put us behind the 8-ball by
doing nothing about climate change, the Liberal party does not deserve
to return to office. Abbott is ensuring they do not return.
I
for one see Tony as THE only hope Australia has of getting back on its
feet. Yes we are a nation on its knees, but it will change as soon as
the government does.
When
Abbott came out the other day and says that the Conservatives and
Greenies share the same values on the Environment, I decided to stop
listening. This man has no idea, oppose for opposing sake, make noise
offer nothing in comparison but pre howard policies.
With
Abbott as Leader of the Opposition and given his still close ties with
JWH, I can't help but have this gut feeling that JWH will still be the
conductor, behind closed doors or course.
I
wonder if work choices is a "Never Ever again" campaign, as for RU486,
this will get rid of abortion doctors, and, under a coalition "More
troops for J. Howard's "Future Wars", and present, One can only hope
this "Negative click" Coalition are kept out for a long time, smiting
them from the political map would be a plus for this Country.
99.9999%
of Australians have no direct access to their elected politicians.
Their perceptions are therefore created by media reports.
I have
so far watched the media trying to create the myth that Abbott is
aggressive, ultra conservative to the point of wackiness, and nasty to
women.
This needs to be contrasted with an insider report I read
recently that the senior political journalists in this country made a
mutual pact that Julia Gillard was not to be criticised. After some
reflection, it was decided a few months back that it was time for her
to be criticised over wasteful spending in the schools stumulus
spending package. She got off quite lightly in the resulting reporting.
Nobody
in the media has honed in to the less savoury aspects of her
personality. She got the numbers to make Mark Latham leader (and
unsuprisingly, is the only ALP politician that Latham praised in his
diaries). She was engaged to a socio-pathic con man. My gut tells me
there are some serious character flaws present in her psychology, yet
the media has agreed that she is "untouchable".
As for Abbotts
aggressiveness to women, Rudd reduced a woman to tears by throwing a
tantrum about something she had no control over (what meals were
stocked for a flight).
There is nothing wrong with warts and all
reporting about our politicians (after all, we entrust them with about
a third of our earned incomes). But keep it balanced.
No........Tony
wants her to control her body and THINK b4 she sleeps with someone who
she doesnt want to have a baby with. It is TOO easy to have a GOOD TIME
and then get rid of the evidence when the inevitable happens.
If you understood ANYTHING about religion you would know that!
Funnily
enough, I do understand religion... and the difference between
"controlling ones body" and "accepting the consequences of ones
actions".
Given "control over their own body" allows for them to
have an abortion, whilst arguably allowing women to "escape the
consequences" of unprotected sexual intercourse (whether or not that
intercourse was willing participated in).
If you're going to
argue for the prohibition of abortion, be honest about why & the
consequences thereof. Prohibiting abortion REMOVES some of the control
women have over their bodies that they currently have. You may think
that's OK, but be honest about that.
I hardly think you can blame the media for the perceptions we have of the North Shore Abbott.
He's
the one who's pushed his far-right catholic values in our faces. He's
the one who's used "fighting" metaphors. He's the one who's used
inflammatory and often highly offensive language at putting down other
people. He's the one who's flim-flammed from climate changer to climate
sceptic to god knows where.
As for some "mutual pact" in the press gallery, you clearly have no idea.
Who said he is just pushing his view. If
you ask him (Or any politician that is pro life) they would tell you
that it is the nations best interests not to murder unborn.
When does ones personal opinion not become in the nations interest?
If you ask any politician (Greens or otherwise) they would tell you their beliefs are in the nations best interest.
What is the differance between Bob Brown and Tony Abbott pusing their agenda's?
Bob Brown will tell you his policies are in the nations best interest....as will Tony Abbott.
This has ZERO to do with one's religous beliefs. Abbott honestly believes what he is saying is in the nations interest.
I personally disagree with him on Abortion....but that is irrelevant
I
have a pretty good idea of the relationship between politicians and
journalists in this country. I know that every Minister employs a team
of journalists from the media to liase with other journalists still
working in the media.
I know that this has become one of the largest sources of employment for journalists in this country.
Paul,
if you seriously believe "senior journalists" would get together and
secret agree not to criticism a political leader, you are a sucker for
a rumor and a conspiracy.
Which journos are these? Paul Kelly,
Michele Grattan, Laurie Oakes, Piers Ackerman, David Marr, Tony Wright,
Andrew Bolt etc.? I'd love to be a fly on the wall of this meeting when
an agreement is made by this mob to all think and write the same way!
It
was an article I read in Crikey, one of the few independant news
sources around (although it is more opinion than news, but so is the
mainstream media).
Senior Political Journalists have a delicate
balancing act. Gain the trust of politicians through your conduct and
reporting and you receive scoops and other information from
Politicians. Step out of line, and the tap is turned off.
Ever wondered why Laurie Oakes seems to get all the scoops?
Then they have to balance that with the editorial position of their employer.
Are you suggesting that Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch have never sought to influence the political debate in this country?
Ever wondered why newspaper editors get invited round the the PM's house for dinner semi-regularly?
Aah,
so that explains why Piers Akerman is bent out of shape with more
hatred than usual. His puppet-masters, the Liberals, are no longer in
government.
Oh Fran. I cried driving to work this morning knowing that it was the last I would hear from you for a month or so.
I
want Abbott to be true to his word that the Liberals are allowed to
speak their mind. Let Barnaby off the leash and see how much damage he
can do to them.
And the split starts already with the
Nationals not agreeing to support a policy where trees are planted on
arable land. (Reported this AM). That is obvious from a mile off. Where
do we get the water?
And didnt Timbercorp and Great Southern
just go broke doing exactly the same thing? How much is this going to
cost taxpayers- the big tax on trees?
Next to the soil carbon
and sequestration. How many farmers will sign their land over for
paltry money now for 100 years? How many banks will let them do it? And
how much will it cost to monitor the soil, collect data, report it,
have it verified and trade the C. How many companies have tried to do
it? The alternative is Chicago Climate Exchange model where the level
of verification is so low that the reliability is low, no-one wants it
and the price is not worth taking.
Abbotts climate plan is
non-existent. It will all come undone in a big hurry. Hopefully the
Senator for Cubbie Station, Barnaby Joyce, will be allowed to view his
real thoughts and so will Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey and we will be
back with Malcolm sooner rather than later.
I
dont know why there is so much comment about Tony Abbott and the
questions about will he or wont he be next Pm. Anyone who has followed
politics at all over the years knows that this fellow just has not got
it. Once Parliament resumes he will be seen for what he is a
superficial radical prepared to swap and change positions at a whim.
Not at all a successful formula for one hoping to knock off a very
popular government and PM.
I
think you are right, but don't underestimate him. He is cunning right
wing and has no qualms about doing an 'about face' whenever the need
arises. These political figures revel in tough times, their simplistic
message appeals to that part of the population most impacted by
economic hardship.
Nobody
cares what Julia (who's Julian?) Gillard did to some union in Tasmania
other then the locals there. I'm getting tired of hearing about Abbott,
he's getting too much air time and all you Liberals out there that are
having a whinge about it - you should be happy as larry that he is
getting such publicity - good or bad. I'm sure Abbott's not whinging
about it.
Looks
like the loony Left is reading from the master of Left propaganda! Fran
do you get two pay checks one from the ABC and the other from the Labor
Party?
Abbott
is set to astound you all. In time, he will knock the phoney incumbent
PM off his perch and start the re-building process. Lets all hope the
Laborites haven't done too much damage by the time he gets there. Its
always great to read this column and take in the garbage that is
running around in the Rudd groupies' heads. I find it very re-assuring
because these people just confirm what some of us think: the Labor true
blues have little idea of how the electorate really thinks when the
pressure is on. And it will be on soon when people start to hurt bad in
the pocket. Go Tony, you will do it.
The
hysterics associated to Tony Abbott remind me of the hysterics
associated to John Howard getting elected as Liberal Leader back in
1995. Look what happened then. He got elected prime Minister and
overstayed his welcome by a decade.
Tony Abbott is a much better politician than Mark Latham. Latham was full of himself and I don't get that from Abbott.
The
polls will be the best gauge of the traction the Liberals are getting.
The more the media reports him the better it is for him. The more
analysis of Abbott the better it is for him. Each time represents a new
opportunity to shape the public's view of him.
Abbott's greatest strength is that the punters know what they get. It is a stark clear choice.
As
for all this "get your rosaries off my ovaries"...please it is akin to
putting your fingers in your ears and shouting - I'm not listening, I'm
not listening...
And
you think Abbott is up front and we all know where he is coming from?
That was Latham, Abbott has a "behind" the scenes history that would
make "Special Ops" look tame.
Abbott would kiss your baby and
have his hands on your heart and liberties! He is a front for Cardinal
George Pell and the correct order of things i.e. wealth rules elitism.
lets
not forget those before him Howard and Menzies both sold this country
out to foreign aggressive forces i.e. Japan/Iraq! Do we need to go
through the history?????
Fran,
so other than disagree with your analysis of Abbott what can a (sane)
person say. The fact that you compare Abbott with Latham just about
says it all. As far as intellectual capacity goes how do you work out
that Rudd is this ever thinking genius. Rudd is best described as a
frustrated, public servant with control issues. Abbott is far more
intelligent and just because he speaks his mind you denigrate him. It
must be much better to deal with some that is two faced (Rudd) Have you
seen the nasty side of Rudd as yet? Have you also seen the nasty side
of Abbott as yet? Compare the two and then write the story. It is ok
for the ABC to worship at the altar of St. Kevin, but for heavens sake
show some journalistic prowess as opposed the constant fawning you have
for everything ALP!
Delusional, is the first thing that comes to mind after reading this drivel.
Latham
and Abbott went to Sydney University during the same period both
aggressive and strong willed. They were adversarial towards each other.
Latham came from the western suburbs of Sydney (the old working class) and Abbott from England in 1960 to a wealthy background.
Abbott's
change of direction came after his "love affair" yes, out of "wedlock"
failed. You may remember the he was told a few years ago that he had
"fathered a child" out of this relationship!
Abbott is a
closet fanatic, a religious zealot with desire on power so typical of
the Roman Catholic Church. This country has always had moderate
leaders, even though Howard liked the idea of being the man of "steel"
yet, the title of street walker with minder was more adept!
Tony
Abbott is just another politician. To say that he is straight talking
is just spin to win over some voters. It must be a very bent "straight"
that can have so many opposing positions or weakening stances. What is
truly frightening is that so many consider him an alternative PM. But
these are the same ones who have supported John Howard throughout his
core and non core promises. That must be true straight talking.
Politics
has become an act of deception. Both parties are guilty of the same
injustices they accuse each other of commiting. A political party will
be elected upon the perception that they are doing something or intend
to do something. It makes absolutely no difference who is in power the
policies are what counts. Wake up Australians and lean to vote for
policy not idealism and personalities and hopefully apply some common
sense to the policies you vote for. The big concern is that Australians
are loyal to thier political parties even though the parties are not
loyal to thier voters. ALP voters would vote for workchoices if it was
an ALP policy and Liberal voters would still vote for ETS if it were
thier policy. So the system is like Holden v Ford where 20% of society
decide who wins. It is now time for common sense to prevail and for us
to vote for policy - not personality or habit.
About time someone took control of the Liberal Party and stood up for something other than Labour Party values.
Rudd
spends more time out of his country than in his own country, trying to
bignote himself around the world hoping to find a position on the UN
one day. He should stop caring about his own agenda and spend more time
on what's good for Australia. Labour Party stands for extreme spending
(giving money away to anybody and everybody with any excuse to win
votes), extreme taxes (to support their extreme spending and
redistribute the wealth of country) and using global warming to scare
the public just like they used the unions to scare the public re
Workchoices.
There is no comparison between Latham and Tony
Abbott. They are as different as chalk & cheese. Labour Party is
hoping to gain from this kind of comment but public is not as stupid as
they think.
Ahh...
don't we all hark back to the days when politics was no-holds bar
bullying between failed unoinists versus failed lawyers & landed
gentry. Policy was non-existent, go for the man not the ball, and who
gives a toss about the rest of the world. Everyhing was fine with
mother England and Uncle Sam controlling the investment and watching
the farm/quarry.
What do we get now... Pig Iron Tony, reds under
the beds, the chinese are coming to take us over, refugees are all
terrorists... I feel sorry for Pauline, she was a redneck ahead of her
time.
Malcolm operated under the delusion that perhaps common
sense, compromise and negotiation may play a part in Australian
Politcics... but now we have debate by head butting.
Xenophobia, a world in dissaray, it couldn't be the seeds of another rise in Facism? Surely not
He abused Bernie Banton just weeks before Bernie died. Banton is a hero in our lexicon of folk lore.
Abbott then decided to swear at and abuse Nicola Roxon because he was late for a debate.
He
now claims that refugees who were exercising their legal right to seek
protection from persecution were "blackmailing us" and they "got their
way" which is such bullshit one wonders if any of the clowns in that
party have bothered to read the refugee convention largely helped along
by Bob Menzies.
