The Mosaic Portal Network

Australia's standards and quality of government is something business shies away from criticising. This locks Australia into a vacuum where fear and recrimination, corrosion and corruption can breed. In Australia, in 2014, the reaction to criticism, or questioning, of political and corporate behaviour is too often hostile and reactive rather than one of engaging with the critic, turning perception and attitudes to favourable mutual respect.

Another rivetting web site on the best of the web's
Mosaic Portal Network

Created by

Kevin Beck

every portal page uses scripting to update content. So turn your active content on.
No Count Available



Who owns Australia's parliaments and democracy? is it big business, a few politicians and political factions and unions?

New South wales Victoria
Queensland Climate Change and Carbon

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [Francois Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of the colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. Each time a person stands up for an idea, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, (s)he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." -- Robert F. Kennedy

Kevin Beck watches how wind blows
Decline of Ethics and Rise of Corruption
in Australia

The Corrosion of Australia's Character
by Politics and Business

Consuming Australia's Soul

Restoring Trust After Accountability Failures

Go to JGillard Government

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption has concluded its investigation into the corruption of the government and public tender and management processes in NSW by the state labor government. A number of Australian labor government current, and former, Ministers and parliamentarians will be caught up in the scandal and follow up action recoemmnded by the Commission. A real bad report and maybe the KRudd labor government days will be numbered. Plenty of ammunition of the Coalition to use in the upcoming 2013 Australian federal election

KRUDD(Y) government

SoapBoxx Bubbles

And the curtain comes down on Labor

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of the colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. Each time a person stands up for an idea, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, (s)he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." -- Robert F. Kennedy

Go to Kevin Beck
Commentary On Gillard Labor government


Current Mosaic Portal
Document Distribution:

The most important questions and decisions
for Ms Julia Gillard
Review of School Funding in Australia
by David Gonski: December 2011

Gonski Report
Read Various Commentaries on the Gonski Report

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then." -- Thomas Jefferson - (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Source: letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787; reproduced in Thomas Jefferson, Writings (The Library of America, 1984), p. 889-890


The governments of Australia are managed by an elite few. We get the leaders, and the governments, that they decide, not what the nation may need or want. No matter how we may vote, senior career politicians and the labor and liberal political party machines will always remain in control of our parliaments and governments. No matter how self interested, corrupt, inept or incompetent they may be. The Greens and independents cannot challenge their control, they can only affect the balance of power in very limited circumstances. That is until a third major political party is created with the resources, candidates and the integrity, to challenge their domination and control, delivering real democracy and broader electoral representation.

Trashing Australian Labor Party Brand

The Parliament of Australia is held in very low regard by voters because the current incumbents, labor and liberal have poor leadership and oratory skills, behave in a juvenile fashion and place their political self interests before the national interests.

"And so, this morning, we had the unedifying spectacle of Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and the manager of opposition business, Christopher Pyne, trying to bolt from the house like a pair of pantomime villains, so as to negate Thomson's vote. Pyne moved like a gazelle, dashing for the doors like a hunted beast. Abbott was in close pursuit, but got nabbed as Burke, at her school ma'amish best, whipped her head around to apprehend the naughty boys. Pyne made it out, Abbott did not. ("You go on without me! Don't worry about me, leave me!") It was a most athletic morning - theatrics staged to show that the opposition is so determined not to accept Thomson's vote, it will literally jump and dash from his taintedness. It was either an extraordinary tactical display, or just another example of Parliament disappearing up its own procedural fundament." (Source: Parliament pantomime as Abbott, Pyne run like naughty boys May 30, 2012, Sydney Morning Herald)

Credibility gone, new elections now!, Posted by: 2UE | 30 April, 2012 - 7:21 AM

"The Prime Minister Julia Gillard is the last person in the country to finally figure out there was something wrong with Craig Thomson. Australians want a new election, they've had it! When will she work that out?" (Source: 2UE News Talk Australia)


The more threatening the shadows that fall on the present day from a terrible future looming in the distance, the more compelling the shock that can be provoked by dramatizing risk today. Established risk definitions are thus a magic wand with which a stagnant society can terrify itself (Beck, U, 1999, World Risk Society, pp. 137-8).

"If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears, or is embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished. If the suspension of reason causes a significant proportion of the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity of the process, democracy can be bankrupted." (Al Gore, "The Assault On Reason", Bloomsbury, 2007)

"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, someone will fill it with fear", Naomi Klein

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Martin Luther King

Lock and protect folders Windows 7,
Vista, XP, 2000, 98, NT, and ME.
.... Click here...

Even as the political spin machines work over time, the ants in the shadows, beyond the horizon of the political elite and their advisers and strategists, are working to neutralise, even undermine, political self interest. Through their efforts Julia Gillard and labor are in their twilight political careers and with all probability Tony Abbott will never be Prime Minister. The ants may support Malcolm Turnbull for liberal leader, who would know. It is not yet clear. tacticians, and advisers, in the major Australian political parties use traditional, and limited, intelligence gathering utilities. This explains why they are caught off guard so often. polling methodologies have their place. They are limited to moments in time.

Power, and influence, with voters is shifting. The validity of the political class, political party and union is in decline. Technology, and human networks, combine, in the hands of sophisticated strategists and erudite individuals, to create
new paradigms. "Ants and the Shifting Sands of Influence and Power, Kevin Beck 2012

A Defender of the oppressed and violated

January 2013: Though I may deride Ms Gillard, and the Labor government, for the many flaws in administration, and governance, and the general poor capacity of the government in many areas, one can only admire her, and them, for creating the Australian Royal Commission into Sex Abuse. This takes great courage. Not only are they facing the powerful machinery of religion and the permeating protective networks of corporate and individuals but many of the Labor Caucus must have grappled with their own beliefs about religion, not least the Catholics within the Australian Labor Party.

Sex abuse of children, and others, has been ongoing for decades and no Prime Minister, or government, in Australia's history has had the gumption to confront this cancer head on. Until now. No matter what the Labor government may do, or fail to do, in this election year, regarding everyday management of the economy and the nation, they will not diminish their single greatest contribution to the well being of the nation and those who, up until now, have had no champions. I commend the Prime Minister and the Australian Parliamentary Labor Party.





I have been involved in responding to many, and varied, Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Requests for Tender (RFT) across many portfolio agencies of the Australian government, Australian Public Services Departments (APS) on behalf of Australian and multinational corporations who are small to medium enterprises and multi-billion dollar multi-national entities, since the eighties.

The content of this paper specifically refers to the development of systems, processes and procedures in the period 2000 - 2012 and mechanisms regrading doing business with government and its agencies. This paper is not government (Labor or Coalition) specific, it is agnostic.

The paper commentary, and opinions, is framed, inter alia, within a context where I acknowledge the following:

" Probity and tendering processes and rules

" Fairness and transparency

" Public Service Code of Conduct

" Commercial confidentiality

" Intellectual Property

" Cost of response

" Risk and requirements

" Value to government

" Value to tax payer

" Politics and policy

I do not believe that the current processes are common across the APS and quasi government enterprises, nor are they transparent. They do not, in my opinion provide value for money to all the parties involved and are favourable to the agency to the disadvantage of respondents. They exhibit an "all care but no responsibility and accountability mentality" in an environment where some aspects are parasitic on industry and commerce.


The Commonwealth approach to tendering is far and away more sophisticated, and structured, than states and territories. Having said that it is far more costly for business to respond to EOIs and RFTs from the Commonwealth agencies than it is from the others.

The sheer production of a Commonwealth RFT requires reams of paper, a cast of thousands and a gaggle of lawyers and consultants all earning big bucks for their contribution. This takes an inordinate amount of time. Much of the document is superfluous and questionable. The documents are very legalistic, repetitive and onerous, with a plethora of seemingly unrealistic demands and detail request that are often irrelevant to the underlying intent of the exercise. They are prescriptively written to place the entire onus on the respondent with risk and accountability deflection away from the agency, permeating the document.

Schedules are often duplicated under different categories and parts of EOIs and RFTs.

Each EOI, or RFT, is a single exercise in its own right. By this I mean that information, such as financial and corporate data and basic common information, presented in one response to an agency, is not available to other agencies even though the timeframes are current and relative e.g financial and corporate schedules cannot be referred to as being resident in some other EOI or RFT a company may have responded to. Additionally an agency, itself, cannot access the records of another agency in terms of their tenders to cross check and save everyone time, resources and money. Cross referencing databases is an exercise that agencies such as Australian taxation (ATO) and Centrelink (Australia's Social Security Agency) do constantly in their own internal work so it is neither rocket science nor improbable to consider a similar cross referencing for Tenders and EOIs. Industry respondents should be able to simply refer the requesting agency to an EOI or RFT lodged with another agency, by ATD number, within a mandated time currency e.g 12 to eighteen months, with an attendant statement that nothing has materially changed in reference to that particular schedule request information.


Some within industry see the public service penchant for EOIs to be nothing more than having industry do the work of the public service. Rather than simply ask for general information the EOIs are seeking very detailed, often proprietary information, which, in the case of say Information technology, serves to enable in-house IT personnel to frame their own knowledge and their own internal bids. Some might disingenuously believe that tenders and EOIs are written to protect the longevity of employment of the IT personnel within the agency or the contractors engaged on the particular project. Transport Security (ports and airports and transport) within Department of Infrastructure and Transport (subject of a less than flattering audit) has been engaged in "looking" for years, they euphemistically call it "an environmental scan" of what industry has to offer. Delays, I think, are more a product of poor Ministerial policy guidance and national security focus than the Department's fault. It is like they are treading water waiting. One feels sorry for agencies where the decision making is beyond their control.

Whatever the excuses, EOIs, Environmental Scans or whatever, including RFTs, are very often blatant exercises in getting industry to do the leg work and the transfer of intellectual property to the agency without due compensation or consideration.

This is particularly troublesome where APS personnel involved in the EOI, or RFT, are contractors and consultants. The information sought goes well beyond what the assessment team needs to know to determine suitability for the task.

One might well argue that it is" references of assignments completed successfully" that are the major pointers to capability to do the job rather than filling out a detail schedule with diagrams and stories.


In the case of information technology it is clear that many agencies, involved in large projects, are unable to actually define what they want and are unable to technically describe the exact solution being sought. This arena within government is Or they contain requirements which force respondents to deal with archaic infrastructure, old technology assets that the department may own and want to include or they specifically exclude items which would if included, collectively offer better value to government and the tax payer. The following are cases in example:

" Access Card - Human Services

" JP 2099 Identity - Defence Department

" Passports - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

" Patient record - National e Health Transition Authority

The inclusion of "risk demands" and "risk management models" which again are often extraneous to the actual fact that respondents have done projects of similar type elsewhere and onerous clauses transferring all risk to the respondent are seen as mechanisms to transfer risk. Not minimise risk, transfer it as much as possible away from the agency personnel.

Simply put politicians, and public servants, want the private sector to bear all of the risk and any loss to the taxpayer, or business, in engaging in wasted exercises appears to be of no consideration. There seems to be no mutual reciprocity, accountability or respect within the framework of the exercise. In these cases the winners are the lawyers and the contract/consultants.


The agencies make demands that respondents adhere to stated timelines yet the agency itself usually fails to meet any of the time line benchmarks, is short on information and rarely provides bidders with an idea of status or what is occurring.

Then we have the abandoned projects most notably the Access Card and JP2099 Defence Identity. In the case of the Access Card a change of government, philosophy and policy, caused a loss of tens of millions of dollars to taxpayer and to industry without so much as "we are sorry". In one of my many discussions with the APS I suggested that since so much work had been done on that project the material should be used to inform other projects or to provide a benchmark for the APS to assess the capacity, of those who responded, for other work of significant value and complexity. I was informed that the tender responses were to be locked away never to be accessed again. What a waste on every scale and measure.

In the case of JP 2099 a project which the Department assessed to be valued at $100,000,000 and specified technologically to be in that range was cancelled after two years of respondent's work and short list on the grounds of poor value for money. Industry can only respond to what is published in the RFT and if the consultants writing the document are not up to the task then that is very problematic.


With budget austerity, return on investment (productivity dividend) requirements by the Australian government (a concocted internal book keeping exercise) and other restrictions, agencies are to my mind under pressure to be very creative. Thus a project presented to the Minister, and the Cabinet, for funding may be costed to allow for a host of internal running costs. Being blunt an agency might use up to 70% of the project value on internal activities with 30% left to actually acquire the goods and services from an external supplier.


Given the above proposition, agencies then find that they have to go cheap or they may have to then use a "value for money" excuse and cancel otherwise the practice described above will be exposed.

The internal costs of agencies, in doing work around EOIs and RFTs, are quite extraordinary (compared to what an outside organisation might expect to spend on the same sort of work) and the value for effort inside an agency may be considered by some people outside looking on, to be quite low in terms of productivity within the whole value of the project total budgeted cost approved by Cabinet. One might consider auditing what the actual ratio of internal cost to external (what is left over to actually buy the goods and services from tenders) is for each major project in RFTs for the past five years. What a shocker iy might turn out to be.

Perceptions of industry may also be that the "bean counter" will have the final say. All things being equal these guardians of the money will simply ask who can do the job, at what price? Thus companies with none, or little history, in a particular project elsewhere of status in the world, in a consortium of well - respected firms, may win because they are cheaper. They may not fully comply.

Additionally they may have no longevity of business here in Australia, may be totally off shore and they will win against other firms with a presence here, employing people and contributing to society and economy will lose. There is no regard of contribution or value. WTO rules, to which Australia may blindly comply, are not considerate of such principles.

The risk, shifted to the contractor, provides an indemnity against accountability, and responsibility, to the APS, and the Minister, if it goes wrong. Thus the actual winner may be of little concern when compared to others who are contributing to the nation, the government and the APS.

There are cases where the RFT specifically states that a proven reference history is required for compliance but the chosen prime offer winner cannot demonstrate that compliance. Price takes precedence.

There is a distinct difference between total value (tangible and intangible) and price.


Here I am referencing a particular project, DFAT11 - IMD 16 - "Request for Tender for the provision of an Australian Travel Document Issuance System". I am not implying any objection to the manner in which DFAT conducts business because it actually is one of the better agencies to deal with and is very open.

Like Access Card and JP 2099, among other major projects, the passport project has been a long drawn out exercise costing the taxpayer and industry millions. This is largely due to process not necessarily capability.

DFAT sought information in 2008 and 2010 and a plethora of consultants and others engaged in a global fact finding mission. The EOI of 2010 was responded to by the world's best solution providers who collectively produce most, if not all of the passports. Then silence. The department had indicated, or it was implied, that a short list would be chosen, a process similar to JP2099 used by Defence.

IMD 16 issued October 2011 however it was an open RFT. This was reasonable given the elapse of time and I actually engaged in a number of meetings putting the proposition that it should go to open market. DFAT after all was seeking to create one of the world's leading passports. The decision was good.

However this latter objective of a world leading passport or travel document met some hurdles.

Books (not the flashiest one can have, provided by the now renowned Note Printing Australia (known for its high standards), using old generation pigment inks) are out of scope, an unusually large smart chip (a one megabyte Sharp chip, portioned off so that only a small area is used) had to be accommodated, not at the front or the back which is normal for all passports but in the middle of the book (Australia has to be different) and laminate stock (older generation) had to be used. The Department owns all desktop passport printers which are either to remain or be made redundant. They cost just over $A2, 000,000 a few years back.

Thus having a world leading product out of that would seem, on the face of it, to be a major challenge.

Then another obstacle appeared to the government and the tax payers getting the best value and the best offers. There were only three prime bidders.

These were not three companies I would list as world leading proponents of major passport projects, compared to say Unisys, Gemalto, Accenture and Canadian Banknote, and others, who did not bid. As I visited with the world's leading passport and travel document providers a common view was imparted to me. They were not going to bid because in their view one company would win. Now the justification for this view by competitors may well be a Canberra thing. A sort of hybrid awareness of likely outcomes or maybe it is a long history of a sharing of the spoils of government who must engage in the ticklish and fraught exercise of trying to keep major employment providers in the Australian Capital Territory. Who knows?

Logic which stopped the world's leading prime providers of passports from bidding might have been that the company they believed would win is an incumbent provider of services to DFAT, that its bid partners are also providers of goods and services - not actual travel documents and passports but e-commerce platform, application handling software and biometrics.

The collective perceptions were accurate - the company they said would win, did win. A good guess or something else?

As a nation Australia was denied the opportunity to have a key agency assess what the world has to offer us in the way of a world leading passport. Problematically a large amount of the very big allocation of funds has been spent internally within DFAT making the price a real factor. Given the timeline above, budget austerity and probable embarrassment along with the need to fix the current passport, DFAT cannot defer and go to market again. DFAT has to take a punt on technology, risk and the expertise of providers with lesser experience than those who chose not to bid.

All in all I have come to the conclusion that the above arguments and opinions point to a need for a good look at how EOIs are RFTs are framed, what their fundamental purpose is, the IP transfer issue and the end result of the process.

Doing business with the Australian government, of any political persuasion, is very costly and onerous. Current mechanisms for doing business are not, to my thinking and analysis, world best practice methodologies.


January 2013: Examination of the background of the most senior Labor party members of government shows limited experience beyond the combative fields of endeavour - unions, (labour - labor friendly) law firms and political office staff. During Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership this has dislayed as a degradation of overall parliamentary performance through gladiatorial strategies and the expansion of suspicion. Senior labor cabinet Ministers are suspicious and untrusting of big business. Australia's big businesses, are by international standards, large businesses. They are not monoliths. The largest sector is small to small to medium. This mistrust shows in labor's approach to issues, Tobacco and Health, Mining Tax, Telecommunications, transfer pricing by multi-nationals, carbon tax and gambling, among others. They are supported in the minority government by representatives of similar persuasion Greens and Independents, equally suspicious.

In January 2013 a draft legislative bill seeks to give the Australian Taxation Office powers to reconstruct the books of corporations. The government is targeting multi-national companies. The mistrust was fuelled by the CEO of Google who (under our cultural terms) appeared to brag about the skill of himself and the company to minimise tax paid by the giant multinational. No doubt the other members of the club were less than ecstatic. In the US corporations can bully parliamentary representatives or worse still buy their support and acquiescence, here in Australia it is much harder to pull off as the former managers of Telstra learned. The ATO and government are targeting Chevron, Microsoft, any entity that levies managment charges, internal costs for information technology and administration and transfer pricing on goods sold from parent to the subsidiary. The labor government approach has broad based support as many
corporations create their own walls of mistrust for consumers and taxpayers. Whilst being a head kicking government might be fun for the strategists in government and the "militant agressive advisers" inside the office of the Prime Minister it is in the long run counter productive and divisive.

Playing hard line real life is not a forte of the Gillard Cabinet as demonstrated time and time again. They lack the
deep talent and the strategic thinking necesary to plan, implement and carry off the objective. Yet despite the evidence they will not change, seek new talent and advice nor diversify. They deserve every major disaster, and humiliation, that comes their way. Kevin Rudd promised a new federation and bipartisan approach to national development. The incumbents, Ms Gillard, Mr Emerson, Mr Combet and Mr Swan along with Ms Macklin, Ms Roxon and Ms Plibersek have shredded that. COAG is dysfunctional and the combative gladiatorial style of politics has taken over federal and state relations. Nothing that the convenor Steve Bracks says or does will change that. Labor continues the practice (of the two major political parties) of appointing ex party seniors to plumb jobs regardless of their historical performance. The only people who give credibility to these "echo chambers" are political party supporters and the parliamentary press galleries. The general population just ignore it all.


November 2012: Former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said, inter alia, on ABC television Q & A (November 19, 2012) that what Australia needed was a mature conversation on policy. If you have ever heard Mr Rudd you may note that the conversation tends to be one sided. delivered in a lecturing tone, with questions and posed and answered, sometimes patronising and generally you are being talked at. Mr Rudd persists in his self generaed role as the parliamentary commentary member on the Australian government, opposition, China, US and allies, other types not allied and every other issue under the sun.

This irks many in the Labor party and endlessly amuses the opposition members under their leader Tony Abbott. Mr Rudd is very likely to knock you out of the way if there is a media camera or microphone within running proxiity. There are those delighted that Mr Rudd is continuing this. Some are located in the Australian Labor party, who live on in the vain hope of a poluitical resurrection to labor leadership.

The Australian voters have had ample opportunity to examine Kevin Rudd. His style, one man band approach to politics and his personality traits. They are well informed to determine if they want him as Prime Minister again. What seems highly apparent in the
Griffith University latest Third Biennial Constitutional Values Survey is that something in the order two-thirds of Australians do not like any of them at federal, state or territory levels. Around 38% think it is all a failure, that is pointing to the federation of Australian governments, their fighting and intransigence. One may well wonder if the politicians, in any party, in any parliamet in Australia actually are getting the message.

Governments appear to operate on the fantasy belief that if they soldier on to the next election all will be delivered and all will work out and they will be vindicated.

It really doesn't matter anyway because membership of parliament is contrived and controlled. We get what we are given with little if any say about what we want or believe should be representative. The make up of our parliaments do not reflect the demographics of the nation and its multi-cultural background. Even if politicians are corrupt, questionable in behaviour, unsavoury or flakey, they still get to stay particularly where their presence is vital to the retention of power in minority governments. Where there is a vast majority in a parliament, as is in Queensland, democracy goes off the rails in pursuit of political interests and objectives. Across Australia, politicians it seems, can't hear, can't read, can't write and cannot tell a good story with any powerful conviction. But, unlike us, they can have their cake, eat it too and lecture us about frugality and the required cost cutting to achieve their goals.


October 2012: I may well say that the quality of debate and policy analysis is very poor and that the politicians have descended into irrelevant trivia and personal degradation but one should reserve some vitriollic spittle for the stupidity, and focus on irrelevancies, by the Australian media. The Prime Minister unfortunately tripped over in India and the low grade publications here in Australia that pass themselves off as quality newspapers ran multi page sreads of the pictures, some frame by frame as she went down - others attached smart arse, tricky little, headlines like "fall from grace" or "down like the polls".

There is no newspaper that one can hold up here against the international icons, certainly not the Murdoch Press, News Limited.

The Project I call
"decine of ethics" in Australia, managed by corporations, governments and public service has taken the nation into the gutter.


October 2012: The Prime Minister Julia Gillard engaged in a furious display of enraged sentimatents towards the opposition leader Tony Abbott in the House of Representatives. Such was the fury that it went (with the help of not so bright political staffers) onto the internet and You Tube. This opened the way for the ultaimte denigration of Australia's Prime Minister to the world. At first blush the staffers might have thought it was all very exciting. Unfortunately they were playing to an audience that does not vote and is fleeting in interest. They played to a media obsessed with trivia and the contest rather than the policy.

Constant, and aware, observers, of Australia's parliaments may have thought they had travelled back in time to the days of student politics where such moral issues occupied the hormonal minds of the young budding politicians. After all most of the players, in the Australian parliament, in senior roles were all at university around the same time. There seems a tendency in sty;e and rhetoric to revisit those days.

Academic achievement does not seem to have informed their oratory and intellectual delivery in the modern parliament. there is no enlightenment and galvanising debate of depth and emorable hansard. It is just a handful of self absorbed people, consumed with the contest of power. The voters watch on thie side and the thinkers are engaged elsewhere in something of more substance. I think the so called "gender wars" are demeaning to the operation of our national parliament and its leadership, adds no value to Australian society other than to remind us that Australia may be a male dominated society where power rests in the hands of older white males who sometimes engage in patronage, and mentoring, of women into senior roles but who ultimately retain control.

Without change in the power relations
between men and women
empowerment cannot be achieved!
... IFUW: Empowering Women

The most powerful women in Australia, and the world, act very differently to the grand standing politicians. They have moved on from student issues, and mind sets, to more valuable cerebral pursuits.


October 2012: Labor luminary, Lindsay Tanner, former federal parliament Minister, has retired from parliament. He has written a book which has caused the incumbents of modern labor and the unions to react negatively. In it, inter alia, he analyses the plight of modern labor. He criticises, and chastises, lamenting the loss of labor values. He sees a detachment from the realities of a modern electorate, economy and nation. Reborn politician (ex Premier) Bob Carr, now Foreign Minister said that every galah in the shop had expressed a view and in this statement was suggesting that Lindsay should just retire from the political stage. Bob says what everyone else says or thinks. Bob counts himself as an author too. He sees himself as a successful labor figure. Never mind that NSW ended up as one of the most moribnd and corrupted of the Australian states.

The senior political incuments of today's federal parliament (labor and liberal) went to university together, in varying states. They know each other and have been jousting since student politics. They have worked their way up, through the political system. Not through the hard yards of old labor, or liberal structures, but through a system of patronage and nepotism. They have played the factions. They are, some may opine, occupants of a personal vacuum of experience and knowledge, but they each share a single belief - that of their own capabilities. It is now their turn.

They are not interested in the views, predictions or hand ringing of the old guard. They have their plans and their fundamental ideologies. They may have massaged these to create a contrived labor party value system but they would claim to have one. They did not create anything. They are recipients. They have played the system, the game and the warfare of gladiatorial politics and largesse feeding from the public trough of education and politics.

The iconic status of a past "Enterprise Labor", may hold no value to them, much like the people who have taken control of icons like Telecom (Telstra), Qantas or Fairfax. They also hold a similar belief in their own abilities. Perhpas power imbues infallibility. They are shaping their respective entities regardless of impact. Qantas and Fairfax are no more the grand enterprises they once were. They are no longer the pride of the nation. The incumbents did not build these, or any other, icons. They inherited them. They are theirs for the taking and reshaping. There is no penalty system for destroying the icon or failure in performance. There is just the system of the power collective, the club and the spoils of high office. There are no ethical frameworks or moral compasses that guide the modern day manager of icons. This is a competitive world where the ends justifies the means.
So Lindsay Tanner, et al, may well caution or chastise, but like Fairfax, Qantas, Telstra and the other great institutions of Australia, they are at the mercy of the office holder who may, or may not prove to be incompetent.


September 2012: The psyche of modern political parties, and their constituents, is one that immediately reacts negatively to criticism if it comes from perceived powerful interests. People, electors, marching in the streets, have little impact on the leaders of the various Australian governments. However, if a body such as the Business Council of Australia (BCA) were to criticise this will trigger a defensive, even hostile, response. So it is with the current situation.

Jennifer Westcott, CEO of the BCA, has had the temerity to question the role of Ministerial advisers in the Australian government, and to question the independence of the public service and the impacts on policy and outcomes of these interactions in daily political and business life. It is extraodinarily hard to do business with the labor government and to offer any alternative ideas to their narrow agendas. Even when they devise a policy they will not accept assistance or methodologies to implement it from external parties unless they see an advantage. Logically action types, used to managing and implementing projects, will see public interest and benefit as a significant justification for garnering the government's attention. However to think this is the case is to be continually disappointed. Public interest is not an advantage that attracts a positive response from our governments. It is about personal power, interest and control. It is also about the macho proposition that they were elected to do stuff and to be the boss. They have adopted managerialism in all of its parts without the complementary skills that must go with managerial methods.

In response to Ms Westacott, immediately, Minister Gray produces a letter from the union supporting the advisers. That was quick. This reaction, and that of the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Ben Hubbard, signals the state of the maturity of political debate in Australia. By now the Labor government should realise that a union letter of support is no endorsement. Some union leaders have claimed to own the labor party, the politicians in it and by inference the government. So let us take the CPSU letter with less than a grain of salt. As for Mr Hubbard he occupies the office but may not fully grasp the dynamics of what is being stated and where it might go. There are more believers on Ms Westacott's side of the proposition than on the government and Mr Hubbard's side. The public service eventually will be silent least it be drawn into what is essentially an argument about the quality and operation of our government and public service in return for a large sum of taxpayer money. The network on Ms wstacott's sie of the fence are also more connected, more resourced in terms of assets and intellectual fire power and they are aged, seasoned and wily. Politics after all is about more than holding office and winning elections.

Politicisation of Australia's public services (state and federal) began decades ago. It has been carried on by both Labor and Liberal governments. The appointment of senior public service heads, under limited term contracts, serving at what is effectively the whim of the Minister is a fundamental degradation of the independence that such a role could deliver frank and fearless advice. One cannot imagine Sir Arthur Tange, AC CBE, putting up with this. Anyone, trying to do business with, or communicate with many of Australia's governments, and Ministers, would find resonance in Ms Westacott's statements. It is also highy likely that many of the gatekeepers in Ministers offices are not sufficiently versed in their awarenessof what something coming into their bosses office might ultimately mean. That is they may not see the possible future events and situations that will arise. The government would have been best served if wiser heads had said - sit and ponder what is being said and get ms Westacott in to elaborate. One of the contentious points in Ms Westacott's shot across the bows of governments has been borne out by the hasty, ill thought intervention of Mr Hubbard. He proves adavisers exceed their roles and often their abilities.

The issue is serious and cannot be dismissed with contrived letters, ex public sevants who worked under contracts, and incumbent advisers. Policy, and return on public investment in our governments, suffers greatly under the current system of gatekeeping and protection of Ministers by advisers. These people are pid from the public purse and are not subject to rigourous tests of performance. Their jobs come from party sinecure, patronage and sometimes nepoitism. The quality of advisers employed may be of geater import than the sheer numbers. It is highly arguable that a person in their twenties, or even thirties, with limited life and employment experience can grasp the complex world of the government and incumbent parliamentarians' worlds. It is also unlikely that the patronage system and reward for party loyalty will ensure the best candidates achieve adviser roles. Long hours and the quality of the employer also tend to restrict the pool of available talent that will be attracted to these positions. To claim that some advisers have not thrown their weight around, or acted as if they are the brain of the Minister is simply not true. The BCA Chief knows that, along with people such as myself who spend weeks after week trying to get ideas and outcomes accepted that would deliver value. The hordes of contractors and lack of depth in adviser ranks, and the loss of talent from the public services of the nation (see Queensland for example) compunds the issues that Ms Westacott raises.

There will be no constructive debate here. There will be self protection self interest and retaliation by a government that has a fortess mentality. In the meantime Mr Hubbard has invited many interested by standers into the argument frame. ("The Role of Political Advisers in Australia's Governments", Kevin Beck, Melbourne, September 23, 2012)

Not really, it is a contrived poll

September 2012: Polls are indicating that Tony Abbott is not liked by a significant number of the Australian population. Well over 50%. Mr Abbott has been in the parliament for a very long time. He has been a Minister in the Howard government. So he is not a new person to voters. Yet Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop rush out and repeat ad nauseum to anyone who will listen, in the media, that Mr Abbott is a really nice guy. He works for charities and assist others, he does good things. They presume that they can change the perception with a few words. Do they presume that if they tell people what they think the public that do not like him will change their mind? Are they swayed by the claim that to iwn a Rhodes Scholarship Mr Abbott has to be exceptional? Perhaps it is physical traits, and aspects of personality, of the leaders that voters do not like. They may actually not care about good works. It may be psychological or be the result of some event/s of the past. Malcolm Turnbull is far more popular and so is Joe Hockey and for that matter probably Barnaby Joyce. So probably is Bill Shorten. This is not a significant problem for liberal or labor unless the back bench starts to panic.

We can probably look forward to the warm and cuddly spread in the newspaper weekend insert depicting his colleague's views and a story telling us that he is somebody to be admired. The politicians of our parliaments, particularly the federal, live in a closeted world away from realities of everyday life dealing with the big issues. They continually scheme and fret about how they look, what the voters think and whether they can win the next election. In amongst this they take on the burdens of representations and the problems of their constituents. They attend far more fetes and functions and open shoe boxes than ordinary people do.

Tony Abbott has worked hard to try and force labor to an election. He has failed. He has assiduously attacked and attacked in his one dimensional perspective of how to bring Rudd or Gillard down. It is not known if he tries to persuade the independents to turn on Labor.

It is a frightening prospect for the coalition if Tony Abbott diminishes the chances of a big win for them if he is unpopular. What is not clear is hwo popularity affects election outcomes unless there is a clear indication as there was with Bob Hawke. It does not actually matter that Julia Gillard is also unpopular. Tony Abbott will not go quietly, as leader, if his popularity dives and the members in marginal seats start to panic. This is it, his one and only shot. If he cannot take a decisive victory, under a government, mired in scandals and mismanagement, then what other opportunity does he have? This is a big dilemma for them. PREDICTION He is terminally unpopular.

Federal elections are won often on a handful of seats and votes. We do not get to elect a Prime Minister. Preferential voting gives us either a labor or a liberal. Demographic changes throigh migration and the movement of people across boudaries of the Electoral Commission map are greater worries than popularity. Then there is internal power. A handful of people own labor and the liberal parties not a big church. They must support Gillard or Abbott to maintain their position, influence and power. Watch sudden shows of vigour from the front bech of the liberal party because there is agitation about changing some of the incumbents.