Rudd made a mistake by ignoring the
non-refoulement rules, he had to correct it but our media are all so
dumb they didn't pick that up.
frankly i would not even give him the time of day when he is on t.v. i dont only mute it IT TURN IT OFF so if you want your rating s to fall fran and abc YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE MORE OF TONY. stop spoiling our chirstmas by even just talking about this person
Not
smart, Australians should learn to think and apply logic. Play the Ball
(not the man) and please vote for policy, else we become the wealthy
stupid country. Please learn to see past the politician and thier ego.
It does not matter who said what, it is policy that makes the real
difference. Make no mistake - we are very wealthy by global standards,
and set to become much wealthier due to the LNG boom.
As
a life-long Liberal supporter, I must say that I feel totally
disenfranchised at the moment. Our party has been taken over by the
religious right and by extreme conservative elements. Those true
Liberals in the party who believe in individual freedom, tolerance,
minimum government intervention and market determined solutions have
been usurped. How on earth can Tony Abbott justify giving a National
the Shadow Finance portfolio let alone someone like Barnaby Joyce? And
I can't even begin to express my disappointment with the comebacks of
Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop and Phillip Ruddock. Unless there is a
complete change of personnel before the next election, I'm sad to say
that will not be voting voting Liberal at the next election (for the
first time in 45 years). I could not in all conscience even give the
Party my Preference by supporting an Independent. I cannot bring myself
to vote ALP and the Greens are just too scary. Informal seems my only
choice. I just hope that the true Liberal Party re-emerges again but
the signs are not good.
Well
who knows what may happen between now and the election, but looking at
things now you would have to say Tony has a pretty up-hill battle in
front of him. As was pointed out in the weekend Australian, Tony
recieved one of the lowest bounces in the polls for a new opposition
leader in recent history. If the general public really were crying out
for a swing back to the right by the Libs it was not reflected at all
in his first opinion poll. A bigger problem still is that in his
cabinet reshuffle he has basically gifted labour its electoral
advertising strategy. Putting Barnaby Joyce into finance was a terrible
mistake, he will be a total liability throughout the election campaign,
much the same way that Abbott was during the last one. Furthermore,
reappointing a raft of Howard-era ministers will make it easy for
labour to portray the coalition as a carry-on from the Howard
government. The government has clearly shown some faults since coming
to power and no one should write the Coalition off at this stage, but
looking at the facts as they currently stand, you have to say that an
Abbott led government after the next election is a long shot indeed.
I
was at Sydney Uni with Tony. he was a boxing champ and used to walk the
halls dressed in neo fascist get up abusing other students if they
appeared to be Progressives. he upset many with this attitude, and this
sometimes meant that he would be confronted physically... It is
legendary that he would always run from those in his own weight range.
Id love to go a few rounds with Tony to give him an authentic feel for
the common man.
I
by no means want Tony Abbot of this country but I can see where his
popular appeal may eminate from. He could turn out to be a very popular
antidote to the Prime Ministers constant vebal garbage. The media like
him, the 'average battler' likes him. So watch out Labor Party. I can
sniff a change in the air.
Comments for this story are closed. No new
comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this
issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
Police have charged a man with the indecent assault of an intellectually disabled teenager in Sydney's south yesterday evening.
Officers say the 16-year-old boy was having dinner with his parents
at La Perouse beach about 6.30pm when a man grabbed the boy's hand and
forced it down his pants.
The teenager's family confronted the man and flagged down a patrolling police car.
The 40-year-old man was arrested and police allegedly found a knife on him.
He has been refused bail and will appear in a local court later today.
Pair held over $4m card skimming scam
Posted Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:35pm AEDT Updated Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:11pm AEDT
Police have arrested two men in Sydney over an EFTPOS scam that has netted millions of dollars.
(ABC News)
Police in Sydney have arrested two men over an EFTPOS
scam which has so far netted more than $4 million from bank accounts in
Western Australia.
Thousands of Western Australians have had their card details stolen
at several McDonald's restaurants across Perth since October.
Police allege the 31-year-old Canadian man and the 36-year-old
British man used the information to retrieve money from the accounts.
Detective Senior Sergeant Don Heise from the WA Major Fraud Squad
alleges the men are part of an international organised crime syndicate
and he expects there will be more arrests.
"We've been working with police in other countries and police in
other states like New South Wales and Victoria and we were able to
track these people from the information we've received from our own
inquiries here in Perth and also internationally," he said.
"Because it's international it's a difficult inquiry to carry out
and also it's the largest skimming event that I think has occurred in
Australia at this time."
The 36-year-old man was arrested on Monday and appeared in the Parramatta Local Court in Sydney on Tuesday.
Perth detectives successfully sought his extradition to Western
Australia and he was remanded in custody to appear in the Perth
Magistrates Court.
The 31-year-old man was arrested yesterday and will appear in the
Parramatta Local Court today when Perth detectives will seek his
extradition to Western Australia.
Both men have been charged with conspiracy to defraud.
In November, Western Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter
unveiled legislation which he said would produce the toughest
anti-identity theft and card-skimming laws in the country.
Under the proposed laws, anyone caught with another person's
identity information or in possession of equipment used to make, supply
or transmit the material with intent to commit a crime will face a
maximum five years imprisonment.
Anyone caught making, using or supplying identity information faces a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.
Court rejects A-G submission on Doomadgee case
Source By Kim Lyell ABC
Coroner Michael Barnes has rejected the Qld A-G's submission for a finding of an accident. (AAP Image - file photo: Dave Hunt)
A pre-inquest hearing into a death in custody on Palm
Island off north Queensland has rejected the state's Attorney-General's
submission that accidental death of Cameron Doomadgee be ruled out.
The inquest into the death of Mr Doomadgee on Palm Island, off Townsville, in 2004 will reopen in March.
An inquest found Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley was responsible for Mr
Doomadgee's death, but the police officer was later cleared of
manslaughter.
In June this year, the Court of Appeal ordered the inquest be reopened.
A hearing in Brisbane today, ahead of the inquest in March, heard
the Attorney-General made a written submission suggesting a finding of
accidental death be ruled out.
The submission from the Queensland Attorney-General that a finding
of accident be ruled out was rejected by the coroner Michael Barnes.
Lawyer Glen Craney, acting for Sergeant Hurley, said the submission
seemed to be a continuation of the failed prosecution and an attempt to
have another go at his client.
The lawyer says the Queensland Attorney-General's ongoing involvement in an inquest into the death in custody is "unseemly".
Mr Craney says the Doomadgee family is ably represented and the
Attorney-General should reconsider his continuing involvement in the
case.
However Peter Davis, acting for the Queensland Attorney-General,
rejected the criticism, saying the submission on accidental death was
only a preliminary view.
Senior Sergeant Hurley may not attend the re-opened inquest next year unless giving evidence.
The hearing was told Senior Sergeant Hurley's partner is due to give birth in March, when the inquest is scheduled to reopen.
Coroner Michael Barnes will hear two days of evidence on Palm Island, and five in Townsville.
Andrew Boe, acting for the Doomadgee family, says Sergeant Hurley's evidence should be given in person and not via a video link.
11th International Criminal Law Congress 8–12 October 2008
wissôtel, Sydney, AustraliaProgram
The theme of this biennial International Criminal Law Congress is
‘Criminal Justice Today and Tomorrow'. This was reflected in a suitably
diverse program, designed to address the challenges of investigation,
prosecution, defence, adjudication and punishment of crime in the
twenty-first century. The advent of cyberspace and accelerating
cross-border movements of trade, investment and people have been
matched by the growth of online and transnational crime. Accordingly,
the congress will examine identity theft, cyber-crime, money laundering
and other complex jurisdictional and law enforcement challenges.
Of
course, long-standing issues in criminal law, such as detention of
forensic patients, a functioning justice system for indigenous
communities, evidence and the role of juries featured prominently.
The
program had a strong empirical emphasis,and a number of speakers
reported o the latest research, statistical analysis and developments
in compulsory diversion and therapeutic jurisprudence. Others examined
the influence which the omnipresent media has upon facets of criminal
justice systems in Australasia and many other jurisdictions.
The
2008 Criminal Law Congress was an invaluable aid to practitioners who
must adapt to rapid change in the age of terrorism, transnational and
online crime and developing alternatives to traditional trial and
punishment regimes.
Provisional Program
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
17:00 - 18:30: Welcome Reception
Thursday, 9 October
09:00 - 09:15: Welcome Nicholas Cowdery AM QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW
09:15 - 10:30: Coppers Without Borders: Criminal Justice & Globalisation Chair: Nicholas Cowdery AM QC Nick Kaldas, Deputy Commissioner,Specialist Operations, NSW Police Force Kevin Kitson, Executive Director, Australian Crime Commission Terrorism: Trends and the Impact on Law Enforcement and Prosecutions
10:30 - 11:00: Morning Tea
11:00 - 12:30: Identifying the Innocence Gene: DNA Evidence in the Twenty-First Century Chair: Judge John Robertson, District Court of Queensland Andrew Haesler SC, NSW Public Defender Ken Shadbolt QC, Chair, NSW DNA Review Panel
12:30 - 14:00: Lunch
14:00 - 15:30: Made Round to Go Round: Money Laundering & Illegal Transfers Chair: John Visser, General Manager, Intelligence Branch, AUSTRAC Use of Financial Intelligence to Counter Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Chris Douglas, Australian Federal Police Developments and Trends in Australian Money Laundering Robert Stary, Criminal Defense Lawyer, Victoria
15:30 - 16:00: Afternoon Tea
16:00 - 17:15: So You want to be Briefed in A War Crimes Trial? Chair: Mark Ierace SC Mrs Fatou Bensouda, Deputy Prosecutor,Prosecution Division, International Criminal Court ICC Prosecution Process Chrissa Loukas, NSW Public Defender Helen Brady,Senior Appeals Counsel, Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Holding Leaders Responsible: Linkage and Liability
Friday, 10 October
09:00 - 10:30: Broadband Robbery: Online Crime in the Twenty-First Century Chair:Nicholas Cowdery AM QC Joel Schwarz, Cybercrime Attorney, USA Online Financial Crime Federal Agent (Superintendent) Brad Shallies, Australian High Tech Crime Operations, Australian Federal Police
10:30 - 10:45: Morning Tea
10:45 - 12:00: Business Behaving Badly: White Collar Crime in the Twenty-First Century Chris Craigie SC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (View Full Paper) Prosecuting for the Commonwealth - Touring a National Horizon Peter Renehan, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (View Full Paper) Terence O'Gormam, Robertson O'Gorman Solicitors, QLD
13:00: The Long Lunch - Sponsored by Foleys List Pty Ltd
10:30 - 12:00: Justice in Indigenous Communities: Twenty First Century Solutions Chair: Anna Katzmann SC Rex Wild QC, Former DPP for the Northern Territory, Co-chair "Little Children are Sacred" inquiry (sponsored by Forbes Chambers) Justice in Indigenous Communities: Twenty First Century Solutions ;A Northern Territory Perspective' Shannon Smallwood, Crown Prosecutor, Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Northwest Territories Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada: The Northwest Territories Experience
12:00 - 13:00: Lunch
13:00 - 15:00: Sexual Assault Trials: Has the Pendulum Swung too far Against the Accused? Moderator: Annie Cossins, University of NSW Panel Members: Stephen Odgers SC, Barrister Margaret Cunneen SC, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor, NSW Lisa Davies, Daily Telegraph
15:00 - 15:30: Afternoon Tea
15:30 - 17:30 At the Governor's Pleasure: Detention of Forensic Patients and Crime by the Mentally Ill Dan Howard SC, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong (View Full Paper) Dr Bruce Westmore, Psychiatrist Detention of Forensic Patients and Crime by the Mentally Ill Chair: Alissa Moen
19:00 - 23:30: Conference Dinner - Sponsored by NSW Bar Association
Sunday, 12 October
09:00 - 11:00: To Recidivism & Rehabilitation in the Age of Zero Intolerance Chair: Judge Bennett SC, District Court of NSW Luke Grant, Assistant Commissioner, Offender Services and Programs, Department of Corrective Services Dr Don Weatherburn, Director, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research The NSW Drug Court 10 Years On: A Second Look at its Effectiveness
11:00 - 11:30: Morning Tea
11:30 - 13:00: Compulsory Diversion & Therapeutic Jurisprudence Chair:Judge Brian Knox SC, District Court of NSW Judge Roger Dive, NSW Drug Court Revolving Door no More: How and why Drug Courts Work Emeritus Professor Ian Webster AO, University of NSW Treatment in the Environment of Coercion Paul Mulroney, Campbelltown Children's Court Beyond an Eye for an Eye: Therapuetic Jurisprudence and Young Offenders
Mrs Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian national, was elected Deputy
Prosecutor by the Assembly of State Parties on 8 September 2004. She is
in charge of the Prosecution Division at the Office of the Prosecutor.
Before joining the International Criminal Court she was a Trial
Attorney, Senior Legal Advisor and later Head of the Legal Advisory
Unit of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In the Gambia,
Mrs Bensouda held various positions, including Attorney General and the
Minister of Justice. She was also the delegate of the Gambia to the
meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal
Court.
Helen Brady
Helen Brady is a Senior Appeals Counsel in the Office of the
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal of the former
Yugoslavia. She has represented the Prosecution in numerous appeals
before the Appeals Chambers of the ICTY and ICTR.
Before this she
worked at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) in
Sydney, was a member of the Australian Government delegation to the
Rome Conference and the Preparatory Commission to establish the
International Criminal Court, and worked in private practise.
She
lectures in international criminal and humanitarian law, has trained
Cambodian prosecutors, judges and investigators for the Extraordinary
Chambers for Khmer Rouge crimes, and trains lawyers from the ICTY, ICTR
and ICC in appellate advocacy.
Emeritus Professor Michael Chesterman
In 1997-2001, Emeritus Professor Michael Chesterman, formerly Dean
of the UNSW Law Faculty, led a UNSW team conducting empirical research
into the impact of media publicity on criminal jury trials.
Between
1998 and 2008, he was an Acting Judge of the District Court of NSW. He
is currently a Deputy President of the Administrative Decisions
Tribunal.
Chris Craigie SC
Chris Craigie SC is the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions. He has been a lawyer in practice as a criminal law
specialist since 1976. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2001. From
private practice at the New South Wales Bar, he was appointed a NSW
Public Defender in 1994 and took silk in 2001. He held appointment as
Deputy Senior Public Defender 2002 - 2007, with what became a
predominantly appellate practice, built upon extensive career as trial
counsel. He was appointed Commonwealth DPP in 2007. As head of the
Australian Commonwealth's prosecuting authority the CDPP has ultimate
responsibility for the prosecution of Federal criminal and many
regulatory offences against laws enacted by the Australian Parliament.
Some of the more publicly prominent areas of prosecution include,
terrorist offences, commercial frauds, tax offences, anti-competitive
business conduct and welfare fraud. The Commonwealth DPP's area of
operation extends over a vast array of matters referred by more than
forty Government agencies throughout Australia.
Margaret Cunneen SC
Margaret Cunneen has been a Crown Prosecutor since 1990 and was
appointed Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor in 2002. From 1977-1981 she
worked in the Attorney-General's Department Ministerial Office and from
1981-1986 she was an Industrial Officer at the Public Service Board's
Legal Branch. From 1986-1990 she was Senior Principal Solicitor at the
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, heading the Child Sexual
Assault Unit. Margaret has a Bachelor of Laws (NSWIT) and a Master of
Laws (Syd) and has prosecuted many murder trials and a series of
high-profile paedophile and gang rape cases. She has a keen interest in
upholding the rights of victims of violent crime and those bereaved by
crime and assisting them in their journey through the criminal justice
system. She is the mother of 3 teenage boys and has a black belt in
Taekwondo.
Lisa Davies
Lisa has been a court reporter for The Daily Telegraph newspaper for
more than three years. She has covered some of the biggest trials and
legal affairs issues in NSW in that time, including a Justice for Women
campaign to change rape laws, and the recent case of 18-year-old Lauren
Huxley, who was bashed and assaulted in her home by a stranger.
Jane Goodman-Delahunty JD PhD MAPS
Jane Goodman-Delahunty JD PhD MAPS has conducted empirical research
on juries for over 25 years and was a consultant to the ABA on jury
competence. In 2007 she led a multistate study of jury satisfaction and
confidence in the criminal system. She is a lawyer, psychologist,
mediator, and NSW Law Reform Commissioner (part-time).
Judge Roger Dive
Judge Roger Dive has been the Senior Judge of the Drug Court of NSW
since July 2004. Judge Dive was previously the Senior Children's
Magistrate, and a Local Court Magistrate since 1989, sitting in a
variety of country and city courts.
Chris Douglas
Chris Douglas has been a member of the Australian Federal Police for
over 25 years, with investigative experience in Sydney and Perth. He
has experience as an investigator and manager across a range of
Commonwealth crime types, however, his primary experience involves
major fraud, money laundering and proceeds of crime investigations.
Chris is currently the Acting Coordinator Economic and Special
Operations Perth. He has written a Money Laundering Investigation
Program for the AFP which he is currently in the process of delivering
throughout Australia to AFP members and representatives from AUSTRAC,
Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Crime Commission.
Luke Grant
Assistant Commissioner, Offender Services and Programs, Department of Corrective Services Luke
Grant is the Assistant Commissioner Offender Services and Programs for
the NSW Department of Corrective Services. He has worked in the
offender rehabilitation area for 18 years and has a particular interest
in evidence based approaches to correctional treatment and management.
Prior to working in corrections he was involved with teaching and
ecological research at the University of Sydney.
Andrew Haesler SC
Andrew Haesler SC is a Barrister and a Deputy Senior Public Defender
for NSW. After graduating from UNSW Andrew commenced practice in 1981.
He worked as a Solicitor with the Redfern Legal Centre, the NSW Legal
Aid Commission and the Aboriginal Legal Service in Alice Springs.
Admitted to the Bar in 1990 and appointed Senior Counsel in 2004,
Andrew has a large criminal trial and appeal practice. He has given and
had published many papers on topics concerned with criminal law and
advocacy.
Associate Professor Dan Howard SC
Associate Professor Dan Howard SC is Director of the National
Prosecutions Program of postgraduate courses at the Centre for
Transnational Crime Prevention within the Law Faculty at the University
of Wollongong. He also lectures in the Masters of Forensic Mental
Health program at the University of New South Wales. He is co-author of
the textbook "Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales" published
by Lexis Nexis and is a member of the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas
Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas NSW Police Force Nick
Kaldas has been a NSW Police Officer for 26 years. His career spans a
number of areas primarily in major crime investigations, homicide,
armed robbery, major drug investigations, counter terrorism and covert
operations.
Nick has received a number of Commendations, the
National Medal, and following his return from Iraq was awarded the
Humanitarian Overseas Services Medal. He holds a Masters Degree in
Public Policy and Administration.
Mr Kevin Kitson
Mr Kitson is currently the Australian Crime Commission's Executive
Director of Strategic Outlook and Policy. He has been with the ACC
since its inception and has also held positions as Director of Covert
Operation and Executive Director of Criminal Intelligence Strategies.
Mr
Kitson's primary expertise is in intelligence where over the course of
more than 30 years he has worked in national security and law
enforcement in Australia and overseas on issues as diverse as
right-wing extremism, terrorism, espionage, corruption and organised
crime.
Chrissa Loukas
Chrissa Loukas is a Barrister, Public Defender and member of the New
South Wales Bar Council. From 2003 to 2006 Chrissa was Defence Counsel
at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Vice President, Association of Defence Counsel (ICTY) (2004 – 2006)
Paul Mulroney
Paul Mulroney became a Magistrate in March 2000, and was appointed
to the Children's Court in January 2001. He has sat as a Children's
Magistrate in a variety of urban and country courts in NSW, including
the Youth Drug and Alcohol Court. He has spoken about issues dealt with
by the Children's Court to a number of conferences in Australia and
China.
He has been active in community affairs and currently is
Chair of Habitat for Humanity NSW Ltd and holds leadership positions in
Church in the Market Place, the Uniting Church at Bondi Junction.
Stephen J Odgers S.C.
Chair, Criminal Law Committee, NSW Bar Association; Adjunct
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney; General Editor,
Criminal Law Journal; Author of Uniform Evidence Law (7th ed), Principles of Federal Criminal Law (1st ed); Co-author of Australian Criminal Justice (3rd ed).
Peter Renehan
Since October 2006, Peter has been employed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as its Special Counsel.
During
the period 1992 to 2006, Peter was a barrister at the Sydney bar. He
practised primarily in the areas of trade practices and Commonwealth
criminal law.
Prior to commencing practice as a barrister, Peter
was the associate to Justice Lionel Murphy, High Court of Australia
(1985-1986), a solicitor at Clayton Utz (1986-1988) and employed by the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (1988-1992).
Joel Schwarz
Cybercrime Attorney, USA Joel Schwarz is an
American criminal law practitioner with long experience in prosecuting
computer crime and crimes facilitated by information technology, as
well as in the development of methods to prevent, detect and combat
these crimes, and in the presentation to colleagues of the principles
and practices involved. Joel Schwarz is currently employed as a Trial
Attorney for the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section of
the U.S. Department of Justice. Previous to this position, he worked as
Counsel on E-Commerce for MetLife, and was Special Counsel for Internet
Matters in the New York State Attorney General's Securities Bureau. In
speaking at the ICLC, Joel Schwarz is appearing in his individual
capacity, and therefore the views expressed during his speech are his
own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States or
the Justice Department (neither of which shall be bound by his remarks).
Ken Shadbolt
Ken Shadbolt is the Chairman of the DNA Review Panel of NSW. He was
a Judge of the District Court for 24 years and Chairman of the Parole
Board for two years. Prior to his appointment he was the Public
Solicitor for NSW and before that a barrister and public defender.
Federal Agent (Superintendent) Brad Shallies
Federal Agent (Superintendent) Brad Shallies has over 25 years of
policing experience with both Victoria Police and the Australian
Federal Police (AFP). His current position with the AFP is National
Coordinator Cyber Safety. Academic qualifications include a Bachelor of
Laws (LLB) and the requisite practise and admission qualifications.
Shannon Smallwood
Shannon Smallwood received her LL.B. from the University of Calgary
in 1999. She articled with the Alberta Court of Appeal and Court of
Queen's Bench in Calgary and the Department of Justice Canada. Since
2000, she has worked as a Crown Prosecutor with the Public Prosecution
Service of Canada in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories except for a
brief period working in Ottawa. She is a Sahtu Dene originally from the
Northwest Territories.
Mr John Visser
John Visser is the General Manager, Intelligence at the Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). He sits on a number
of AUSTRAC committees, including the Executive, Enforcement,
Intelligence Oversight and Audit committees.
John joined AUSTRAC
in January 1991 and his career with AUSTRAC has been largely devoted to
managing the development of AUSTRAC's analysis and intelligence
capabilities, working closely with AUSTRAC's partner agencies and
Information Technology Branch as the head of AUSTRAC's Monitoring and
Analysis Section.
John has represented AUSTRAC at an
interdepartmental level in a number of key money laundering, law
enforcement and intelligence forums and has represented Australia in
the same capacity at various forums around the world, including the
Financial Action Task Force, Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering and
the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units.
Dr Don Weatherburn
Don Weatherburn is Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics
and Research in Sydney. He is a fellow of the Academy of Social
Sciences in Australia and an Adjunct Professor in the School of Social
Science and Policy at the University of New South Wales.
Emeritus Professor Ian Webster AO
Ian Webster is a consulting physician at Liverpool Hospital and in
the Shoalhaven Area. He was honorary visiting physician to the Matthew
Talbot Hostel for the Homeless from 1976 to 2007.
He is Emeritus
Professor of Public Health and Community Medicine in the University of
New South Wales and Chief Patron of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council
of Australia. He chairs the National Advisory Council on Suicide
Prevention, the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Ltd.,
the New South Wales Expert Advisory Group on Alcohol and Drugs and is
President, Governing Committee of the Ted Noffs Foundation.
His
research and publications have been in preventive medicine, medical
practice, ageing, disability, homelessness, alcohol and other drug
problems, suicide prevention and social issues in health.
Dr Bruce Westmore
Dr Bruce Westmore attended the University of Queensland and
graduated in 1978. He worked in the area of general medicine until 1980
when he commenced his psychiatric training. Admitted as a Member of the
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in 1985, he
commenced duties with the Department of Health in Queensland as the
acting Deputy Director of Psychiatric Services, a position he held for
twelve months before commencing his training in forensic psychiatry at
the Maudsley Hospital, London.
In 1987 Dr Westmore was appointed
as the Director of Forensic Psychiatry for the State of Queensland, a
position he held until his move to Sydney in 1990.
Dr Westmore's
experience covers the areas of administrative psychiatry, clinical work
in both the hospital and prison settings and an extensive background in
teaching and research. He has held a number of appointments with the
Royal Australian and new Zealand College of Psychiatrists and has
published in a number of areas, including that of mental health
legislation.
Mr Rex Wild QC
Rex Wild was admitted to practice in Victoria in 1968. He was a
member of the Victoria Bar from 1973-1993. He was appointed a Queen's
Counsel in 1991.
Mr Wild was appointed Director of Public
Prosecutions in the Northern Territory from October 1995 until January
2006. He remains a member of the NT Bar.
Mr Wild was co-chair of
the Northern Territory Government's Board of Inquiry into the
Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse which reported in
April 2007.(Little Children are Sacred).
The Hon James Wood AO QC
Supreme Court Justice 1984 - 2005; currently Commissioner Special
Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW,
Chairperson NSW Law Reform Commission and Chairperson NSW Sentencing
Council; formerly Commissioner Special Commission of Inquiry into NSW
Police Service and into Paedophilia 1994 - 1997.