A rise in invalid informal votes, in indepnedents and Green votes in the House of Representatives is of greater concern to the parties than likeability.

The "like" poll is contrived to give commentators, the Parliamntary Press gallery, the talk show hosts, television shows and the opinion piece writers (including me) something to rabbit on about. The general population could not give a toss about those whom they may see as tossers.


September 2012: Anyone attempting to have a constructive interaction with the Australian labor government on critical policy debates and issues will know how hard it is if you are not part of the fold. Labor is biased and reactionary, as well as suspicious. Add to that an arrogant disposition that they have their policies and actions sorted and the result is a closeted, detached administration. No new ideas are embraced in this myopic regime.

Below in this site and in the
predictions and the Australia site, and the national security web sites, you can discern a trail of commentary and critique. perhaps the most annoying are climate change carbon and the education revolution

Labor spun stories, misrepresented and facts and manipulated content on all key areas of its policy platform s then they abandon the central planks. Today (August 2013) they announce that it is uneconomic and also bad technically to decommission Victoria's power stations. Th cost is astronomical. The party's alternate replacement energy policy is also a shambles. Why is it now so expensive to buy out brown coal fired power stations? The government has abandoned the floor price of their carbon tax and linked it to the European Union's carbon market. This is quite extraordinary. The government seems oblivious to the dangers. Minister Greg Combet has no credible foundation of understanding market and energy dynamics. He is making up a justification. Now we have the education revolution spruiked as if labor invented teaching. The Prime Minister gave a speech on her passion for education. It had grandiose flourish of motherhood statements with almost impossible to achieve benchmarks. It, to my mind, also makes assumptions about educational outcomes based on socioeconomic disadvantage in isolation of other factors. Is socioeconomic disadvantage and migrant background the most prominent determinators? Why are there less high achieving students now in Australia than in the past and why do we achieve less than other countries? Labor announced a policy they are likely not going to have to be accountable for. It seeks to achieve its objectives in 2025. This symbolises one of the modern day sleight of hands of Australia's governments. Looking as if they are masters of the universe with a crystal ball, creating policies into the next and other electoral cycles. Policies with horizons measured in decades. Justifications, like climate change action, based on fifty years hence. Do they think we electors are stupid? Or is it an exercise in trying to differentiate to get us to let them stay around to achieve these things? This might be feasible if the policies were sound and as Kevin Rudd demanded, "evidence based". But they are not.

Overall Labor's time in government has, among other things, been a serious waste of time, money and resources of everyone involved, not only the government.

Add to this the detached, from reality, mentality of the Greens Party and its leaders, and it is quite simply a waste of effort to try and offer anything to these politicians other the opportunity to exit to a pension.

Even when external parties put up excellent ideas and immediate deliverables within the policy frameworks announced, it is immaterial. Many propositions go unanswered. They are ignored in Australian Labor Minister's offices whether it be on health, energy, transport security, national security, immigration and a plethora of other key issues. The basic reason they are ignored, or not taken up, is that the policy that is announced is a hollow shell. It has no legislation, no structure and process within the bureaucracy and no clear delivery framework. The time line to do this is years. Thus on balance many find they cannot assist the Labor government no matter how pure their offerings are and no matter how strong on evaluation and risk reduction they are. The government Ministers are totally unprepared with the exception of Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean. Business can put up ideas ad get response and action from these two. Martin Ferguson said the mining boom had come to an end. The Prime Minister, Treasurer and others senior Ministers had the temerity to disagree. People with no experience in analysis and delivery in resources. They are just empty political shells by comparison with nothing but words. The Prime Minister opened the Minerals Conference and instead of answering the agenda set rode off into the ethereal world of her education revolution. Short on detail big on rhetoric and motherhood and only marginally related to mining and resources. This is a very poor reading of audience and opportunity pointing to the detachment of labor's principal Minister and her coterie of advisers from reality. She took no questions and left. She left to visit a primary school and to take questions from children. maybe childish interaction is far easier to complex hard debates and position justification. The Prime Minister has no relevance to the economic production other than to perhaps hamper and distort it. The simple goal of getting a contrived surplus (on a budget) over rides all realism. Note I said budget. The budget is not real it is a guesstimate and it is manufactured just as "surpluses are manufactured". The books can be cooked as they are in Queensland when the Commission that looked at debt looked at gross debt ignoring offsetting assets. This is how all governments manipulate. Labor and Liberal politicians lack credibility in economics and finance.

This is not something solely attributed to federal labor. One can try and do something in the one man band states of Victoria and Queensland meeting the same intransigent disregard and myopic focus on their self perceptions of knowing it all. A trait of Australia's modern leader, like a corporate CEO, is that they are in charge. A managerial philosophy, and style, that does not translate. Despite all of this many people persevere to try and do business with governments and to assist in the national interest. It is a plodding and often unrewarding crusade.


Fairfax is an iconic Australian media corporation. For decades it has produced the Melbourne Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review. Rivers of revenue gold were in its classified advertisements which filled up to 400 pages in major editions. Today they may have 200 pages in full newspaper weekend edition. Some opine that Fairfax board, captive to the journalists, failed to react. It is true that some years back they appointed a Chairman who had no media experience and whose expertise lay in competition policy. In June 2012 the Board announced the end of the era of broad sheet publication in a move to close their printing factories and move to tabloid. They also follow the News Ltd strategy onto the internet believing that they can also charge for their news. This in itself is enough to create the usual furore and debate.

However time, and tide, conspired against the Board.

The Australian labor government has been inspired by the News Ltd situation in the UK and launched its own enquiry. Now it wants to regulate the print and internet media, avidly supported by the Greens. Independent of that the labor government and the unions have decided to engage in class warfare on three of Australia's richest entrepreneurs in mining, one of them being Gina Rinehart. Gina has further incensed labor, particularly Senator and Minister, Stephen Conroy, by buying up about 19% (as at June 19, 2012) of fairfax. Ms Rinehart wants three seats on the board and will not sign the editorial document mentioned above. This enrages the sensibilities of those who believe that certain enterprises are their domain to cherish and rant about. These are designated public interest, are deemed to be above ownership considerations and control. In their world, and the in thinking of the labor government, Ms Rinehart as owner cannot dictate how the company operates because writing newspaper blurb is very special. certain newspapers, as against others, are a protected species (Fairfax yes, News Ltd no) except where labor wants it regulated.

This leads me to my hypocrisy and irony heading. Here is labor, mired in lies, spin and unethical practice dictating and pontificating on integrity.

The National Broadband Network (NBN)

Critics of labor's NBN tend to focus on the cable to the home. They talk of how much the monthly fee will be for the varying speeds and how many people will take up the service. They appear to be thinking of the ordinary consumer of music, movies and entertainment. Malcolm Turnbull, liberal opposition in the Australian parliament, is one of the most vocal critics. He, and the others, are missing the whole point or they are deliberately playing dumb and misleading the uninformed. Even at $A40,000,000,000 it is very good value for money. Because it's more than just a cable...


And we will dislike her till the day we .....

the end of Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership and that of the federal labor government, is near

May 2012: Some opine that she is stubborn. Others are more super critical. To have weathered the desolate land of party politics, built upon the corpses of colleagues, left stripped and abandoned by the way side, to achieve the highest political office, is a feat in itself. This feat bares no comparison to the reality of the ordinary world. There may be some similarities to the world of corporations. Yet to my mind they seem less brutal. The skills required to navigate the incestuous, and degrading world, of politics are not those required for management and administration, communication and leadership in government. The skills to achieve the top of selection in the party are ones more related to loners, people with egos, iron will and tough hides. They cry in the dark alone. These are not skills of the office of a Prime Minister.

It is not clear what the laudable skills of Julia Gillard might be. The term skills, used endlessly and with little care, by the labor party, seems minimalist and belittling. Julia Gillard achieved graduation, and registration, as a lawyer and practiced for a while. It was a narrow practice, not one upon which a reputation of legal excellence and oratory capacity can be built. There was no eloquent argument before the esteemed justices, one on one with the razor sharp leading minds of the Australian legal profession. Julia Gillard's time as a practicing lawyer was ordinary I think. I would term it workman like.

Julia Gillard works her way through the ranks of the Australian labor Party entering the parliament through patronage. A promising future lies ahead.

The shadow Ministry period of her early days in the federal parliament were workmanlike and not overly memorable. There were some policy failures and humiliations. It was for observers like myself, somewhat mediocre. But behind the scenes a skill that is not so normal and polite, the skill I would call "rat cunning" was eating away at the foundations of other's careers. Most notably eating away Kevin Rudd's foundation.


For all of the supposing above I think that the most evident capability of Ms Gillard is her negotiating skill. In the modern political era it matches the former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Ms Gilllard has despite all of the odds held the minority government together. This is not a simple task of giving independents what they want and the Greens an environmental tit bit or two. Ms Gillard no doubt believes in climate change, carbon and mining taxes as well as s her most prominent and recent success, the disability insurance scheme. The likes of conservative politicians and opposition senior members Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb can only snipe from the sidelines droning on about cost because they do have the capacity singularly or collectively to negotiate like Julia Gillard. Thus to my mind it is somewhat sad that Ms Gillard is pilloried for her performance as Prime Minister and overlooked for her stellar quality.

The Gillard support team are in some ways parasitic on her. They need her to stay as Prime Minister for their own political interests and careers. When her position becomes untenable they will seek new havens. Ms Gillard may be stubborn, and her ego and self perceptions may be deluding her as to the ultimate outcome of her Prime Ministership. Maybe she believes, erroneously and misguided, that if the carbon tax, mining tax and disability insurance schemes are in place that these things will somehow transform her fortunes and the electorate will see the light. If this is the case that she believes this then that is indeed another example of her poor assessment and judgement. The dislike of Julia Gillard by the majority of electorate is personal. It is a one on one dislike.

If we look at how the poll questions are structured the pollsters ask about preferred Prime Minister and preferred party. They combine the two party voting trend figure. Thus we get a distorted picture of how they feel about Tony Abbott and the coalition. In my view they do not like Tony Abbott enough to elect him in his own right, if he was not a liberal party leader. I would hazard that they prefer Malcolm Turnbull to be leader of the opposition. The line between labor and liberal is now so blurred that it is quite immaterial to most voters if labor or liberal are in provided that they respect, in some general way, the Prime Minister and key cabinet Ministers. Thus we see a disengagement, by the voters, from politics. They think all politicians act in their own interests and not that of the nation. They see the parliament, through the prism of question time, as a circus. Julia Gillard, and her senior team are not held in high regard with two exceptions, they being, Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson. The latter, Martin Ferguson should be Australian labor Party leader and Prime Minister of Australia.

The litany of Julia Gillard's indiscretions, bungling, stupidity, poor judgement and naivety are well documented. Every day her time in office is dissected. She has become the news story and the politics. The parliament, the government and the rest is of little consequence and interest to the media.

It is not fair to focus solely on Julia Gillard. Her most trusted colleagues are also workman like and unimpressive. They are unable to assist and help her. They fail her every day. They have little imagination, and little vision and tactical abilities. They exhibit unsophisticated warrior like mentalities - little war lords of the labor tribes, plundering the public purse and the nation's democracy for their own careers and personal political objectives. They sneer, snivel and opine, reading the bones and teas leaves of their own fantasies, conjuring up stories. They weave fantasies within spin politics. They promote fear and loathing.

There are no prominent orators in any Australian parliament, federal or state. Perhaps they are hidden away yet to be discovered.

It is ironic (May 2012) that Julia Gillard has come to acknowledge that the reputation of the parliament and its integrity is in tatters. Did she think that it was others (Thomson, Slipper) who took it there? They all are complicit, every member of the Australian parliament, liberal, labor, national, greens and independents for the state of the parliament and its reputation. For Ms Julia Gillard to now try and sever the link (whilst keeping the vote and the link) between the grimy world of Craig Thomson and herself is fruitless. It is this capacity for misguided thinking that defines Julia's hapless actions. A blip in the polls may give her and labor heart. More likely it will be ignored. Ms Gillard has for too long argued the contrary.

Now she tells us that a line has been crossed. What line? An imaginary line her own personally skewed moral compass? There is no line. Julia Gillard has written her history. The charismatic woman who struggled to go beyond a workman like performer, disappointing so many. If Gillard wants to demonstrate integrity and the place of parliament in our nation then she can go to the Governor General and advise the Queen that the people of Australia should try and take back their democracy through an election.

Yet for many of us there is still despair and muted anger. The bulk of representatives who occupy the seats of the nation's federal parliament are not inspiring. They too are just workman like. Some may not even be of that basic calibre. There are no leaders. ("The End of Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership of Australia", 2012, Kevin R Beck)


March 2012: The federal parliament, minority government, situation has diverted the opposition, more than normally, down roads of unethical self interest to the continued detriment of the nation. The obsession with unseating Julia Gillard from government consumes the members of the liberal party every minute of every day. Yesterday (March 19, 2012) the opposition business manager, in the lower house, wasted question time on whether or not a medical certificate was detailed enough to grant a labor member leave from parliament and a pairing. This is the height of stupidity, folly and arrogance. Why should any person, in any job, have to have their medical condition detailed on a piece of paper by their doctor for others to see and debate?

This is not the stuff of huge import to the nation's well being. This is the stuff of an immature self obsessed lot whose contribution to the nation, and the public interest, becomes more questionable, and suspect, in every term of parliament. Career politicians, and their political staff, who somehow morph into becoming parasites on the public purse.

Question time is of little value to the nation's governance. A contrived side show of ego, and unbecoming behaviour, where the ability to fling insults and spew contemptuous vitriol is the measure of performance. Like sheep the members rise to ask the "Dorothy dixer" question, "tell us Minister how wonderful the government is", or tell us Leader of the Opposition "how miserable the government is".

Australia's parliament, at least what we see on show is often just a farce. Take Senate Estimates, a contrivance. Rather than legislate that this forum be a thorough and well stated mechanism to forensically question the government, public servants and any one else, of the day, on matters of public interest, the process has to be framed as a question related to expenditure. Participants, and respondents, actually treat the Senate with contempt because the Senate overall, will not enforce its powers in case someone returns the political favour down the track. The Australian Senate is a controlled forum of labor and liberal, except when the minority has the balance of power. It used to be the Democrats and now it is the Greens. It has usually been the flip side of the lower house. The government of the day had to negotiate. The Senators are supposed to represent their states but instead they represent their political party platform voting how they are told to by the cabinet of the government. Everything is contrived and manipulated in this corroded and often corrupt process of government. The politicians awaiting their turn at government or their pensions become ingrained in their roles. The most senior, factionally aligned, members in safe seats feather their personal power nests whilst putting their hands on their hearts and professing public interest. Like chameleons they change their spots and colours, like canaries they whistle the same tune ad nauseum, come election time they suddenly hear us.

The rubbish about medical certificates is not an isolated event. It is one of the many trite, and shallow, matters that consume the resources, and employees, of the nation in trivia designed to score points for a moment. Public servants are re side tracked to examine nebulous issues that will give the government an advantage. Much departmental time is wasted on the whims of Prime Minister, Ministers and parliamentary Secretaries. Political advisers assume the power of their elected bosses. Some become known as the defacto Minister.

Politicians are not
held in high regard. Why would they care all that much when the trappings of power, and self interest, lie in their hands, and control, and are used like anaesthetic to dill their senses. They practice the Cult of Victimhood, measuring their contribution to by the number of hours they put in not by the outputs. When they are critiqued they feel aggrieved that we are not impressed with their plight and efforts. Sometimes they count the number of pieces of legislation that are passed too. (Kevin Beck, "The Declining Quality of Australia's Political Contribution to the Nation", Melbourne, 2012

Be very careful when dealing with the Gillard government

March 2012: Minister for Finance Penny Wong waved the glossy ALP brochure about. It was, she said an analysis of the Australian coalition (opposition in the parliament) pronouncements on the galvanising topic of the budget. According to Ms Wong there was a $A9 billion black hole. Don't you just love how these very big numbers roll off their tongues. Numbers that are pulled out of the sky. Members of governments can apparently all perform miracles too, turning a massive multi billion dollar deficit into a surplus in the twinkle of an eye.

Now why would a senior Minister of the Australian government waste time, resources and hot air on such a stupid folly, examining the budget ponderings of a political party that is not even in government now, and will not have the chance to be so until the end of 2013? Well the answer is quite easy, this government is easily directed down empty lane ways, reacting to every shadow.

Some of the Gillard labor government senior Ministers seem to have difficulty staying on track doing the job for which they are employed. Some have trouble giving any sort of policy direction of substance to their departmental public servants. labor loves a good study, a good committee and a new ombudsman, regulator and watch dog. They love a good web site. They love a good fantasy. Some of the labor Ministers struggle to do anything right and Ms Wong some may opine is one of the under performers. The Minister managed to turn the simple appointment of the Chair of the Australian Future Fund into a drama that spiralled out of control. She was ably supported in the stuff up by the Attorney General Nicola Roxon, who rose up in parliament to denigrate a former Treasurer Peter Costello and current member of the Fund Board. Ms Gillard is always good for a bit of serious misjudgement and fanned the flames with the Attorney General, and The Minister for Finance, all stating that they had "chosen the best person for the job". These are decision makers in the highest offices in the nation.

It is all very well for this lot to denigrate, and criticise, others but wobetide anyone who gives them a serve. They will, in response, spew vitriol, and insults, with the best. The gladiatoresses of the Australian parliament. They will have an inquiry into your motivations and your life, these are very dangerous people to deal with. If you are risking your investment dealing with this loot then think very carefully and watch their every move. There is no ethical compass, or adherence to integrity, demonstrable in this government's modus operandi. The Rudd - Gillard labor government will waste billions of the tax payers money and others' money, in pursuit of their personal political interests. They have funded their careers on the fees of union members and the public purse. They do not care for the self made person, particularly if you use your money, and influence, to counter their experiments or to argue the point. Only they may pursue vested interest. Hypocrisy taints the air of federal parliament and government. Remember what the iron maidens, and others, of the labor party did to Kevin Rudd. Be very very careful when you deal with them. (Kevin Beck, "The Untrustworthy government", Australia, 2013)


ALP burns its own house down as cabinet splits BY: MATTHEW FRANKLIN, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT From: The Australian February 24, 2012, "Cabinet ministers yesterday lined up to condemn Mr Rudd, the former prime minister, as a liar who sabotaged his own party's 2010 election campaign while the former leader, backed by at least four ministers, declared the Prime Minister could not beat Tony Abbott and urged ordinary Australians to press MPs to back his bid to return to the leadership. As Mr Rudd yesterday brushed aside the vitriol of colleagues, Ms Gillard attacked his "chaotic" leadership style, revealing she had to prop up his "dysfunctional" government in its dying days before colleagues dumped him in June 2010."

And so the Australian labor party began to eat its own.

"Mr Swan said that Mr Rudd was "deeply flawed", as his condemnation won support from colleagues loyal to the Prime Minister. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy ramped up the rhetoric by accusing his old boss of treating his colleagues and the community with contempt; Environment Minister Tony Burke rejected Mr Rudd's style and temperament; and Trade Minister Craig Emerson declared: "Mr Rudd should renounce . . . any ambition to again take on the leadership." Later, at a Brisbane lunch of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Dr Emerson was unable to provide specific evidence to back the claim that Mr Rudd was the person responsible for sabotage of the 2010 election campaign....... As cabinet ministers took sides and the language continued to degenerate, Ms Gillard, in Adelaide, endorsed the sabotage and disloyalty claims against Mr Rudd. Attacking him publicly for the first time, she described his leadership as chaotic. Despite his campaigning abilities, she said, he had failed to demonstrate the discipline and focus needed to provide strong leadership, leaving her to keep the government on track. " (source: as above)

Finally, on Monday 27, 2012, Ms Gillard won a vote in caucus 71 to Rudd's 31. Then came the fantasy, and the delusion, on the part of the Prime Minister that all would be well from here on and she lauded the former Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, for his exploits..

27 February 2012, Australian Parliament Canberra, "During Question Time Gillard claimed that two of Kevin Rudd’s achievements as Foreign Minister were the “creation” of the G20 and the East Asia Summit. While Rudd has been blamed for every failing of the Gillard Government, Bishop said, Gillard was now attempting to give him credit for events that occurred many years before he became Foreign Minister. The G20 was established in the late 1990s with the inaugural meeting held at Berlin in December 1999. Even not-so astute readers will recall that the Howard government was then in office. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “the inaugural East Asia Summit was held in Kuala Lumpur on 14 December 2005, Oh, the Howard government was still in office then, too.” (Source: "Labor is stuffed - says Labor", Piers Akerman, Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 06:03am, The Telegraph Sydney)


Feb 2102, I am confused by the Prime Minister's continued exhibition of poor judgement and strategic vision. When asked about the leadership issue she stated that "she was getting on with her job and that Kevin Rudd was getting on with his". What does that mean in the context of what is occurring? Is this correct? Wayne Swan says that the rumours regarding leadership are a "media beat up". Again is this true? Is Australian Politics 101 always first, and foremost, denial, credible and plausible? Further Ms Gillard said that she was getting on with the jib with the full support of her caucus. Does Ms Gillard have her head in the sand, is she deliberately misleading in her responses? Does she not walk the corridors of parliament house? This is not true. How do we reconcile the requirement that a politician not mislead the House, under pain of sanction, but it is okay to mislead the voters?

When the Gonski review of education issued she again stated her mantra that this was her highest priority. The Education Revolution is a sham and a spin tag that has no substance and depth. When asked about how the Gonski and Committee report would be implemented she dissembled and announced another round of consultations. Peter Garret rolled out and as usual could not handle the obligatory interview. Chris Uhlmann, ABC 7.30 Report asked Minister Peter Garrett to substantiate the commitment to an education revolution and Garrett could not give it. It is as if amateurs have invaded the highest labor party parliamentary offices.

When questioned Ms Gillard, talked inter alia, about budgets. In saying this she relegated everything secondary to the "surplus". She unwittingly seems not to have a memory that links thinking and logic. Her words come out not so much as hollow but as denials, even lies and misrepresentations but yet she is oblivious to this continuing stance? Can it be that she has a legal brain that uses words literally and runs arguments, and makes statements using empty slogans, as if they are separate events in time? Does Ms Gillard comprehend what will happen if she mucks David Gonski and his committee around proving to have wasted their time and talents?

A Prime Minister has to exhibit more than words. Repeating slogans against the evidence and exhibiting stubbornness is not a major quality of admiration that underpins leadership. If judgement is poor than what can we make of this? By letting Kevin Rudd pursue his self interest, and ego, at the expense of everything else is not what one expects from a leader. Paul Keating would have consigned Kevin Rudd, and each of his supporters, to the political dustbin as would have Bob Hawke.

Every day the Prime Minister reinforces every negative about herself. Does she have advisers, does she listen to them, are they any good? The answers appear to be "no" to all questions. Simon Crean, a dedicated selfless parliamentarian who works hard as a Minister knows what to do about Rudd yet Gillard does take his cue? There are many things that labor has done under Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership but all that is lost because Julia cannot communicate, strategise, anticipate and engage. She is according to the evidence, quite simply hopeless in the job, day after day. (Kevin R Beck, 2012, Melbourne, Australia)


February 2012: Mr Swan opines that the tension reported between Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd, and the speculation about leadership is a "media beat up". Despite evidence to the contrary he extols this poppy cock as if the majority of viewers and readers have no ability to think and distil. Does Mr Swan think his Ministerial title makes him credible? Does he actually believe this rubbish?

Could this be one of the many reasons why the credibility of the Gillard government is suspect? Looking at the current state of affairs,a and the modus operandi of the Gillard labor government, through the eyes of those who have to interact with sections of the federal labor government on a regular basis about policy, waste, endemic and systemic problems, the state of the National Dental Scheme, fraud, over servicing and manipulation in the health sector, policy insanity in energy and environment, destructive policies, and actions, in schools and education, economy and small business, security, and a myriad of other policy arenas, it is very hard to deal with people whose version of reality is one of fiction and belief over fact. It is also hard to operate in an environment where one's contribution is disregarded or disrespected.

No matter how hard one tries to convince some labor senior Ministers and their advisers, in their portfolios, that things are actually different to their perceptions, they continue with the same responses unabated. They will not debate openly and with logical examination. Their attention to detail is very poor. Their sources of information, and advice, are predominantly sycophantic and distorted by vested interests. This is the case with the portfolios of Health (formerly Ms Roxon and now Ms Plibersek), Environment and Climate Change(formerly Mr. Garrett and Ms Wong), Education and Schools (formerly under Gillard and now Garrett, Industrial Relations and Treasury. There are exceptions, this is not the case with Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean. They are truly interested, as is Gary Gray, in hearing, and considering, diverse opinions and ideas. Maybe it is an ego thing, inexperience or some form myopia, that inflicts others in the cabinet and the Ministries? Advisers and "their inner circle" sing from the same song sheet regardless. When they respond to written correspondence their letters invariably range from head in the sand replies, disinterest, obsfucation, sometimes derision, contrary opinion, and often reliance on poor advice and information. Many labor Ministers at the federal level live in a world of their own agendas and beliefs. They are going to achieve their objectives, regardless.


Gary Gray on the other hand has always struck me as some one who sees the world in all of its varying colours. He likes to hear other views, listens and then responds logically and fairly incisively. Mr Gray knows very well, unlike Mr Swan apparently, that there are wheels within wheels and agendas within agendas. Journalists, political watchers and people who interact with government and the public service know that Mr Swan is not really telling it how it is. The question is - does he actually believe his contrived fiction?

"It's clearly the case that there are leadership tensions within Labor over Kevin Rudd, Special Minister of State Gary Gray says. Mr Gray said this leadership speculation was a serious matter because ultimately it went to the good governance of the country. 'Therefore it's silly of politicians to suggest that somehow the media makes this up. People talk to journalists. I do think it's important to keep that fact in perspective,' he told Sky News. Mr Gray said the federal government has a busy and difficult agenda which created a challenging environment and made the process of government unbelievably tough. He said the government had been remarkably successful. 'Having said that, it is clearly the case that there are tensions,' he said. 'But it is clearly also the case that we'll manage those, manage our government and manage our parliament in the best interests of all Australians. Treasurer Wayne Swan saw it differently. He said much of the publicity and commentary on the leadership tensions between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd were just a media beat-up." (source extract: Sky,There are tensions within Labor - Gray, 07:26, Wednesday February 8, 2012)

These differing version and the manner in which senior labor members of the federal public interact with the outside world are vitally important. Mr Gray points out that the government has a difficult agenda to fulfill, a lot on its plate and also operates in a minority government model. To have Wayne Swan trivialise and concoct events goes to the heart of why labor has so many problems and remains isolated from large segments of Australian society, whom they could access, like John Howard did, to gain traction. But no, instead they carry on according to Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Kevin Beck, "Insanity: the Modus Operandi of the Gillard labor Government", February 2012)

Click here
to go to federal election 2013

There is no correlation between CO2 and Climate Change

click here to get the truth

Everyone should take an active interest in their government... the servants of the public. However many are deterred from doing so when one observes the vitriol, and ridicule, heaped upon those who try by the likes of federal labor member, Minister Anthony Albanese. Many, particularly those seeking to do business with governments, feel or believe that it is fraught with danger to challenge them, their policies and decisions. Actually if one carefully orchestrates the manner in which such criticism, interaction and discussion takes place, using the mechanisms of government and bureaucracy, as well as technology and human networks, a detente can be achieved with the more enlightened members of Australia's parliaments and bureaucracies. It should be noted that the federal are far more sophisticated in such interactions than the states and territories.

We, the people of Australia, should require Australian politicians, Ministers and members of governments and the public service bureaucrats to engage with their citizens, and critics, more openly and more often. If not then we should demand their resignation and obtain such by the most appropriate measures.

Whether they be a politician, public servant, corporation or institutions board members or a corporate manager, they have to serve somebody.... You just have to find who it is. maybe it's former NSW Labor Government Minister Obeid?

Institute of Public Affairs

Institute of Public Affairs Energy Papers IPA Occasional Papers
Energy & Carbon Tax

Meanwhile in Afghanistan there are men, and women, dying for their country and for what purpose?

Foreign Policy and Impacts on Australia... click

hot topic
Unless otherwise stated, and attributed, the material below has been authored by Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia

Evidence seems to show that teachers are not held in high regard by Australia's governments and politicians

March 2010: The governments of Australia would hotly deny the above statement but like all things related to politics their denials should be treated suspiciously. Unfortunately the prevailing community view may well be that politicians are not to be trusted. Education is the mandate of the state governments of Australia. They spend a large a large sum of money. The majority of the funds do not go to teachers salaries or conditions it goes to back room bureaucrats, dead wood administrators, and other inanimate objects. The states receive federal funding for schools, further education training institutes (Tafe) and universities. based on this Rudd and Gillard use funding persuasion to try and get what they want. Being naive and inexperienced in government with very average Ministers at the federal helm, they are stonewalled. Thus one cannot particularly blame Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard ,for the declining performance in education and training in the nation.

Kevin Rudd came into office with poor advisory staff, and for some ill informed reason stated that the way to improve educational performance was to put a PC on every child's school desk. The dream has never been achieved partly because the quality of education Ministry, and leadership, in state governments, across Australia, is more focused on self interested parochial, and nepotistic, political objectives than cooperative development. There is a farcical theeatre called COAG (representatives of state, territories and federal jurisdictions) that is supposed to, according to the PR blurb, arrange concensus. The state's took great delight in whingeing about who would cover internet connection, maintenance and software upgrades, for the PC's, which the federal bureaucrats either left out of the funding equation or maybe they thought the states would have to take it up once the kit was installed?

The Australian Labor Party has long prided itself on its "education credentials" but like most other things, in Australian politics, this is largely delusional spin, shallow media adornment of title, babbling year after year about outdated theories driven by a focus on skills and competencies. Blue collar values infest Australia's education planning and delivery, instilled by major "craft trade unions", who have contributed extensively to the decline in the nation's education quality and performance. Industry compounded the issues, in the nineties, with a determined mission to take control of skills, and competency training, and the state government's stupidly gave out training accreditation, willy nilly, to any comer with a good story. Government Tafe institutes had to compete with good and dodgy private sector training enterprises and industry owned facilities. Short sharp certificates ranging from a few days to fourteen weeks. Then the Tafe Institutes rally pushed the envelope and now a student can do one year at a Tafe and articulate into university as if the curriculum is rigorously inspired.

The "Education Revolution" slogan was coined by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and billions were spent, not on improving educational performance for both teachers and pupils, but on keeping the construction industry employed during the GFC. Labor began its litany of lying as to the objectives, and motives, of its "education revolution" modifying it to "building the education revolution", and still continues to flop out boring and ill informed policies.

Now Julia Gillard has moved on to another slogan - "the new economy". Into this she weaved her favourite topic, education, a passion for a discipline, about which it seems she has demonstrated little real understanding of. Ms Gillard recently talked of getting people skilled up for jobs in the new Economy. You can imagine the jobs that the labor Prime Minister and the dills of her education advisory units have come up with. Apparently the careers of the future are electrician, plumber, clerks, receptionists, aged care and child care personnel. The future, according to our governments, is an education system focused on low grade, quickly delivered competency skills training.

The federal Minister for Schools is Peter Garrett, a lack lustre labor crony occupying a number of Ministry seats without ever delivering many things other than confusion and mediocrity. I am yet to learn if Mr Garrett's grasp of education goes any further than basic literacy and numeracy adhering to the labor flawed education revolution template. The PC roll out programme probably impresses the hell out of him.

Instead of spending billions on teacher
selection and training, teacher salaries and lifting the status of teachers our federal, and state governments, focus on the fringes, the bureaucracy, the controls, the dollars, the low grade fast track solutions that cost a lot and deliver little by comparison to what is possible.Is there an education Minister in Australia who teachers' believe contributes value to their working lives and the pursuit of excellence? One could opine that States do not want well educated, and well paid teachers, because the teaching profession, like nursing, is the punching bag for the challenged Treasurers, and state government cabinet members, who seek to cut teacher numbers every new state government cycle to achieve the most important of objectives - the surplus. They dance to third party free market orchestrated, parasitic tunes. The pursuit of political self interest is paramount to the public good. The amount spent by governments on PR companies, and spin doctors, is obscene and could fund a rise in teachers' salaries. Some state governments have now given us the fourteen week trained teacher. Added to the teachers' burdens are the weak "nanny" shackles regarding disciplining students which are in favour of disruptive, and often undisciplined students, teachers are hamstrung by a Department and government afraid of their own shadows. Under these restrictive conditions, with bureaucracies and governments that do not support teachers publicly, why would anyone want to become, or continue being, a teacher? The answer must lie in dedication.