DPP and NSW Crime Commission criticised as defendants awarded costs in drug conspiracy case
TWO men accused of the nation's largest ever cocaine conspiracy have
been awarded costs after a magistrate slammed the "unreasonable conduct
and delay" by those prosecuting their case.
Magistrate
Geoff Bradd has today given both the DPP and NSW Crime Commission a
scathing lecture, outlining his frustration at their conduct which he
said may be viewed as "an abuse of process".
Alen Moradian and
Luke Sparos are the alleged kingpins of a large drug syndicate -
nicknamed the "Golden Gun" case - that are said to have imported in
excess of 300kg of cocaine.
A committal hearing for the pair has
been plagued by delays, with the court being told the officer in charge
in the Solomon Islands on army reserve duty, lengthy arguments over
documents the Crime Commission "mistakenly" served on the defence and
now wants back, and a failed application by the Crown that the main
"rollover" witness give his evidence by video link.
That issue will now be appealed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, forcing the adjournment of the hearing to December 15.
Mr
Bradd, who had already described the case as being "in disarray"
accused both the Crime Commission and the DPP of failing to respect the
court dates set down for the matter many months ago.
"I'm
extremely frustrated because this matter was supposed to start on a
certain day and it's been clear right from the start that this matter
was not ready to proceed, and right up until now we are being told that
these things are not ready," he said.
"It's approaching an abuse of process."
Turning
to the Crime Commission, a lawyer for whom sought to block access to
material already part-served on counsel for Mr Sparos, Mr Bradd became
even more terse.
"(You don't want to release this material)
which may have the ability to exculpate the defendant ... but you can't
have it both ways," he said.
"You prosecute this matter or you don't.
"To say this is a fishing exercise is just beyond the pale."
The material in dispute is a large amount of telephone intercepts of the main "witness" who cannot be identified.
Counsel
for Moradian, Winston Terracini SC, and solicitor for Sparos, Ross
Hudson, had earlier applied for costs on the grounds of the "delay
tactics" being used by the prosecution.
Mr Bradd ruled in their favour, with no case in reply from the Crown.
"I
grant an order for costs due to the unreasonable conduct and delay by
the prosecution, and order that the costs be determined at the end of
the proceedings," he said.
The costs are expected to amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Wall of secrecy exposed in policing by state and federal crime commissions
Article from:
By Lisa Davies Chief Court Reporter
December 20, 2009 11:00pm
THE
NSW judiciary is becoming increasingly frustrated with the highly
secretive state and federal crime commissions, with one magistrate
slamming their actions as an "abuse of process".
Referred
to in legal circles as a virtual "star chamber", the NSW Crime
Commission has royal commission-like powers and a hefty budget to
investigate crime.
Criticism of the unaccountable body has
escalated since the arrest of one of its most senior investigators,
Mark Standen, on drug importation charges, the kind of crime the
commission is tasked with preventing.
Legal sources, who asked
not to be named, said Standen's arrest had blown the lid on what really
went on behind their wall of secrecy. In the past month, magistrates
have taken either the state or federal body to task.
Central
Local Court magistrate Allan Moore is one of the commission's biggest
critics, and in the past has told officers to stop "hiding" behind the
body's wide-ranging powers and actually provide hard evidence to the
court.
He granted bail to Hells Angels member Rodney Wayne
Schneider on Australian Crime Commission allegations he was involved in
interstate drug-running, finding there was barely any evidence that
could convict him.
"I've read [the tendered sheet of allegations], in fact I've read it twice," Mr Moore told the prosecutor.
"I
handed it to one of my colleagues to read in case I'd missed something.
It makes for most interesting reading but ... I think you've got very
real problems. Unless somebody's got something back at the Crime
Commission they want to tell me about [I'm granting bail]."
In an
adjacent court, magistrate Geoff Bradd last week granted unspecified
legal costs to the men involved in the "golden gun" drug conspiracy
case - the country's biggest cocaine trial - after he found the DPP and
Crime Commission had been virtually incompetent in their prosecution of
the case.
As
someone who works in the financial markets, what I'm about to argue
probably isn't that smart from a career perspective, but here goes.
Judging
by its continued persistence in pursuing through the courts former
OneTel Directors Jodee Rich and Mark Silbermann, the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) appears to have gone just
ever so slightly mad.
In my piece on this website last month entitled OneTel...one big debacle,
I argued that while it was unfortunate OneTel had failed, this was most
likely the result of poor management rather than criminal activity. It
may come as a surprise to some, but companies fail all the time, for
reasons as varied as (but not limited to) the following:
• inability to secure financing; • loss of a major customer; • changes in technology; • increase in competition; • changing exchange rates; • changes in government policy; and (of course) • lack of necessary managerial talent.
When
companies do face the unpleasant prospect of going under, their
directors often try simultaneously to perform the following actions:
• give the impression to customers that it's 'business as usual'; • try and arrange alternative financing, if this is required (it usually is); • convince key staff members not to depart; and last, but certainly not least • try not to fall foul of the 'trading while insolvent' laws.
ASIC's
main case against Messrs Rich and Silbermann is that they should've
shut OneTel down as early as February 2001 when the company began
struggling to pay its bills. Instead, these two men along, crucially,
with the rest of the OneTel Board (which at the time included both
James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch) continued trading for three
additional months while they frantically tried to develop a rescue plan
for the business. This plan required considerable financial support
from Packer and Murdoch who ultimately refused to participate,
preferring instead that OneTel's doors close forever in May 2001.
Usually
when companies go under the corporate regulator regards all relevant
directors as joint and severally liable for any debts incurred during
any period of insolvent trading. Given the considerable wealth still
possessed by Messrs Packer and Murdoch, one would've assumed therefore
that it would be to ASIC's advantage to pursue them for damages rather
than the considerably poorer Jodee Rich.
Yet for reasons still
not entirely clear, ASIC has decided not to go after Packer and
Murdoch, preferring instead to try and argue that they must have been
"profoundly misled" (Packer's own words) by their two main executive
directors Rich and Silbermann. Questions remain as to why ASIC is so
certain some Onetel directors must be guilty of trading while
insolvent, while others should get off scot free. This is particularly
the case when one considers that the company's liquidator, one Paul
Weston, is apparently planning to do exactly what ASIC will not, ie
potentially launch a lawsuit estimated at $230m against Packer and
Murdoch for failing to support OneTel in its hour of need
eight-and-a-half years ago.
ASIC's overt inconsistency in its
treatment of OneTel's board members has not gone unnoticed by NSW
Supreme Court Judge Robert Austin, who dismissed the regulator's case
last month. The fact that ASIC wishes to spend further sums of
taxpayers' funds pursuing what is amounting to a vendetta against Rich
and Silbermann should be a cause of great concern. While it's important
for the corporate plod to pursue high profile cases in an effort to
show no one is above the law, with Onetel ASIC is aiming its bullets at
the company's second tier (executive directors Rich and Silbermann)
while letting of the hook the much higher profile non-execs (Packer and
Murdoch).
Having committed a potential act of financial
hari-kiri by publicly criticising ASIC, let me make perfectly clear my
feelings about OneTel. The company had a massive excess of unachievable
vision, combined with a huge undersupply of managerial focus on
business basics like cashflow and planning. Because early in its
corporate life OneTel quickly attained both an ASX listing and the
patronage of high profile backers like Packer and Murdoch, the company
probably avoided the analytical scrutiny to which immature businesses
are usually subject. Painful investment lessons have been learnt by all
who remained shareholders when OneTel stock was suspended from trade in
May 2001.
But is the greater good served by pursuing two members
of the board while others remain seemingly immune from such
prosecution? Probably not. And is all this taking far too long such
that memories of events that took place almost a decade ago are now
fading? Almost certainly.
It's time for ASIC to focus on the
many issues financial markets face today instead of spending more time
and money chasing after the hapless Jodee Rich (who, it seems, has only
a bicycle with which to avoid his pursuer).
It’s
not everyday, as Chairman of a Committee, you get an award like the one
given to me in 2004 as Chairman of the House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The inscription reads - Whistleblowers Action Group (Qld) - Whistleblower Supporter of the Year 2004.
I was presented for the work we did in formally taking evidence and reporting on the infamous Heiner Affair.
Since then there has
been a huge report assembled buy David Rofe QC which to date has not
been published because some of the material needs privilege.
But other notables have carried the cause forward, particularly Piers Akerman and Alan Jones.
Kevin Lindeberg is the catalyst in this saga as he continues to
pursue justice for a young 14 year old girl who was an inmate of a
Queensland government correctional centre and allegedly raped whilst on
a supervised outing.
Here’s the background:
Noel Heiner comes into the picture in 1989 when he was appointed by
the Cooper Government as a retired magistrate to investigate
allegations of abuse and mismanagement at a Queensland correctional
centre.
The Cooper Government was defeated on 2nd December 1989 and Wayne Goss became Premier and Kevin Rudd his Chief of Staff.
They almost immediately turned their attention to Mr Heiner and his enquiry.
On the 5th March 1990 the Cabinet officially determined that
documents containing evidence taken by Mr Heiner, and relating to child
abuse, be destroyed.
Prior to this the manager of the institution placed the Government
on notice that he required access to these documents for the purpose of
taking legal action.
Knowing this, the Cabinet ordered the destruction of the documents
on the 23rd March 1990. On this same day the photocopies of the
original complaints were shredded by the Department.
The Cabinet relied on an opinion given by the Criminal Justice
Commission, which was set up after the Fitzgerald Enquiry to ensure
justice in Queensland. They failed in this instance to do so. The
opinion interpreted the meaning of S)129 of the Queensland Criminal
Code Act which makes it a criminal act, liable to imprisonment for
three years, to wilfully destroy any document, book or other thing,
knowing that any of these may be required in evidence in a judicial
proceeding.
The opinion said there was only an offence if legal proceedings had
already begun. Many, including Mr Lindeberg, argued vociferously
against this interpretation.
The critics were proven to be correct when one, Pastor Enderby, was
convicted of such an offence – that is destroying evidence which maybe
required in a judicial proceeding.
The real problem for Mr Goss, his former Cabinet members and
relevant public servants, including Mr Rudd, is that they were not
prosecuted under S)129 but Pastor Douglas Enderby was.
On the 11th March 2004, whilst our enquiry continued, Pastor Enderby
was found guilty under S)129 for destroying the diary of a child abuse
victim, six years prior to the girl reporting the incident to police
and the possibility of instituting legal proceedings.
Therefore there seems to be in Queensland one rule for Cabinet
ministers and public servants and another for ordinary citizens. One
gets prosecuted and convicted – the others go scot free.
But back to the award. The public hearings allowed the Heiner
Affair to be aired and the conviction of Pastor Enderby to be known and
compared with the disgrace of the Heiner Affair and cover up of the
alleged rape of a young girl.
My committee recommended in our 2004 report that the Goss Cabinet
members be prosecuted in the same way Pastor Enderby was and that under
the COAG process ensure that all allegations relating to the abuse of
children be kept for 30 years.
Premier Beattie’s response was that it had happened 14 years ago – so forget it.
Pastor Enderby’s offence was 6 years old when he was convicted and
at the time of the enquiry a Goss Cabinet Minister was Treasurer of
Queensland.
Meanwhile a young woman has had no justice after 20 years of enquiry, debate and cover up.
The case is however now part of legal history and the Goss Cabinet,
and those around him at the time, identified as abuses of the law and
clear evidence.
If we don’t continue to prosecute this case we set a most dangerous precedent.
The
sexual assault victim has legal representation already. The issue which
everyone dodges because of its political ramifications is the illegal
shredding of evidence authorised by the Goss Cabinet, aided and abetted
by certain senior bureaucrats who knew what the same facts were.
Mrs Bishop rightly, according to law, advised that they were open to
a criminal charge under section 129. There is no statute of limitations.
You may kick her, and Akerman, as much as you like, but be honest
and try to explain away that charge on the facts and law before you
continue in such a vindicative vendetta.
lance says:
12:09pm | 23/10/09
why don’t all the protagonists including akerman and bishop
knock on the door of the aborigional victim (of the heiner affair)
stating they will present a pro bono case on her behalf
if they were genuinely concerned for her
that should at least get the matter mentioned
Carl Palmer says:
11:43am | 09/10/09
@ Reggie says: 03:08pm | 08/10/09
Perfectly summarised – as they say, if you can’t explain something in simple terms, then you don’t understand it yourself.
iansand says:
08:48am | 09/10/09
Legal
Observer - If that was a matter that was seriously in dispute (as
opposed to a concession) most Appeal Court justices would have devoted
more than half a paragraph to analysis of the issue. If Davies J had
stopped his remarks at “that concession was properly made” (or whatever
his actual words were) the judgment would have rolled along without any
problems.
Jennifer Nash says:
08:22am | 09/10/09
It’s
good to see Bronwyn Bishop speaking out about the Heiner Affair. I am
hoping she might consider giving attention to our case too.