There is a plethora of research as to what makes great education systems across the world. Almost all of its says that the billions spent on halls and facilities is not as effective as a mix of well founded strategies that first train the teachers effectively, teaching them how to discern the level of ability and the circumstances of their pupils, coupled with good, pay, prestige and ongoing development with good basic infrastructure. So why is it that the bureaucrats, and the politicians, are blind to these

State Education Ministers, federal and all of Australia's government cabinet Ministers, could wake up and take the essence of the system - teachers and educators- to heart and do something of value, founded on life long learning not just isolated basic competencies, creating a great education system.


March 2012: The leadership tussle between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd provided the media and commentariat with endless stories and examinations. Sky News devoted whole segments of programming days to the event. What I gleaned from all of this was a reinforcement of my personal view that Julia Gillard's talents do not include strategic thinking, judgement, vision and action. It is not that she spins everything, and makes statements about her self perceived abilities that belie her record in office, it is that she is shifty and evasive to the point of lying if one takes the common meaning of lying rather than the politically convenient plausible denial meaning. The Bob Carr exercise where she flatly denies the story in the Australian and denies by evasion in parliament, but it is all true just adds to the litany.

Integrity, trust and ethical, factors are likely to be missing.

Any good work by the labor federal caucus members and good Ministers will be overshadowed by Julia Gillard first and foremost. She is not trustworthy and coupled with a lack of communication skills, and a strong tendancy towards fantasy about her abilities, she is the focus away from the strengths and performance of others. If she continually tells the nation how good she is perhaps it will become self fulfilling, we will believe and she will win the next election. Blinkered, and unwilling, to accept positive criticism and fair judgement, she and a number of her close associates detract from the rest of labor. The many reforms to which she points are built on sand and are unlikely to survive in their existing forms if at all. Another measure of the fantasy is that when legislation gets through it is spruiked as if it is in place and operating. The Carbon Tax will be a nightmare. It is complex, fraught with holes, inconsistencies and unknown effects. This will create the environment where labor managers typically stuff up.

Consistent with how governments in Australia do business, integrity, ethics, logic and anyone else's interests (other than the governments') will almost, without exception, be missing from the government's side of the equation. Can you imagine the business people, attacked by Swan, being given a fair hearing if they come with a proposal? If I were them, and many others, I would be wondering, if I was the negotiating party exactly whether the Prime Minister could be trusted? This perception is reinforced by Wayne Swan's own essay in the Monthly where he rants about three high profile Australians casting aspersions and making claims as well as showing precisely why this government should be treated warily by those who would invest time and resources in the public, and/or private, arena in Australia. I am not speaking from side line observation, I am speaking from twenty years of experience dealing with state and federal governments and bureaucracies and trying to have an interaction with the Ministers within those governments. Small minded, narrow minded and lacking vision one must always frame everything in how it will benefit their interest and why they should consider it. try and tell them that something they are dong is counterproductive or flawed and see what happens. You get short shift if you are not someone able to hurt their interests. They deal with these latter people by creating regulatory agencies such as the proposed Media authority. They will bring you to heel, or simply ignore you, even if it costs the nation millions. This is not just a federal labor ethos it is endemic in state, territory governments and agencies and also in the Greens, Liberal and National Parties. Join your "political patronage" club of choice, pay the monies and generally shut up.

It is clear that independent Mr Wilkie would concur with the headline that ms Gillard is shifty and evasive. However I am coming from the perspective of those who try to deal with the labor government to conduct business, add public benefit or seek some concensus. If there is nothing in it for the Minister, and the department, and further if it contradicts the official perceptions and views no amount of careful work, preparation and argument will hold sway. Thus all business people, community leaders and enterprises should always be wary of the Prime Minister, her Ministers and the advisers who degrade Australia's system of government and operation.


When Penny Wong was the Climate Change Minister she flew to the Torres Strait to present a report into saving the islands from drowning in the sea. Consistent with Ms Wong and the government generally there was no further action. Wong, Garrett et al can pour billions down the drain on pink batts and feckless experiments, Gillard can pour billions down the drain on a fantasy called Building the Education revolution but none of them can provide $A22 million to refurbish a sea wall and infrastructure. After months of snowballing and obsfucation the Australian government decides that providing the money is Queensland's responsibility. Surely they knew this at first request for the money from the islanders? If not then they are again incompetent and ignorant. In any event if we examine the glamour ladies of Gillard's government we find a record of incompetence and shallow vision.

Much was made of homelessness when Kevin Rudd arrived in the Lodge, so too public housing. Tanya Plibersek was right there waving the flag making all the noises talking big. Now after all the years what do we see for it all? The answer does not have to be written. So what happens when the high profile politicians do not achieve in one Ministerial portfolio but are judged high performers under a self interest political criteria? Tanya Plibersek has moved on to Health replacing the similar mediocrity of Roxon's time in the portfolio. The performance criteria is completely without public interest and ethical considerations. Tanya has, like Roxon, approved a rise in health fund premiums ignoring evidence, as did her predecessor, that endemic fraud and over servicing demands an increase in dental, in medical and ancillary in the public and private systems. The bureaucracy, the government and the private health fund companies, will keep saying, ad nauseum, that the Medicare system is efficient along with Medibank Private's fraud detection and over servicing systems along with the other funds. The evidence. hidden from the public, says quite another thing.


Farce, and soap operas, may be Prime Minister Gillard's legacy in public office. Tom Mix (aka Bob Varr) rides into Canberra on white horse wit a white hat.

Ms Gillard is supported in the "labor a Farce Play" by very capable, and similarly farcical, supporters whose own personal ineptitude make the Australian government a performing flea circus. We see that Ms Gillard was again telling lies regarding what was going on with Bob Carr. We also note, when we hear that Wayne Swan rang him and said that it was all off that Ms Gillard again showed a lack of strength and judgement. She dithered, and procrastinated, and the evil side of her political face kept popping out, These people in Labor's caucus know how to hate publicly. Spittle is the only thing missing from the PM's invective. Why no spittle? Could it be that she has a dry mouth from a fear that grips her and freezes her actions and makes her erratic.

Julia Gillard tells us that she has the over whelming support of her cabinet colleagues. This is just a fiction and if she believes it she should seek professional help. I am of the belief that Joel Fitzgibbon feels slighted as do others in the caucus who were not deemed suitable to be Foreign Minister. Then we have 31 members who publicly spoke, and voted, against her. Listen to Ms Gillard's words about one of her Ministers - "Robert will be taking up a position as a back bencher" - Gillard has qualities which are not likeable and show her to be a shrew. All the make overs and the smile cannot mask her basic mean streak. Robert according to the Prime Minister went too far. Yet Gillard, and others, played callously on Robert McLelland's integrity, seeking to avoid his resignation and they risk an election in his seat that they might lose. That she thinks Robert went too far is a great irony when we examine Julia Gillard's role in putting Kevin Rudd down - twice, very publicly. Yet Anthony Albanese suffered no such fate. Why? because unlike Gillard he is a hard man. factionally strong and capable in himself. She would not dare annoy him.

Gillard's hard face so many times shows her mean streak and the penchant for revenge. A feature that infests the Australian labor party. Julia Gillard is the face of a dirty, grubby, corroded and extremely corrupt political party. ("Julia Gillard's Farce Circus", March 2012, Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia)


January 30, 2012, Below in this web site I have posed the question who advises Julia Gillard? Now we have actual evidence that those who do have the poor judgement that I have commented on in many articles. I have also noted that the Prime Minister, her staff and advisers and the former Minister for Health the Honourable Nicola Roxon, and her personal gatekeepers, are not interested in productive, critical and challenging interaction and ideas from anyone outside their coterie. They would prefer to continually stumble along from one looming disaster to eventual disaster, after another. ms Roxon is about to have a significantly despondent, and very unrewarding, time in the High Court and other venues, over tobacco packaging this year. It is not as if they are not told often enough by people who are practitioners in the various sectors where these portfolios operate. Everything in Gillard's office, In Roxon's office especially seems to fall on "deaf and politically blind assistant's desks". The areas in the national spotlight in 2012 that are fraught with minefields for the Gillard labor government are (a) the National Dental Scheme, (b) The Preferred Provider Scheme in Health delivery (c) Private Health, Public Health costs, premiums, fraud and over servicing (d) Market Manipulation in the health sector by the very system of management, the preferred provider schemes and vested interests. The ACCC needs to take a real look at this activity and its affects on the public interest.

I,and my associates, colleagues and clients, will ensure that these all get a fine airing and a lot of activity. Ms Plibersek has been notified well in advance. We have, as of yet, formed no opinion of the operation of the portfolio, and its willingness to embrace outside contributions and assistance, under the Honourable Tanya Plibersek. Finally there is (e) the "non existent or some might say
failed Education Revolution" and the much vaunted, and self congratulatory, role of Ms Gillard as former Education Minister and now as Prime Minister in this vital area of Australian economy and society. Talk about ongoing smoke, mirrors and incompetence. (Kevin Beck, "The Revolution that Failed to Fire", Melbourne Australia)


Mr Wilkie and his personal staff simply were not equipped to play in the rough game we call federal politics

It is not about Julia being trustworthy or not, its is about "newbies" and bright eyes

I have come to expect nothing enlightening from Tony Abbott. When Julia Gillard left Mr. Wilkie hanging in the breeze on mandatory gambling limits for poker machines Tony can add nothing illuminating to the debate. His riveting retort was that Gillard could not be trusted. Mr. Abott must think that the greater population has no inkling how politics works. He is without any doubt the worst choice from among the liberal ranks for the leadership position. I predict that like Mr Costello, Mr Abbott will not become Prime Minister except by a quirk of fate which will bear no relationship to his planning, strategic sense and abilities.

From time those who interact with the parliaments of the nation see the "newbies" come in. The shining eyed politicians and their staff. Brimming with enthusiasm, perceptions and visions. parliament (at the federal level) is an adrenalin rush. It is full on and the world of politics is something to behold. There is however one truism. It is the house of labor and liberal. It is not the house of minorities, independents and greens. Deals, and maintenance of that duopoly, is the order of the day. Thus into this comes Wilkie and co. Among their single agenda ideology they must cater for a mass of complex bills and other activities. They receive very fundamental training and induction by the parliamentary wing and they are let loose. They are under resourced and under experienced. They must focus on their electorate in order to stay in office and thus their attention and experience is limited. This effectively blinkers their understanding, and awareness, of the big picture. Seasoned, multiskilled and aware, advisers are not found in these non party parliamentary members' offices. I write to the independents, I wrote three times to Mr Wilkie and suggested a meeting. I received no response. I meet others in my industry sectors and we talk about dealing with Mr Wilkie and the like. We are all agreed they are incompetent in the tasks that they seek to embrace. They do not (to use a colloquialism) have a clue as to how it all operates no that behind the scenes labor and liberal do deals all of the time. There are practitioners in both parties whose sole task is to broker deals and common positions. How does legislation get through otherwise? We exploit the truism and the system against the likes of Mr Wilkie and the Greens and other independents depending on the issue. They are fodder to the registered lobbyists, the media and the
game players.

In their defence this is not isolated to the federal parliament. The states, and territories, members of parliaments, and their staff, are even less plugged in to reality and an understanding of power and influence.

Into their world's wander the lobbyists, the negotiators, the small and big enterprises and associations and the odd individual. If these people are (a) not from their electorate and/or (b) not obvious as big names in society and elsewhere, the it is highly likely they will not quite understand why they are there.

Now in the case of Mr Wilkie he put labor (Gillard) into government on a single aspiration - mandatory limiting of gambling bets on pokies. A waste of public funds took place, enquiries and studies. He, and his staff, were being played. He, and his staff, thought that because he held the balance of power, with a few others, that was their ticket to success, a guarantee. The independents, and their staff, largely behave as if they can treat anyone who comes to them with ideas, offers, and challenges, with impunity and disregard. They are there in the parliament and they know how it works. What Mr Wilkie, and his staff, did not get was that liberal - labor deeper bond and the political machine to which I refer above. They also do not understand power and influence. It is not always resident in the parliament.

I would hazard that Mr Wilkie, and his staff, have never spent hour after hour, day after day, week after week, in a Tabaret. They have never experienced the actual lives of the people they are trying to engineer into their own version of the world. Perhaps they are not aware that in communities the local people, unless directly affected by problem gambling, could not give a toss if someone wants to bet, and lose, all of their wages. That is the cold hearted reality of the TAB and the Pokie rooms. I see them regularly across the nation in small towns and larger suburbs. Another reality for this group, are the subsidised lunches for pensioners and others, the entertainment and the strange camaraderie that exists. All in all Mr Wilkie, and his staff, were ill equipped for the task they embarked on. They faced a very powerful, entrenched number of entities - Clubs NSW, the Hotels Association and the Casino and Gaming enterprises, and the technology companies. Whereas Mr Wilkie, and his staff, could only spread themselves thinly and focus mainly on their dealings with the Committee and the Prime Minister, these enterprises and their hirelings, and advisers, can move across the nation quickly. They are well resourced, and operate every day beyond the horizon of Mr Wilkie and his staff. For that matter these mercenaries are usually beyond the horizon of the Prime Minister and Minister's offices and those of state and territory across a wide range of issues and portfolios. Mr Wilkie, and his team, like other independents rely upon limited funding from the public purse to operate and act. Though this lot of federal independents do get extra allowances from the PM for helping labor into power. Still those resources are not deep and too often they are not the best money can buy.

The politically loyal get positions often without reference to skill and competency. Mr Wilkie was easy prey for vested interests though he did cost them millions and they are not very happy about that. Come election time they will repay. As his staff sit pondering their fate and blustering how they will withdraw support to labor, I would believe that they have learnt few, if any, lessons from this. Others looking on like Tony Windsor and his staff may observe and learn. I always look forward to the "newbies" because they are so oblivious, inexperienced and easy to play with. ("Newbies" in Australia's Parliaments, Kevin Beck, January 2012)

Just pips Julia Gillard for low quality leadership.
We have no political statesmen or women in our federal parliament.

The reputation of the Australian federal parliament,and the people within, is at its lowest ebb in the history of Australian governance. The incumbents are overall held in contempt by many voters. Yet it seems that the elected members are prepared to ignore all of the signs in pursuit of their personal interest. The two most responsible for this decline are Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott with the latter taking the lead role.

Abbott's obsession with Gillard's legitimacy appears to have over ridden common sense. He has become manic and uncaring of how his words and actions are perceived and translated into parliamentary process. Question time is a rabble. Its processes are managed by parasites of the public purse pursuing their own vested interests. The Speaker has no acknowledged integrity and esteem. The two leaders have no integrity nor do they have personal qualities to be admired in the public interest.

The quality of public performance is measured, in media terms, by the level of insults and smart alec behaviour and the tone. Gillard may be able to spew vitriol but she cannot deliver a memorable speech that inspires. Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are not eloquent.

One fool in the parliament proffers that the electorate prefers a majority party in power. As if this would raise the tone and quality. We are where we are at because of the quality of candidates. The incumbents are overall a disgrace. They represent some of the lowest denominators on offer on the voting card. The independents, and the Greens, imperiously think that this is how a parliament should perform. What tripe.


In 2012 watch the Australian media for exposure of the rorts on the government national dental scheme. Already page 2 of the weekend Australian, 31 January 2011.

Suddenly the ACCC will look at the Preferred Provider Scheme. It is supposed to ensure lower costs. But it ultimately manipulates the Australian medical, and ancillary, market. The consumers are being creamed whilst the ACCC sucks its thumb. See it all come out in the open. Learn that the doctor in your local the hospital, is not actually employed by the hospital. They are really businessman and business women, looking after their own welfare as well as yours? I am not saying that their brilliant skills are tainted. However not all of them are altruistic. Ask your local hospital nurse and remember Queensland. How much of your annual health fund fees include an element of accepted corruption and over servicing by Medibank and the other funds? How much does the government and public service actually know? What is the level of fraud on Australian health care across every sector? One hundred million? Two hundred million? More? I think it is about 17% of all expenditure at a minimum. Who benefits at your expense? Watch the media and this web site. (Kevin R beck, Melbourne Australia, "Accepted Endemic Corruption, Fraud and Over Servicing, Robbing Consumers")


Mr Wilkie in Tasmania thinks that the Prime Minister Julia Gillard will have to satisfy his demands on poker machine gambling. It will not happen. She is gambling he cannot muster support and that he will not carry out threats. Again she shows that she is very tactical in politics but not in policy planning and implementation.

Wikileaks will come to bite Julia very badly.

If you are a Canberra watcher of the public service, and the political class,over the last three decades, you may have observed an apparent shift from anticipatory leadership to a clumsy deteriorating model of questionable competency in both classes. lobbyists, theorists, and academics, may attribute this to a loss of intellectual capital, brought about by the politicisation of the public service, a brain drain or people reaching retirement age.

Whilst politicisation may have begun with Hawke and Keating it accelerated under John Howard until both labor, and liberal, have completed the commodification of the service. It is not so much that is serves the Minister and the government of the day that is the perplexing quandary but that the service has become introverted, isolated from what some might call the real world or maybe it is full of short term contractors.

The current labor government and the Prime Minister has no Chief of Staff like John Howard had - Mr Arthur Sinodinos - who is entering the parliament. It appears that labor has not learnt that having very astute people working with the PM is of great benefit. Moving away from the office of the PM and the head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, those Australian government agencies with clever Ministers, such as Kim Carr, Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson (seasoned) perform exceptionally well. The others under Julia Gillard's crew of acolytes, not so well by comparison and some very very dismally.

When I look at the liberal party under John Howard, or Tony Abbott, I note that there is a wide set of skills, and experiences, and a modicum of clear heads willing to pull up the leader and bring some sanity, clarity or thinking to the process. When I look at Julia Gillard, and her Ministry and party structure, I see a managerial model that actively shuts down any such moderation or challenge. So Julia, and her band, decide to take Kim Carr out of cabinet. Do we assume that Ms Gillard, and her advisers, had any idea as to the consequences and were willing to weather the storm? The storm being inside and outside the party. Or that they were simply dim to the likely reaction? Kim Carr was a very good Science Minister. So Ms Gillard has managed to commit another "unclever" act of sabotage of something going very well in government. She has managed, by this action, to vandalise something worthwhile.

The Prime Minister claims to have education at the top of her mind. What is the proof of that? She trashes the relationship between the educational, research community and her government for her own political ends.

Then we come to Wikileaks, Mr Assange. here the Prime Minister is equally unclever because it is not apparent that she perceives the future at all. The American whistle blower, military man, Bradley Manning is being held in a prison confined by himself for what, 23 hours per day? Some of this time he is naked? he is now appearing before a military court. The purpose apparently is to break him. For what purpose to link him to Assange so that the US can extradite the Wikileaks founder from the UK?

On that matter what has the Prime Minister had to say about the case to extradite him to Sweden? SFA.

So we have an administration torturing one of its citizens who had the temerity to show that senior members of the US Administration break international law. We have the killing of civilian deliberately bordering on some definition of crimes against humanity. There is much more in the Wikileaks material. We have a fairly unclever Prime Minister and staff who are unable to see where all of this is going. The Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd knows precisely where it is going. he unlike the Prime Minister has something to say about Assange and his rights. Julia Gillard will more clearly be shown to be toadying to the US and, unless she brightens up after the New Year, to have sacrificed a citizen for politically expediency.

The Prime Minister has demonstrated that she is superb in handling internal politics in a minority parliament dealing with Independents and Greens but on most other aspects, and observing her performance during her time in public office she appears not to have a clue. She is a lawyer and the question one might ask is would you hire her having seen her capabilities in public office? (Kevin R Beck, An unclever politician? Melbourne 2011)

Julia Gillard is not all that politically bright
The year of Gillard's government has been one of "dumb and dumber". Even as the year ends we see another example of the not so smart holder of the office of leader of the labor Party. There is no celebration for Australia's most valuable Prime Minister in the modern era, Paul Keating. Why not? Well the jealous and the stupid, with narrow minds and large egos, usually act like this, not only in politicallife but also in corporate. Gillard can go to the Christmas lunch oblivious to the fact that those who are actually brighter than her know she is not so smart. Paul Keating towers above the mediocre seat warmers of the Australian federal parliament. he will be celebrated. (Kevin R Beck, Can the Prime Minister get dumber and dumber? Melbourne 2011)


December 2011: It is not the red tape. It is the incompetence and the barriers created by Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and advisers who are basically wrapped up in their own ideology and self pursuits or are in the case of many, simply unable to grasp the complexity of their portfolios and function efficiently. The fiasco around the tender for the broadcast of Australia to the world (Sky consortia versus the ABC) is not an abnormality. The cost to business of millions is not something that happens rarely. It happens with regularity. It is the norm. Tendering to an Australian state or federal government agency is fraught with high risk and cost because no business can have reliance, and trust, in the process. They make much of probity and lawyers and consultants are the winners regardless of outcome.
State and federal departments are beset with new Ministers, new heads of divisions, with reforms, policy changes, interfering political advisers and in some cases incompetent Ministers. All senior public servants bound in "political straight jackets". They serve the government. The government unfortunately is both incompetent and corrupt in many ways. Corruption can have many meanings.

It is in this environment that business has to duck and weave playing fiddle to narrow minded egos and self interested parasites who feed on the public purse masquerading as knights in shining armour protecting the constituency. Or is those who pay them the most?

The way to many a modern labor politicians heart is through their purse and in some cases their genitals, as we see now in NSW.

This has kept Labor in government
Does this translate to being an effective Prime Minister?


December 2011: The year ends with the Australian labor Party conference showcasing the lack of capacity of Julia Gillard, to be leader of substance and the shallow talent of her allies in the party. The Prime Minister stood at the podium and delivered a lack lustre speech like a droning whinging parrot.

There was no fire, no passion. Gillard does not have these qualities on display when delivering a set piece. Sometimes one gets a glimpse of passion and fire but it usually just a feigned act of indignity in the parliament irrelevent to the future of the nation. Mediocrity encourages mediocrity and the mediocre gather and feed off each other whilst patting themselves on the back. Listen to the drivel that comes out of Wayne Swan's mouth every day and note that when he rose to speak at the labor conference most of the business participants went elsewhere.

Ms. Gillard and her crew invent their versions of truth. They are focused on froth, and bubble, while the nation's growth stalls in many sectors. Lacking in coherent policy and innovative thinking Ms Gillard bores the socks of the thinkers and doers.

The labor conference was to be lively and the Prime Minister wanted fire. She said she wanted it to be full of debate and challenge. Sure, words, and more words, all as usual hollow, in another managed stage show. The farce regarding the snub, and the treatment of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd showed that Julia Gillard is quite silly or perhaps even stupid. This just adds to the perception that she is not a very capable leader. The focus on narrow debates, in the public gaze - uranium, gay marriage and hidden negotiations around asylum seekers - did not allow anyone to see behind the veil. That was it? She came out of it looking like the goose she often is. Where is the exciting policy canvas into which we can paint the dots?

The passion came from retired federal Senator, John Faulkner. He was politely heard and ignored. He has more worth in his political life, and more stature, than the lot he was addressing at the conference. He told the party faithful that whihc everyone else sees but the closed minded parasites that infest the upper echelons of the labor party machine. Gillard let him be hung out. The senior leader of the Australian Labor party wants to get 8,000 new members. The party bleeds about 6,000 a year. So they have to recruit about 14,000. Who would join the labor party to be under the yoke of Gillard and friends at the federal level and the flaccid and vacuous lot in the states and territories?

Every motion arising from Faulkner, Carr and Bracks' report on the election and future of the party, that could deliver Faulkner's passion was defeated and cast to the dust bin. The labor party can rot slowly butv the problem is that in Australia we have only two choices - the rotting, putrid labor party or the minimalist and and boring, liberal party. Tony Abbott is as futile in a leadership role as is Gillard. Yet career politicians and party apperatchiks have hijacked Australia's governments. The nation, as a whole couldn't give a bugger.


The Textile and Footware union seems to be the only organisation that devotes significant effort to trying to protect people from being exploited in the Australian clothing and footware industry sector. When slave labour merchants are caught (particularly live on camera) the major labels who live off the sewat shops express amazement. They immediately cancel the contract and so the exploited lose their livelihood and the corporation pays no price, they move on as if nothing happened.

Well bull shit. My view is that they should be held primarily liable and should have to demonstrate the steps they took to ensure their products were lawfully produced wherever they may procure them. In Australia that would include a requirement for the buyer to inspect the premises regularly.

There are signals that would alert them to the realisation that their garments are being produced, with a high probability, of exploitation. Surely KMart realises that to be able to sell a child's dress for $A5.00 someone, somewhere,is being exploited.

The major clothing labels and corporations should be held liable under legislation. Their managers, and boards, should be subject to criminal prosecution under state and federal laws. Those alws should mandate that the responsibility lies with the clothing and footware companies who contract these services to show that they were reasonably unaware what is going on in
Australia's sweat shops. I do not see much from the Australian federal government, opposition coalition or state and territory governments to bring justice to the exploited. This is so typical of Australia's politicians. They would rather argue nebulous, and self interested, agendas than take collective actions on issues they can fix.


How much in all areas of Australia's health? $100M plus?

If you regularly read the Age, or the Australian, newspapers, or listen to talk back radio, you may have become aware that tens of millions of dollars is being rorted from the public dental scheme through "administrative error" by caring local practitioners. You may have heard the federal Minister Tanya Plibersek talking about it on radio and heard the bleating of the association representatives, the denials by the private health care funds about rorting in general and observed the usual finger pionting. You may have heard the apologists for the practitioners. You may not know that some of the practitioners are driving very nice. very expensive cars, as they carry a patient load of unusually high numbers compared to others who obey the rules. The rorting of the public dental scheme requires the participation of a a medical doctor (GP) and a dentist.

The government, the bureaucrats, the health funds and the associations have known about it for years. In the most recent examination of cases about 43 practices out of around 65 have been found to have accidentally made unfortunate mistakes. What those in the government, bureaucracy, the health funds and the professional associations did not expect was people in the know telling you the consumer. You PAY AN EMBEDDED PRICE IN YOUR TAXES AND IN YOUR PREMIUMS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR TOLERATED ACCEPTED FRAUD IN HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERY IN AUSTRALIA.

It is monetarily, corporately and politically, cheaper, overall, to have you the taxpayer, and the consumer robbed, than for those who are in charge of it all, to act decisively to stop it. It can be fixed technologically but that would require the owners of the terminals in the surgeries and the health funds to cough up the money. They would rather you bore that cost. They are not miserly they are derelict and some are to my mind questionably corroded.

The ACCC has known for some time that the preferred provider scheme duistorts the market and leads to fraud. Preferred providers are those the health funds tell you to go to. According to the blurb you benefit from cheaper prices. Those forced cheaper prices come with hidden down sides, they lead to "over servicing" and "administrative errors" on a mass scale. How massive? Well start at say $80 million for dental and go up by tattslotto numbers for all Medical, Hospital and Medicare. The preferred provider scheme is a sanctioned cartel which under any other situations would be illegal. (Kevin Beck, Preferred Provider Schemes should be outlawed, Melbourne 2011)


The Australian labor government, under th stewardship of Julia Gillard, has managed to get its carbon tax legislation passed in the lower house and it is now subject to manipulated, and controlled, Senate approval. Immediately the leader of the Opposition has stated that it will be repealed. Tony Abbott has exhorted businesses not to buy permits because their will be no refunds. This is the public representation of the degradation, and functioning, of the Australian Federal Parliament and its constituents. Rather than negotiate policy, and legislation, each self interested party plays brinkmanship ramming everything through with the barest of majority.

Meanwhile the community looks on in ever growing disillusionment at the waste, decay in ethics, morals, competency and nation serving. Similarly the parliament cannot reach agreement on refugee policy due to the incompetence of the Minister for Immigration and the relevant Shadow Miniter, who should be mature and professional enough to broker a solution. Add to this the National Broadband Network and we have every major policy, and legislative, action subjected to the behaviour of junk yard political dogs. Federal labor, through the Prime Minister, is ideologically drive, self opinionated, stubborn, and unyielding, as is the opposition, through Tony Abbott. The Greens, and Independents, are pursuing their own agendas and as such contribute to the anarchy and dysfunctionality. It is a disgrace. The cost to the nation, brought about by the constituents of the parliament, since 2006 is now in the billions. There is no indication that any policy is well founded and grounded. It is strangling itself and yet labor continually tells us that we are not on the eve of destruction. Every word, every response is laced with vitriol and insult.

Every action, every word, is shallow, veiled in charades, manipulated and too often false.

"It’s been a rough, tortuous and compelling decade long journey through the domestic political landscape. It was characterised by feckless, dawdling and weak leadership. It cost the jobs of a prime minister and an Opposition leader – Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. And it may well cost the job of the incumbent prime minister who made the ultimate call, and drove the outcome. It has added a new layer of toxic poison to the political debate with ferocious and unprecedented personal diatribe from shock jocks about Julia Gillard. 'Gotcha' journalism is now the norm. Even ABC radio presenters are preening like peacocks as they interview Gillard and desperately hoping for a frozen facial reaction or a curt riposte that will make that nights TV news all over the place....The carbon price debate also changed the way we view politics, and politicians. We no longer revere them, or trust them. We see them as people working for their own advantage, and not the national interest. ".. (Source of extract: Canberra's lost on the low road Alister Drysdale, 17 Oct 2011, Business Spectator)

"Mind your body language, it says more than you might want, Benjamin Preiss, October 13, 2011 here, view article and video

Ms Gillard cannot focus on fundamentals, on health and education, cannot promote the building of infrastructure and cannot offer value but she surea s hell can give us nebullous bullshit and vacuous garble, as well as destructive policies and activities. It seems that there is no escape from this slide to the bottom until 2013. One may wonder what the ultimate cost is to the nation from the coalescence of these people into the parliament at one time? Their individual, and collective, destructive tendencies, and poor capacities, in debate, negotiation and public interest, far outweigh any notion of public value arising from their employment.

In amongst all of this the media dwells on the possible dumping of Julia as Prime Minister. (Kevin Beck, The Destruction of Austarlia's Parliament, Melbourne Australia 2011)

"Show us the real anybody"

Wayne Swan may be oblivious to the skills of Treasurer, one of which is to assist and protect the leader. This requires parliamentary performances of the ilk of Peter Costello and Paul Keating. So when Wayne gets anywhere near a media scrum he manages to convolute, ramble and stuff it up in some way. He creates a poor image of communication capability. Add this to the demonstrable strategic capacities of the senior labor party parliamentarians and their advisers, and one can see the Australian Labor Government struggles with the most basic of fundamentals, engaging anyone in meaningful dialogue. Maybe it is their untrusting natures, seclusion, detachment from the real world, lack of diverse employment experience or a combination of these and other detrimental qualities?

So Wayne organises a tax summit. In one breath he says all ideas will be accepted and yet he has stated that there are things off limits, like GST, so those ideas, and propositions, will fall on deaf political ears. He has a reform summit where no communique or outcome will issue and thus no reform plan is obvious, so why go? A $1,000,000 tax payer funded event and for what?

Mr Swan has gone around talking up this circus as if it is a forum of new age opportunities and a channel to government. It is a rerun of Rudd's 2020 without the trimmings and the fanfare. What labor's tax summit is, another bungling attempt to create some bridge between a selected group (of elites) and the government, an illusion of action beyond the ideological agenda already launched and a pathetic strategy with no apparent value objective.

This is then to be followed by a Jobs Summit. Here Labor will trot out their myopic, and hoary aged policies and strategies regurgitated over the years. Union, and labor, invented oldies and goodies in their eyes. There will be the obligatory short framed, minimal competency training programmes, ones that have no life long learning foundation, the usual job hustlers, and small training placement, private and charity owned, agencies, raking billions from the Job Network will be motivated into action. There will be mutterings about retraining and moving people from where they live to places where jobs purportedly are. There will be the employers whinging that they cannot get the right skills. There will be feeble attempts by government to over come ageism and the stupidity of interviewers who themselves lack experience of life. It is effectively a rerun movie, over and over, year after year with labor party advertisements built in. Then labor will wax lyrical about how good it all was. They really need expert, and ongoing, training in the various modes of thinking and brain function, human behaviour, communications and general common sense. They also need to get out of the spin vehicles they move around in. Show us the "real Julia or anybody". (Kevin Beck, The Real Julia and Anbody", Melbourne Australia)

Gillard fails to see opportunities that are everywhere

Julia Gillard appears to lack imagination. She borrows almost everything. Education policy, climate change policy, carbon policy, tax policy and political policy. She is so stage managed that she is no longer her own woman. Her advisers are responsible for her poor public perception. She needs to unload this deadwood and surround herself with talent not parasites who are so besotted with their own perceptions and baggage that they cannot see what they are doing to her.