Particularly as ours has been covered up from here to Timbuktu and is
being suppressed and denied any advocacy and coverage.
I am also seeking justice for an ignored and forgotten victim of
corruption, neglect and high level political cover-up. My teenage son
was severely bullied at school and had to leave school in grade 7
because of it.
I complained to the Queensland Anti Discrimination Tribunal and the
Supreme Court about the school bullying and education discrimination.
However, unlike many other children and even adults, my son was
repeatedly denied legal representation in breach of the Rights of the
Child and the ICCPR.
The courtroom audiotapes and transcripts in the Tribunal and Supreme
Court hearings were severely edited to pervert the course of justice
and to deny us the evidence of the harrowing abuse we endured. My son
was never equal in front of the courts and the law to other children
and adults.
“Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard,
while the guilty act with impunity. Equal treatment before the law is a
pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or
political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary
people suffer,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency
International.
When we could no longer tolerate the harrowing abuse and did not
return to the Tribunal for further abuse, my juvenile son’s case was
dismissed and he was ordered to pay Education Queensland more than $
28,000 in legal costs based on the 1851 (eighteen fifty one) Infants
Law Act, which is an error in law.
It’s no doubt also a red herring to divert attention from the fact
that the actual school bullying complaint was never remedied and never
heard and instead buried under a growing paper mountain.
My allegations are corroborated by the signed and sworn Statutory
Declaration of a retired court reporter. I detailed the abuse on radio
4BC to former presenter Chuck Brooks but the government has refused to
comment on my allegations and simply pretends we don’t exist. Click to
listen: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/08/435571.mp3
The Wall Street Journal and many others have published several of my
citizen journalist’s articles in this matter. The Australian media
however has inexplicably suppressed our story and the legal community
has remained silent.
It seems like we can talk about child rape, child sexual abuse,
illegal shredding of important documents and all sorts of unpleasant
topics, but the topic of judicial abuse and judicial corruption against
a bullied schoolboy is clearly taboo and just too hot a topic to
touch.
Why exactly is that? Is it because the judiciary is politically
appointed in Australia? In most other countries judicial corruption is
a topic which can be discussed, even in the developing world. Why not
Australia?
“Government stacking the courts with political favourites is the
main evil in the administration of justice in Australia” retired
Brisbane Supreme Court Judge Geoff Davies QC (Courier Mail September 1,
2006).
I so hope Bronwyn Bishop will speak out on this too, because
ignoring it also sets “a most dangerous precedent” to use her own words.
Paragraph
15 plainly goes to the core of the rationality upon which the (guilty)
decision was made. Put simply, it was sufficient that the shredder
should have a reasonable expectation and/or possess a reasonable
probability that the documents he/she was destroy might be required in
a future judicial proceedings and was destroying them to prevent their
use as evidence in those proceedings.
In Heiner, for years the authorities argued that the relevant
judicial proceedings had to be on foot before section 129 could be
triggered. This view was fostered despite ample case law existing long
before 1990 to demonstrate the unsoundness of such an interpretation.
However, on any reasonable examination of section 129, it is clear
that the word “knowing” went to a “realistic possibility” and that is
what Davies J was pointing to in R v Ensbey. In short, the
interpretation of section 129 used in Heiner was never reasonable or
open to any competent lawyer to reach.
Such a view would have crippled the administration of justice to the
core. Plainly paragraph was a core aspect of the Appeal Court decision.
iansand says:
05:42pm | 08/10/09
Oh
dear. Let me explain it to you. The case was decided on the basis of
whether a jury should, or could, have drawn an inference consistent
with innocence from the evidence presented. That decision was made on
the basis of counsel’s concession. What the judge is doing in
paragraph 15 is commentary on that concession. That commentary does
not form the basis of the decision because of the concession.
Therefore it cannot be the ratio decidendi.
How are you enjoying working at McDonalds?
Al says:
03:50pm | 08/10/09
You obviously didn’t learn much there.
If you are telling the truth (and by your numerous and obvious
errors I have my doubts), I guess you must be practicing conveyancing
in the suburbs somewhere.
Hope that’s working out for you.
I have wasted enough time on your facile arguments and pathetic
attempts to ‘shoot me down’; unfortunately when I start a debate I have
trouble letting it go and end wasting my time on crap.
Goodbye.
iansand says:
03:34pm | 08/10/09
A real one.
Reggie says:
03:08pm | 08/10/09
Don’t let the politics blind you, either by favourable or adverse bias.
The facts in the Heiner Affair are incontestable.
The simple truth is that when an ordinary engaged in the same
shredding conduct, he had the book thrown at him - successfully and
rightly - by Queensland law enforcement authorities so but when
ministers of the crown and senior bueacrats do it, they escaped
prosecution by the law being erroneously interpreted.
It’s an affront to the democratic principle of equality before the law in Australia. That’s what upset the judges.
Interestingly, Italy’s PM has now been brought back to earth with a
thud in a recent Supreme Court ruling by declaring his own self-serving
immunity from prosecution legislation unconstitutional because it
impugned this equality before the law principle.
Why not do the right thing, ring Bronnie up and congratulate her, She would be so chuffed!
Al says:
02:49pm | 08/10/09
@iansand sentence three of paragraph 15 per Davies JA - “In my opinion his concession was correctly made.”
The rest of paragraph 15 per Davies JA:
“It was not necessary that the appellant knew that the diary notes
would be used in a legal proceeding or that a legal proceeding be in
existence or even a likely occurrence at the time the offence was
committed. It was sufficient that the appellant believed that the diary
notes might be required in evidence in a possible future proceeding
against B, that he wilfully rendered them illegible or indecipherable
and that his intent was to prevent them being used for that purpose.”
Looks like ratio to me.
Try again - you haven’t been close to touching me so far.
I went to QUT. Which law school did you go to?
iansand says:
02:24pm | 08/10/09
Oh
dear. Read the whole of paragraph 15 again. It was a summary of a
concession by counsel. I don’t know which law school you went to, but
that sure ain’t no ratio, decidendi or othewrwise.
In fact, read this whole thing again. I have never argued a thing.
I have expressed scepticism which, given the party political nature of
Mrs Bishop’s piece, was and is entirely reasonable.
Al says:
12:12pm | 08/10/09
@ iansand you were the one arguing without having informed yoursel of the facts.
BTW, in response to an earlier comment by you about barely competent
lawyers, a competent lawyer quotes the ratio decidendi, not
irrelevencies - which is what I did with paragraph 15.
iansand says:
11:49am | 08/10/09
You see that wasn’t so hard.
Al says:
11:39am | 08/10/09
@iansand - The abridged version is as follows:
The crown was notified by a solicitor and two trade unions that
preperations were underway for a defamation action and that these
documents in question were required as evidence.
They were further advised that if the documents were not provided
legal action (probably by way of a declaration) would be taken to force
their discovery.
The crown deliberately moved the document from the department to
cabinet to try and protect them with the cabinet in confidence rule.
Crown law advice showed that the evidence would still be discoverable.
A cabinet submission was prepared which outlined the case and a
erroneous crown law advice was given that the documents could be
shredded (this advice is irrelevent but it is what the politicians in
question have relied upon).
Knowing an action was pending (i.e. being on notice) the Cabinet decided to shred the documents - thereby committing an offence.
These actions are in fact a more significant breach of the section
than those in Ensbey because the crown had been unambigiously informed
that an action was afoot. In Ensby there was only a hint of a possible
action.
iansand says:
10:35am | 08/10/09
Hey
All@9:53, what does this “it was a civil matter, therefore the crown
was on notice.” mean? How was “the crown” on notice? Why?
You are perfectly correct. I do not know “the facts”.
Unfortunately no one here is helping me. This leads me to certain
conclusions which may, or may not, be erroneous.
A couple of simple questions - what was the level of knowledge? How
does that level of knowledge mesh with the Enderbey decision?
Al says:
09:53am | 08/10/09
@iansand
- The matter for which these documents was required was not a criminal
matter you goose - it was a civil matter, therefore the crown was on
notice.
Maybe you should arm yourself with the facts before shooting your mouth off and attempting to ridicule your betters.
Denny says:
08:21am | 08/10/09
It’s
remarkable how certain people seem to believe that the achieving of
justice after suffering an injustice has a timeframe to it even when
the alleged offence committed has no timeframe attached to it.
As Judge Barry O’Keefe QC told 4BC on 1 October when questioned
about the Heiner Affair, the cover-up was arguably worse than the
original offence.
So the notion that justice has to be won within a certain timeframe or otherwise one should give it away, is purile nonsense.
There also seems to be a belief that the ALP is not capable of
engaging in a systemic cover-up where a coterie of mates working within
the system can keep a lid on everything. Queensland is still “Hillbilly
Country” just as it was under Sir Joh, but even worse nowadays because
there is now a certain sophistication about it, like it now drives in
flash cars and lives in bigger houses.
Corruption is corruption is corruption.
Bronwyn was right to investigate the matter in 2003/04, just as
Whistleblowers Australia was right to present her with the award of
Whistleblower Supporter of the Year because she did a sterling job
against considerable obstruction from her fellow ALP members, Messrs
Sciacca, McClelland, and Kerr, all of whom resigned rather than support
her report but then failed to hand down a dissenting report because
they obviously knew that they could not find credible evidence (or the
law) to support the shredding.
iansand says:
07:28am | 08/10/09
One
problem I have is that the documents are not the evidence. They are
records of the evidence, and would not even be admissible in a trial.
Apart from a real concern about the degree of knowledge of the
likelihood of judicial proceedings. What stage had those proceedings,
or even the preparation for those proceedings progressed? Were they
imminent? Likely? Possible? Are the potential proceedings a product
of partisan imaginings?
Robbie says:
10:08pm | 07/10/09
The
base line “wrong” is destroying evidence which “is or may be” required
in evidence in judicial proceedings - civil or criminal proceedings.
If you are incapable of accepting that base line truth on the
incontestable evidence on the public record regarding the Heiner Affair
then you are not being intellectually honest.
The second line “wrong” is that the Government knew that the
contents of the Heiner Inquiry documents concerned the unresolved abuse
of children in State care.
iansand says:
09:04pm | 07/10/09
OK
robbie. Identify the “wrong”. You may be right. I don’t know. But
so far here there has been a lot of froth, bubble and “everyone knows”
and no substance. That is thre stock in trade of politicians who
operate on prejudice, not fact. Those politicians are contemptible
scum, and should not be voted for regardless of from which partisan
sewer they crawl.
Somebody has dragged this up. Let them make their case.
robbie says:
07:33pm | 07/10/09
If
those defending what the (Goss) Queensland Government did in March 1990
(and afterwards for that matter) could put aside their partisan bias,
they would quickly see that a major wrong was done. There is ample
evidence on the public record which conclusively shows that the
misinterpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code was impossible
(for any reasonably competent lawyer) to arrive at otherwise it would
have led to the situation where no evidence would be available for
court.
The interpretation of section 129 by certain CJC/CMC officials and
others greatly disturbed the judges. In August 2007 they suggested that
the provision was so clear that the (mis)interpretation may have been
reached deliberately in order to prevent charges being laid against the
Goss Cabinet and certain senior bureaucrats.
As for criticising Bronwyn, why don’t you do yourself a favour and read her report. It is a solid report.
She found that Queensland’s entire public administration may have
been corrupted and recommended that a Special Prosecutor be appointed
as the judges later concurred with to investigate the entire scandal.
iansand says:
07:27pm | 07/10/09
Oh
dear Al. I did read it. Perhaps you should. Then you will understand
the difference between knowing about circumstances that may possibly
give rise to judicial proceedings and knowledge of the near
inevitability and nature of those proceedings.
You didn’t help your argument by selectively quoting paragraph 15.
That is the resort of the barely competent lawyer. Competent lawyers
will always go to the source and discover the misrepresentation.
And there is no discovery in criminal trials, so what on earth are
you on about with the crown being on notice of the Crown (a uniquely
criminal concept) being on notice?
Al says:
04:46pm | 07/10/09
@iansand - Speaking of wilful, you are either wilfully or ignorantly misconstruing the requirement of knowledge for the offence.
The word willful in the context quoted above referred to a
deliberate destruction of evidence (which the shredding in the Heiner
affair was), and is not by way of ratio decidendi on the question of
knowledge.
There need not be knowledge (constructive or otherwise) that a
proceeding will be launched, just that it is possible one will be
launched.
Given this knowledge the person (people) involved need only believe that it might be required as evidence in that matter.
The nature of the material alone would give sufficient knowledge to an individual that they could be considered to be on notice.
On top of this the crown was placed on notice that the material would be subject to discovery for a matter.
In answer to your question the material in Ensbey was destroyed
before any proceeding had been started, same as in the Heiner affair.
Read the case for yourself, it might help you better understand:
Based
on what I have seen and read thus far, it would seem that there is deep
and widespread concern, consequently this incident will never go away
and regrettably it looks like it will never be resolved. The various
Senate Committee hearing were very restricted and hamstrung in what
they could do because they didn’t have the terms of reference nor the
power to drag the Qld State government to answer questions, hence the
call for a RC.