Julia should be able to nail Abbott politically and socially. Have you watched Tony walk? He has a hulking style, as if he is going to enter the ring and box. He is not a charismatic, good looking man. There is a plethora of social studies that demonstrate good looking people get better jobs, better opportunities, better incomes and have far more acceptance. Julia is far better looking and charasmatic than Abbott. I think she is actually brighter than he is. She is a better negotiator. The labor party appears to be oblivious of these truths, sad as some of them are. The demeanour of Mr Abbott is disconcerting to myself and to many.

Paul Kelly, Editor at Large, for the Australian newspaper, seems to see characteristics for Abbott that I do not. When I read Kelly's articles I think I am reading a PR piece for the Opposition Leader. Kelly waxes lyrical about Abbott, his inner workings and belief structure, and above all else tries to present a human side. Abbott is a career politician who has, as I see it, added very little to the development of the nation. A mediocre employment and heath Minister he evolved into the current role by the poor fate of Peter Costello. Mr Abbott is decidedly average.

In contrast to Kelly's adoration, Susan Mitchell, in her book a "Man's Man", would have us believe that Aboott is the devil incarnate. I am not sure that he is a mysoginist as some would propose. However I do agree that he is a product of a male environment, a male world that is archaic, prejudiced, mired in bigotry and deep conservatism. It is a world inhabited with a lack of innovative thinking. The club. Comprehensive Catholic prejudices seem to be deep within the Abbott psyche. He says that he has no intention of changing any of the things, that he does not believe in. Thus he puts political pragmatism before virtue and his own ethical foundation. How can one respect such a person? Like Gillard Abbott too is a borrower and not an inventor. There are not many inventors in the Australian political system.


An interesting characteristic of those who lack courage, and initiative, is their willingness to continue with being stupid despite all of the clues that confront them. Gillard is a bigot and like Abbott is ultimately prejudiced against gay people. She can say she is not but such denials are hollow. Gillard if she is not a bigot and prejudiced has the mans by which she can demonstrate clearly she is not. However she and the others who cause pain unnecessarily will go to defeat rather than do something that is difficult. If we pander to men in frocks who would promote veiled hatred dressed up as something else, who would have us pray to statues, and carvings, and chant rubbish to some nebulous entity then we are, in many ways, a stone age society with IPODs.

Gillard faces, if you believe the Australian newspaper, a challenge to her Prime Ministership. The labor party is heading towards great defeat according to the pundits. Yet Gillard sees no opportunities here? She sees no opportunity to break with this cycle of despair and hurt that is rendered upon some in our society including some in her own party. It is this failure that is most galling to me. The stupidity of those who will not reconstruct themselves to do something out of left field an would rather cling to their shallow moral and ethical codes. As a contrast to bold confronting policy, she is quite happy to blithely punt on a gamble - climate change, to be yet another sheep in the paddock. She is happy to spend billions on yet another mediocre plan or two. She is happy to trot out unimaginative education policies as Minister and Prime Minister. She is happy to be boring and not worth listening to. If she has no adventure, and vision, that she has not plagiarised from someone else, then she deserves to lose her role as PM and her political career for, as the first female PM, she is just aping the common man in drag. (Kevin R Beck, Missed Opportunities, Melbourne, 2011)


One can well debate whether Julia Gillard is a reformist Prime Minister, looking at the mining tax, carbon tax, poker machine controls and the overall desire to manage Australian's lives from the cradle to the grave. However what she is, is radical in her approach. It may well be that this labor government, and some of its members constitute the worst government in Australia's political history. Despite her, and the government's, record Gillard et al refuse to accept accountability. This is the way of the modern political party and governments of Australia at any level.

The asylum seeker legislation, a direct attack upon the High Court, and the manner of her belligerent approach to the prosecution of her agenda in the face of strident opposition is a prism through which we can observe Ms Gillard's approach to almost everything.

There is a tendency towards autocracy, barely hidden in the velvet glove of her language. Ms Gillard continually challenges the opposition, and Tony Abbott, to place the national interest first. I view Ms Gillard as hypocritical in this regard. Ms Gillard seems to be of the firm belief that she is right and Australians are like children who need to be cajoled, lectured, and chastised, for disobedience. When coupled with the radical ideas, and practices, proposed by the Greens and independents, Ms Gillard, and labor, are a danger to the national interest.

Former Prime Minister Rudd, and many of the current Ministers under Prime Minister Gillard, talk of evidence based approaches under pinning their policies. I think this is a furfie. There is little published information of the deliberative processes that would give credence to their claims leading us to the inescapable conclusion that they had applied such rigour. Gillard presses forward regardless of the signals and the barriers to achievement.

If the national interest were to be served then the Prime Minister might consider using one of her legislative endeavours to trigger a double dissolution. This would serve to allow the electors, the owners of democracy and not the politicians, to judge. It would also act to test the incumbency of the Greens by focusing voter attention on to the hidden, and radical, nature of their ideology and activities. The nation is in the grip of a low skilled naive group of legislators and managers. Political, and personal agendas, interests over ride the national interest, everyday of the Gillard administration. To bring on a double dissolution may in fact be positive in ensuring that labour keeps a semblance and shred of its dignity and is not wiped out totally through its own inadequacies which are likely to rise with ever increasing regularity before the next mandated polling date. (Kevin Beck, Double Dissolution Call by Gillard, Melbourne 2011)


The Australian federal opposition has some very nasty people in their ranks. Wayne Swan has been given an award by Euro Magazine. It is quite surly, and ignorant, to belittle, and ridicule, this in Australia's national parliament. Such is the quality of the composition of representation. I often wonder if electors give any consideration, or care, about the people they send to parliaments? Many of the parliamentarians who command the stage ought look in a mirror and tape themselves so they can hear their diatribe and puerile banter and realise it is largely hot air and crap. They might also ponder their contribution to culture, integrity, ethics and maturity in one of the nation's most important forums. Al can grow in their roles, and give the nation value. There are many freoloaders waiting their go at the trough of the executive government. The behaviour, quality and content, all comes down to leadership. A rabble near always reflects the character, and nature, of the pack leader.


Honourable Prime Minister, Julia Gillard MP
Parliament House
21 September 2011

Dear Prime Minister

Who advises you on strategy and what calibre of talent do you have around you? No one in your camp saw any of this coming? Now you have added another debacle to your list of debacles, the Off Shore Processing rework. As some might say blind freddy could have told you that (a) Tony would be a pain and (b) even if he was sweet just once, your dodgy rework of the Malaysian solution would have still been struck down by the High Court.

Maybe I am reading the constitution incorrectly and its interpretation of life. It actually doesn't mention Ministers does it? However there is some stuff about legal action by the executive (that is you) being reviewable by the them (that's the High Court) and them having the last say. Do you think that there might be something in there that would limit how far you can manipulate things to get around the High Court? That is to my mind an attack on the very structure of our federation. It shows what sort of individuals you lot in government are. It is indeed a privilege if you do not like the umpire's decision to be able to change the rules. Actually I think it lowers your personal status even below its current low level.

Yet your team seems oblivious to the proposition of the separation of powers and focused only on your short term goals. Removing "natural justice" would seem to be a bit of a stretch and something that a quality Prime Minister might not want on their resume. So why do you want it on your resume? Now I know you are totally besotted with the people smugglers, and aren't waiting for the Federal Court to say that bringing boat people is actually probably not ilegal. You have created in your mind a fantasy about danger, motivation and greed. You are building on Kev's denigration of the people who charge to bring them here. Obviously the customer has no fair trading regulatory body and so you have taken on that role for yourself and your side kick, Chris. Is the issue conveniently the people smuggling or is it that you cannot bear the thought of not having your own way?

If people can seek asylum in Australia, under international law and we are party to that law then how is coming here by boat illegal? You made it up that it is illegal as did John Howard before you and Kevin. If they can flee persecution and seek their human rights then why can they not do it by boat? Why is it called people smuggling by the likes of the certain labor, and liberal, senior politicians? Why do you, and others, misrepresent, cloak the truth in smoke, and mirrors, and lies? Are you choosing political self interest over the national good and the integrity of Australia? Of course you are but you would claim otherwise. When you pronounce your high principles they come across as hollow, and disingenuous, why is that?

Who could have imagined you, and Kev, not winning any of the big public song and dances you have both put on! Apart from poor planning you and your colleagues are not good at working out the pitfalls. A practiced expert who is also an astute reader of Australian politics, with just a smidgin of common sense, and a reasonable ability to think about how things actually work and play out would be able to predict your failures. They are predicted in many of my web sites well in advance.

I saw you in parliament yesterday totally disregarding the Speaker. Treating the forum, and him, with contempt, as you ranted at Tony, blathering above the Speaker who was saying "Order, Prime Minister, Order!". You can come across as quite petulant and ignorant some times. The rework of the Malaysian solution was not inspired, it was quite stupid I think. It seems to cast you in the light of being not a really nice person. You now look like you happened to get to the big office by a series of events not of your own making and have no idea what to do in the role. It is sad actually watching your political, and personal prestige, slip away and your plans unravel. After all, you have worked your whole life for this and you are, in your own words, the best person for the job. Bye bye Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely

Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia


Margaret Heffernan wrote an article for the Huffington Post a USA political publication. She says that if there is knowledge that you could have had, should have had but chose not to have you are still responsible. Heffernan's statement embodies the whole Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard, and much of the Australian political, party and government process. Hefferna syas that wilfull blindness is about real time information that is available but is ignored. This is the case with the issue of offshore processing of asylum seekers. Gillard is a disgrace as a Prime Minister because she places her won personal agenda (staying in office) to fulfill her unilateral goals regardless of any other consideration. Like many modern politicians she is a parasite on the system and democracy eating away at it core. Willful blindness is systemic and adopted. Heffernan says the reason for all of tis is "power". Again this is spot on.

When confronted with the reality of willful blindness and questioned, Gillard moves into the abstract. She talks in nebulous terms like clouds. She is so certain she is right. However her world is cut from the reality of the ordinary person which explains the polls and dislike of the Prime Minister. Gillard has no idea how to exercise power for the well being of the nation beyond her own perceptions. What she believes and wants to do is synonymous in her mind with the national good.

In her mind the data and the ideology works so the decision must work. Thus we see how many mistakes she and her colleagues make. Mistakes costing billions. She and her Minister for Immigration were blinded to reality of the High Court because they were given the advice they aanted not what they needed. Albanese said on television that the governmet wants to confront its critics head on. This is quite simply rubbish. The Gillard labor government is gutless, and hides, behind the cloak of office. Pushing the processing offshore is like outsourcing. It is a strategy that makes it all seem to disappear but those who have never experienced the results of outsourcing, like the Prime Minister, and Ministers who support this risk prone strategy, do not realise that they cannot control the process, cannot over sight it and thus will suffer a thousand political cuts.

What Gillard wants to do is circumvent the High Court and in doing so degrade and lower its status. She is willing to fawn to Abbott, another politician unfit for the high office to which he aspires. He is similarly disposed to willful blindness and stupidity. This a significant reason why both are not fit to be Prime Minister. They blur the line between executive and judiciary. The proposition that the government should be higher than the High Court and that the Court should do the government's will is the thinking of people who have no value for their democracy. For Gillard and Abbott inconvenient facts are invisible. The big ideas of Gillard and Rudd before her have created a blinded and also tunnel vision. According to Gillard we should trust her and see what happens. Her big ideas and visions scare us but in her mind they become safe because she has an unyielding self esteem and ego.

Gillard's ideology and self belief is how she deals with reality. When the reality is different to what she expects, or wants, we see her become petulant as indicated in her attack on the High Court. Gillard uses the tools of government, the spin and the resources of the people, and bureaucracy, to suppress contradiction, to suppress evidence and to persuade us to her truth and facts. Lost is her moral sense as she fails to see the signs of her failed authority

Gillard wants to maintain office so she will side with the bigots, and the fearful, rather than making herself a pariah and outsider by challenging those who demonise the asylum seekers who are not doing anything illegal. Too many people accept futility as the reason for remaining silent. Gillard is a person in high place who is protected from being challenged for her ignorance by the ordinary person. She offers us the dark side of our nature having observed the years of John Howard. She offers us familiarity with our own insecurity and says that she will protect us from the evil boat people who may disrupt our society and lives. In doing so she condemns us to years of mediocrity being less than we can be. The High Court did not change the playing field and create a different interpretation. What it did was put Gillard in front of a mirror, of reality, which she now seeks to smash because she doesn't like the reflection. (Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia)

Almost begging
Prime Minister I wish you well

When asked if she would consider resigning, or if her colleagues were plotting to get rid of her, Julia Gillard responded that she was staying put. She claimed to be the best person for the job because she had planned for this all of her life. She has goals.

"Madonna I’m not going anywhere, I’m the best person to do this job and I’ll continue to do it, and what this job is about is leading the nation to a better future. I’ve got a very clear vision of that future, I’ve been driven all of my political life by a series of goals about spreading opportunity and making sure that no one gets left behind and we are delivering important policies and plans to do just that, to give people the benefit of jobs, the benefit of better opportunity through better education and of course important reforms to make sure we don’t leave people behind because they have a disability, or because they have a need for heal thcare." (Source of extract: Transcript of interview with Madonna King, ABC Brisbane, FRI 02 SEPTEMBER 2011), this smacked ever slighlty of hubris and perhaps a little desperation. The best person for the job - amongst the labor hopefuls currently in the parliament or the best for the job from every other Australian?

Human nature is such that many people in high places cannot conceive failure or a lack of skill and competency. They may be full of it whilst others hope that something will change. If they just hang in there. Tony Abbott hopes this too.

Julia has an expectation that if she gets her policy ideas, and actions, in - like the carbon tax, health, mining tax, gambling reforms, tobbaco laws, and other tremendously exciting propositions that all will be shown to be visionary. Julia is what we Australians call a punter. She goes on in the hope that the gamble will pay off.

The significant problem seems to be that Julia, and the other members of her senior parliamentary team, have litle idea of strategy, poor communication and articulation skills, add to this the notion that they cannot anticipate outcomes. Do they realise that the HIGH COURT WILL STRIKE DOWN THE PLAIN PACKAGING OF CIGARETTES? What is the foundation of the government's law proposed by Nicola? Is it health oriented? Then why not ban smoking? The government taxes it mightily. Then if they will not ban it and Australia is a signatory to international treaties, as they were for the refugees, then why are they expecting some other outcome? Have the same lawyers they used for the refugee advice given them the tobacco advice? The Health Minister Nicola Roxon will turn a whiter shade of pale just as her colleague Chris Bowen has.

Nicola versus the tobacco companies. Whom do you think will win? Can labor sustain another loss of face? Do they really have the capacity for government? I "just don't get it."Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia 2011.


Minister Chris Bowen, and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, have both gone to great pains to say over, and over, that the High Court has changed the interpretation of the law from the accepted interpretation existing for years. Every time they open their mouths they reiterate this. They tell us that their lawyers, and the Australian government solicitor, advised them they were on secure ground. They believed all they were told and entered a trance world of their own making. They are clearly justifying they did not expect this. The question I would ask is how did I interpret the High Court's decision in the opposite vein, below, in the next article, where I set out the synopsis of the logic I used.

What is irksome about all of this is, despite the highest court in the land, and the arbiter of the Australian Constitution, and legislation making a decision Tony Abbott blathers on along with his endlessly boring spokesperson Scott Morrison. We have fools in the media, with little concept of the separation of powers and the ability to interpret and assimilate complex legal arguments claiming that the High Court has entered the realm of politics and government. They are writing and talking drivel. Not only do Abbott, and Morrison, blather but they misrepresent, again and again, the history of the Howard government's efforts in handling refugees. Tony Abbott is now offering to assist the labor government to change the law. Where does he get his advice, from the same lack lustre sources as the government? His Nauru solution is a crock that will not get up unless Nauru passes laws agreeing to accept responsibility for the refugees. Does Nauru want to risk hundreds applying for residency there because they like the lifestyle? Tony Abbott sounding more and more like broken record.


The likes of Tony Abbott, and many other senior politicians (of all parties), in my opinion, should not be in Australia's parliaments. They have demonstrably questionable ethics. They all too often seem to engage in misleading, and deceptive political rhetoric. That which they do not make up they borrow from others or use spin doctors to distort the information we receive. Abbott, et al, would have us believe that the boats stopped coming to Australia because Howard decided to process refugees off shore in Nauru and papua New Guinea. This is not true. A confluence of events stopped the boats, inter alia, the sinking of the Siev X and the death of hundreds of people, the Indonesian government's crack down on smugglers, the changed circumstances in the Middle east, to name but a few causes.




Today, 31 August 2011, I expect the High Court to rule against the Minister for Immigration on the matter of the transfer of children to Malaysia and also the Minister's assessment that Malaysia is an all right place under human rights criteria. I would be extremely surprised if the government won any of the arguments. This will place them squarely on the cross road of their ever diminishing existence. The High Court is the last bastion of defence against the excesses of the political class who have come to treat Australian democracy as their own chattel.

I would have thought, logically, that being a guardian of a child did not encompass shipping them off to a third country and observing them casually, if at all, from afar. Also assessing a country for human rights compliance would be something deeper than a politically expedient tick from a half baked administrator.

Why are we, as a nation, petrified of disadvantaged people coming in boats seeking a new life? Could it be that our political leaders are of such low quality, and integrity, that many of us ape their stupidity, besotted by their averageness and ignorance? Alternatively are we a nation of semi literate challenged types who gather as sheep before the demigods of shock jock radio and print? Are we racist? I sit and watch the refugees as tears go by.


The benchmark of good government, in Australia, is singular. It is the ability to achieve a surplus, which any administration can do without too much thinking and innovation. They just have to copy the >mind numbing, debilitating model that every political hack government now uses. There is no vision, there is no excitement, there is just same old, same old cardboard cut out, in a different coloured hair shirt.


The people who are losing their jobs in the manufacturing industry may have been mightily impressed with Prime Minister Julia Gillard's soliloquy (a soliloquy is a device often used in drama whereby a character relates his or her thoughts and feelings to him/herself and to the audience without addressing any of the other characters, and is delivered often when they are alone or think they are alone) about how they write the future and the government is right there with them as they write those stories. Julia and some of her Minister's are so detached from reality that they might as well be alone.

"The government would help the people of the region forge its future, Ms Gillard said. 'The future of the Illawarra will be written by the people of the Illawarra, but we will be here every day to support the people of the Illawarra as they write that future,' she said. 'I will be relying on our local members, on Sharon Bird and Stephen Jones. They are great advocates of this local community. 'We will be staying in close touch with them, in close touch with people in this region, to design this new future for the Illawarra.' (Source: Gillard makes pledge to Illawarra region Updated: 14:13, Tuesday August 30, 2011, Sky News).... article by: Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia


Should there be a competency test for parliamentary membership?

Below in this web site I pillary Minister Albanese for his derisive comments about the protestors who travelled to parliament house Canberra recently. He was not alone in being ignorant and ill considered. The evangelist of the liberal party, in the media, stood up addressing the crowd and attacking journalists whom he felt may have slighted him. he took everyone to task who were deserving of insult and Jones's retribution. It was the ,b>Alan Jones show and he raved drawing out the quacking geese, and parrots, of the federal parliament.

Mr Jones railed that NSW police had stopped the trucks at the NSW border and refused to allow them to enter. A cavalcade of senior parliamentary members Bronwyn Bishop and Warren Truss joined in. They carried the false accusations forward. Bronwyn was particularly effusive about Alan's place in modern Australian society. The police were being demonised through Mr Jones's tirade and by Bishop and Truss. There were conspiracies galore.

In actual fact there was no blockade by NSW police or anyone else. They stopped the cavalcade to tell the people about the arrangements, and the rules, and then let them continue on. Consistent with the unethical nature of modern day politics, exhibited by members of parliaments in Australia, there was no withdrawal, or mea culpa, from the cerebrally challenged who parroted the Jones assertions. Maybe they said something privately to Mr. Jones ... along these lines ..... "Hello Alan... Bronnie here ...(to hear my personal version of the rest of the convresation - click the parrot)?


All too often the plaything of Ministers of governments

The ethos of the public services, in Australia, is that they serve their Minister/s and government of the day regardless of the Ministers' capacities, capabilities and behaviour. They are pushed into doing things that they are not geared up for both ideologically and operationally. No more so than at the federal level.

take for example the departments of Immigration, Environment, Education and more, who have borne the brunt of criticism about massive waste under green policies, pink batts, BER and inhumane practices on refugees. The litany of crap is quite extraordinary and on going.

We can observe Kevin Rudd's days as Prime Minister when his frenetic, and exceptionally debilitating, and destructive, management style drove the public service, and its people, into the ground. Now we can see a similar trait in his role as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Rather than use the meagre funds of the Department to staff Australia's representative offices around the world, to educate our DFAT officers in other languages and moving them away from Canberra, we see many a personal agenda at play. People want to stay around the centre of power and live the good life in Canberra. Close to the sea and the snow it is a lovely regional town.

The most prominent agenda for Mr. Rudd is that he seeks an interim seat, for Australia, on the Security Council. In pursuit of this he is hardly in Australia wasting more of the Department's money on personal trips whihc he smoothly, and smugly, justifies. If one monitors the gossip and the international cables we learn that Mr Rudd is not that highly regarded overseas and some may see him as a tad over blown in self regard. Others think he is folksy even quaint - mate, chop on the barby and fair suck of the sauce bottle - type of fellow.

"FOREIGN Minister Kevin Rudd has launched a comprehensive defence of Labor's bid for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-14, saying the international security watchdog has never been more relevant." (Source: Kevin Rudd states Australia's case for place on UN Security Council Joe Kelly From: The Australian June 01, 2011)

Note the words "temporary". Actually Australia would exert little influence against the other more powerful "permanent" members. But when has this labor government, or Rudd's own bash at being PM, ever put national interest, and the spending tax payer money on personal whims and ideas, above their own personal political agendas and interests? I cannot think of an example except when they gave stacks of money to us during the GFC. Billions down the spout of labor's profligacy. Meantime on the way Mr. Rudd can continue to destroy elements of the public service under his demonstrably ignorant stewardship.

Julia Gillard is neutered against him least he turn a tantrum in the minority government. having little diplomatic nouse and skill she ignores his rubbish in favour of labor's personal political interest. (Kevin Beck, "Governments' Personal Things", Melbourne Australia 2011)


As the convoy of disheartened protestors descended on the federal capital to voice their grievances the Gillard labor government showed its brand of government via a loud mouthed political thug who uses parliamentary privilege to spray vitriol and contempt for those who would dare criticise or challenge in a manner not acceptable to the Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses of our nation's parliaments. Labor under Julia Gillard continues to corrode, and corrupt, the parliament and the nation's political process. Minister Anthony Albanese is an elected public servant who should engage in vocational education to understand his place, and role, or get out of the parliament. However such opinions fall on deaf ears.


August 2011: Listening to protestors arriving outside parliament house in Canberra I noted a shift in the tenor of their grievances. Many had quite a lot to say around the theme of incompetency. The majority were focused on the belief and/or perception of lying. Charges of lying, immorality and lacking in integrity are emerging themes over riding the label of incompetency.

Allegations around federal parliament labor member, Craig Thomson's purported use of a trade union credit card are acting as a lightning rod of discontent. Julia Gillard, and Wayne Swan, again proved their naive and inept management of significant, and debilitating, issues by backing their labor colleague. In a real government environment, rather than the surreal atmosphere of this parliament, Thomson would have been initially supported and then have been dumped. Swan's failure to act decisively on removing Thompson from his committee chair has compounded the "shifty" and "thuggish" image of this government. Many in business, and personal life, are reticent to speak out less they be subjected to retribution.

"UNDER-FIRE Labor MP Craig Thomson - already battling claims he authorised union funds to pay for prostitutes - reduced a charity worker to tears in a spittle-laden tirade that has increased pressure on him to resign.

MP 'reduces charity worker to tears', Labor MP Craig Thomson has been accused of making a charity worker cry at a rally against pokies reform.
Mr Thomson gave a Salvation Army worker a verbal "bollocking" after a fiery poker machine rally in the NSW Central Coast and allegedly threatened to name and shame her in parliament, reported The Daily Telegraph. It is claimed that he called her a "disgrace" and threatened to "finish your career".(Source:15 August 2011 Sky News)

There is no evidence that Ms Gillard, key members of the labor government cabinet or their strategist advisers, have any clue how to manage the issues, manage the administration or to act with integrity. Even if Gillard gets the carbon and mining taxes through the parliament, deals with disability or has any impact on health delivery in Australia it is likely that these will be over shadowed by a litany of personal foibles, incompetence and imooral geastures and policies on the part of the senior Ministers of labor. Gillard should know by now that immigration is like an albatross around her neck and all of the sleight of hand and set up deals and macchinations are only inceasing the death throes.

Ms Gillard should take the high ground and demonstrate integrity and a visionary approach to the future,

If Ms Gillard, and the labor party, continue their dance with the Greens the party will be forever tainted, and Australia, will suffer greatly under the Greens uncompromising, and naive,uninformed, views of the world of things. IT HAS TO BE A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION If we had an ordinary election the Greens would retain their Senate seats because only a dissolution would dissolve both house of parliament simultaneously. This is indeed a hard ask of the Prime Minister for there are many who are placing their personal situation ahead of the nation in the "conspicuous consumption of power" by a few. The people are crying out for Julia to do the right thing in the interests of the nation.

The problem with this "right thing by the nation" is that the labor party government, the Greens and the independents actually believe that they are doing the right thing. They believe that their strategies and their policies are well founded and their intentions are good, doing the best that they can. Under pinning this is a second belief that if they tough it out somehow all will be revealed, it will make sense. There may be pain this is, after all a mess that the voters of Australia created. The voters dealt Julia the cards she has. They have taken litle if any interest in the processes for the choice of candidates for parliaments, no interest in the quality of government, or performance, at any level, and little if any interest in legislation, or behaviour, unless it affects them directly. We have been happy to live life without a care, taking the gifts,the tax cuts, the GFC cheques and the pensions and family benefits. We have for a long time been partying and relaxed about it all.

Now the people squeal like stuck pigs. Trusting neither Gillard, nor Abbott, the voters are caught between a rock and a hard place. If the shoe was on the other foot and Abott was in Julia's place he would not take the moral position or a visionary decision. Nor would there be any tools available to the people to get rid of a poor conservative government. What this tells us is that Australia's system of democracy (at state and federal level) is structured, and manipulated, in favour of the two major parties, and a handful of controllers within, to the detriment of Australia.


I think she should consider finding a new one. Someone with lateral thinking capacity, creativity, intuition, experience and talent.

The government has spent $A12,000,000 on a sugary piece of advertising, promoting an Australian wind farm corporation? Why? What purpose did it serve? It did not tell us any facts, did not impart any real policy and is of such duration as to be useless.
It is a waste of money.

Any good strategist knows that to have impact the message must be succinct, simple, fact based and be repeated over and over to a cost of probably $A50,000,000. Then we are getting a letter in our mail boxes. A campaign to return those letters to Minister Combet's office, in Canberra, is underway. What is the problem? The carbon tax does not exist and will not until 2012. It may never exist if not passed in parliament or an election eventuates.

The Prime Minister has said that all of the
carbon tax proceeds will be spent on household compensation. Is that true? I thought Australia had signed an agreement whereby it would pay 10% of any carbon tax proceeds to some international climate entity?

"If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears... democracy is impoverished", Al Gore, The Assault on Reason, 2007, at the beginning of this web page.

The opinion polls indicate that a large proportion of voters do not like Julia Gillard and the labor federal government. Yet another set of polls imply that Tony Abbott is also not held in high regard. The general theme seems to be disenchantment with government and the people in it.

When we spoil children they tend to exhibit forms of behaviour such as low self esteem, enough is never enough, self doubt, rebellion, disregard and entitlement. So perhaps the politicians of the modern era have spoilt the Australian voter. In doing so they themselves may have sown the seeds of contempt and disregard. We do not have to like our leaders but those who are good leaders are respected. How can we have respect for a Prime Minister who is speaking to us from the darker side of human nature and fear. Minister Chris Bowen is doing something dirty. The High Court will today (August, 8, 2011) determine just how dirty, if at all. The issue of refugee boat people arriving off Christmas Island, is not about immigration, or refugees coming without approval. It is fundamentally about politics. The pandering by weak kneed politicians to the average, challenged Australian. The "average" are those who cannot think, and rationalise, for themselves until someone prods them to do so. The "average" are those who believe that the government is their defacto parent. The average believes the drivel put out by thes hock jocks and the biased commentators. They do not do their own research, are self made middle to low income red necks and bigots, extraordinarily conservative, are likely more interested in Oprah Winfrey, Judge Judy, the Block, reality television, MMM, Master Chef and the World's Greatest Loser (these are not refugees) with whom they can identify. They feel threatened. They have little interest in their democracy. They are in the majority.

Australia's refugee disgrace is a daily reminder, to the nation, of poor intellectual capacity, low integrity and leadership qualities of our leeders. It is a reminder of the spineless, gutless, and unethical behaviour of our most senior politicians, ably assisted by parasites, and sycophants, that infest the nation's government and bureaucracy.

Want to stop the boat people coming? Then take away $A50,000 per smuggler boat, from our aid budget to the ' country from whence it came. Make the governments accountable, not the poor unfortunates on the boats. If they do not get aid then ask their representatives to leave Australia until the smugglers are stopped.

The number of boat people that have come here since Tampa, during the days of John Howard's government would perhaps fill half of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Yet the political leaders of Australia imply we are being over run. They are using this issue for their own personal political interests and because they lack imagination except dark elements. In doing this the Australian taxpayer is picking up the cost. The refugees sent away to malaysia wil, after 45 days, receive an identity card and they will live, have health care and education, and be able to work in Malaysia, all paid for by Australia. Why can that not be done here? In addition Australia will take 4,000 refugees for every 800 boat people we send over. All for what, scaring the people smugglers?

They are taking Australia down the pathway of the darkness where we know we do not want to be. What is the use of trying to tell these self interested parasites anything? Scared of their own political shadows they spread their cancerous policies and bile. Instead of leading they wait for the shock jocks, the polls and the loudest voices to set the agenda and their behaviour. Just once can we not have a person of integrity stand up and say enough is enough, wake up to yourselves and help these desperate people? Maylasian solution, Nauruan solution, cancerous heart solutions. Where is the real Julia Gillard?

When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister many of us had high hopes that maybe, just maybe, she would be one of Australia's finest Prime Ministers. To date she has mightily disappointed. ("Julia, I did but see her passing by", Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia, 2011)


Senator Bob Brown Green's leader is incensed by by critics. He thinks that the Australian media, particularly the Australian newspaper, has got it in for him. As the Green's take up their seats in the federal senate, in the cold of a Canberra winter, I ask them what they want to be? No doubt they feel elated.


Emily's list members would have been over the moon when Julia Gillard became Deputy Prime Minister. To be within reach of the top role they would have been ecstatic. What was the advice, and the drive, that lead Julia Gillard to forge an agreement with the independents and the Greens? Was the achievement of being the first female Prime Minister just too much to pass up? Is the prize of government too much for the few who are given preselection for senior political office, by the party and the Prime Minister, worth more than the integrity and the future of the Australian federal labor Party?

Today August 2, 2011 we see a government under the primeval influence of a man who thinks that a single world government , one value one vote, would be okay. A George Orwell character in human form in the Australian parliament. We see a labor government under the thumb of people who have as their primary objectives fringe ideology, personal crusades and >nutty agendas, all to be feted at the public expense. It is now extraordinarily difficult to separate the altruistic member of parliament and the best of the party machine, working for the good of the nation and the individual, from the sycophants and parasites. Large quantities of parliamentary time is taken up pursuing personal ideological objectives of a limited few in the parliament or dodgy environmental projects to appease the Greens.

This is not lost on the public and it is highly likely that Ms Gilllard, and her supporters, have taken the spoils in the short term to the long term detriment of the labor party and many good parliamentary members who are sidelined and replaced by charlatans and zealots.


Examination of the manner of operation of the Rudd and Gilard labor governments, the strategic thinking, research and intuitive capabilities of the incumbents would suggest that the office of the Prime Minister and that of a number of senior Ministers is seriously under skilled. The extent of failures, mishaps, poor judegement and lack of awareness by senior labor party practitioners in the federal labor government reinforces the view that Ms Gillard does not anticipate, or accept, that the prize of government and the labor modus operandi for policy development, poor design and implementation, all the while under the shadow directorship of the independents, and the Greens, is a highly dangerous model for the long term electoral health of the Australian labor party.