As a member of the community, I do not accept and completely reject the
proposition that the then 14YO was abused and as of today nothing has
been done.
There are plenty of articles here @ the punch where child abuse is
discussed and everyone clearly AND correctly denounce the activity /
crime yet it is politicized. I don’t care for A Jones, P Ackerman, Mr
Rudd, the GG and I don’t care if it was Howard, Turnbull, Hocky or Pyke
or B Brown, a crime was perpetrated and justice is not even SEEN to be
done. A child’s life was trashed and given some of the postings we are
condoning (by politicising the issue) what happened.
As Al says: 12:05pm | 07/10/09 quite rightly points out there are some
heavy hitting silks that have serious objections and we should take
note. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the same crime could
be perpetrated today, followed by the same activities with the same
outcome.
If the pollies want to politicise this incident, then we should kick
them in the arse and tell them that as our elected representatives get
on with their job.
I support a Royal Commission with whatever powers necessary to sort out
what happened in the past but more importantly to ensure it NEVER
happens again because as it as it stands today it is completely
unacceptable. No wonder the poor kid (still a kid to me) has had enough
because WE have failed her.
Liz says: 11:44am | 07/10/09 you are on the money.
iansand says:
04:11pm | 07/10/09
I
thought my contribution was quite valuable. Those “eminent jurists”
can only offer opinions based on the facts they are given. I seem to
recall one of them saying that very thing to me once.
And given that the word “wilful” appears somewhere someone really
should let the world know whether and when various cabinet members
actually knew that proceedings were contemplated or whether they were
supposed to guess, and whether Mr Enderbey knew or merely surmised that
proceedings were contemplated.
Terry Wright says:
04:06pm | 07/10/09
Jolanda said: “At
least Piers is looking out for the welfare of children - that is more
than I can say about you! ... This state of affairs is a matter of
serious concern for those of us who care about the welfare and
wellbeing of children and who see it as our obligation to protect the
children.”
For God’s Sake ... Won’t Anyone Think of the Children!
And Brony, was it like when you were chair of the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services - The
impact of illicit drug use on families, “The winnable war on drugs”?
Did you get an award for that? No? From memory, that report was canned
by nearly every welfare and medical group in Australia. It even
attracted a mass of criticism from overseas. It has gone down in
history as the most biased, irrational, and unscientific report to
date. You were personally criticised for bullying and harassing experts
who disagreed with you and for being completely ignorant of the
subject. Ironically, it was Piers Akerman and Alan Jones who gave you
undying support and substantial praise for your role and the report. I
even seem to remember a headline saying something about “thinking of
the children”.
Al says:
03:56pm | 07/10/09
@iansand - Yes I have an LLB - no I don’t appreciate the ‘possibly bush’ insinuation.
The letter to which I refer was drafted by the eminent professionals
concerned. It was not paid for and is an opinion on the facts provided
by eminent jurists who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by
drafting it.
I doubt any of them would risk their reputations by putting their name to something flawed.
I note that you cannot refute my comment, only offer some vagaries about feeding people ‘the right facts’.
If you cannot explain why charges should not be laid you don’t really have anything of value to add to this conversation do you?
iansand says:
03:33pm | 07/10/09
Al@1:52
You are probably a lawyer, possibly bush. You should know that any
opinion from lawyers, no matter how eminent, is useless unless you know
the material on which it is based. Feed ‘em the right “facts” and they
will tell you what you want.
Al says:
01:52pm | 07/10/09
@Shane - you understanding of the operation of s129 is flawed in two ways.
1. It applies to every person in Queensland not just government. 2.
The section only applies to things (including but not limited to
documents) which a person knows may be needed in a judicial proceeding.
Unlike an inquiry discovering evidence of sexual abuse, most
government documents would not be reasonably expected to be needed for
judicial proceedings.
There is lettle doubt, on the basis of the decision in R v Ensbey ;
ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 335 that there is a legitimate matter to
be heard against Qld Cabinet Ministers of the time:
[15] ‘It was not necessary that the appellant knew that the diary
notes would be used in a legal proceeding or that a legal proceeding be
in existence or even a likely occurrence at the time the offence was
committed. It was sufficient that the appellant believed that the diary
notes might be required in evidence in a possible future proceeding
against B, that he wilfully rendered them illegible or indecipherable
and that his intent was to prevent them being used for that purpose.’
On the accepted facts the Qld Cabinet of the time did the same thing as what is outlined in this excerpt from R v Enderbey.
The learned men I mentioned in my previous post agree there is a prima facie case.
They also agree that the ‘excuse’ rolled out by these clowns about
crown law advice has no bearing on whether they committed an offence.
The reason that this matter has not been dealt with by the courts is
a reluctance by the Qld government to allow a prosecution, not that
there is no case to answer.
iansand says:
01:23pm | 07/10/09
And there are 73 communists in the State Department.
AT says:
01:18pm | 07/10/09
Congratulations,
Des. That’s an almost olympic stretch, that conclusion of yours. The
highest officers in Qld 20 years ago, and now the highest officers in
the country, were all involved in a criminal conspiracy - motive? To
protect some alleged pedophiles in the lower levels of the public
service. And there was a pedopile network involving the whole of the
ALP. Of course. I award you the Piers Akerman prize for services to the
coalition cause.
Des says:
01:10pm | 07/10/09
For those who are ill-informed, lets look at the facts of the Heiner Affair. The
outgoing National Party Minister, Berys Nelson, establishes a Public
Service inquiry (Heiner Inquiry) into the management and operation of
the JOYC. The inquiry was correctly established, so you can forget
about all the rubbish put forward by Goss, Beattie and Co.
After being in opposition for 32 years, the incoming Goss Labor
government closes down the inquiry and illegally shreds all the
evidence gathered. Included in that evidence were details of child
abuse and details of the pack rape of a 14 year old aborigional girl.
Goss maintains they destroyed the evidence to stop public servants
from suing each other. This is am admission of an offence in itself.
Goss was a lawyer and knew better. Kevin Rudd was Goss’s Chief of
Staff and had responsibility for the Cabinet submissions on Heiner.
The Heiner Affair went to Cabinet on several occasions.
Goss and company couldn’t have cared less about a few public
servants saying they were going to sue each other. I believe he
wouldn’t have been too concerned about a couple of youth workers, who
were abusing kids, even if they were union delegates of the AWU (Goss’s
ALP faction).
The answer is much more sinister. There were at least, and probably
many more, two active paedophiles in the Department of Family
Services. These two paedophiles were part of a paedophile network
operation Australia wide.
A former ALP politician, who was recently released from jail, over
paedophilia, was the ALP pimp. He supplied young boys and girls to his
ALP mates. He had a contact in Manila, Philippines, who could supply
young boys (10-12 year olds). There was also a network of paedophiles
operating at Qld. University.
If you care of download a 1997 report “Paedophilia in Queensland”
tabled in the Qld. Parliament, on 19 August, 1997 and read what was
happening at Qld. University in 1984, you will get some idea. For the
well informed, they will be able to put a name to the particular
school, and work out who came out of that school and where they are now.
I believe that is the real reason, why the documents were illegally shredded and the Heiner Inquiry closed down.
Remember also that the Fitzgerald Inquiry gathered a mountain of
evidence on paedophile networks in 1988-9 and did nothing with it.
This evidence remains buried in the bowls of the corrupt CJC/CMC.
Shane From Melbourne says:
01:05pm | 07/10/09
It
seems to me that S129 is a badly written or designed section of the
Queensland criminal code since any government document could be
potential evidence in a criminal case or judicial proceeding that has
yet to be determined in the future therefore no government document
should be destroyed. Since the section only makes sense in both a legal
and practical sense if legal proceedings have commenced, I don’t see
that there is any case to answer….
hoofman says:
01:03pm | 07/10/09
Carl,
the story is a lot more convoluted than that. The events happened 20
years ago and the victim declined to proceed with it at the time. The
police laid no charges. Then some documents were allegedly destroyed
but there are claims they still exist, and on and on it goes. This link
to a story in The Australian probably tells it best, with its quote
‘However, the victim told The Australian last year she was tired of
being used as a “political football” by Mr Rudd’s critics.’ I think
that says it all. Unfortunately, the political football continues.
Other
notables - Alan Jones and Pia Ackerman - no seriously Bronny why don’t
you just leave parliament and give the seat to Jim Longley?
Al says:
12:05pm | 07/10/09
@Rt: Would you call the following conspiracy nuts?
The Hon Jack Lee AO QC ,
Dr Frank McGrath ,
Alastair MacAdam,
The Hon R P Meagher QC,
The Hon Barry O’Keefe AM QC,
Mr Alex Shand QC .
There seem to be a lot of silk’s in that list (including a few former Supreme Court Judges).
All are signatories to a 2007 letter calling for the appointment of
an independant special prosecutor to bring proceedings against those
involved.
Of course there is also the opinion of Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC,
KBE, QC - former Chief Justice of the Hight Court that there is a prima
facie case against those involved.
But I am sure you lot know better.
Carl Palmer says:
11:57am | 07/10/09
@hoofman says: 10:48am | 07/10/09
Wasn’t there child abuse at a government run institution and that a 14
year-old wasn’t pack-raped? As I understand it, nothing was done. Is
this in dispute?
Liz says:
11:44am | 07/10/09
Let
there be more whistleblowers but not of the Grech variety.Let’s all
care more about the support of children and innocent victims instead of
getting caught up in political slanging and blather.
Me says:
11:39am | 07/10/09
I
wouldn’t trust any of the slanderous lies written by Piers Ackerman as
far as I could throw him…..which wouldn’t be very far. His incoherant
rants are more at home alongside the likes of mad uncle Glenn Beck then
in Sydney’s most popular daily tabloid, but that isn’t at all suprising
given that he was once vice-president of Fox news in 1993.
hoofman says:
10:48am | 07/10/09
Not
so, Carl Palmer. When it comes to politics, where there is smoke there
is often just smoke. Jolanda - Piers cares for welfare of children?
Aaaw, that’s nice. Such a good, honest man. Next you’ll be telling us
he loves puppies and butterflies as well, and convincing us that you
believe him. One thing this is NOT about is justice, it’s just a witch
hunt based on a series of beaten-up circumstances dressed up as
‘evidence’ of a criminal conspiracy. And it’s not just me who sees it
that way - the Liberal dominated Senate saw it the same way in 1997.
Piers and Brownyn have tried - and failed - to smear a range of people,
but only those with Labor connections such as the PM and Governor
General, with guilt by tenuous association. I’d be worried about
children if I thought their welfare was left up to the likes of you and
Piers.
Peter Collinson says:
10:38am | 07/10/09
Jolanda, you forgot to spam your blog in the last comment.
Carl Palmer says:
10:36am | 07/10/09
Where there is smoke there is fire
Jolanda says:
10:05am | 07/10/09
hoofman,
I would rather be Piers supporter than yours. At least Piers is
looking out for the welfare of children - that is more than I can say
about you!
When there is a system and process in place that denies law abiding
citizens or complainants procedural fairness and natural justice it
puts children at serious risk of harm. This has been obvious in
matters of the handling of issues of Pedophilia and even DOCs and the
like. This state of affairs is a matter of serious concern for those
of us who care about the welfare and wellbeing of children and who see
it as our obligation to protect the children. That you do not see it
that way says more about you than about us.
Andrew says:
10:04am | 07/10/09
My
god a dinosaur and a Heiner obsessive (HO) and here i thought only
Akers and the Parrott were dumb enough to flog a dead horse.
hoofman says:
09:41am | 07/10/09
Jolanda,
I was wondering when one of the Aker-lites and Heiner-nuts would pop
up. You didn’t fail to spot the opportunity. Go back now to your
mentor, Piers.
Jolanda says:
09:27am | 07/10/09
We
have made formal allegations against a Government Department of
systematic bias, bullying, educational neglect, manipulation and
destruction of state records and child psychological abuse impacting 4
children and spanning 8 years. We allege a conspiracy to cover up. We
can find no avenue to have our allegations fairly, independently and/or
impartially investigated or addressed. The person in question has been
promoted to a position of even more power and controls everything to do
with our requests and complaints without question or challenge.
I have copies of emails ordering the destruction of documents that
were specifically requested under FOI. I have clear evidence of
manipulation and tampering and breaches in Policies and the Code of
Conduct. What I cannot find is an avenue to have the matter heard or
adddressed.
The system delays the mattes for years on end and directs you to
bureacratic brick wall after bureacratic brick wall as the longer it
takes the more people turn against you – the complainant - and the
longer it takes the more the system hopes that you lose your mind
and/or give up.
When the system ignores complaints it defames the complainant as
people believe that if there was evidence that something would be
done. Little do they know that it is all part of the process of
discrediting whistleblowers so as to cover up allegations against
Government Departments?