The recent (very charismatic) announcement on the Health Reform package by the Prime Minister, in concert with a frowning and blinking, Health Minister Ms Roxon, was over blown. Prime Minister Gillard portrayed it as the most far reaching health reform since Medicare. Maybe so. In my view it is reasonable policy not extra good and not very good, just reasonable. Yet the model has moved from stealing the 30% of the GST from the states to fund 60% of all health acre in Australia (Rudd;s over reach) to 50% and then finally under this model to about 41% - 44% without stealing the GST. The states still retain control. There is the ubiquitous web site "My Hospital" similar to "My School" and "My Grocery" , and "My Fuel watch" (labor loves a web site,some are deemd by many to be failures). There is the monitoring of performance. One exception in the deal is the long term growth funding to 2020 by the Commonwealth. Ms Julie Bishop on the opposite side of the house jumped straight in bagging the whole thing. They may not pass the legislation. For a lawyer Ms Bishop seems to demonstrate either a very honed skill to digest, and assimilate, complex legislation in all its aspects at extraordinary speed, or a propensity for quick shooting from the hip with little research and analysis. I would sincereley hope she has the former extraordinary abilities.

Anyway maybe Julia should agree a double dissolution with the liberals and go to an election denuding the Greens of their seats in the Senate, in the national interest.

Swan, and Roxon, join the list of poor judgement and incompetence in the Australian federal labor government

Julia Gillard, alone, without advisers in her ear, making her own statements rather than reading poorly authored speeches is very extraordinarily charismatic and engaging. So why can she not convert it? It is only when she gets in to the straight jacket of discipline imposed by her inept advisers, and colleagues, that she falters and is shown up as being inadequate and sometimes poorly advised. Yet Tony Abbott does not inspire. It is said that it is Victorians most of all who do not like him. New South Wales and Queensland do. Well one might look at the general intellectual capacity of those two states compared to Victoria. Sorry that was a rude snipe.

I marvel at how labor can bugger up everything they plan and do. There they did it again with the livestock, with the medicare rorts, the indigenous intervention programme ($A3.5billion spent withlittle result by this government and the last two including Rudd and Howard) with the solar and with the tax summit. Treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced a tax summit for later in 2011. He also announces at the same time the neutered agenda for the summit so that any real reformist is sure not to want to attend. Just another academic talk fest. Negative gearing, a distortion and blight, on our housing system, and economy, is off the agenda along with anything else that is too hard for those who collect the big pay packets to run the country. Then these inept practitioners of political strategy take it even further. They create an invitation list of supporters. Opposition politicians left off the ist, many business and industry bodies, media critics and unfriendly academics and of course people like Kevin Beck. They invited those people whom they see as likely to recommend Labor beliefs and policies, with a few tweaks. No one likely to argue with myopic thinking and ineptitude. The invitation list is concocted to fit with labor's puerile, and vindictive, behaviour in government. It is yet again a petty, and immature demonstration so typical of the manner of government by the Australian labor party members of the federal parliament and their puppet masters in the labor machine offices. To do it this way is to lessen the credibility and value of the event immediately.

The Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, a lawyer, is found to have breached somewhat critical legislative requirements in the administration of her own portfolio. This is not surprising to me since a team of colleagues and a very prominent medical practitioner have been trying to get her attention on fraud for two years now with no success. She is publicly shown to be incompetent, along with the former health minister, Tony Abbott, who also did so when he was in office. Ms Roxon, and Mr Abbott, along with their senior health advisory staff, have managed to have every investigation into Medicare rorting, and fines and sanctions imposed by the Professional Services Review tribunal declared invalid by the full bench of the Australian federal court. Ms Roxon, and Mr. Abbott, knowing the legislation requirements or not, did not choose to consult the Australian Medical Association. This could be taken as further evidence of their childish behaviour, and ignorance, in their senior ministry roles. No one in their departments told them? No one knew the law? Lives ruined, massive pecuniary impositions on practitioners and an incompetent Department of highly paid public servants, failing to pick this up, again demonstrates that there has been a significant decline in ability, talent, and holistic overview, within the government and the public service. Where were the lawyers who are supposed to advise on these things? Even as labor charts its own demise Tony Abbott fails to demonstrate his credentials.


The quality of political debate, governance and corporate management seems to be declining. "ConsumingAus" examines these propositions in greater detail.

In relation to the Australian federal parliament, Tony Abbott continually demonstrates a tenuous grasp, and understanding of, important issues. He tends to try and turn verything into an attack on the Gillard government. What will he do when Julia is gone? His statements about the hacking of a telecommunications web site and the subsequent vulnerability of the NBN were
tripe. Mr. Abbott's pronouncements may show a lack of ethical responsibility as a legislator when viewed through a prism of his personal interest. Green personal agendas in a declining professional, and sophisticated, environment. (Kevin Beck, "The Nature of Governance and Personal Political Interest in Australia, 2011"


Australia's economic interests will be exposed by labor's stupid carbon policy

Selective deafness or just plain stubborness? As time goes on it seems more apparent that Ms Gillard's department, and advisers, have not undertaken deep research, and analysis, of the holistic implications of the proposed carbon tax. They tend to stick to generalities and emotive attacks on Tony Abbott rather than extolling details and answering questions coherently. They are extraordinarily poor communicators. Even as the government senior Ministers appear incapable of articulating the policy and the effects the world is altering beneath their collective feet. In any event why do they think that Australia will merge into a global carbon tax emissions scheme?

"The absence of a global framework undermines the political and policy case for prioritising emissions cuts. It's a message that has not been lost on international carbon markets. According to the World Bank's recently released 2011 State and Trends of the Carbon Market report, for the first time since 2005 the international carbon market went into recession last year. The cause of its decline was the lack of clarity "urgently needed on the post-2012 international climate change regime and on other countries' plans to use market-based mechanisms to meet domestic greenhouse gas [reduction] objectives". (Source: Slim chance of global carbon market post Kyoto Tim Wilson From: The Australian July 26, 2011.)


Labor is being stitched by many more opponents than Abbott

July 2011: Greg Combet, Minister for flexible portfolio shifts, appears on television with the task of sellig the carbon tax. Minute after minute goes by and instead of actually selling the concept to the "Meet The Press" panel of journalists he rants about Tony Abbott. Mr. Combet seems to still be in Australian Council of Trade Union mode. He accused the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of being stooges for the liberal party. This is an immature display by a mediocre senior Minister of the government who needs to hone his communication and plicy selling skills before he spins generalities, and insults, everywhere. He did not once justify the tax or the policy. Thus it is with the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and Penny Wong. The only federal labor Minister who seems to have a grasp of selling anything coherently, and methodically, is Bill Shorten. In 2013 he will assume the Leadrship of the Australian Labor federal parliamentary party.

Meanwhile more anti carbon tax web sites pop up. Whilst Tony Abbott may, in the minds of labor, the Greens and the Australian media be orchestrating the attack on the labor policy platform this is not the case. There are more, behind the scenes, opponents running anti government policy campaigns than the liberal party can muster or itself knows of. Prime Minister Gillard, and her team of strategists and advisers, need to do their homework more diligently and broadly least they be out foxed. "Australian Labor and blind ignorance", 2011

WHO TOLD THE PRIME MINISTER TO GO ON AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN? There are people, working in all sorts of enterprises, who wait for something, anything to come up so that they can participate and be seen to be doing something, anything to justify their existence. When there are extended periods of quiet, inactivity or elongated delays they become even more anxious to be involved. Thus it seems with the labor federal government. Everything they have proposed, or propose, has very long lead times. Instead of planning, and carefully, assessing the moments when they should do things they rush to the press box and babble about floss and bubble. They pad the current state of affairs and blow it up to appear as if there has been productive activity. They talk about all the things they are going to do and what they will mean and deliver, tomorrow, next year, in 2020 and 2050 and sometimes in the next century. Everything that the Prime Minister and the other members of parliament put out there is speculation.

So having produced a general framework out of their "clinical and detached, incubator", climate concensus committee Julia and her sidekicks rush off around Australia. The framework is not detailed in every aspect, is not framed in legislation and will not become legislation if at all) until 2012. So again Julia, Combet, Swan and Wong speculate and read crystal balls. They open cans of worms. The outcome of the current circus lead by the Prime Minister, and willingly contributed to by leader Tony Abbott, has no end result or objective that is positive to the nation. Does she intend to do this until mid 2012?

Ms Gilllard exhorts the media not to write "crap", yet the party advisers, academics and experts, Ms Gillard and her colleagues have precisely done that. Why are their camp of experts, and commentators, anymore compelling and accurate than others? From the simple statement that the government will tender, and replace, 2,000 megawatts of dirty coal power stations, that no coal power stations will be built again, that whole regional towns will disappear, that Whyalla will not be affected by impacts on the steel industry and the Latrobe Valley according to Combet has no worries because there will be support. The labor government will destroy your life's work, your community and will put a figure of value on that. Where was Combet in 1994 when the people of the valley were told similar things? He was in the ACTU being paid by the dues of people whose lives were being trashed by his and his mate's incpmpetence and guile then as they are now. To my mind Greg Combet is one of those people in the organisations as described in the opening of this article. Moving on from pink batt charades to the new circus tent.

Perhaps the most coherent, and intelligible. amongst all of them (labor, liberal, independent and green) is the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten.

The absolute demonstration of total ignorance of the ordinary person, about the whole exercise, is the woman who told Abbott, in a town hall meeting, that she was happy to "pay an extra $10 per week to compbat climate change". It does not bear debating for it is illogical and naive. What does this woman think $10 bucks from every Australian will do? The collective $10s from all of us will not go anywhere near taking 2,000 megs off the grid let alone also managing the reducing of pollution. If there is no end outcome out of all this day to day pantomime then what is the purpose and who told the Prime Minister it was a good idea? If she thought it up herself then she has again proven her poor judgement. By far Ms Gillard and Bob Katter are the most charismatic, and entertaining performers, on the 7PM Report on television. Unlike Bob Katter, Julia had no idea how to blend her arguments into that forum. Instead she bats her eyes, flashed the coquetish smile and talks seductively about generalities. For some inexplicable reason a few days later she resorts, in a Press Club speech, to memories, blubbering about being shy, whilst simultaneously trying to dispel the aura of being an accused, demonstrable liar. She told a woman in a shopping centre that she did not set out to mislead. However when faced with a hung parliament she had a choice, ethics and integrity, or the other. Is this in itself not crap? So what is she about and who told her to do it?? (Kevin Beck, "labor simply has no innate sense of strategy", Melbourne, 2011.

The wholesome image, and nauseating practiced cant, of a kid lauding the merits of a carbon tax, and the Prime Minister, at the end of the ABC Q&A programme speaks volumes of the campaign and the role of the public broadcaster. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia)

NO CARE NO RESPONSIBILITY Australia's new, and old, Green members of the Australian parliament, can trot out whatever drivel, scare mongering and fantastical statements they like for they are not leaders and nor are they policy implementers. They are demonstrating that what they really are, is irresponsible whilst bordering on irrational unproven theories and sometimes plain stupdity. Stupidity - they make statements without any deep knowledge of the topic, the problems, the boundaries, the challenges, the economics, the technological capability, the lack of resources and skills, the barriers and the simple "it cannot be done" realities of life in Australia. Sarah Hanson-Young It's Just Her Imagination.

"GREENS senator Sarah Hanson-Young believes the South Australian steel town of Whyalla can transform itself into a hub of wind energy if Julia Gillard's carbon tax forced manufacturer OneSteel to close its operations. The South Australian senator yesterday said OneSteel's steelworks employed "several hundred people . . . and I imagine the flow-on effect for that small town would be significant". OneSteel is directly responsible for the jobs of up to 4000 people in the city of 22,000 people. ... "I think the people of Whyalla are able to withstand whatever comes out of this carbon price," Senator Hanson-Young said yesterday. Whyalla's steel mills will die anyway: MP The Australian, 4 days ago "It's not going to have a rash type of impact on people, it's going to be able to set some signals there to try and drive some proper investment." (Source: Steel town could thrive without steelworks, says Sarah Hanson-Young Michael Owen, SA political reporter From: The Australian July 05, 2011 12:00AM)

"The package also signals the end of 2,000 MW from some of Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power stations, such as Playford B. There's now the opportunity to close Playford B and replace it with a solar-thermal plant." (Source, Sarah as above)

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said that the government will issue tenders to close up to 2,000 MW of generation. Hazelwood, in the Latrobe Valley, is the one most mentioned along with Playford above. Tenders to do what? Pay out the owners? Replace the stations with something else? How much does it cost to buy out the owners, decomission a power station, particular one with eight turbines, and associated ash ponds, like Hazelwood? Well the owners will want a swag of money. Then there is hundreds upon hundreds of millions to decommission and what about the asbestos in Hazelwood? How long will that take? Can you take out Hazelwood before you have the replacement generation? Obviously not. So it keeps running for how many more years?

Then how much is it to build the equivalent of 200MW generation stations using gas, solar or some other energy source? What configuration are they in? If gas are they single or dual cycle, the price is greatky different. The federal government cannot allow single cycle. Yet they cannot stop it unless they are paying for it. There is not enough in the carbon tax colection and the budget to do this pipe dream. At least $7 billion dollars, over how many years? The dream of closing the 2000MW, decommissioning and replacing simply will not happen. (Kevin Beck, "A 2000MW wet dream" 2011)

"The Australian Greens propose an extended electricity grid across Australia to bring renewable energy on line. "This can convert South Australia, an importer in the age of fossil fuels, to a renewable energy exporter," Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today. Speaking in Adelaide today, Senator Brown said South Australia had huge potential for geothermal, solar and wind power. "However, there should be a full inventory of this potential to ensure investment in the grid is configured to meet future renewable energy production. "South Australia has it all - wind, geothermal and solar - and it should be exporting clean energy to the rest of Australia and the world," said Senator Brown." (Source: Greens: SA will become renewable energy export hub, Media Release | Spokesperson Bob Brown, Monday 16th August 2010, 1:44pm)

The Greens
policy statement summary.



Unfortunately for Ms Gillard this is not true. On the ABC Q&A programme Ms Gillard respnded to a question regarding the proposed 600 MW coal station at Morwell in the latrobe Valley, to be built by HRL Technology. She stated that her carbon price would stop coal stations being built. Not so. The economics of the proposed power station, which is using a new gasified technology to remove a lot of the emission capacity from the brown coal, is likely based on including a carbon price of $A30 per tonne whihc is above the labor government's range. The approval to build the station comes predominantly from the state government. The federal environmental Minister has limited capacity to intervene. There are no threatened little vertebrates, parrots and worms here. The Victorian EPA has granted a permit for just 300 MW but this is likely to alter under the new Ballieu coalition state government.

"EPA Victoria has announced part approval for HRL Dual Gas (HRL) Latrobe Valley demonstration power plant. Under strict conditions, the project has been granted an EPA Works Approval (WA), which permits the company to construct a 300MW plant to generate electricity through new gas technology." (Source: WME, Environmental News, Vic EPA greenlights 300MW dual gas power plant, Monday 23 May 2011).

The bald statement by the Prime Minister belies the reality of energy in Australia and the role of coal as base load. Gas, economuically, even under the carbon tax is not superior as an investment. Additionally when we add other energy producing technologies in such as wind we make the coal based stations more inefficient ... "the coal plants are shutting down and restarting at irregular and unpredictable intervals they operate inefficiently and sustain interference with emission control equipment resulting in increased sulfer dioxide, (SO2) nitrous oxide (NO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Data for the report came from evaluation of four years of emissions records from individual power plants owned by Xcel Energy Inc in Colorado." (Source: Consumer Energy Report, Controversial Report: Wind Energy Causes Pollution, Posted by Lloyd McGraw on Wednesday, April 21, 2010,

"the main products of the combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same compounds we exhale when we breathe." (Source: Natural gas and the environment, So if both coal and gas produce carbon dioxide what are the villians?... They may be nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). So why does the Prime Minister and all the other Ministers not talk of these?

Senator Bob Brown extolls the use of gerothermal sources, claiming that South Australia has enough to power all of Australia. What is the relevance of this to the above? Read on.


"Industries that carry out activities such as wood pulping, paper manufacturing, petroleum and metal refining and metal smelting, especially of ores containing sulfides, such as lead, silver and zinc, all emit sulfur dioxide into the air. Fossil fuel combustion, such as in coal-burning power plants, also emits sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide can occur naturally in the environment through geothermal activity, which is energy from the heat of the earth, such as hot springs and volcanoes. Sulfur dioxide is also produced when vegetation on land, in wetlands and in oceans decays or breaks down....Sulfur dioxide may be present in exhaust fumes emitted into the atmosphere by cars, buses and trucks. ... ...we use it in a wide variety of ways — from preserving yummy fresh fruit to cleaning our toilets with bleach!... Common products containing sulfur dioxide include foods, such as dried fruit, preserved fruit, food preservatives, as well as wine, bleach, disinfectant and fumigants which are used to control pests....Textile bleaching, wineries, and fumigation, where fruit growers and farmers spray their crops to keep insects away, are also sources of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide can have serious effects on our environment. It is absorbed by soils and plants, affecting our land and water ecosystems, and it can even be captured within and below clouds, which increases the chance of acid rain. Fortunately, we have not had any acid rain in Australia." (Source: Australian government, Sulfur dioxide, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009)
So how much does Australia produce?

Report Year Total Industry Emission (kg)[1]

2005/2006, 1,300,000,000
2006/2007, 1,300,000,000
2007/2008, 1,400,000,000
2008/2009, 1,300,000,000
2009/2010, 1,200,000,000
Australia produces less in 2010 than in 2005 ro any other year.

So what about nitrogen?

"Industries that are involved in processing food, treating sewage, garbage tips and intensive livestock industries, such as poultry farms, are all industrial sources that can emit total nitrogen. Emissions from these industries can end up in surface water and groundwater. Organic nitrogen, which is a nitrogen compound found in living material, is found in soil, and in plant and animal material such as manure, sewage waste, compost and decomposing roots and leaves. Oxides of nitrogen are contained in exhaust fumes emitted into the atmosphere by cars, aeroplanes, trains and boats. These emissions are dissolved by rain and then enter streams, lakes and other water bodies. Common foods that contain total nitrogen in various forms include spinach, beetroot, lettuce, radishes and rhubarb. Meat, fish, and dairy products can contain low levels of nitrate and nitrite. Cured meat, such as ham and salami, and sausages also contain nitrate and nitrite. Lawn and garden fertilisers contain nitrates, while furniture, floor polish and household cleaners may contain nitrites.... Water catchment runoff (an area of land that contains and provides water to creeks and rivers) also contains total nitrogen. This runoff can come from farming land, and be used for farm animals or growing crops; and also from urban areas such as the lawn at your home where fertiliser has been used. Total nitrogen can have damaging effects on the environment and particularly on aquatic life — the fish, shellfish and other creatures in our rivers, lakes and oceans — because most nitrogen is leaked into waterways. Total nitrogen can also lead to toxic blue-green algal blooms. Blue-green algae can make both humans, animals, and birds and fish, very sick. Do you see how important it is to help keep our waterways clean?"

Total Industry Emission (kg)[1]
2005/2006, 35,000,000
2006/2007, 32,000,000
2007/2008, 34,000,000
2008/2009, 32,000,000
2009/2010, 33,000,000
(Source; Australian government as above)


During the ABC television Q&S programme on Monday evening 11 July 2011, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard talked of the destruction of the Barrier Reef and other apocalyptic events in the context of the proposed carbon tax. This created unease in my perception of how the Australian federal governments enior politicians are over stating the effects and benefits of their proposed carbon tax. It is not clear how Ms Gillard could actually think that labor's puny efforts in the face of nature..... puyehue volcano chile
Photo by Jinkinpark,
All Voices -

could change the future of the planet, yet this seems to be the objective of their spiel. To distort fact and engage in some holy crusade.

"A volcano dormant for decades erupted in south-central Chile on Saturday, belching an ash cloud more than 6 miles high that blew over the Andes and carpeted a popular ski resort in neighboring Argentina....(Chile Volcano Erupts, Spews Towering Ash Column, Panet Ark, Date: 06-Jun-1, Chile) ... Strong winds have carried the ash clouds some 9,400 kilometres across the Pacific Ocean to New Zealand and planes in New Zealand, Australia, Asia and Europe were grounded. The ash cloud could be seen from space.

Some climates ceptics claim that volcanors spew out more carbon than man does in 100 years. However this
may not be true. One thing that is true, there are a lot of conflicting opinions including amongst scientists. Julia Gillard, Greg Combet, Wayne Swan and Penny Wong are all cherry picking what suits. On the other hand Tony Abbott is not offering much in the way of a compelling counter argumenet grounded in facts. In this regard he presents a retarded low brow argument in opposition. What is also true is that the greater number of Australians are too lazy, or too self absorbed with their daily lives, to take the time to investigate for themselves. They prefer to watch television, read the newspaper and/or listen to talk back radio to form their views and mutter their distorted perceptions to each other. Few can run a lucid and informed debate as to whether or not the carbon tax policy is good or bad. They are just sheep all baaing in the various community pens across the nation.

The above named federal Ministers are also engaged in my view, in an immoral, and unethical, manipulation by mixing tax reform into the carbon tax legislation. Cynically I see this as a deliberate tactic to confuse, and also bait, the population. Ms. Gillard, et al, lack an ethical compass. As part of the argument carbon dioxide is described as a pollutant. Carbon is similarly defamed. The 500 ndustries as dsecribed as "polluters", the use of disparaging and message laden disparaging labels is a long used political tactic to condition the audience. These polluters are, by Labor and the Green's own, definition, "evil". CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a friendly trace gas necessary for all life. Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases. 96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally. Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die. CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past. Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards. Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause. Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon. The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes. Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2. Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.


What if we were actually on the verge of an ice age? The science is strong on this proposition so why has Julia Gillard, et al, chosen the other version, global warming? Has Ms Gillard or her colleagues heard of the Milankovitch cycles?

"Ice ages are made up of both icy periods (known as glacials), and intervening warm periods (interglacials). We're currently in an interglacial period. Historically, interglacial periods last approximately 10,000 years, which is about how long this one has lasted." (How the Ice Age Worked by Molly Edmonds, Geography, How Stuff Works)

"Another theory centers on atmospheric gases. Studies of trapped air from glacial ages have indicated that carbon dioxide and methane gases were at lower levels [source: Skinner]. When these greenhouse gases are abundant, they trap energy and keep it close to Earth, thus keeping the planet warm. When these gases aren't present, that radiant energy escapes. Scientists don't know exactly why the levels of these gases fell, but it does appear to factor in to the magnitude of temperature changes [source: Skinner]." (Source: click
here, it's Molly, as above)

Some think that the country might be better off if Julia, and the others, were not in government. Yet, to my mind, the alternative of the coalition offers no value. Tony Abbott does not impress as a statesman. To withdraw in glum silence, and glowering silence, or to spit vitriole, is not the answer. We must engage in analysis, in debate, in the economics and the science.

Politicians, like so many corporate managers, have to fiddle with everything. They have to propose change, and reform, to justify their existence. They read something or attend a seminar and become true believers. They sit in their offices twiddling their thumbs waiting for a crusade, a meeting, as study and above all, an opportunity for austerity and sack cloth. They cannot agree, and settle, on the best way to do something leaving things to go along trusting the employees, the citizens and the actual doers. They must exhort, there must be endless growth, they like experiments, and things that keep them busy and in work. Regardless of who may be in any of the governments, across Australia, they actually offer little to our life benefit compared to those outside of their respective domains. Governments will say they create jobs, well they don't unless they expand the public sector. According to the accepted politics, and management theories, We must have endless surpluses, never borrow, except to spend on consumption to keep the country economy ticking over (consumer debt is good, government debt is bad), we must all engage in austerity now in order to be better off in the future, a point we never seem to reach. We labour under the dead weight of parasitic behaviour and self interest.

"The main reason we end up with twits in public office is due to apathy. The overwhelming number of Australians do not belong to a political party and therefore we have no say regarding the people that are selected by these parties to stand for election. To make matters worse, most Australians know very little about the person they eventually vote for and would struggle to write a half page outline of this person’s background or experience. So we have a fool’s democracy, where are small group of major party power brokers give us the illusion of a democracy, while we sit back and are too lazy to do anything about it. To add insult to injury we have too may politicians. Unlike other professions that are required to become more efficient due to the increased use of technology, we have not seen any decrease in the numbers of politicians. Since 1977 an extra 26 MP’s and 12 Senators have been added to our tax bill, and there have also been increases in the number of state and local council elected representatives as well. The justification for these increases is linked to an increasing population so it appears our elected officials are incapable of being more efficient like the rest of us. We would all be better served in Australia by having fewer but more capable elected officials whose pay would be linked to performance." (Source:Shareswatch Australia Blog, Politicians: we get what we deserve. November 23rd, 2008 · Greg Atkinson)

"We are watching a
slow tragedy unfold" (Value Adding in Australia, The Beginning of the End: A Note from Viv Forbes, Posted by Jennifer, May 23rd, 2011)

lacking sophistication and finesse

2011 July: Australia is a developed, well educated nation. The federation of our government is strong and stable. Despite the status of Australia in the world our politicians in government and opposition largely resort to crude insults and opeurile tactics in order to perotect or expand their polutical interests and retention of power.

Is this because their advisers are child like in their capacities or are the people who get into party and politics simply ignorant? The Australian labor party at the federal level are distributing an advertisement called "A Day in the Life of Tony Abbott. If Mr Wright at the labor party thinks that this is smart sophisticated politics then it is no wonder that the greater number of Australians view the political parties in Australia with disdain. The Prime Minister would no doubt say that this is a party advertisement and not one put out or authorised by her or the federal government that she leads. However Ms Gillard is the primary face of the labor party and she presents a very unsophisticated persona as Prime Minister and the ultimate leader of the Australian labor party. The labor advertisement is "bogan".

As we move into the carbon tax, and climate change, sell we have senior labor government Ministers, and opposition political party spokesperosn and Green party spokespeople pontificating about things that will happen in 2020 and 2050. Do they think that it is credible to use Treasury modelling as the basis of the justification? They are implying their statements as facts. There is the off chance that Treasury might get one piece of crystal balling right in the lifetime of the economists who reside in the federal agency. Their record is appalling.

There is every likelihood that Ms Gillard, Mr Swan and Mr Combet will actually stuff it all up, and mire the government, in yet another debacle simply because they lack the experience, credibility and sophisticated skills, necessary to handle, and articulate, a very complex policy issue. They will in their desperation stretch the facts.


A point made in an opinion piece from a blogger: "I noticed while they were crapping on that they had a website, as it was listed under the telecast. Don’t bother going there though because at the time of me posting this it didn’t exist. If they can’t even make sure their website goes live on time what hope have we that they got they got their modelling right. The whole point of that telecast was to get the electorate to believe that they will be better off under the carbon tax." (Source: Can We Believe Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax Scheme?, by BS ARTIST on JULY 9, 2011:

Reading BS' blog I tried to log onto the cleaneregy site and it is not there. - Oops! Google Chrome could not find - Did you mean: www.­cleanenergy.­qld.­gov.­au (Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia, Monday 11 July, 2011)


"Carbon tax: the policy and the politics by Bernard Keane This is a better package than the CPRS it is so closely modelled on, but not by a lot. The key problem with the CPRS was that compensation for emissions intensive industries was so great and went for so long that it neutered the price signal, meaning the entire scheme was a giant money circulator that wouldn’t have started decarbonising the economy until well into the 2020s. .... The other key advantage over the CPRS is the use of tax cuts aimed at addressing EMTRs for low-income earners. This isn’t merely sensible policy, it’s actually consistent with the government’s own reform efforts so far under Julia Gillard, aimed at increasing workforce participation.... The bad news is some of the worst polluters will get even more than they got under the CPRS.... The Clean Energy Finance Corporation may also turn out to be a problem for future governments if and when investments in renewables and low-emissions technology go bad. On the other hand, like the new ARENA, having industry and financial expertise guiding government spending on renewables rather than bureaucrats and ministers might achieve more than years of sub-par renewables industry policy has. And buying abatement from the electricity sector is the kind of policy garbage we’re used to from the opposition?—?clear government winner-picking." (Source: Carbon tax: the policy and the politics by Bernard Keane, Sunday, 10 July 2011,

"For an issue that has wreaked such political devastation, that has brought down a prime minister and two opposition leaders and that has dominated the Australian debate for years, the carbon price policy released today is pretty mild. In fact it is all so generous that the compensation costs more than the tax raises – to the tune of $4 billion over the scheme's first four years, even with more than $2 billion in cut backs in fuel excise rebates for the mining and aviation industries. (Miraculously the only year the scheme ends up in the black is 2012/13, the year the budget is scheduled to return to surplus. More amazingly still, the permanent increases to pension and benefits are delivered in 2013/14, which just happens to be an election year.) .... And there are some losers. Explaining all the giving and taking that means most families will be ok is going to be very hard. Explaining the long term benefits even more difficult." A modest policy but the real test is in the selling July 10, 2011 - 6:42PM, OPINION, Lenore Taylor, Sydney Morning Herald national affairs correspondent)

Of particular concern should be the drivel that emanates from the Greens. base load solar power for one. Also Bob Brown stated today Monday 11, July, 2011 that South Australia geothermal could supply all of Australia's power needs many times over. The Greens want Hazelwood power station, in Victoria closed (one quarter of the state's generation) with little compensation to the owners. They Greens have no awareness of sovereign risk and no understanding of how base load power supply generation and transmission works or how long it takes to plan and build a power station or power stations to take up the Hazelwood load. There is s surplus of supply in the whole Australian generation market but is the transmission grid network linked, and does it have sufficient carrying capacity, and redundancy between states including Tasmania, to create a real national electricity market? Who will invest in power stations when a minority political party, holding the balance of power that it exercises such influence and control over a nationally elected government?
The Greens Party spokes people occupy a very special place in the every day life of the planet, some may think they are detached from reality. ("Day One of the Carbon Tax Sell" (Kevin Beck, The Mosaic Portal, Melbourne, Australia, 2011)

Research papers on Social Responsibility
Globalisation Impacts
Various Countries


In the early nineties the government, members of parliaments, the managers of the electricity and mining industries, the members of local government and many others lied to the people of the Latrobe Valley Victoria. The occasion was the privatisation sale of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV).

The lies covered everything imaginable. The bright future the valley would have, the new horizon of productivity, growth and jobs. Large enticing go away packages were thrown at the employees. In a frenzy investors paid too much for the power stations and the mines. The people were betrayed by the Australian labor party and the Coalition government of the liberal national party. It was a slow burn torture ultimately leading to a drawn out death roll.

Now Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, and leader of the labor party, will increase the agony. Labor will implement a carbon tax that will destroy the Latrobe Valley once and for all. Labor will wash away their guilt (though it is likely that they have none) in a warm bath of money, trust me and lies.

Money is being offered again to the owners of the assets (the SECV was a publicly owned utility) but this time they are private companies who own the Hazelwood and Yallourn Power stations. The money will be provided to shut down the stations. Power stations that produce a very big slice of the Victorian state power supply. Theorists will say that the generation will be taken up by the national grid and new entrants to the market, gas fired power stations.

The Greens as stupid as ever will dance on the grave of the valley, pontificating their tripe about the capacity of renewables. Australia's most dangerous politician, Senator Bob Brown, predicts the end of coal. Salivating, and grinning, Senator Brown and his Green coven foretell of a wondrous place

A great financial crisis will be again be wrought
upon the Latrobe Valley

The State Electricity Commission of Victoria was the world's largest vertically integrated power station, mining, transmission and distribution utility. A feat of engineering and a world class enterprise it served the state well. It was the creation of a great Australian, Sir John Monash and the people who inhabited its walls for decades.

The State Electricity Commission of Victoria was ultimately destroyed, like all of our icons, by people who, in their lives create nothing and leave nothing. We have seen them before, we see them now and we will see them again in our future. ("The Destroyers of Austarlian Icons, Kevin R Beck 2011")


The Health Minister Ms Nicola Roxon will be defeated in the court.


The Prime Minister Julia Gillard came on telly on Sunday saying that consumers and small business would not have to worry about a carbon tax on petrol because it was not going to be included - never ever. The first reaction was to listen to every word she said. "On consumers and small business" so who will pay a carbon tax on their petrol? Are all petrol refineries exempted from the carbon tax? Or is it that consumers and small business must claim or will receive a payment at some future date in time? How will an individual consumer or small business owner be identified at the petrol bowser as against the big trucking company? Is the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard believable?


The Prime Minister says she wants debates based on facts. However she always slippery. To demonstrate what she means by facts she selectively quotes data from a CSIRO report on sea level and temperature rises. Data that suits her case and which has been taken out of context from among many choices in the report. She is aided, and abetted, in this effort by her advisers who have now become parasites on the public purse and corroders of our democracy and government. A group of people actively engaged in pursuing a personal political agenda against the Australian national interest. Such political party apparatchiks and political staff infest every parliament in Australia. The Prime Minister I think actually believes in the cause she is pursuing. Unfortunately she ahs chosen a topic so conflicted and complex that it is beyond her graps and many others including myself. No matter how much I read, study and consume, I am not convinced and am no more certain of any of the scientific arguments on climate, carbon, energy or renewables.

To state that the science is in on climate change to my mind demonstrates that Ms Gillard has not done a lot of personal research. For that matter Ms Gillard does not seem to have a grasp of deep facts on any topic about which she is questioned. What demonstrative detail does she have on education, health, energy, environment, defence, economy and finance and foreign affairs and trade? What is her special interest? In what field does Julia Gillard excel? She definitely is short of details, and knowledge, about the science of climate change and the role of carbon in our planet. Similarly disposed towards drivel, and lack of deep facts, and knowledge, are Minister Combet, Minister Garrett and Minister Wong. All have a go at the environment.

Why would a government put tax on
carbon? Frankly I consider the Prime Minister Ms Gillard to be light weight when it comes to policy framing, ideas and debates and she has not demonstrated an ability to assimilate and distill the facts needed to fuly engage the community. When asked detail questions about many of her policies she avoids providing facts herself.

Rather than conduct public policy debates in a climate of open transparency and mature critique we are forced to endure the modern career politician's process of spin. lies and degrading insults . One can well say isn't it a pityisn't it a shame. Imagine the difference if the leaders, and members, in our federal parliament were talented and inspirational, how far we might go as a nation. So if we are going to be ignored and treated this way then we can join the debate at their level. So the Greens have arrived and some of them are quite comely. Bob Brown could not hide his jubilation. He made it clear that this parliament is their domain to be used as they see fit to achieve their goals and objectives.

Where did all the opportunities go? Julia concentrates on her smile and concocted
stories, feckless policies and ideas, we can ask why the Prime Minister and other members of our parliaments cannot address the fundamental problems of our society? Why they cannot develop a health system, rid Australia of racism and deal with indigenous plight that continues year after year after year, agree a system of industrial relations, have an education revolution and solve homelessness, violence and drug addiction? Why can't they solve real problems before the supernatural? maybe the answer is.... (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, "Australian Political Leaders in Australia and Their Vapour Ware Policies, 2011".


June 2011: There is an argument that climate change is real and that something should be done to eradicate poluution where feasible. Yet labor, and the coalition, seem oblivious to the manner in which sophisticated intellectuals go about determining the methods and objectives. Instead they engage in puerile tit for tat destructive dialogue and antics. Tony Abbott has recently demonstrated that he is no more suited to the job of Prime Minister than Julia Gillard. Unfortunately democracy can have its drawbacks as the Australian nation is saddled with mediocrity and the less capable.

The issue is not actually about climate change it is about economics and the methods by which our governments approach the issues and problems. A carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, are the products of the herd mentality. Labor's own lack of vision, hubris, and ego, locks itself into a pathway where everything is make or break their way rather than carefully thought out, and openly, debated policy and action. Governments in Australia most notably federal labor exclude a large segment of the nation from participation. Greg Combet, still operating in trade union spin mode, is going to spend $12,000,000 to do exactly what I am deriding. The plan is to con the nation using
consumption media techniques. The Gillard cabinet seems to be bereft of innovative thinkers ro they are captive to the faction boss. The Gillar labor government lacks deep talent overall.

Ab alternative to a carbon tax would be to establish a management system where we fine tune outputs, promote R%D technologies and actions and for those who won't play nice, heavily fine the polluters. Setting targets for each industry sector, and individual business within that sector, with time lines, abatement and R&D breaks and programmes. The industry, and the individuals within, it are bound under corporate law (as the corporation) and through cascading legislation down to the individual where fines and sanctions on directors, boards and managers are metered out to comply. The structure requires that they demonstrate effort. The amount of effort they make, and the progress, can offset sanctions and fines on the company and the individuals within. Within this structure we can incorporate policies for the accounting of international competition and manage the system to compensate accordingly.

But no. In the world of Australian politics we are governed by know all types who are besotted with their own views, ideas and capabilities to the exclusion of all else. The incumbents within the federal, states and territories, govern on gut instinct sidelining, and denuding, the public service, and others, from having any real influence, input and contribution. Kevin R Beck, 2011, the Alternative to a Carbon Tax

The Greens Cometh

In a few weeks the constituency of the Australian Parliament will change. The Australian Senate will fall into the hands of the Greens Party who will hold the balance of power. The Senate amends, passes or rejects legislation. The federal labor government will be at the behest of the Independents in the House of Representatives and the Greens in the Senate. They will arrive with a fitting tribute and into Canberra and the Parliament.


The Greens are the militia of Australian politics. The same sex proponents, the culture club of politics. The arbiters of what one should and should not be allowed to do. They are here to unleash the passion that has been pent up for decades. They are the crusaders for the under trodden and the disenfranchised. They are the heavyweight champions dressed up in the clothes of the concerned, and thinking, Australian politician. They appear to be the enemy of business and corporations.

In Sydney the Greens are opposed to any development at Sydney airport. According to them the residents of the areas, around Sydney airport should have consideration over the development of the country's major port of entry. "“No amount of technical talk about the new landing scheme can hide the fact that the outcome will be more aircraft landing at Sydney Airport and that means more noise. “Similar schemes have resulted in an additional 12 planes an hour landing at some overseas airports. The Greens candidate for the seat of Grayndler Sam Byrne said “This scheme delivers more aircraft movements every hour, making it clear why Mr Albanese has always refused to commit to the cap in movements called for by the local community....If the Minister fails to rule out of the the Performance-based Navigation scheme he will have once again demonstrated that his government puts the interests of private operators before those of the community." (Source: Albanese Fails On Sydney Airport Navigation Upgrade Plan By Sam Byrne, on May 26th, 2010,

Sydney International airport has a curfew. No planes come in after 11pm, none leave before 6am. Welcome to third world Australia with no complementary fast rail system between the major capital cities. A transport policy that is archaic and nepotistic in its political concept. When the ash from a volcano in South America crosses into our air space our jet fleets are grounded and thousands are stranded. What chance have we as nation got with this sort of state and federal transport planning coupled with the political interests in our parliaments? (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, June 2011)

Ms Lee Rhiannon joins the Australian Senate at the next sitting of parliament in July 2011.

"On behalf of the Greens thanks and congratulations to Lauren and all the organisers of the Sydney Vegan Expo. This is a huge undertaking. Many of us here are on a journey – exploring how to remove animal products from our diet. Some of us are already vegans and vegetarians, but I believe we are all on this journey – there is always more to learn and more to do. Evidence from the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the CSIRO, Sydney University and many other researchers reveals that reducing and eliminating animal products in our diet is a good news story not only for one’s own health but also for the health of our planet." (Lee Rhiannon, Greens Party, exract of a speech)

"There are many reasons why right-wing parties dominate in western democracies - control of the media, mistakes and divisions by parties of the left. But the reason I would put out in front is that for the public it is the right wing of politics that is addressing their concerns about terrorism.

We need to see the right's misuse of the threat of terrorism to frighten and disempower people as an opportunity to build our progressive movements. We need to promote our values of justice, environmental protection, equity. But I do think in this current climate we do need to consistently address people's fear and insecurity.

We need to say we are committed to people being secure in their homes and their communities. There is nothing wrong with using the language of the right if we have a progressive analysis. If we do not address people's fears about terrorism we reduce the reach of our other messages. People will find it virtually impossible to relate to our analysis of why there is an upsurge in terrorism, and will be opposed rather than united with the progressive movement.

Promoting our voice on terrorism will allow us to differentiate ourselves from those committed to misusing terrorist attacks for political gain. It is one thing to be well organised, not be sectarian, and develop creative ways of promoting our message but what are the crucial issues for our society and therefore for the progressive movement. Two critical struggles of the 21st century that are very much entwined is addressing climate change and economic inequality. I say they are connected because when people live below the international poverty level that they eke out a living on less than $1 a day as 1.2 billion people do environmental protection has no meaning; the environment is one more thing that is trashed in the name of survival. ... A revitalisation needs to address these shortcomings and that means recognising that the Coalition is the party of wealth, privilege and big business. Yes the problems with Labor at times come close to those we encounter with the Coalition but I still argue that there are differences. (Lee Rhiannon, Revitalising progressive politics, filed under: Political issues, Speech, Sunday 17 May 2009)

GREENS senator-elect Lee Rhiannon has again been accused of pushing an anti-Israel agenda after accepting an invitation to speak at a "Palestine solidarity" conference, while the Senate yesterday condemned the Greens' support of a boycott against the Jewish state." (Source: Fury at Lee Rhiannon talk to Palestine forum James Madden and Milanda Rout From: The Australian May 12, 2011)

Nicolas Perpitch - The Australian - 7 June 2011, SOUTH African anti-apartheid activist and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu has written to a Greens-controlled Sydney council congratulating them for their temporary boycott of Israel, according to incoming Greens senator Lee Rhiannon. The inner Sydney Marrickville Council’s boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaign was axed in April after being condemned by both major parties and Greens leader Bob Brown. But Ms Rhiannon, who indicated she will continue to advocate for the BDS when she enters the Senate on July 1, said last night it was a peaceful and non-violent campaign and compared it to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. She told the ABC’s Q&A program that Marrickville’s Greens Mayor Fiona Byrne would today be presented with a letter written by Dr Tutu.

QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh has urged Julia Gillard to avoid "radical and extreme politics", warning that Greens' proposals to ban new coal mines - The Australian 2011-05-25

That harsh light confirms that the Australian Greens is not the warm, ... Instead, the Greens have the most radical set of policies and goals of any party .... The graphic listed 20 broad proposals claimed to be advocated by the Greens. ... download document to read more


Ego and hubris, the modern career politician in Australia should have realised by now that their sophisticated model may have served them well to get where they wanted to be over the past decade or two but now the media, and the electorate, have grown tired of self indulgence, self interest, greed and corruption with the attendant lack of truth and substance. These people are not team players. They are loners hell bent on their own interests and objectives. The thieves of democracy.


Minister Joe Ludwig has been discussing with Indonesian authorities how the abbatoirs in Indonesia can kill animals while they are conscious? Is this true? If so one can only assume that Mr Ludwig and the labor government are truly detached from reality. Do they think the band of agitators are going to accept this ridiculous alternative? Why would we agre to such a proposition? Why do we care about pandering to the ignorant practices of those who clai that it is a religious compliance? The live animal export market, out of Australia, is on its last gasping legs. Did the growers think that it would go on forever?

The sadists, charlatans, crooks, the incompetents and the Senator Heffernan funny farm types are in the minority. Various Australian governments have presided over a cruel system without being diligent as to exactly what was occurring and the ramifications. Minister Joe Ludwig is demonstrable of the seat warming politician, who achieves high office on measures, and criteria, unique to the rarified world of politics and governments. He has been placed in charge of a substantial entity without the experience, wherewithall and skills to determine what needs to be done and when. Was Minister Joe Ludwig ever comprehending and vigilant or were the correspondence, the reports and the real world kept from him? What standing orders has he given his department about his expectations?

Minister Ludwig has just come back from Indonesia and what did he achieve? Not much if anything it seems. Why is he not focusing on how to transform this arcane, farming and export business sector to some other form of business model that does not pander to barbarian practices. Regardless of how it is done the Australian labor government needs to quickly embrace the fact that it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars on their part, to address collective incompetence and ignorance.


Tony Abbott wants a plebiscite on the carbon tax but even if there was one, at a cst of $AUD 60 million, would Julia and Wayne et al, still listen? What is it the common denominator in all of the apparent imcompetencies of the federal labor government? Given the way our system works can presume that everything is sheeted home to the relevant parliamentary member. But where do the political staff and their capabilities enter the equation and to what extent are the senior Ministers relying upon young, foolish, naive, inexperienced advisers and the lesser talented members of the party? Those who deal with governments know that each parliamentarian has their gatekeepers. We also know, from experience, that the staff in parliamentary office are not that versed in deciphering what is important and who is who. This is not unlike the corporate and institutional worlds where people work in closeted environments with no real intelligence gathering. Back on parliamentarians and the competencies of their staff. Is there someone in Minister Joe Ludwig's office who tells the Minister that he is looking, and sounding, like a dill when he says "animal welfare outcomes" twenty times in an interview and repeats it ad nauseum over the coming weeks? The stay on message rule has been drummed into parliamentarians heads until they are automatoms rather than human interactors.


On June 16, 2011 the Australian Parliament passed a motion condemning the Malaysian solution for processing refugees. This may have been a political exercise where Tony Abbott, and the Coalition, played upon the unpopularity of, and worry among members of parliament, but it was still a majority vote by the elected members of the parliament. Without waiting to think the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, stated that she would press ahead with the proposal. Apparently the parliament can be ignored. This goes beyond politics to the heart of how our parliament operates and its integrity.

We already know that the major parties will place their own self interest before the good of the parliament and the nation whilst clothing themselves in hypocrisy. It does not seem smart, on the part of the Prime Minister, to alienate the people she needs - the independents by treating their vote with the same contempt the Prime Minister displays for other members of the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile Greg Combet, Australia's newest political expert on climate change, announces that the government will spend $12 million of taxpayers money to tell the nation the Gillard labor government's version of reality and truth. He too displays arrogance towards the members of the inter parliamentary committee that are purportedly working their way through an agreement. Greg Combet is to me a smug member of the labor party who ignores the lessons of everyday fractious existence in which the labor party finds itself. How bright is it to alienate them on this, cattle and every other thing that labor can stuff up? What may happen very soon is that Ms Gillard receives a phone call from one, or more, of the independents telling her.

The party is clothed in vanity

The state of the Australian federal government is a complex web of personal ambition, factional power, historical processes, quality, and abilities, of political candidates and parliamentary members, advisers and strategists and above all human nature. Everyday media coverage, speculation and manipulation and the gladiatorial nature of the operation of politics and government adds to the mix.

The labor party may well get behind the Prime Minister as reported in the media today 16 June 2011) but this is hardly the real problem. The real problem with the labor government is capability and competency of the Ministers. Joe Ludwig exemplifies this. Lacking an awareness of cause and effect, responding to media and public pressure and the vision of animals being totrured by cruel uneducated people, the Minister and his advisers went, for what seemed the best "politic" and safe action - ban the export of live animals to Indonesia. After all John Howard did it in 2006 in relation to Egypt. Well the difference then was competency. John Howard had a number of farmers in his Ministry who knew the industry and the consequences of such actions and who knew how to mitigate the outcomes and carry out the necessary planning and implementation. By comparison Howard's Ministers were far more savvy, and worldly, than the current labor Ministers who are working with Julia Gilllard, with the exception of Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson. They both have deep experience and awareness.

Minister Ludwig has compounded his problems by demanding that the Meat and Livestock Association pay $5,000,000 in compensation to growers threatening them when they balked. Logically perhaps, in the minds of the Minister and his staff, the MLA had accepted a levy from growers of cattle to look after the situation and the education and standards of the slaughter houses in Indonesia. There was primary evidence broadcast by the ABC that they may have been negligent or perhaps totally failed in this task and thus it was only fair the MLA pay. The problem for Mr Ludwig is that sheeting home guilt, blame and penalty is not the most pressing issues he faces. 150,000 animals may have to be destroyed. They are unsuitable by weight for the Australian market. It appears that Mr Ludwig, his staff and those who ar handling this matter were oblivious to the 350 kilogramme measure on live exports, the facts that these animals cannot travel in southern cold climates, that there is not enough food in the Queensland and Northern Territory grass lands to feed them, that setting them loose on this feed is an environmental danger. Whole communities are going broke quickly because of Joe Ludwig's decision.

This and many more issues including diplomacy appear beyond their awareness and grasp. Ludwig and the government dither wringing their hands at the situation they find themselves in.

The resort to threats is a standard tool used by those who do not understand government and the limitation of power. It may also have developed out of the basic foundation of labor's experience - the trade union negotiation and operational ethos. many of the labor senior people in the federal government structure are from trade union and adversarial legal backgrounds. Many business leaders, and owners, are reticent to criticise, or oppose Ministers, and their advisers/apparatchiks, since they fear retaliation. Retaliation is a tool used by federal, and state labor, and many of the people they employ, and appoint, to political and public office. There is an underlying tone of thuggishness, and threat, in their modus operandi in politics, government and public office. What they have not yet learned is the limitation of their power, influence and above all abilities. They swing their political axes without due care of the consequences. Consequences which they cannot perceive but do not know that they cannot. The polls and peoples' views of Rud versus Gillard versus Abbott are irrelevant in this void.

When labor came to government under Kevin Rudd initially the presumption by those who were put into positions of power, and advisory, roles was that the government can mandate what it wants. Couple this with a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the role and capacity of the Australian Public Service versus State Public Service and the government found itself in a world of pain. It seems that every major policy, and programme, initiative created, and implemented, by the Rudd government came unstuck. Many of the labor apparatchiks have come from state backgrounds where the public service is focused on implementation and delivery. Such skills are not necessarily resident in all of the federal public service agencies, as evidenced by the waste, and mismanagement, that has occurred in the pink batts insulation debacle, orcehstrated by Peter Garrett the solar subsidy programme and other green initiatives, the car clunkers and green automotive scheme, the schools PC technology programme, the Education Revolution (which was really a halls and other facilities building programme) orchestrated by Julia Gillard, the mining tax, the carbon tax and now the livestock drama.

Evidence is mounting that the probability that federal labor can damage and destroy, whole industry and economic sectors is quite high and dramatic. They are doing this solely through their inept ghandling, poor judgement and general lack of experience and skill. Their talents are of a low order and as such are likely to compound their woes as the party becomes more demonstrably unfit for government.

Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, opined that the stocks of Ms Gillard will rise once the details of the carbon tax is announced, similarly Greg Combet poses this proposition. They are both detached from the reality of the situaton. And when the final curtain comes down how will we feel about the plight of Ms Gillard and the political machine that self destructed, vain world.


"Many powerful sectional interests are also lining up to oppose Labor and its progressive policies - whether it is sections of the mining and gambling industries or big tobacco. What this means is that there has never been a time when the grass roots support and activism of Labor Party members like you has been more important to the Party, its policy agenda and its success. This is a time for the Labor Party and Labor people to stand up and be counted." (A Message from George Wright, Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, by email 09/06/11)

Progressive may be something that means everything whilst actually meaning nothing. How long does a policy sit around waiting and when does it become progressive? is it progressive after regurgitation? Is Mr Wright trying to endow Australian Labor with a forward looking perspective using the term in the hope of making the policy appear smart, innovative, up to date and above all relevant to the target audience? To the battlers, the middle class, to families?

The Progressive Movement was once based in the United States. It was then a reformist movement that had it hey day from the late 1800s to World War One. Various renditons of Progressive philosophy, and politics, have been rebirthed down through the generations. Some resulting in war through collective nationalism.

Progressives are usually university, or higher educated, types who like to appear enlightened. Herbert Croly, wrote of Progessivism, in his work, "The Promise of American Life". A book often deemed to be contenptuous of individualism. The term re-emerged in the sixties to once again denote any person, organisation, or idea left of moderate. The central tenet of the Clinton presidency.

Progressivism is also associated with the period of the Prohibition Era where denial was deemed good for the soul. Is labor espousing that (like the Greens) we deny ourselves much in favour of something nebulous in the future? Is this what George Wright says that he admires in relation to the Gillard government? If one denies the religious fervour of the Labor government's climate change babble and the propoganda of the Department of Climate Change (the Australian Public Service risks becoming a propoganda arm of the Gillard labor government and the Greens party), then that person is a barbarian? Progressive politics, and government, reform under this buzz word is meaningless. In the case of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Progressive government and polciy, seems to be one step forward and three back, one left and one right, two sideways and a twirl.

Or perhaps Progressive is like this?

The progressive Tea Party....Democracy, civility and better future for Americans,, United States of America

Imagine a parallel universe where the Great Crash of 2008 was followed by a Tea Party of a very different kind. Enraged citizens gather in every city, week after week—to demand the government finally regulate the behavior of corporations and the superrich, and force them to start paying taxes. The protesters shut down the shops and offices of the companies that have most aggressively ripped off the country. The swelling movement is made up of everyone from teenagers to pensioners. They surround branches of the banks that caused this crash and force them to close, with banners saying, You Caused This Crisis. Now YOU Pay." (How to Build a Progressive Tea Party Johann Hari, February 3, 2011, the Nation)

Or this?

"There's rising populist anger against the bailed-out billionaires -- they're only going to get more angry as the same folks who crashed the system are now making record bonuses. January 29, 2010, TAKE ACTION,| There's been a good deal of heated debate about the failure of progressives to respond to the economic crisis." Watch out Tea Party, Progressive Anger Is Alive and Kicking, Les Leopold, Alternet.

Progressivism where the "National Government must step in and discriminate ... on behalf of equality and the average man" (Croly op cit), as Australia becomes a nanny state sucking on the tit of government. Dewey defined democracy: "that form of social organization, extending to all areas and ways of living, in which the powers of individuals shall ... [be] directed" -- by the State, which can justly be described as the god of Progressive belief.

How is it that "Progressivism" that was once associated with competition, and democracy, culd become embroiled in regulation, class warfare and an attack on the corporation? Could it be that the nation of the global corporation, the United States of America, brought it to this situation with the Global Financial Crisis being the end result? Even now Wall Street has learnt no lessons. It is so typical of the modern world that a term is adopted, because the spin doctors think it will have some resonance whilst actually proving to be incoherent, or even dangerous,clap trap. ("Progressive labor under Gillard", Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia 2011)


June 2011: The promises, anthems and themes, of Australian federal politics
Accident prone or incompetent?

The Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard, labor governments have managed to earn a reputation ofr being incompetent in every issue they face. There is the trend to announce things before they are negotiated and affirmed e.g Refugees and East Timor processing, refugees and Malaysia, carbon pollution tax, slaughter of animals in Indonesia. The Minister Joe Ludwig has taken teh art of dissembling and nonsenical statemnets to a new high. In a media interview he answered a question and said that would be a mater for the independent reviewer he had just appointed. When asked who the reviewer is he said that an announcement about that person had not yet been made. Does he know whom he appointed? He then rambled on about processes and platitudes repeaing himself insome sort of circuitous torture routine designed to scramble the listener's brain.

Meanwhile oblivious to the action he was taking, the Australian Quarantine Service was also unaware, Australian cattle producers were loading animals at the wharves. They were caught unawares and now wonder what they will do with the animals at these facilities and those on the farms ready to go? Butchers have noticed a drop in trade as people react locally in Australia to the cruelty shown on ABC Four Corners Programme. farmers fear a glut of beef on the Australian market.

Then in comes the vacuous Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who has perfected the rambling and opaque response technique. Joe says on Wednesday 8, July 2011 that the suspension of live animal exports to Indonesia will be 6 months and the Prime Minister says on the ABC Radio National programme the next morning Thursday 9, July 2011 that there is no specified timeframe. One may well wonder how John Howard so effectively handled the end of live exports to Egypt in February 2006 compared to this effort by the labor federal government?

There is another technique implemented by labor to massage our thinking and allay suspicion whihc apparently they think (in their own minds) gives them credibility. It is the crystal ball gazing, and fabricated, analytical paper approach to convincing us about everything. Every day some research entity, or the federal Treasury and Climate Change Departments, pop out a new paper on what will happen if we have a carbon tax and what will happen if we do not. These marvels of intuition propose outcomes for fifty years time or for the end of the century. They speak of sea level rises inundating cpast lines to destroy buildings. These are truly wondrous efforts of research and economic modelling using cuisenaire rods, voodoo dolls and pins for the critics and unbelievers and sudden sounds to startle.

Since Australian labor, and the coalition, members in the federal parliament are enagged in songs, and dances, so it is only right that I contribute my own choices. Click the coloured text below for my chosen musical allocations. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne 2011)

May 2011: Gillard and Labor Cabinet WILL GO TO ANY LENGTHS

For Your Economic Future You Must Independently Inform Yourself


The Australian labor government, under Julia Gillard will ride on the back of a pro carbon tax set of commercials (funded by external supporters) trying to convince you about the beneficial effects on the environment of a carbon tax using high profile celebrities. Enlist, equip and harness the power of trusted, informed and credible messengers. The commercial itself is designed to mislead. The power station behind Michael Caton is in Bbattersea England closed thirty years ago. There are no Australian power stations belching out black smoke. Joseph Goebbels perfected manipulative techniques. Ms Gillard has eschewed policy innovation, and balanced argument, moving to lies, misrepresentation and desperate tabloid activity to achieve her objectives. The labor government is adopting the media, and public relations, tactics of major corporations. In the world of the power collective ethics and morality, truth and fiction coalesce accodring to need and objective. The federal Labor government will lie to you in their desperation.

Government in Australia is no longer about policy and open debate. It is about power, influence and self interest. It is about winning at all cost, fired by the egotistical, and over blown, belief that they know better. The Austalian population must be educated to accept the ideology and the knowing. This is some form of religious zeal not government.

"The word Spin has come to define both the process of political communication, and the practice of public relations itself. The history of the term requires some examination. Arguably, until around 1992, Spin did not have such a widespread meaning—it was simply one tactic in an election campaigner's armoury. Now it seems to embrace the whole process of communication, not only between election campaigners and the media, but also between a Government and its people, or between a public relations professional in any field, and his or her target publics. The development of Spin as a word has gone through a number of stages. It now has widespread popular usage, which has arisen through two principal processes: The increasing celebrity status of the spin-doctor role: and the usefulness of the word to tabloid sub-editors." 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

"Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods. NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun. Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars. Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life. Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories) The hot year of 1998 was caused by El Nino." Global warming Lies, for all theories.

The labor government persists in using the IPCC as the evidential basis of its climate policies - Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor has said that the the IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science. Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.” (Climate Change Lies Exposed, September 1, 2010,

. Julia Gillard, and her senior labor Ministers Wayne Swan, Greg Combet and Penny Wong, together with Peter Garrett, and too many other new Ministers, have long demonstrated an inability to coherently present, debate and argue their policy positions. Greg Combet took over from Peter Garrett after the pink batts fiasco, amid multi billion dollar loss, only to perpetrate the legacy of inefficiency and ministerial incompetence. Now unable to articulate, and convince, the nation regarding their
climate change fallacies and questionable science, they have created a climate change commission (stacked with supporters) a cross bench parliamentary committee and somehow an outside body has hired actors to convince the population that a carbon tax is necessary.

The Gillard labor government will not engage in open debate by establishing a balanced commission of enquiry consisting of the many opposing, and consenting, interests. Instead they will massage our minds, tell stories to the ignorant and above all corrode and corrupt government and process, in Australia, in pursuit of their own egotistical interests and intuitions.

Here is fact. The level of carbon dioxide has risen about 5% above the levels of the early century. The temperature has not gone up. Here is another, the it rained and filled our dams when Tim Flannery, and Penny Wong stated, that it would not happen and the nation would be dry. There are more facts than are being offered by the government and the proponents who blame carbon for warming the planet. People must, if they want to ensure their economic and social futures,
investigate them and inform themselves. (No Quality In This Government, Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia 2011)


Is this her last performance? Not if support comes unexpectedly from the outside.

One can lay the boot into Prime Minister Julia Gillard, for political sport, because she supplies so much ammunition. But after a while one might reflect on how this ammunition is made available so readily and also reflect on what is the end result of this sport? Whose interests are served? One may wonder why the labor party is failing to protect her? Where can the Prime Minister turn and who can she turn too? This is the national leader of the Australian labor party but one could not tell because everybody seems to be having a go at her including her own party. Watching the Bolt Report on Sunday 15th May 2011, former NSW labor government Treasurer Michael costa took the opportunity. Mark Latham former (failed) labor leader in the federal parliament has done it often including his thuggish display at her during the campaign when he played pseido journalist. He contributes to the degradation and slime outlined below.

One can listen to the gossip, and the back biters, who say Ms Gillard does not listen, but the question I would ask is - who is telling her, guiding and helping her, and who is she not listening too? Is anybody of political capability and without personal motivation, and ambition, actually talking to her? As far as I can see the labor party machine has totally let her down and is actually nibbling away at her like a parasitic thing. So Julia Gillard Australia's first female Prime Minister

Politicians embrace the dumb and the feckless

May 2011: The owners, and the editors, of Australia's tabloid press, and commercial television stations, are a cancer on Australian democracy. Their attention to quality, and truth, in reporting, and analysis, is not mediocre, it is, in my opinion, well beyond that, it is an indictment of their self indulgence and ignorance. Bias is clearly seen. Of equal culpability are the reporters, and journalists, who prostitute their work and who lack any resonance with quality and the traditions. They are a collective blight.

They reduce complex issues, and debates, to misrepresentative and often untruthful headlines, and stories, playing up the divisions and the gladiatorial aspects of our politics. They do not hold the government or the opposition political members accountable by hard work and investigative journalism and enquiry. They do not analyse the poor quality of our political systems, structures, leadership, dumb and hackneyed policy and irrational debates. Instead they subject the incumbents of politics to a barrage of ridicule, insults, attacks and mud raking until what we are left with is squalour. A squalour seeded and nurtured by media types of low ethics. Politics is lumbered with dumb journalists, plajerisers following the theme like sheep, current affairs programme makers, and presenters, who lack intellectual rigour. It is bearing the ignominy of shock jocks, pandering to the semi literate, bigoted and under educated in Australian society. The media creates a class war theme not politicians. This is the case with the 2011 budget reporting. No one in the labor party, of the Gillard government, implied that people on combined incomes of $A150,000 were rich. Yet the popular media generated these headlines deliberately to pursue this theme. Lies suit opposition political parties and Tony Abbott is not going to opt for integrity putting the record straight. Those who are in the game would say to propose such a thing is naive. The so called forgotten middle class, the strugglers with two kids and a combined income of $150,000 placing them in the top 13% of income in the nation, focused on by the press, and television, are not losing from this budget, if at all, perhaps $A30.00 per year at best.

Tony Abbott is lauded for his self indulgent pursuit of personal interest over national interest. His sole goal is to try and bring the government down and to force an election. This is quite dumb given that the odds of it occurring are almost none and he appears to be not all that bright with regard to reality. This serves to show us the limitations of the leader of the Opposition not his potential. As he pursues this day after day he makes no real or lasting contribution to quality government, policy and debate. He is robbing the nation of his skill and experience preferring political self interest over public interest and his oath of parliament. It is quite sad that many like Mr Abbott hang around, in politics, year after year waiting for their chance at high office by sheer natural attrition. His record of performance, as a Minister, when analysed in detail, and depth, does not enlighten one as to his potential to be Prime Minister. The best talent in Australia is not going to seek out public office in this environment.

Lost to us is any hope of being able to use the popular media as a cypher to consider what is on offer in terms of policy and people ability.


In this mix is the egotistical and unlateral, nature of the leaders, who rather than listen, plan and consult, seem to believe that they are the font of knowledge and the only ones capable of anything. They act on gut instinct or the advice of those singing from the appropriate, and approved, song sheet. It is reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard refuses to take advice from anyone of experience left in the labor party and instead accepts her own cousnel and embraces the new model of government. It is said that once she makes up her mind that is it. Others in the opposite camp confide that Opposition leader Tony Abbott is so light on policy, and detail, and short on ability that he resorts to the singular. The tactic of belittlemnt, and derogative carping, using simple, but media effective terms like "great big tax", "class warafre" "stop the boats" and other inflammatory slogans. Simple minded phrases repeated ad and reported ad nauseum until the public become brain washed by his tripe. Opposition Finance spokesperson Andrew Robb described Tony Abbott as lethal in his budget response. They are all happy to appear like lemings, political drones.

The media finds the smart arse statement of Wyatt Roy (labor has not delivered a budget surplus in his life time and thus why should Wayne Swan be believed) to be one of the telling exchanges in parliament. Mr Roy has been around ten minutes and has the life experience, depth of education, and capabilities of an adolescent. It was noted that Wayne Swan lacked a quickness of wit in return. All of this is not helped by his lack lustre, wooden, performance when he gives interviews on the media. Wayne Swan struggles in the portfolio. This is debilitating because the accepted wisdom that the liberal party are better money managers is false. One of Australia's ethical and careful journalists, George Megalogenis, a senior feature writer for The Australian newspaper clearly demonstrates that this assumptiion is fasle. Labor is far better. The liberal party leaders and senior politicians are quite happy to recant the lies and misrepresentations are not pulled up by the lower grade media journalistsa nd shock jocks. Labor should take out large advertisements in the tabloids citing George's work. Another waste of money resulting in misleading assumptions are the polls that purport to tell us that Julia Gillard is lower on some nebulous scale than Tony Abbott or someone is believed to be a better Prime Minister or is more liked or some other piece of tripe. This is not news, has no public interest value and serves no public interest purpose but it is trotted out on news bulletins as factual representation of who would win an election if one were to be held tomorrow. WEhy bother if there is to be no election tomorrow? manufactured news, and stories, rule over intuitive investigative and well crafted journalism. This is the age of the personal opinion commentator masquerading as journalist.