Couldn’t
agree more. The fact that the embarassment otherwise know as Piers has
been flogging this dead horse for as many years as his editor indulges
him says it all.
Let it go, no one is listening Bronwyn.
Gibbot says:
08:50am | 07/10/09
Yup. You’re every bit as relevant as Piers, Bronwyn, and every bit as confused it would seem.
Perhaps the pair of you should go on an outing to see if you can find the missing CO2 in the atmosphere that Akerman managed to lose somewhere.
And you wonder why your party is eating itself. If you’re unwilling
(or more likely, unable) to do your job and actually present us with
some genuine opposition policy on anything - then for Christ’s sake
step aside and allow someone with some ability to do the job.
iansand says:
08:41am | 07/10/09
Bronwyn Bishop, Piers Akerman and Alan Jones. That is all you need to know.
hoofman says:
08:20am | 07/10/09
Bronwyn,
you and the people you name are not whistleblowers nor their
supporters. Instead, you are group of political partisans who are using
the alleged victim of sexual abuse from20 years ago as a pawn in a
failed political witch hunt. You are not seeking justice but political
scalps. Your supporters are conspiracy theorists with a track record.
That you are among them shows what a liability you are to the party. RT
is right. The Senate looked into this a couple of times and decided
there was nothing in it.
RT says:
06:21am | 07/10/09
Great
Bronwyn. Now you’re revealed to be not only a party dinosaur selfishly
clinging to a safe seat that could go to someone with a future, now
you’re also revealed to be a subscriber to the nutty Heiner conspiracy.
Never mind that there have been several inquiries, including I believe
two conducted by the Senate in which your party had a majority, that
could find no wrongdoing by any politician. Why don’t you mention
that? At the top of the article it says ‘file under Heiner Affair’. I’d
say file under ‘vexatious conspiracy theories’.
19 December 2009
Julian Moti accuses Australia of "ulterior political objectives"
Last
Tuesday, in the Brisbane Supreme Court, Justice Debra Mullins granted
Julian Moti's application for a permanent stay of proceedings citing
payments to witnesses, the number of which and the quantum being "an
affront to the public conscience."
While the term "bribing of
witnesses" was not one Justice Mullins used - it was clearly the
implication. And with payments totalling around $150,000 and ongoing to
the alleged victim and her family, most old age pensioners trying to
live on the government pension would certainly be "affronted" by the
"quantum".
Moti has a very different take: "The authorities owe
all Australian citizens an explanation as to why they were so nakedly
aggressive," he said earlier this week. Moti claims that in their
desperation to convict him on these charges the AFP never bothered to
interview him or anyone else from his side, not even his lawyers who
had defended him in the Vanuatu case.
Interestingly, Justice
Mullins did not grant the application on another of Moti's grounds:
that the prosecution was political. Yet she didn't concede that it
wasn't. She just concluded that motivation didn't matter. Really? To
who? And besides, one has to ask why the Australian Federal Police were
willing to pay such extraordinary and unprecedented monetary amounts to
secure Moti's conviction. It's all interlinked. There were driving
forces with little to do with the alleged crime.
It has taken
Moti more than a decade to free himself of the allegation of unlawful
sex with an underage girl in Vanuatu that has dogged him for more than
a decade. He was first charged in Vanuatu in 1998. The case was dropped
in 1999 amidst allegations that Moti bribed the magistrate.
In early 2005, the Australian authorities levelled more charges at him for the same alleged incident.
Commenting in Sydney this week on the effects of his prosecution Moti said:
It
has left me as somebody living on whatever savings I have, having to
fund litigation, leaving me powerless and depressed, someone only
qualified to be a ward of the state. I have no identity documents; I
don't have a passport. They made sure I was rendered without an
identity. Am I proud to be Australian? No!"
The nature and the
seriousness of the charges against Moti have formed an effective
smokescreen for the last three years that few have been willing
penetrate.
But it is the role of the prosecution to do just
that. Why did it need expensive litigation to uncover what had been
apparent for some time? The CDPP had surely been appraised of how much
the witnesses were being paid and how they had threatened to withdraw
from the case if payments were not maintained and/or increased. What
sort of half-hearted complainants were they anyway?
Moti claims
that in his case both the CDPP and AFP were selectively zealous:
Overzealous in their efforts to convict him and not zealous enough in
getting to the truth.
"The authorities owe all Australian citizens an explanation as to why they were so nakedly aggressive," Moti said.
He
claims that in their desperation to convict him on these charges the
AFP never bothered to interview him or anyone else from his side, not
even his lawyers who had defended him in the Vanuatu case.
When
I first heard the details of Moti's defence in July of this year, I,
like Justice Mullins, was shocked at the amounts of money the alleged
victim and her family were receiving. Moti also had documentary
evidence that showed the motivation for his arrest was to prevent him
becoming Attorney General of the Solomon Islands. The source was
reliable. They were AFP documents.
It was the Australian High
Commissioner in Honiara, Patrick Cole that urged the AFP to go after
Moti. AFP case notes show that they were aware that he was
"…manipulating the situation for political purposes." It didn't matter;
they went ahead with it anyway although the alleged victim wasn't
interviewed until over a year after the investigation began. Moti calls
her "the alleged complainant."
I, as a journalist, have spent
the last 4-5 months trying to make the public aware of what I consider
a gross abuse of process. Largely what I have written has fallen on
deaf ears. It's been a surprise that everyone has not been similarly
outraged?
My public conscience was affronted back in July.
In
the end, it needed someone more important than me to recognise the
abuse of process that was going on. To her credit Justice Mullins did
not shy away from doing her job - but at what cost to the taxpayer?
"I
am calling on the Auditor General to audit the entire budget in the
service of my prosecution," said Moti. "I want the Australian taxpayer
to know how much it cost them to prop up this prosecution for ulterior
political objectives."
That's not where it will end. Moti claims
he is "unemployed and unemployable." I asked him what he intended to do
when this was all over? "I intend to spend the rest of my life suing
the Australian authorities for destroying my life," he answered.
Susan Merrell was offered exclusive access to tell Julian Moti's side of the story
The
impression is that the AFP are being directed to arrest and charge
people for political reasons. That's not how it's supposed to work,
right? If/when it does happen, the major newspapers step in to save
democracy, don't they? I have seen it in the movies.
I can't
understand why this is not front page news. When you say you spent
months trying to bring the story to the attention of the public,
presumably you pitched the story to the major newspapers? I am feeling
very let down. Are you very, very, expensive? I suppose the Tiger Woods
scandal costs practically nothing.
Who would have given those
orders I wonder, and who would hae received them, and would they have
been aware that the orders were politically motivated? Would any of
them have been breaking the law?
Larry K :
18 Dec 2009 8:33:04pm
The most comprehensive coverage of the Moti affair was provided by the World Socialist Web Site.
See, for example:
Australian government frame-up of Julian Moti collapses as court throws out charges http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/moti-d17.shtml
Julian Moti defence closing submission outlines oppressive and unfair prosecution
Australian government prosecutors suffer significant blow in Moti case http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/moti-o21.shtml
Julian Moti case: Enormous sums paid by Australian police to alleged victim’s family http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/jmot-n06.shtml
RayS :
18 Dec 2009 8:05:26pm
John
Howard was ruthless in his politicisation of the federal police. The
government gives protection against prosecution to police and police
always accept new powers - the power to prosecute Australians for
alleged offences committed anywhere overseas and the power for the
Australian police force RAMSI to be exempt from the laws of the
Solomons for example. Much like the protection from Iraqi law George
Bush's soldiers and mercenaries were granted in Iraq.
Moti, a
legal expert trained in Australia, as Attorney General of the Solomons,
was a threat to Australian power in the Solomons and so he had to be
nobbled. Even to the extent of ignoring the sovereign law of the actual
jurisdiction where he had originally been charged and acquitted, even
to the extent of making substantial bribe payments to witnesses to
revive a case which had been dealt with under local jurisdiction. Here
we have a new colonial power exerting its will over Pacific Island
countries - no wonder Michael Somare the PM of PNG took the side of the
Solomons. It was all seen as an issue of colonial interference.
If
there's a parallel, the frame-up of Anwar in Malaysia for sodomy comes
to mind. There really should be some accountability for servants of the
state who commit these gross injustices, but it is held that having
been acting on government orders is a valid and absolute defence.
Reeper :
18 Dec 2009 7:13:49pm
I'll
lay a million to nothing bet that all those who have jumped on the
bandwagon to criticise the AFP would be banging on their door if they
needed help. Julian Moti could have solved this issue years ago by not
running away - if he had committed no crime why did he run. The
judgement was against the proceedings not the charges...so all you
defending Mr Moti, be careful what you support!
RayS :
18 Dec 2009 10:46:41pm
I'll
lay a million to nothing bet that if the AFP had been given evidence
they considered credible that you had been a child sex tourist or drug
carrier ten years ago and they decided to go after you with all their
powers and minimal constraints, then you would not have made that
statement about needing help from the AFP.
The original Vanuatu
case against Moti in 1997 was pretty flaky. The girl gave "six
disturbing statements made over ... four months. All are in English,
though it appears she only spoke French. None was in her own writing.
None was sworn. The underlying story doesn't change from statement to
statement, but details are contradictory. Others appear fanciful. She
claimed he had three testicles, but Port Vila GP Dr Frank Spooner would
later examine Moti and concluded he had two.... Dates are changed; at
one stage she withdrew her allegations entirely, then renewed them a
few weeks later saying her previous statement was 'not of my own free
will' and asked police to investigate. In several statements she
described being beaten and raped by Moti but in others that she loved
him. 'I wanted to say that I love Julian Moti very much,' she stated in
March 1998. 'He is a reach [rich] man he can take me anywhere I wanted
and this is my belief of my future with Julian because he is so
kind...."
They could have you jailed for upwards of 10 years
with evidence like that (especially if it turned out you have three
testicles) and other crims would treat you like a "rock spider".
jen :
18 Dec 2009 6:53:44pm
AFP is here to keep the convicts under control. It only serves the queen and the english.
terben :
18 Dec 2009 5:26:25pm
Get rid of the unaccountable AFP.
Savage dogs should be muzzled. Mad dogs should be put down.
MikeW :
18 Dec 2009 5:14:31pm
The
fiasco surrounding Moti, Haneef and Frederick Arthur Martens is part of
a pattern reflecting poorly on the competence of our AFP. Lives,
reputations and businesses destroyed. For which we have to pay twice
– once to fund the prosecution then again to pay out the compensation
(possibly).
These cases seem to be characterised by over zealousness combined with shoddy police work and a bad attitude.
Then
there is their pivotal role in the destruction of Chinatown during the
April 2006 riots in Honiara. They failed miserably in their first
serious outing into Mick Keelty’s “Foreign Policy Spaceâ€. Who
will pay?
We deserve better, especially when we reflect that the
AFP together with the intelligence services have been the largest
beneficiaries of the so called war on terror - in terms of huge
increase in numbers, budgets and resources.
In every profession,
there is accountability if a persons brings his/her profession into
disrepute. Here enormous amounts of public money is wasted, judges make
scathing remarks such as –“an affront to public conscienceâ€,
“abuse of processâ€, “brought the administration of justice into
disreputeâ€. All we get is “No Comment†from the AFP.
So
Susan, congratulations on a good piece of analysis compared to the
fluffy mocking puff pieces elsewhere in The Drum. Looking forward to
more analysis particularly on the subject of accountability.
Aquila :
18 Dec 2009 4:57:48pm
While
Julian has been subjected to injustice, he is not alone. Sadly his case
is just one of many where the justice gets abused by those who see
themselves are above the ordinary people.
Regrettably there is
no solution to this type of unethical behaviour. Apart from taking his
case to an authority higher than the one that passed judgement and
incurr additional expenses. Even then Julian would need to be confident
that that authority level is independent.
PaulD :
18 Dec 2009 4:31:10pm
Susan,have you asked the AFP for their explanation for these payments?
It
is feasible that despite the payments, the victim still maintains that
the offences were committed. Have you asked the victim this?
There is an old saying amongst criminal defence lawyers:
If the facts are against you, attack the law.
If the law is against you, attack the facts.
If both the facts and the law are against you, attack the integrity of the prosecuting authorities.