It is factional politics that decides roles occupied in the parliaments not skill and ability.

Our parliaments are run by men, and women, lacking experience and credibility. People who having reached the pinnacle of power in their myopic festering worlds, then subject Australian society to the mediocrity, and limitations, of their self interested and egos.

The democracy, management and operation, of our governments have become squalid, two party political, houses of collective corruption, fraud and lies.

Former federal Finance Minister and past Minister of labor government's, started collecting material for a book on the corrosive impact of the media on politics more three years ago. He left federal politics a few months back. The sentiments and propositions he expresses in his current book are along the lines of those expressed above. However I think that Lindsay must also take some of the blame. He was an influential labor politician who had a stellar history and for most of it sought to act in the public interest. Yet he and others were party to the dumbing down, the manipulation and the creation of elements of the system that pervades today. It is all very wel to blame the media but he has no history of gladiatorial attacks on them from the pulpit of his own ministry and his electorate. He waited until he was gone. he has no history of stating how dumb and uneducated, uncaring and detached the people of Australia from their most precious commodity - democracy. (Kevin R Beck, Defrauding Australian Democracy and Government, 2011

The Australian Labor Party has abandoned its roots and no longer represents the worker, the unemployed and the disadvantaged.


For weeks the Prime Minister and Treasurer have been saying that they will have to take hard decisions in this budget and people will not be happy.

"Swan warns budget will be tough for business, By Michelle Hammond, Monday, 11 April 2011, The Federal Government is warning businesses to brace for a tough budget next month as new figures show a $4.5 billion revenue shortfall, prompting the need for harsh spending cuts."

May 11th, 2011 - the reality

"Swan's budget as tough as tofu", economics correspondent Stephen Long - analysis, On Tuesday 10 May 2011, 23:27 EST, ABC Australia,

"Swan and Gillard promised a "tough budget." It's not that. There are no big, hard, politically painful savings measures, only some cautious tinkering." The great no-tax-cut budget of 2011. Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher, May 10, 2011 - 8:21PM,

"Not tough but definitely responsible", May 11, 2011, Peter Hartcher, National Times

BUDGET 2011: Swan's big missed opportunity, Rob Burgess, Published 8:05 AM, 11 May 2011 Last update 10:20 AM, 11 May 2011, "The big omission in Wayne Swan's budget speech was any acknowledgement of the structural deficit buried beneath his return-to-surplus numbers. When commodity prices show any prolonged weakening, as they inevitably will, a big hole will appear. Worse, however, is that this budget was a chance to do something about it by moving towards the reforms laid out in the Henry tax review, which argued that we should simplify the tax system to incentivise participation and make it clearer who is being taxed and who is not."



Whilst the focus may be on the Australian labor government, and its leadership, we should also question Tony Abbott's judgement, and comments, about the National Broadband network. Malcolm Turnbull's proposition to use wireless is technically naive since he appears not to have taken user loading and band spectrum capacity into account.

Anyone who observes, or interacts, with Australia's federal government, and their agencies, may be lead to the assumption that this government, and elements of the bureaucracy, are extremely incompetent. High levels of >frustration are the norm for anyone trying to work with the labor government unless one is in the "labor fold or club".


The Peter Principle was first introduced by L. Peter in a humouristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of bureaucratic organisation. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The principle is based on the observation that in such an organisation new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureacracies make that it is very difficult to "demote" someone." Source: 1992-2000 Principia Cybernetica.

"In practice 'new public management' has led to (a) politicisation of administration (b) emasculation of Public Services; (c) and ineffectual governance with symptoms including: unbalanced economic gains; consequent social stresses; and chronic weaknesses in infrastructure, service delivery and regulatory roles. The dominant goal of Public Services shifted from helping the public by ensuring good government, to 'helping' the government of the day to retain political power. Ironically this model often led to unexpected electoral backlashes against state administrations who were seen as 'autocratic' after 5-6 years incubation, probably because they had surrounded themselves with 'yes men' and thus lost touch with the fact that not everyone shared their assumptions. This approach was reportedly being put in place in the federal government in 2000. (Source: THE DECAY OF AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A DIAGNOSIS, CENTRE FOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS)

Kevin Beck theorises that there are two major systemic features which go a long way to (explaining) creating the failures, and mismanagement, we have seen during the past four years, within the operation of the federal labor government and the agencies implementing the government's policies." The first is unilateral management styles of the Ministers, regardless of competence and a lack of oversight, and accountability, mechanisms and measures of these Ministers by the Parliament, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Who supervises a Minister's performance and demands excellence? There can be no accountability where the Minister is factionally aligned, perhaps influential and is deeply involved in choosing the Prime Minister. The Australian Public Service is required to follow the Minister's directives, and that of the adviser, regardless of the perceived consequences. They may raise objections and argue strongly through thei respective heads and boards but when it comes down to it, the government members rule regardless of their capacity. There is no mechanism of intervention by the people. The next systemic feature is the prodigious effort to avoid accountability, and responsibility, resulting in excessive caution, regulation and the catch all - probity, within Departments. The good public servants are subject to abuse, and retribution, by many of their agency hierarchical (there are lots of them in the chain of command)masters and the political advisers if they make an error or do not jump accordingly. Under these twin features there is a high probability of failure and waste. The system is broken, in parts, yet we, and those we pay, tolerate and operate within it. Massive amounts of money go down the drown at the hands of these failures. Unless Australia has capable Prime Ministers, of great ability, aided by strong capable Ministers, with a focus on public interest, versus political interest it is likely that we rely on good fortune rather than good judgement and management. Those capabilities appear not to be present, in abundance at leadership levels, in the Labor and Liberal parties of Australia. Labor seems to be the most inept of the two.

Julia Gillard is no doubt politically astute and adept. However she has not demonstrated a capacity for developing and enunciating policy. There is vacuum so vast that it envelops the nation in every aspect of labor's federal government. So far her work in politics, and in government, has been lack lustre and mundane. There are no highlights and no successes. This is dangerous indeed as she blindly pursues ideological crusades with no apparent grasp of the detail, ramifications or consequences. What is it blind faith or blind stupidity? On the issue of
climate change she continues her vacuous statements - the science is clear. According to Ms Gillard all of this justifies a carbon tax, yet she cannot articulate why. On television some time back Ms Gillard stated that only the big polluters would pay the carbon price. She then went on to state that when the eligible individual received their government compensation payment they would exercise choice in the supermarket buying those products, which would now be labelled as low emitters. Is she serious? Will manufacturers advertise that their products are created out of extensive pollution? Ms Gillard was postulating the simple theory of substitution effect. Simple indeed, especially when she has little idea that it is a false theory and presumption. There is one unknown that bedevilles economists, it is human behaviour. People do not act rationally.

When labor put a luxury tax on some cars there was hysteria from the industry and they rushed to Canberra protesting loss of jobs and economic ruin. It never happened. Demand remained and rose for those vehicles. They are prestige posssessions and the dearer the better for the buyer.


Many people assume that everyone's level of knowledge, and understanding, is similar to their own, that other's beliefs are similar and that if not they can be swayed by logical argument. For Julia Gillard and many others the propositions (they extoll) for climate change is something proven and closed to question. This is not the case. Thorstein Veblen in his work "The Theory of the Leisure Class", 1988, and his invention - "conspicuous consumption" explained why people do not behave as others (marketers, economists, executives and politicians) may expect. The pursuit of social status by the aspirant class. Ms Gillard may not have been aware of the extensive study of human behaviour, and market consumer theory, when she proposed the consumer's erudite qualities, and attentive natures, but she should have noted that, in 2011, a large number of people in Australia occupy the aspirational class spectrum. She also seems to be implying that consumers will (a)care to over ride their desires (b)be knowledgeable and care about what products apparently come from low emitters versus the polluters and (c) will substitute accordingly.

Not so Prime Minister. It does not work like that in a real, reasonably wealthy,and hedonistic, (I want it now), society. Another factor is that a great number of the aspirant class are not prone to deep and/or life long education, and intellectual, development needed to assimilate complex matters.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has likened the actions of government to Keynesian economics. This implies that he too knows very little of the foundation of economic theory, whether it be monetary or Keynes' philosophy. Pump priming is not the simple central theme of Keynesian economics. Like Veblen, Keynes noted in 1931 that people liked to spend to feel superior. Today like America, Australia is in the grip of "convenience consumption". It is packaged and commoditised. The nation here, like in America, has been programmed in its behaviour by the Chinese export of cheap goods. However unlike America we are not on a slide to national bankruptcy.

We are however, like America, in the grip of incompetent politicians who squander opportunity for short term political gain and self interest. What Australians will do with Ms Gillard's largesse is what they did with Kevin Rudd's largesse. They may accumulate some of the money as savings but they will, when feeling good, accumulate goods. They may save because they are spooked by the GFC but it is likely they will react, as J K Galbraith theorised, in his work "The Affluent Society", 1958. They will probably seek variety of goods rather than quantity. There are countering human and economic behavioural influences that will work against Ms Gillard's simple theory becoming a reality and creating another policy failure and unneeded cost impost. Minister Greg Combet claims, rather naively, that millions of people will be better off under a carbon price without offering any evidence to prove his statement credible. This is the tool of the modern politician, say it often enough and it becomes folk lore. What is more probable I think is that the traditional conspicuous consumption by the ever growing aspirant class, now being ballooned by refugee numbers, will bring on a rise in emissions and pollution. How does a carbon price that is offset by donations to consumers create a trigger for change of behaviour, and action, in any part of the economy? What does a carbon price do to reduce pollution and where? There is no logic here. Ms Gillard and her Ministers are painting themselves into a corner and trying to use political muscle and the powers of government to air brush their way out.

In the background Australia's business leaders swallow the climate myth, and the carbon tax proposition until they actually think it through and look at what is hapenning in society and economy. They ramble on about the need for certainty rather than questioning the foundation of the proponents' assumptions and evidence. The major reason business executives will not go over the cliff, leming like, after Ms Gillard, Mr Combet, Mr Swan and ms Wong, is the worry that their bonuses, and jobs, may be at risk. What if this is all a load of crock?

Ms Gillard cannot convince anyone, with a brain, that her beliefs are rational and we should bet the nation's prosperity on. For a thinking, and inquisitive, person it is clear that Ms Gillard really lacks a capacity to create policy that dtives growth and production. Another word that is used aa a cane on our backs - production. According to the academics we are not productive. We work long hours and many slave for minimum wages in the Australian economy yet, according to the experts, we still fail to produce. This has been the mantra for decades. Produce what? Just like reform is the mantra. We must reform in order to be productive yet we are not told how and not assisted in this never ending task, by governments, bureacracies, enterprise or institutions to do this. What about if they reformed themselves first and became productive themselves, as an axemaple to us? The Prime Minister offers no productive policies. Much of her reformist views, and general policies, are radical experiments. She offers no policies of wealth creation or lifestyle enrichment. Ms Gillard's industrial relations model is quite the opposite to a productive incentive. The lazy, and the uneducated, are rewarded and the successful are punished by policy and tax. The politically loyal are rewarded in many ways by sinecure and benefits.

In Julia Gillard I see a working class person, rising to high office by the use of a system, rather than merit. A person who has not grown in poise, or stature, in the role of high office. Ms Gillard switches on the charm as the primary weapon and cajoles those who she needs to influence or she thinks can help her. A person whose intellectual capacity, and grasp of policy and idea creation, I truly believe, is not up to the task of being the leader of a developed country. Ms Gillard has built nothing of substance in her day to day occupancy of the office of federal Minister or Prime Minister. The Peter Principle will bring the Australian nation to its most mundane possibilities. We are there now and when the Green Senators arrive, in mid 2011, we will become a nation at their mercy.

Behind the Prime Minister stands Wayne Swan, the Treasurer. He is as hapless in policy and innoavtion as his leader. A bland and boring type who repeats phrases that he has learned by rote. Wayne wan has been touted by some as possible leader, is Labor mad? This man is grey, uninspiring and mediocre. Why can we not have the best talent in government to lead us in Australia, today, in any political party? Simply because a small number of political machine men, and women, would rather pursue their own personal interests at the expense of sate, territory and national government. Together they hold the purse and the power and they are a grave danger to the nation. Then we can add Greg Combet, who fails in the task of compelling us by reason and logic. It appear labor makes announcement when they have little or nothing to say, because they need to appear to be doing something. For them it goes too slow but they have no idea how to move the bureaucracy and the structure along. These are not change masters.

THE NATIONAL BROADBAND IS A GREAT PROJECT however the way labor and its strategists handle it, it is likely to flounder before the next election. The programmed installation needs to be rolled out quickly.

The federal Labor government seems intent on making everything hard through stupidity and maladministration. Why was there no economic justification produced and standard checks and balances undertaken? Minister Stephen Conroy is another Minister oblivious to the twin features of sytemic barrier creation described in the opening. He comes acrss as an aggressive, and combative, personality. His demonstrated management ability is likely to ensure that the National Broadband Network may never achieve the goals implied in the glossy public relations spiel. At the glacier pace of implementation, and the burdensome tender processes, whihc seem to be porrly constructed and amnaged by the agency, and the unrealistic expectations of the NBN management as to the cost, the labor governmet will run out of days before they have to go to the polls. There may well be insufficient installations across Australia to give the NBN robust structure and irreversible protection. The next government can disband it or sell it.

We are caught in a hard place here because Tony Abbott's proposition for broadband technology is as much head in the sand as any other. I have both Telstra, and Optus, wireless broadband and they are not worth the excessive charges rendered on me by the enterprises who charge a lot and deliver mediocrity. They do not go anywhere near the rated speeds of the devices due to environmental, and technical, suffocation and the poor investment in local infrastructure at the exchanges. I meet gateways in the ISP providers structures that destroy the potential speed and the more users that are on the local wireless spectrum wherever I am connecting the more degraded thes ervice becomes. Wireless cannot download or upload large files seamlessly and quickly to meet the potential of the technology and Malcolm Turnbull should takea course in internet communications technology if he wants to offer informed opinion. My mobile phone coverage provided, by Optus, is variable from good to appalling. It is too often of such low quality that it makes it unpleasant to communicate by phone. People hear every their or fourth word. Even with Minister Conroy's fibre to the house (NBN) I will still be captive to the capability of the ISP infrastructure (for internet and other wireless access) like everybody else. What legislative service requirements have been put in place to ensure the ISPs provide minimum acceptable standards? What do you think the regulatory definition of broadband is? The Australian Competition, and Consumer Commission, engage in show pony antics, with large scale high profile prosecutions, and determinations, rather than fundamental consumer protections. Try writing the ACCC a letter and then observe the weaving, and ducking in their reply, where half the letter is a recitation of the act and their role as if the writer is not aware of what they do.

The health portfolio, and the private health insurance sector, along with the government owned Medibank Private, are about to take a shellacking through investigation and dawning awareness that the system for ancillary health delivery is flawed and open to manipulation. The government has known of this for years. Yet nothing has been done. Consumers will become aware that the preferred provider scheme has promoted endemic corruption, manipulation and sometimes calculated fraud. I think that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does not think laterally and is either unaware or disinterested in how the health market model actually works. The Minister Nicola Roxon, and her senior advisers, have their head in the sand (despite endless correspondence) and some meetings, and politicians of all persusasion (labor, liberal, national, greens and independent) have ignored evidence presented. The bureaucracy has sought to push the issue away into some other arena of accountability and responsibility. Every time the Minister agrees to a rise in health fund rates she is embedding ever growing levels of over servicing, over charging and endemic blatant fraud. The promise made by Kevin Rudd for universal health funding across Australia has not materialised. Julia Gillard it may be remembered was the author of Medicare Gold, abandoned for its flaws and ill informed policy assumptions.

Under the federal labor government's management the public service, and quality of government, declines dramatically. They waste our taxes and the funds of business (a significant waste are the tenders that go nowhere - Minister Plibersek managed to destroy $60,000,000 of tax payer investment and tens of millions of business funds when the government killed the Access Card. Dealing with labor is onerous, very risky and time consuming. Something quite obvious to those who have to deal with government every day.

Unfortunately the liberal party, under Tony Abbott, offers little comfort. I think Australia might be more comfortable with Malcolm Turnbull, and Joe Hockey, in the two senior roles, who at least have demonstrated a modicum of management capability, and vision, as Ministers. I did not truly appreciate John Howard until Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard, began to wreak havoc. John Howard allowed everyone a say and a go regardless of station. He listened and treated everyone with respect even if one (like me) was sometimes prone to insult. John Howard may not have built more than a big railway but maybe, as he grew into the job, we would have got more. We will never know. But what we will get now, from Ms Gillard and federal labor, if they remain in government, is - poorer not richer, in every way. To be fair Tony Abbott just trots out more old school hackneyed measures largely focsued on creating a surplus with minimal investment in the nation's future. He is not a nation builder either. Short - termism is the political objective and focus. Many of us may want the parliamentary Independents to act now, before the Greens take office in the Senate in mid 2011, to end Julia Gillard's damaging time in office by putting the nation to the vote. The choices we have in those seeking office are bleak and uninspiring. (Kevin Beck, "Julia Gillard, and federal Labor, sucking the energy from an apathetic nation", Melbourne April, 2011

Greg has delivered a press club speech and was unable to answer any questions of substance effectively rendering himself as lacking in detail, judgement and substance. Asked about economic numbers, values and impacts all he can do is speak in generalisms, offering the excuse that there is a group working somewhere on these things. Then why have the speech session? The government is trying to fill the void they have made, and stop Tony Abbott's relentless march against them, with froth and bubble.

In a radio interview Minister Combet told Fran, ABC Radio National Breakfast, April 13th 2011, that "the fact is millions of people would benefit from a carbon tax". FACT? Is he a futurist able to determine exactly how the transfer of cost imposts on industry will be passed on to consumers? Is he able to foretell what a certain level of carbon price will do to the whole economy or parts of it? The senior members of the parliamentary labor party, across Australia, in all jurisdictions, seem to think if they trot out generalities and twaddle that the greater number of people in Australia are gullible. Devoid of any ideas as to how to stop the opposition's ridicule the Prime Minister, Climate Minister and Finance Minister, resport to hyperbole and fiction. They tell stories of grandiose schemes whilst Senator Nettle waxes lyrical about the wonderful future that is coming our way as we become brave and innovative, embracing the Greens theories of sack cloth and economic self flagellation curse our greed. Instead of worrying about the loss of jobs in the traditional carbon economy we are exhorted to embrace the nebullious jobs that will arise in the renewable energy economy. Senator Nettle refuses to accept or even think about the fact that renewable energy cannot produce large base load electricity needs. renewablwe energy systems (windmills, tide, solar and batteries) cannot run cities, cannot run large scale industry and cannot be competitive against overseas fossil fuel energy prices.


It is well known that labor parliamentary politicians are told how to vote and ultimatley what to say and do. They betray their constituents and their office by allowing others to dictate and in this regard the factional bosses should be prosecuted under the constitutional laws for pressuring, and blackmailing, a member of parliament by threatening their preselection

Quite often these thugs go beyond the borders of the party and the parliament threatening, and belittling, anyone who challenges, questions and/or opposes their points of view, policies and actions.

The Prime Minister decided unilaterally that it would be good idea to jettison refugees into East Timor establishing a detention centre there. Never mind that the tax payer has a perfectly good centre in Nauru (a debatable point) which has been paid for. Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard pay lip service to good economic management as it suits and they place their own political egos and self interests ahead of the national good. The Australian media ignore the statistics and the context. They focus on boat refugees and not on anyone else who comes here by any other means for example by plane. Politicians label and stereotype for political gain and to stoke the fires of racism and fear in the community. Having dug their initial hole labor likes to widen it and then peeing in it, they create a festering, stinking sewer. Devoid of ideas and remarkably lean in the talent arena they push on. political career either. A new paradigm, set of values and other candidates are needed to replenish our democracy and governments. We need the folowing talents in our parliaments and governments:
  1. Honesty and Integrity
  2. Dedication and Sincerity
  3. Vision and Focus
  4. Interpersonal and great communication abilities
  5. The Ability to Motivate and Inspire
  6. Consistency
  7. Will Power and Charismatic Self Esteem
  8. Multi skilled and talented
  9. Able to synthesise vast amounts of information, delegation
  10. Knowledge and Experience of the World
  11. Patience
  12. Decisive but pragmatic, willing to listen, absorb and learn
  13. Decisive but pragmatic, willing to listen, absorb and learn
  14. Above Corruption and Threats
  15. Humility with Strength

  16. Therea re probably many more, but the Labor, Liberal and the Greens parliamentary parties and their incumbent members, do not appear to possess many of these qualities and some have none of them.

    Having realised that their overall presentation is failing to deliver a captive audience, Julia, Wayne and Greg et al, will resort to postulating the indefinable. It is the uncertainties that they will be certain about.

    Meanwhile construction companies carrying out Julia's very own Building the Education Revolution seem to be falling off the perch owing significant debts. Mr Fixit Combet has passed the ball on insulation to a fledgling junior Minister who seems to have attracted the ire of several hundred small businesses bankrupted by the labor government's ineptitude and Combet's contilued failures over the insultaion debacle. But like all comedians yesterday's audience has forgotten the dialogue so move on to the new script.

    The independents were for all intents and purposes bonding as a mini party and then became huffy at each other over gambling machines and other ittitables. Julia has decided to call the Greens something other than professional implying they aspire to abnormalities outside of the mainstream thinking, which to my mind is dull and boring. If Julia appeals to the mainstream, and so does the Honourable Tony Abott, then it must be that 8,000,000 or so Australians who struggle with basic literacy and numeracy.

    In the Senate enquiry on milk and food stuff, Senators Harradine and Xenophon contributed the dazzling one liners that Coles, and Woolworths, should be broken up. They really do demonstrate the legislators penchant for guy feeling and ideological line delivery in their own comedy routines without too much care for fact and knowledge. Australia's food prices are above the developed world generally because we have a small market and the multi national producers just keep adding rises and the supermarkets can lump it. All in all, our federal parliamentary members' collective skills, and experiences, leaves very much to be desired. The show must go on. (Kevin Beck, The End of Days, 2011)

Career politicians, among many - the clones of patronage, have lied too many times.

7.30 Report, ABC Australia...Government is not believed ... click The Australian Labor Party

THE EXACT MOMENT WHEN JULIA GILLARD MORPHED INTO BEING A PRIME MINISTER FOR JUST A FLEETING MOMENT .... THEN .... GONE Julia Gillard the politician has been viewed through a prism of narrow political performance. The attack master of the federal parliament, emulating the tried methods of Paul Keating and Peter Costello. Withering comments, mixed with derision, sarcasm and humour. A persona that tittilates the parliamentary press gallery but not the ordinary voter. A systematic methodology designed to gain popular media coverage in the rarified, and unnatural world of politics and governments. Some might offer that Australia's parliament under Rudd and Gillard is a window into the decay in Australia mores and society values. Unfortunately, Tony is extremely light weight on policy detail, knowledge and argument. So he needs slogans - turn back the boats - no new big tax - and other simple, small syllable phrases to express himself. He may well think that any publicity is good publicity and so a mob hurling abuse and insults fits well with his style of representation, and leadership, in parliament.

Labor Minister Combet jumped up in parliament lambasting everyone concerned and demonstrated that he lacks the eloquent and measured image of Senator Bob Brown. Combet is a parrot given a task to run out the same arguments. The fixit man of labor, never mind that he is actually boring, colourless and also deficient in the breadth of knowledge to debate
carbon, climate and warming. Is it naive to trust an economist who claims to be also a climate expert? Perhaps for labor it is easier to say - the science is proven - too hard to go back and say oops we may be wrong. Like his compatriot before him.

Instead of debate in the parliament we have a fight where people are ejected and insults continue and a spurious and holow demand for an apology to the Prime Minister. One might be forgiven for wondering what issue is actually important enough to over ride the self interest, and egos, of Australia's parliamentary members of the major political parties?

The independents in the federal parliament should well consider that the carbon issue should be put to a referndum (as an alternative to withdrawing support for Julia Gillard) or simply have an election called by supporting a no confidence in the labor government. (Kevin Beck, "Australian Politics in the Gutter", Melbourne Australia)


March 2011, The Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, was not elected by the people. She will say whatever is necessary to achieve her objective of the moment. "I am ruling out a carbon tax". "It is not a tax", "I am happy to call it a tax". The lack of integrity of politicians is something we have come to expect. The office of Prime Minister is degraded, and very diminished, under this woman's control. Julia Gillard, and her government, are very dangerous persons to democracy and the economic and social stability of Australia. Together with Bob Brown's Greens they will become in mid year truly frightening.

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard is described by many journalists as the pre-eminent political performer in federal parliament. Their benchmark is her ability to feign rage, throw insults whilst never actually saying anything worthwhile in question time. Tony Abbott, and some of his colleagues, poor Sophie for example, are equally uninspiring and by their performance in parliament and their diatribe, intellectually challenged. Such is the double edged sword of democracy giving every one a vote allwoing all sorts into the parliament.

Acording to the press gallery, performance in parliamentary question time is the real measure of the quality of our representation and the incumbents therein?

"25 March 2011: Election coverage is being 'dumbed down', meanwhile, the public has little appetite for hard political journalism anyway and newspapers are cutting journalist numbers to the very bare bones, writes Narelle Miragliotta. The media performs a critical role in the political life of democracies: in its fourth estate function, the news media serves as the (self-appointed) guardian of the public interest. However, there is a longstanding perception that the news media often fails to deliver on much of its promise." (source: Political journalism and election reporting: a race to the bottom? Narelle Miragliotta, Australian policy on Line,, March 2011, Political journalism and election reporting: A race to the bottom? Narelle Miragliotta, Monash University, Sally Young How Australia Decides: Election Reporting and the Media, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2010 (352 pp). ISBN 9-78052114-707-1 (paperback)"

The media give the people what they apparently want and can handle. Theatre is far more interesting to the jounalists who appear incapable of examining policy or assessing the quality and measures of the government's portfolios. We are not well served by the fourth estate in Australia. Political journalists focus on the gladiatorial aspects and do not understand the complexities of policy. Financial look at the stock market and economic impacts from whatever source they think is reputable and reliable. It all becomes "he said, she said" reporting. The overall score is mediocrity out of ten.

To my mind the Prime Minister, has like many politicians who reach high office, a singular talent. To manipulate the politics of political factions and party structures, to climb to the top within a corrupted and corroded system of patronage and thuggery. She gets her job as Prime Minister, in federal parliament, not from the people of Australia but from a coterie of attendants and parasites, who like her live on the public purse. They wait their turn and in the meantime utilise the process to entrench themselves.

Ms Gillard's poor policy development capabilities (Gold Card Medicare whilst in opposition) and lack of administrative capacity as a Minister (Education revolution that never was, BER) are on display. Prior to coming to parliament she exhibited no particular talent for high office. Parliament descended into farce as she, and the equally challenges in talent and ability, Tony Abbott, threw insults back and forward. Mr Abbott is also equally poor on policy and substance. Neither Ms Gillard nor Mr Abbott have grown in their roles, rather they appear diminished.

Gillard herself has to bear a lot of the acrimony, and the front line work, due to the depth, and variable talent, within the labor Ministry and the party. The two prominent, and touted future leaders of federal Labor, Greg Combet and Bill Shorten, have also risen through a manipulated, and corrupted system. They have ridden on the back of others using the membership dues, collected within the trade union movement, to fund the party machine activities and their careers. They are the most urbane and polished of the lot. They easily wore the suits eschewing the blue collar dress of some of their colleagues. They learnt to rub shulders and assimilate into the power collective enjoying the rarified atmosphere and fruits of the "haves". In the case of Shorten he cemented his political credentials by marriage as well, straddling the conservative fence. A true deal maker in the fullest sense. Combet is the earnest boffin. Some in the press gallery describe him as "Mr Fixit" without really going deeper than their own biased perceptions and poor judgement of life behind the doors of the political chambers. The fixer of what, government stuff ups? Well if that is his role he is not very good at it in my opinion. The labor insiders seem unable to see into the future totally misjudging the likely impact of their behaviour and policy prescriptions. Did Julia Gillard mean to make it harder for Labor in NSW to win the election? Did Julia mean to commit all of her political capital on a carbon tax? Did she want to appear more stupid by implying that this policy will not hurt? If that is the case what is the incentive to reduce pollution? Who is ultimately paying for Julia and her cohorts' folly? What sort of strategists, and advisers, do they have guiding and assisting them?

It is written into folk lore, by gushing journalists, that the ACTU senior types who enter parliament and the union bosses within them, are somehow influential - homogenous entities with a membership base solely focused on, and dedicated to, the Labor Party ideology and lifestyle. The members are not. The unions are managed to deliver the power to a few and to fund the election campaigns for the incumbent labor party parasites in public office around the nation. Most union members are clueless as to the operation of their union, distant and disengaged and the behaviour of the senior people therein as the majority of voters are clueless about the operation, and quality, of their governments. Both ordinary union member, and voters, belong becuase they must. As such they are only focused, intermittently, on their individual situations and belong to unions or engage with government within a very narrow spectrum of need and reasoning. Australia's institutions become the play things, and the delivery machines, of those who know precisely how to get as much as possible for themselves and their own constituents.


Here is another example of the government's inability to plan, manage and maintain a coherent and cohesive policy campiagn. Swan says that there is confusion about the carbon price.

""I accept that there's a lot of confusion about the fact that we are bringing in an interim price, which people describe as a carbon tax," he told the Nine Network. "But it doesn't operate like a traditional tax. It is not deducted from your pay packet, it comes from the big polluters." (Source: Carbon tax plan confusing, says acting PM Wayne Swan Matt Johnston From: Herald Sun March 07, 2011 12:00AM )

Who created that confusion? The government itself. There is not one major policy campaign that has been conducted, by the Australian labor governments of Rudd and Gillard, with any measure of competency. What are the talents of the labor government's tactical teams, communication and media advisers, in the office of the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Climate Change Minister? Not many if one judges the performance of labor in federal government up to March 2011.

Ignoring the claims that Ms Gillard lied to the electorate at the 2010 election, the primary fact is that, Gilllard has failed to prove that carbon is a demon. I think she has no intention of debating the efficacy of the claims of proven science or the nee dfor a carbon price. Swan et al point nebulously to the need for a market mechanism. This mechanism apparently will be as successful as the privatisation of electricity and operation of the electricuty and gas markets. Prices rocketing to the moon. Yet the fallacy persists that we are better off selling off our assets. Swan and Combet say that the carbon price will be paid by the big polluetrs and not by the people of Australia. The labor government surely thinks we are stupid. The cost will be passed on. The owners of large carbon based operations such as Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria must be salivating over the proposition of getting their investment back if the government (state and/or federal) pay them to shut down. Who pays that bill?

The Prime Minister, and others, such as Wayne Swan, Greg Combet and Penny Wong, et al, are disengaging with the truth, constantly, being selective in their language, changing their stories, embracing platitudes, shallow rhetoric and sophistry. They parrot one liners. Watch Gillard when she is questioned about policy detail. She cannot engage the debate. She is light weight in every spectrum of her Prime Ministerial office.

The proponents ignore
competing arguments that do not suit their ideology and own views. Of great worry is that federal Labor is in partnership with the Greens who base their policies and ideals on ignorance, such as "base load generation from solar". They too ignore the reality preferring to dream of a technological nirvana. Greg Combet trots out the balm, "coal industry wil be okay" under their guiding self perceived clarity and brilliance of thought and policy.


The Department is the organ grinder and in many ways the Minister is the monkey. This is among the most powerful, and inept departments, of government. It too suffered the ignominy of another revolution syndrome, with Ms Gillard popping out her East Timor regional solution. It has had to manage incision of the Australian landscape, Christmas Island and Nauru and the whims of governments, past and preset, who have litle clue about how to actually deal with people preferring to use the portfolio and refugees as political footballs and electioneering gimmicks.

Racism is denied, multiculturism eschewed and then re-embraced. The Department observes the reckless words of parliamentarians. Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard are failures when it comes to enlightened leadership. They dance to the shock jocks barrage and it is here in this complex story of sadness and despair, they seem to be really out of depth.