Simmy :
18 Dec 2009 4:26:12pm
The
states need to follow the federal jurisdiction in recognising that
paying cash for criminal complaints and testimony is dodgy, dangerous
and ill-conceived. In the now infamous Easling case, the media exposed
how SA government investigators used taxpayer funded gifts, cash
payments, debt waiving and offers of compensation when traditional
methods of interviewing people failed to provide the complaints or
'evidence' they hoped for. What's frightening is that the government
says an anti-corruption inquiry isn't needed. If investigator payments
to witnesses is part of normal business how widespread is it and how
many investigations have been corrupted?
not the only one :
18 Dec 2009 3:10:35pm
i am outraged, and in australia afraid to say too much? this is the sad part of these type of affairs. the vwa spent approx half a million dollars, on e one dispute that didnt even exist, eg there was nothing to argue about. but the lawyers/doctors etc got this money. haneef comes to mind, even lindy chamberlain,, to name a couple, there
must be a watchdog put in place, before we end up a third world
democracy, and the lives lost fighting this type of facism in the www2,
are not in vain.
jim :
18 Dec 2009 3:00:25pm
All
the forces are political arms ,even the tentacles of elite families can
cause vindictive condemnation on a scale of a lifespan through the
circles of influence and concoction besides what already exists in
thuggery. My troubles began after starting to write to govt in the
early nineties about the corruption surrounding the death of my ex
serviceman father.Little did i realise till later that i was already
under attack.The more i found out and reported it and other the worse
things become.The political, medical and legal industry has too much
power.The latest is being given the "there's no where you can go
treatment"- again. God help you when America is involved. you get the full hollywood floor show. I
still demand a proper health and dental service for the poor.it's going
to be in very striong terms very soon.Sick to death of these jackbooted
manipulating bastards.
cristophles :
18 Dec 2009 2:34:21pm
So what are the "ulterior political objectives" and why did Moti try to flee?
Moti
is a QC, was Attorney General of The Solomon Islands, is a law
professor and has half the alphabet after his name. Why would he try to
run away?
The Author implies that the Australian High
Commissioner had a vendetta against Moti for which, apart from two out
of context quotes, there is no evidence provided.
Again I ask: What are the "ulterior political objectives" and why did Moti try to flee?
Marilyn :
18 Dec 2009 3:41:40pm
Good
grief, considering the way he was treated why the hell wouldn't he run?
He was politically railroaded by Australia, Australia paid bribes in
massive amounts to his so-called victim after all charges had been
dropped and don't you find it just a trifle specious to claim the case
was dropped because he bribed the judge, only to have our own AFP bribe
the so-called victim years later?
He should sue and keep right on suing the bastards.
Another Keelty triumph of politics over substance.
Keith :
18 Dec 2009 2:11:09pm
Justice
appears to have won here and that's a triumph even though it took so
long to be resolved. Thanks for reporting on it. I'm sure that there
will be more to this story to be told in the future. What's on the
ABC's Four Corners program agenda for 2010?
Emily's Nephew :
18 Dec 2009 2:07:30pm
Why
has there been no outrage - because of the nature of the charges and
the current attitude in Oz that if someone is charged with such an
offence, then no matter the outcome, they must be guilty.
The
AFP should not get away with this. But the silence will be the same as
from the general populace at Conroy's filter. Aftr all _that's_ against
awful webstuff (whether it's effective or not).
Stranded :
18 Dec 2009 2:52:40pm
Interesting
that the "left" went berko over the similar Haneef case, and blamed the
Howard Government and the then head of the AFP for the whole mess.
Here
we have a similar case that Kevin Rudd has followed from the get go
(because of the possibility of Moti's political appointment) and he did
nothing about its disastrous outcome.
Goes to show .. Kevin Rudd is a FRAUD !
Huh :
18 Dec 2009 4:32:40pm
I think that Howard and Rudd will have to share the blame on this one considering the time line :)
It isn't always a case of blame the other side you know.
People in this country seem to like being one-eyed supporters when it comes to politics, in my opinion that is just idiotic.
Robert2 :
18 Dec 2009 1:55:55pm
I'm
happy for Mr. Moti, after having the intestinal fortitude to stand up
for justice he has joined the long list of those who have fought back
against corrupt police practices, Federal and State. It is a sad
predicament to be in when we cannot, as a nation, rely on the police,
and members of the legal system to be honest. Nearly daily corrupt
members of the police forces make headlines across the country.
The
police watchdogs are either grossly inundated and underesourced to the
stage they become toothless tigers only able to concentrate on the
worst cases of venality and undisciplined behaviour. The police union
movements do not help their image either as they seem to be more the
protectors of the thugs within their own ranks than working for the
honest police officers. Corrupt coppers are two bob a dray load in this
country unfortunately, and the predicament of their venality just seems
to be more frequent than ever before. Well done Mr Moti for standing up
to the thugs.
wolfkeeng :
18 Dec 2009 1:34:09pm
I
always suspected something a bit dodgy 'bout this sitation. (Surely
nothing to do with it popped up during the Howard regime... cough
cough). The wording of the judgement bothers me too and the AFP has
never impressed me as an impartial, truthful justice seeking
organization based on integrity and commmitment. Dr Haneef is just one
other example of the bloody-mindedness and narrow-mindedness of the AFP.
RUUM :
18 Dec 2009 1:28:40pm
It
seems that the adversarial nature of charging someone with a crime has
made a victory far more important that justice and/or truth. One
expects the bad guys to be devious and at best economical with the
truth. When did that become standard practice for the good guys? The
AFP seems to be lurching from one disaster to another. There seems to
be no reasoned oversight of their activities. They seem to have become
an arm of the party in power rather than an independent enforcement
body. By what right does a High Commissioner give orders to the AFP?
Why does the AFP accept such orders?
Emmjay :
18 Dec 2009 1:28:32pm
Susan, it seems that Chris Masters' plea for truly invesigative journalism - has not entirely fallen on deaf ears.
More
than a decade ago I had a chat to a DPP solicitor over a Trotter's ale,
and I asked him whether doing a good job at the DPP meant racking up
more convictions than the next guy. He looked shocked and insisted that
the job was actually to place before the judge / jury the evidence
cleanly and in a well-organised fashion - and let them decide. A win
did not necessarily involve a conviction. AND, a win could involve a
lack of conviction when the police had done a sloppy job of the
investigation, or (gasp !) cooked or cocked up the evidence.
Ah, what a sentimental past it was, from which the brave new world of prosecution seems to have emerged.
Congratulations
on the best article to appear here in quite a while. Interesting that
it comes from an Unleashed freelance contributor - rather than a
staffer, eh ?
Keep up the good spade work.
Susan Merrell :
18 Dec 2009 2:36:19pm
Thanks Emmjay. But I've got to tell you, it's thankless work
Marilyn :
18 Dec 2009 3:45:02pm
Chloe
Hooper has surely had no joy over her magnificent book "The Tall Man",
Tony Kevin over the SIEVX tragedy, Paul Daley over his exposure of the
lighthorse as murderous thugs in Surafend, Paul McGeough for his
terrific books about Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and other trouble
spots or Jacquie Ewart for Dr Haneef but I reckon the books had to be
written.
Perhaps you could do one on this case because it has always troubled me as another of Keelty's hatchet jobs.
apple :
18 Dec 2009 1:27:19pm
Not susrprising at all. This is probably not the first neither will it be the last. No accountability.
BCC victim :
18 Dec 2009 1:17:59pm
I
was treated the same way by Brisbane City Council. In their eagerness
to get rid of me on trumped up charges they neglected to interview
anybody; the alleged complainants or me.
Dave :
18 Dec 2009 1:17:25pm
The
Moti case is another classic fumble for the DFAT and the Keystone AFP
cops. DFAT themselves have discovered pedophiles and sexual predators
in their own ranks and covered it up. Those postings in south-east asia
were coveted. Meanwhile back at the ranch while AFP and DFAT waste huge
resources on Moti another shipment of heroin hits the streets of Sydney
in a supply trade that has never stopped for a day since the late 60's.
Not a day goes by without foreign heroin been sold somewhere in the
city.
Robert Bruce :
18 Dec 2009 12:35:10pm
There are disturbing similarities with the AFP/CDPP handling of Dr Mohamed Haneef.
Robert2 :
18 Dec 2009 2:10:35pm
Not
just those you mentioned Robert but unfortunately every state police
force too. By controlling the flow of information and not seeking an
alternate interview to establish a basis for truth, they manipulate the
court systems by using only one resource as evidence.
***
Affair with corrupt cop puts cases in jeopardy
SOUCRCE ABC NEWS 12/12/2009
Two major drug cases may be in jeopardy after the ABC
revealed details of an affair between a senior manager at the Victoria
Police Forensic Services Centre and a corrupt detective.
The State Ombudsman this week raised serious concerns about the way drugs were recorded and stored at the centre.
The head of the facility's drug and alcohol branch, Cate Quinn, was
immediately stood down and is now under investigation for serious
misconduct.
Police Minister Bob Cameron said he was confident no court cases had
been affected by the problems outlined by the Ombudsman, however
revelations of Ms Quinn's affair has given the State Opposition fresh
ammunition.
Ms Quinn had an affair with former drug squad detective Stephen
Paton while working at the centre. He was jailed for corrupt behaviour
in 2003.
The ABC understands Ms Quinn was due to give evidence in two major drug cases next year, but that may now be impossible.
Community and Public Sector Union spokeswoman Karen Batt says Ms Quinn is the scapegoat for her superiors, including Mr Cameron.
"She is not corrupt. She was unaware of [Paton's] behaviour," Ms Batt said.
"She was in a relationship and when she found out his behaviour, she has not seen him since the year 2000.
"I think it's a smear of the worst order."
Opposition police spokesman Peter Ryan says Mr Cameron is not doing his job properly.
"Bob Cameron's performance this week has been disgraceful. He should resign," Mr Ryan said.
But Mr Cameron says the problems at the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre are primarily a matter for the police.
"What you have is a whole lot of staff employed by the chief commissioner, and we've had an Ombudsman's report.
"And police command always made very clear that as soon as the
Ombudsman's report was handed down, they would be taking firm and
decisive action and that's what we've seen from police command this
week."
Mr Cameron would not be drawn on explaining how a woman who had an
affair with a corrupt detective was allowed to remain in a senior role
at the forensic centre.
"These are matters for police, that when you have a look at the
Ombudsman's report, what the Ombudsman's report is about, is poor work
practices and poor management; no reference to other matters," he said.
"That's what it is was about and police command has acted upon.
"I'm the Police Minister and ultimately myself and the Government, we're accountable to the people of Victoria.
"We of course have an independent chief commissioner and an
independent police force, but they, of course, are accountable to us."
It is becoming increasingly common for DNA evidence to
free prisoners from US jails, but the case of James Bain - an innocent
man freed today after 35 years - is the most extreme yet.
Amazingly, he says he is not bitter.
Mr Bain was convicted of the kidnapping and rape of a nine-year-old
boy in 1974. Now DNA evidence has showed that he could not have been
responsible for the crime.
He walked free from the Polk County Courthouse after finally being
cleared - a moment for which he had waited for more than three decades.
He was wearing a relieved smile and a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "not guilty".
Thirty-five years may be a long time to spend in prison for a crime he did not commit, but Mr Bain is not dwelling on regrets.
"No sir I cannot feel angry. I put all that in God's hands," he said.
"Well, once again I have to think about my family and God, and
friends that I knew in prison as well - that inspired [me] to move
forward and not backwards."
Mr Bain was only 19 when he was convicted.
He emerged today a middle-aged man with a greying beard.
When he went to prison it was a different world, and today he used a mobile phone for the first time ever to call his mother.
Flaws exposed
Seth Miller, a member of Mr Bain's legal team, says his client did not expect to be home for Christmas.
"Right before the hearing - I mean in a sort of dramatic way - they
had finished their review, the state lab, and we had found out two
minutes before we started the hearing and they said we can dismiss the
case," he said.
Mr Bain was originally convicted on the eyewitness identification of the nine-year-old victim.
The jury rejected his alibi that he was home with his sister at the time.
He always maintained his innocence and when new laws were enacted in
2001 that allowed the review of cases based on DNA evidence, he applied
to have his conviction examined.
In fact he tried five times before lodging a final successful application, with the help of the Florida Innocence Project.
A court ordered tests on the DNA of sperm found on the child's
underwear worn during the rape, and the results concluded it was not
James Bain's.
Co-director of the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck, told CBS the case exposed flaws in the system.
"It's not a sign that the system worked, that's a sign that the
system is in many ways broken and absolutely has to be remedied," he
said.
"The James Bain case tells us that we better get serious about
eyewitness identification reform. It's the single greatest cause of the
conviction of the innocent."
Florida law entitles wrongly convicted inmates compensation of
$50,000 for each year spent in prison, which means Mr Bain could be
receiving a very substantial payout.
But Mr Miller says for now, Mr Bain is simply focusing on putting his life back together.
"They put the anger behind them and recognise that you can't be
angry forever and you just have to move forward," Mr Miller said.
"Try to be a positive, productive member of society so that when they get out they're in a great position to do that.
"And he's going to have a lot of struggles. I mean, it's a different
world than it was 35 years ago, but with the help of his lawyers, with
his family and his friends, I think that he's going to make it just
fine.
"He's just positive enough. It's a great way to start."
Copyright Statement
The
owner of this website and publication is PISSAM NETWORK,
which is under the umbrella of Canterbury Harmony group Inc. auspice by
Riverwood Community Centre and its working partner. Content may not be
reproduced in any format or changed, sold or used to promote or endorse
any
product or service, inappropriate or misleading context..
Acknowledgment to the
PISSAM NETWORK & Its auspice body Riverwood Community Centre
52 comments
Show oldest | newest first