Wanting to keep the status quo of her creation when Minister for Education, Julia Gillard appointed the sycophantic, and less than stellar comrade, the all singing Peter Garrett, as Minister for Schools. His primary task, in this vital portfolio, is to get a web site up called "My School". No matter how this utility is shown to be dysfunctional and destructive, he and Julia, persist that it is about informing parents and about transparency. Never mind that the Department tasked with this ludicrous exercise is as incompetent as the Ministers and past Minister, the now Prime Minister. When one examines Julia's time as Minister for Education, and the current period as Prime Minister, her stated passion for education has not delivered a rise in numeracy, and literacy, performance across the primary school sector. A web site cannot engender the individual qualities and drive to excell in learning. So what is the purpose? Gillard has no "life long learning" policy and it is unlikely that Peter Garrett has a clue as to what such might be?


The Prime Minister has managed to get her flood tax through parliament. What this means is that the failure of government, federal and state and the over riding of local government in building and planning, and the stupidity of people who live on flood plains, flood pathways and river edges and places where tides can wipe them out (with no insurance at state or local individual level) is beig paid for by the general population. Even as we put our hands in our pockets the system goes on and they are rebuilding in places where every decade or two they will be wiped out again. Gillard takes the easy way out like her state conterparts.


Labor trumpeted their credentials and policy making prowess for health as they did for education. More noise than substance. Rudd said that the Commonwealth would fund health and the states would be subservient. Like education they grossly underestimated the task and the vested interests. They forgot the Constitution and the power that this under pinning document gives the states. Like the failed education revolution, the health revolution faltered and fizzled, Rudd and Roxon could not deliver.

The cost of health in Australia blooms exponentially dtiven by vested onterest and technology. There is massive embedded fraud, over servicing, manipulation of the pharmaceutical benefits list and endemic
corruption where control of the system, planning and delivery lies in the hands of a few powerful interest groups. The politicians, of all persuasion, are unwilling to confront these interests. Instead Health Ministers such as Nicola Roxon continue to spin the truth, manufacture reasons and labels such as "revolutions" that are not revolutions or reforms. Ms Roxon entrenches the costs of duplication, corruption and over servicing, through maladministration and political cowardice. She is assisted by a mega department that has a portfolio of interests way too large. A super department that is in many ways academic, poor in policy skill and delivery.

There is much more failure and expose to be highlighted within the government of federal labor but the above will do for now. (Kevin Beck, "Parasites and the Clueless, Managing The Australian Nation", 2010)

Nicola Roxon Approves Rate Rise for Health Insurance Including Fraud

February 2011: More massive cost mismanagement by the labor Federal Government - The Minister for Health Nicola Roxon has ignored material sent to her office or she has not seen it. This material shows that consumers are being ripped off and that many of the providers of dental, and other, services are rigging claims to maximise their income and/or protect their client base.

There are a variety of ways in which this occurs, but typically it involves:

  1. Exaggerating the services that were actually provided, such as claiming for more extensive preparatory work before filling a tooth - something that cannot easily be audited
  2. Billing the health fund for additional or related services that were not provided at all.
  3. The reason that ancillary providers undertake these activities is to protect and increase their income, however their actions:

    Diminish the rebate funds available for genuine claimants
  1. Drive up health fund premiums
  2. Cause other providers to adopt similar practices in order to attract and retain customers.

Unlike the Medicare scheme, where the patient has a role in ensuring that only the services provided are billed, through the way that accounts must be presented and paid, private health funds do not follow the Medicare model. As a result, over servicing and up-coding among ancillary providers, is very difficult to police and stamp out. The largest private health fund in Australia is owned by the Australian government. Thus the government, via the Ministers for Health and Finance (the shareholder) are complicit in allowing this behaviour, accepting it and rendering it into increased health fund rate rises.

The people who have been bringing this to the attention of the relevant Ministers' staff, to the bureaucrats, to the health funds themselves (including the Boards) and the technology providers (terminal providers for claiming, which include a major bank) for well over a year, have been ignored, dismissed and ridiculed. It is lucrative business for all. Dismissal and failure to think about or even model possible outcomes of their policies is the standard modus operandi of the Rudd - Gillard labor government (and for that matter all other governments in Australia) who tolerate no criticism, brook no alternative ideas being put forward and become abusive and thuggish, when their ideology attacked or discredited. (Kevin R Beck, " Australian Labor Party Handbook of Practice - Always Shoot the Messenger")


February 2011: There is something that I do not quite understand about the Gillard labor government and for that matter the Rudd labor government before. They seem to be detached from the reality of society and community. Take for example all of the failures of administration and the waste and the record of incompetence yet they do not grasp the consequences of that as they now try to govern in a minority parliament with a hostile, disbelieving media and public. Take the current situation where Minister Bowen persist with a quite stupid, and further damaging demonstration of the inadequacy of this labor government by sending a boy who has no direct family left, from their funeral to incarceration in Christmas Island. Bowen drivels on when confronted with the stupidity and the irrationality of it, about the process. He compounds his inadequate grasp of reality by saying that he intends to release the boy back into the community quite soon as soon as he (the incompetent Minister) is assured that everything is in order.

The media spin merchants in his, and the Prime Minister's office, must border on frantic melt down as this, and every other, instance of the failure of basic capabilities are demonstrated across portfolios day after day.

The Australian nation is gifted with such political choices, as the pugnacious and equally incomprehensible leader of the Opposition mouths irrationalities and platitudes, along with his erstwhile colleagues, Senator Scott Morrison, Andrew Robb, et al, trotting out recycled statements and policies that are as clear as mud. The career politician is a drain on productivity, innovation and stamina in modern day Australia and not worth the money they are paid.


February 2011: Forgetting Tony Abbott's contribution to the disaster as irrelevant and all too often shallow motivation, as Queensland drowned under a wall of water and was ripped by Cyclone Yasi, Australia's premier female politician, Anna Bligh, spread a calm, caring and factual blanket across her constituents. Ever the consummate practitioner she had detail and answers at her command down to depth of knowing that was quite astonsihing. By comparison Australia's senior female politician stumbled along, every statement in monotone, shallow, usually general and too often motherhood.

She inoned how the government and the people would be behind Queensland and there for as long as it takes, etc etc.. being behind Queensland is for the Gillard labor government about levying a flood tax. Will we have a cyclone tax now? The fixation with keeping budgets in surplus has long moved beyond voter interest, the masses do not care. Only the investors, and share market traders, and those who think a surplus, and credit rating, increases their investment dividend care. The greater number of Australians would rather have assets, infrastructure and services than a AAA credit rating. "Singular focus - ego", to set themselves out there as economic managers drives the modern labor, and liberal politicians, not substance and policy. When Prime Minister Julia Gillard tries to sound serious she defeats herself with her
poor communication, language (I am "gonna" she says)and the great millstone, an extensive record of administrative management ably assisted in the latter cases by Treasurer Wayne Swan.

In the days, months and years, to come it will be Queensland Premier Anna Bligh who will deliver on the ground, and her task will be much more than putting a few Centrelink officers in towns, and cities, to handle benefit applications and cash payments. In a way having this as her first task makes us wait for the possibility that she may transfer to the federal government. Which role is more important to the nation? (Kevin Beck, "The days of wine and roses gone" 2011)


January 2011: Prior to Christmas I predicted that the Gillard government would last until about mid 2011. This was based on the propensity of the Rudd - Gillard government to make so many mistakes and their record of poor and wasteful administration. However now things are different. There is a crisis. Queensland has 75% of its surface area under water and one of Australia's engine houses has been shut down.


On television, in Queensland, the Prime Minister, the Honourable Ms Julia Gillard, expressed her sorrow at the deaths of adults and children in the floods with visible emotion. yet she did not go overboard. However she appears uncomfortable in situations which require a broader set of knowledge and awareness skills in comparison to her colleague, Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland.

Ms Gillard's delivery is wooden and she is very light on policy. Giving away money and putting a few hundred Centrelink people on the ground to process is claims is easy. Will this lack of policy ability ultimately bring her down?

Future PM

The strength of the two senior women leaders of Australia is apparent in certain respects, Anna Bligh, is in the right place at the right time and Queensland is well served. This is in contrast to the government of New South Wales. Even as the flood crept into NSW the Premier, and government, in that state was nowhere to be seen until Grafton was threatened. It is a pity that labor NSW is such a shabby government denying Premier Kenneally the dignity to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other two. The Queensland government is not all that respected but citizens can put aside their petty, and often ill informed, and biased, views to deal with their lives.


For some critics Mr. Abbott proved that he is not up to the task of being Prime Minister with his rubbish plan to study dam locations for a year. One wonders if the liberal pary has any intellectual capacity in its senior federal ranks? Dams are very costly, are not terribly good at controlling floods as we now see in Brisbane and most, if not all, of the good dam locations have been built. So what are ledt econdary? What is the purpose of a dam? Is it to mitigate drought or manage flood? How is the balance achieved? If Tony Abbott had either investigated this himself or allocated it to a bright party/staff researcher he would have learnt this quickly inside of a month not a year. Instead he made a goose of himself and needs to consider another career, preferably in the private sector, where he can waste someone's else's time and money other than the taxpayer. Though what he might be marginally, or reasonably, good at does not come quickly to mind. (Kevin R Beck, "The Ascending Julia Gillard, 2011")


Diplomacy, Politics and Public Service is a Tough game "TONY EASTLEY: US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that the Australian Government was willing to accept a compromise on whaling with Japan as recently as February last year. ... TIMOTHY MCDONALD: The Government's public pronouncements around the same time took on a different tone." (Source: WikiLeaks show Australia considered whaling compromise Timothy McDonald reported this story on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 08:12:00, AM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"Mr Garrett said the flights had strengthened the anti-whaling mood in Australia and made it difficult for the government to compromise with Japan. Two weeks later, then prime minister Kevin Rudd publicly called for an end to the hunt. At the same time, Australian diplomats were urging politicians to strike a deal. Read more:" (Source: Australia discussed secret whale deal, WikiLeaks cables claim From: AAP, January 04, 2011 11:43AM, on"

"It seems Peter Garrett, the Australian Environment Minister, stood his ground against the compromise deal (10CANBERRA93 created 2010-02-05), although it appears the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were keen on the compromise deal as a way of reforming the IWC (and perhaps earning some brownie points with the US). Environment Department Chief of Staff David Williams gave a small amount of ground when he outlined a negotiating position for the Australian Government that "delivers a much lower level of whaling, but it has to be accompanied by signals of commitment to address other key issues - sustaining the commercial moratorium, keeping whaling out of the southern sanctuary areas and Australian antarctic waters, bringing all whaling under the control of the IWC, and preventing future scientific whaling." Even this small degree of compromise would be found politically objectionable to many conservation minded Australians." (Source: Wikileaks: Garrett stood his ground on whaling compromise, Sea Shepherd tax status targeted Tue 04 Jan 2011, By takver on")

Commentary by Beck: The Wikileaks cables are the perceptions, and an edited record, of diplomats, and others, who report their version, and recollections or interpretations of events and discussions. These are not minutes sent out to the parties for correction. Are we to presume that, in an environment where one's career aspirations are at the whim of others, including the ruling political party in power at the time, these are accurate, and unbiased, summaries? I think not. They merely serve to show us that facts and events are a changing feast according to who is writing the history. Wikileaks titillates our prejudices not our logic and fairness. (Kevin R Beck, "Don't let truth get in the way, January 2011)


Several weeks back I wrote to a number of senior labor members of Australia's government, including the office of the Prime Minister and Attorney General. I indicated to them that in my considered opinion their public statements regarding Julian Assange, and Wikileaks, would come back to damage their credibility and integrity. It would render their government irreparably harmed and likely to trigger an election in 2011.

On my
Gillard government web site I ask how a government (Rudd and Gillard) can make so many blunders on almost every major action of their time in government? Of course one can never expect a reply to communications that warn, or criticise, from the members of any of Australia's governments because the ethos under which these people operate is "they are the font of all knowledge" and critics are to be dismissed, ridiculed and all too often threatened. Ms Gillard, and her senior Ministers, run a shockingly ethically challenged and grossly inexperienced government and yet despite time after time getting in a mess they blunder stubbornly on. One may offer assistance or guidance many times but it falls on deaf ears. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia "The Tin Ear" 2010

On December 6, 2010 prominent Australians wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister... I await her consideed response and sadly expect it to be as ignorant as her, and the Attorney General's first set of utterances. I note that the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, and the conservative side of politics is silent, why is that? Could it be that Tony Abbott is no more of a statesman leader than the incumbents? Our choices of leader of the Australian government, at any one time, are extremely limited.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times. William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?” “Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.
“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.
Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.
And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture). In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing. Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him. As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states. We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness. A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world. In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O’Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor Sunili Govinnage, lawyer Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer


I received this email today Sunday 12 December, 2010:

Dear Kevin,

Today I’ve announced some important reforms to help make our banking system more competitive and sustainable, and make sure it works for Australian families and business, not against them. I’ve certainly had a lot to say about the banks in the last couple of years, and -- like a lot of people -- I’ve made plain my displeasure about how the Big Four added on their own interest rate increases above official moves. The aim of our bank package is to give consumers more power to get a better deal, help smaller lenders put more competitive pressure on the big banks, and make sure our financial system continues to supply a sustainable flow of credit to households and businesses. Competition is the best way to ensure borrowers and depositors get a better deal as well as more choice.

This is a detailed package of reforms, and I’ve spent months working with our regulators and the industry to make sure we get it right. Of course, there’s no easy solution here and things won’t change overnight. But I’m going to keep working hard to help all Australians get a better banking deal. If you’re interested in reading more about the package, here’s the press release and the policy document.

Thanks for everything you do to support your Gillard Labor Government.

Now if you read the commentary below would you think I am doing anything for the Gillard government? If you communicate to them, they do not read the content. The semi literate who open the mail put you on a mailing list and then the party hacks blindly send the stuff out, in the name of a Minister or the Prime Minister, treating you like an idiot. Is there no wonder that respect for these clowns was burnt up a long time back. (Kevin R Beck, "The Parasites of the Australian Labor Party" 2010)


During the week a senior and respected public servant resigned his oosition as head of the Murray Darling Basin Authority. He did so on a matter of principle. There are two sides to every argument and the resignation may be the result of one party being overly precious or not. In my opinion Mr Ttaylor exposes yet again, the craven nature of the Gillard government. The senior Minister Tony Bourke, and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who will do whatever it takes to get their agenda and objectives up. According to Mr Taylor he was told to act outside of legislation for the political benefit of the government. Prime Minister Gillard produces a legal opinion to the contrary. What a surprise. Does she also have a US cable to go with it? One should always doubt the politician's credibility, particularly one with a record like Julia Gillard. A grain of salt as the adage goes.

Unlike his political master he has integrity and honour and thus he resigned. In her ignorance and stupidity Gillard does not realise the effect this has on the rest of the Australian Public Service.

Gillard, and her less enlightened colleagues, rely upon the ignorance and detachment of the general public assuming that it is they who keep the politician in office. Everyone knows that is not the case as the two maor parties should have larnt from the
federal election of 2010. It seems that their abilities to invent their own interpretations keeps them in a state of perpetual fantasy as to their tenure. Their will be another election before the full term of Julia Gillard. The question is whether anyone in the Australian parliament cares about the integrity of the public service to give a damn or will another quality public servant have sacrificed their careers for an ideal that is outmoded in this modern era? (Kevin R Beck, "The Ethical Void of Gillard's labor Government 2010", 2010)

"Murray-Darling Basin Authority chairman quits, Phillip Coorey, December 7, 2010

The chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Mike Taylor, has resigned, taking a swipe at the Gillard government. Mr Taylor informed Water Minister Tony Burke he would leave his post at the end of January. He then confirmed his resignation in a statement released this morning. His resignation is the latest blow in the government's attempts to produce a plan for sustainable water use. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, wants a plan ready by the end of next year. Advertisement: Story continues below But Mr Taylor today rejected the push by the government that the authority should account for the social and economic implications of water cutbacks across the basin, a move that was forced upon it after angry outbursts from farmers. He said that the authority was neither empowered nor equipped to undertake the whole task of designing a sustainable plan for the river system." (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

labor mishandles their policy activity again

The Treasurer Wayne Swan surely is feeling miffed and annoyed. bank bashing is supposed to be politically rewarding and safe. But not for labor. They cannot take a trick. Mr Swan heralded great changes to the banking regulatory systems that would engender greater competition. perhaps the best one of the initiatives was to assist credit unions to become more like banks. Banning exit fees for new mortgages and looking at transportability of account numbers, Mr Swan was probably excited. The government probably should not have suggested that their initiatives would hold down interest rate rises. The government did not get accolades, they got brick bats.

"Fifth banking pillar 'a joke': Symond, Published 4:07 PM, 14 Dec 2010 Last update 8:08 PM, 14 Dec 2010, AAP

Aussie Home Loans founder John Symond has labelled the government's moves to create a fifth pillar of banking as a joke. Treasurer Wayne Swan has unveiled measures to create a campaign to promote credit unions and building societies as a way of breaking the power of the big four banks. But Mr Symond, who founded the Aussie mortgage originator group in 1992, said the government had ignored the contribution of non-bank lenders in sparking competition in the home loan market. In doing so, he derided the plan to prop up mutuals.

"I'm disappointed that the Treasurer, in announcing his initiatives, has failed to consult with that sector that brought on competition, the non-banks ... who have been totally shut out of the current funding environment," Mr Symond told a Senate hearing in Sydney on Tuesday. "It wasn't the banking sector that brought competition, it wasn't the mutuals ... but to suggest the mutuals can become the fifth force in banking, quite frankly, is a joke." Mr Symond also criticised the government's plan to ban exit fees on new standard variable mortgages from July 2011, describing it as a secondary problem." (Source: AAP, Business Spectator,

"Exit fee ban won't help existing borrowers, AAP, December 12, 2010, 5:54 pm

Borrowers who take out a new home loan from July 2011 will be spared having to pay an early exit fee but Australians already on a mortgage will still be slugged. Treasurer Wayne Swan will introduce legislation next year which would see lenders prosecuted if they try to bring back exit fees through another name. But the government's banking competition reforms, unveiled on Sunday, are more likely to hurt smaller lenders, who charge up to $7300 for borrowers wanting to switch loans. The Commonwealth Bank charges an exit fee of $700 while Westpac demands $900 to leave.

Adding a touch of irony to his announcements, Mr Swan took a swipe at smaller, non-bank lenders in outlining the reforms designed to break the market share of the big four banks. "If smaller lenders have to depend, on their business model, on an exit fee as high as $7000, well that's just not sustainable," Mr Swan told reporters in Canberra on Sunday. "And it's not something that we can tolerate if we want to have a banking system that is competitive." Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the policy to abolish exit fees was more likely to hurt smaller lenders and do little to foster competition considering that ANZ and National Australia Bank had already scrapped the charges. "Smaller players won't be able to do it so out with the exit fees and in with the application fees - other fees will go up because the smaller players need that fee income to remain somewhat competitive with the larger players," he told reporters in Sydney on Sunday." (Source: 7 News Yahoo,

BANKING SHOWDOWN, Attacks from all sides over bank reform, PUBLISHED : 14 DEC 2010 04:48:25

Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stephens, AMP economist Shane Oliver, and Australian bankers Association CEO, Steven Munchenberg all warned that banning exit fees risked hurting small lenders". (Source, Australian Financial Review, 14 december 2010)

"Non-banks warn of higher rates, 14/12/2010 7:50:54 PM,

Australia's non-bank lenders have intensified their attack on Treasurer Wayne Swan's plan to boost mortgage market competition, arguing it will lead to higher interest rates. The federal government wants to ban exit fees on new standard variable home loans from July 2011. The Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia, the peak body for non-bank lenders and home loan brokers, says this will hurt smaller players, who comprise just three per cent of the market. "They would have to put up their interest rates," the association's chief executive, Phil Naylor, told a Senate hearing in Sydney on Tuesday. "But if they put up their interest rates, they're no different to the rest of the lenders in the market." Non-bank lenders charge some of the lowest interest rates in the mortgage market but also levy some hefty exit fees." (Source: Money, Nine MSN,

All above suggest the government initiatives will drive interest rates up. The Reserve bank Governor has no partisan interest maybe others do. The Australian Senate enquiry is listening to all sorts of dommsday stories and predictions. One of the most interesting appearances and thought bubbles was from Cameron Clyne, CEO of the National Australia Bank. He pondered a break from the relationship between the Reserve Bank cash rate and the banks own lending rates. This is consistent with my analysis and

Some time back, on the predictions web site I pointed out that there is no real relationship between the RBA cash rate and the cost of funds to banks since they are borrowing off shore and are subject to global markets. The RBA deliberations deal with inflation, the bank's rate settings are not focused on capping inflation. The RBA wants to blunt consumer, and worker, sentiment, banks do not. tabloid media and politicians like to play up the "draconian" link when it does not really exist. In creating and maintaining the facde the medio and politicians have given the banks a vehicle to raise rates in line with RBA cash rate increases even though they might not have to. It is all smoke and mirrors. Punters really need to educate themselves on the whole thing and can go here to the Mosaic Portal investment web site. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, "Misunderstanding the role of RBA cash rates in Australia", 2010)


I am being charitable in the above statement, giving the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that it is she who has no idea of the status of her office and no class. There she is dressed in the same unflattering fashion, talking the lazy drawl, in the company of Oprah Winfrey on the Yarra River. The standard low grade stunt of the modern politician, the picture grab with someone who has more admirers than she (Julia) has. Julia Gillard basks in the limelight of the USA star, without realising how obsequious, and demeaning, that may appear to some.

Does the Prime Minister, and her Chief of Staff and advisers, not yet get the status of her office and why she almost did not see another term as Prime Minister?

Yet again Julia Gillard demonstrates a lack of gravitas of office and image. The Oprah Winfrey band wagon came here on the make, paid for by others ($A4,000,000 - $A5,000,000, the majority probably had no passports. Am I being elitist or should the Prime Minister be walking with heads of state and not some frumpy US television personality with an audience that struggles with literacy and numeracy?

Martin Ferguson some months back gushed in parliament about how Oprah had an audience twice the size of our population and the television ratings etc, without really indicating if he knew the demographic, and the socioeconomic quantum of her audience. According to Tourism Australia the Oprah Winfrey demographic are affluent women who make travel decisions. I have not quite seen the affluence in her USA audience. However one must assume, given their control over our tourism dollar, that their determinations are accurate. Maybe our decision makers have no idea of the structure of US day time television, who knows? The Australian Tennis Open, Australian Grand Prix and Flemington Spring Racing Carnival add more television value to an international audience of likely incoming tourists.

If the results do not materialise from the Oprah visit then the Prime Minister of Australia, the Minister and Tourism Australia, all risk looking like twits, with poor judgement and no class. Hopefully it will be raging successful investment but we probably will not know since transparency is not one of the halmarks of our governments and bureaucracies. (Kevin R Beck, "Cultural cringe, and the creeping, degeneration of the status of the office of Prime Minister in Australia, 2010)


Independents in parliament need to review their support

The above blunt statement is a product of frustration and three years of dealing with, and observing, an incomptenet and inept set of senior Ministers of the labor party. Not all Ministers are in this category (Ferguson and Crean are very competent) but overall the Gillard government is appalling. The case of Julian Assange is yet another example. There is no careful thought before Ministers put their mouth into gear without their brain. Examine Australia's Attorney General and his first set of public statements. he like many of his colleagues states things that are either inappropriate, ultra vires or off the cuff. The rhetoric is overblown, the situation more often than not misrepresented and the drama exacerbated by the Minister and overall government incompetence. There are arguments for and against what Wikileaks is doing. But according to the US and Australian governments, in general, response to everything are black or white. The threat to national security of the USA, and to other nations, institutions and people, is first, and foremost, the lax security of the United States which enables an intelligence officer, in a remote location, to download and store higghly classified material without apparently triggering some warning oversight or audit. The threat is the US reliance on technology as the wonder device of the modern era. Technology drives every aspect of the US and when it fails or is flawed dramatic consequences occur. The US now conducts war from a facility using technology and wonders why they tend not to be able to win and then they wonder why third world nations can kick their butts.

The next threat to security is the propensity for diplomats, and people, like Australia's former Prime Minister and current Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, to run off at the mouth and for someone to write it all down in a document which is in electronic form ready for transmission by any lunatic or person with some injkling of technology. The material is not encrypted. Many years back such confidential materials went in diplomatic bags. One tended not to write a lot because it produced paper and took time. Now the US is paying the technology price - 250,000 cables all in a few gigabytes, all trotted out it seems by any man and his dog.

The last threat is the US itself. Soying on members of the United Nations including Ban Ki Moon and degrading their allies such as the UK with remarks about the quality of their soldiers. The threat is the

December 2010: "Intuition..... thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection"

Intuition is not crystal ball gazing or voodoo. Intuition is shaped by experience and environment. Then there is "prescience..... knowldege of things before they happen. This is a rare talent and not one that is possessed, apparently, by anyone in the Gillard labor government. Quite the opposite, appaers to be the case. The labor party lacks any attribute to foretell the outcome of their actions. So it goes with the Wikileaks.

It is not knew that the Australian labor government should demonstrate its inept capacity for misjudgement. They have for the past three years given us multiple examples. Australia's Attorney General today demonstrated that he is just another politician who lacks a prescient capability. Australia's government - the puppet of someone else. The monkey grinder who makes our government dance.

Paul Keating once said politics is the battle of ideas. One idea is that government should be accountable. We tolerate secrecy, and lying, in the name of national security and anti-terrorism. We tolerate too mcuh.

"Mr McClelland yesterday slammed Mr Assange's actions as potentially life endangering and "incredibly irresponsible and reprehensible". (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may have broken Australian law and may not be welcomed back to the country if convicted, Attorney-General Robert McClelland says. Mr Assange, who has been involved with the online posting of about 250,000 US diplomatic memos, is the subject of a Swedish arrest warrant over sex-crime allegations. He was born in and holds a passport for Australia and may return to the country. 'I'm aware the US Attorney has said that US law-enforcement authorities are looking very closely at the fact that United States laws may have been breached and the Australian Federal Police are looking at whether any Australian laws have been breached,' Mr McClelland told reporters on Saturday. 'We have also indicated that we will provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities.' (Source: Australia to help US over Assange Updated: 21:04, Saturday December 4, 2010)

McLelland suggested that Julian Assange might not be welcome back into Australia. Why is that Minister? he did not steal documents. He did not break into secret files and computer systems. He received every journalists dream package. He may not be a journalist but he is a publisher of sorts. McLelland seems to have trashed centuries of common law and the notion of citizenship and the rights of a citizen to be protected. Through this statement McLelland became another piece of political flotsam floating in labor's political sewer. Gillard apparently agrees. One would not expect her to have a devastating argument or turn of phrase for she can rarely go to the heart of a matter.

Mr. McLelland may assume the greater number of Australians know nothing of the world of shadows and diplomacy, and through his misrepresentation and hollow threats, insults thinking, reading and knowledgeable Australians. The trade mark of the Australian politician in a senior role is to embellish, spin or lie, to resport to hyperbole and over statement of the the consequences of anything including their own participation and efforts. He suggests that peoples' lives are at risk and in doing that shows us what a political fool he is. What poppycock rubbish from a senior member of government. The wikileaks cable expose shows many of us what we already knew through other media, international reading and in some cases our work. Diplomats are in a world of their own making and are not to be trusted. Our own former Prime Minister is a former low level diplomat. Not a high level one, a low level one. Thus many may have felt he was unsuited to high office all through his career culminating in losing the Prime Ministership without an election. Wikileaks shines a light across the world.

McLelland obviously has a very flimsy awareness of the
technology that surrounds, and impacts his, and every other government, throughout the world. It is not wikileaks alone that plays the fiddle to orchestrate the dance.

A technology that is already turning its attention onto the Gillard government's poor handling of the Wikileaks issue.

Then the next day, the position stated by Mclelland is retracted by a spokesperson:

Australia's Attorney-General Robert McClelland hinted that the government would not stop WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from coming home. According to a spokesperson of McClelland, the Attorney-General stated that the 39-year-old Australian is 'entitled' to come home and could also avail consular assistance overseas. "Mr. Assange, like every Australian citizen, has rights, and nothing is stopping him from coming home to Australia," the spokesperson said quoting McClelland on Monday." (Source: International Business Times, By IBTimes Staff Reporter, Monday, December 6, 2010, "Wikileaks' Assange can come home: top Aussie official")

The Australian media is already derisive of the government for rhetoric and weakness. The state against the individual, the classic battle replayed through the ages.


This lack of foresight (prescience) is going to backlash on Australia and the USA. The Wikileaks diplomatic cable expose are lurid examples of a nasty back biting gossipy world of diplomacy. In which we can note that which many of us knew before, the US has little loyalty towards allies. One may be inclined to the proposition that it is an unethical, self absorbed nation that created a global financial crisis and now a diplomatic blunder of monumental proportion. Assange, through the informant, has shown the world what the US character really is all about. These cables show the world what goes on bheind the lies, and the subterfuge, of diplomacy, politics and governments around the world. It has exposed the poor judgement of a myriad of people who occupy positions of trust and responsibility.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary has apologised to the British for the slur on their troops. The British Prime Minister might like to think about walking away from Afghanistan. "Treason, treachery, execution" are the typical rants of American shock jocks and loud boorish politicians. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says that it after all won't matter much because we all need the USA. This fading empire exhibits a venial arrogance and hubris, everyday.

Perhpas McLelland and the Prime Minister have not considered how Wikileaks maintains its presence? Who funds it and for what purpose? Mr Assange is not the sole individual behind Wikileaks and some of the hidden supporters are indeed very powerful corporate and political operators.

Through his misjudgement, Minister Robert McLelland, may well turn out to be one of those Australians who ultimately betrays his country's ideal of egalitarianism. Instead of being in Australia's federal parliament Mr. McLelland might consider a career as a dramatic actor,a comedic role in a soap opera, for which he exhibits the required talents.

There is an element of apparent paranoia in Julian's threats to unload material onto the web if he is pursued by authorities and some might be inclined to ponder if he has a history of such inner feelings? Then again why is he different to many in the US administration, and legislative assemblies, who are also exhibiting tendencies of paranoia? (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, "The Decline of an Empire and the Rise of Paranoia" 2010)


The Australian labor party strategists, advisers and certain Ministers of the federal government seem to have the ability to take a publicly supported, and promising idea, or policy, and to turn it into a disaster and ultimately a failure. Consumer matters - fuel watch, grocery watch, environment and the pink batts, the education revolution which turned out to be a building programme, and not a learning policy, the MyWeb site that has false or missing statistics, a national curriculum rejected by experts, water policy buy back scheme and the Murray Darling Basin quite stupid plan, energy and the failures of planning for growth in demand at federal and state level, where the government thinks that small population and education about use with increased tariffs is a solution, the community housing projects for the disadvantaged including indigenous peoples which delivers liitle to no impact in assisting low income, disadvantage or reducing homelessness, the failed homeless policy vaunted by Kevin Rudd just after the federal election of 2007, the medical super clinics, a hospital bed programme that delivers 11 extra beds in three years, the solar scheme, emission trading, and climate change, and the national broadband network (NBN). The government actually had, and still has(reduced) , support for the NBN, but Senator Conroy, the Minister in charge, still wants to bully and frustrate and oversight or questioning. He is a thug rather than a facilitator and it is his fault alone that the government's capital in this area of policy and action is trashed. One tires of dealing with thugs in politics of which the Australian labor party seems to have the most. The project is the largest infrastructure investment in Australia's history and the government arrogantly will not realease the economic justification.

How do they achieve this failure and ignorance of management practice, in such spectacular self destructive, and costly, fashion? Their rushed crash through style, inept management, has cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and yet labor leaders most notably Julia Gillard try and tell us that everything is a glowing achievement, stubbornly refuting critics, independent analysts, the media's and commentators claims, researchers, think tanks and others like the OECD and the Australian Auditor General. As e end 2010 it seems that the labor government does not understand that it no longer has control. Julia Gillard should spend her time over the holidays taking fashion tips and lessons along with elocution lessons to stop her drawling, lazy delivery, introduced into politics by John Kirner in Victoria, decades back.

The voters have grown tired of the manipulation, the lies and thuggery,
corrosion and corruption of Australia's government at every level. John Brumby, and the labor government, in Victoria, are about to learn just how tired they are with the result of the Victorian election of 2010 ending his government, with a hung parliament and swing to the liberal national party. The losers will be independents, labor and the Greens. The Greens will win no seats in the Victorian lower house of parliament.


Today I received an email from the Prime Minister explaining that her government did really believe in equal pay for women. Why did this email come? Well because the federal government has joined the national wage case in tge Fair Pay circus tent arguing that a pay rise for community services workers (predominantly owmen) would risk the ability of the government to return the budget to surplus. Well the risk is not to the budget and the surplus but to the politicians particularly Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

"Union's fury at Labor's pay rise 'backdown' By Simon Santow, Posted Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:19pm
The Federal Government is being accused of betraying hundreds of thousands of community workers who are seeking a pay rise. The Australian Services Union (ASU) says it was assured it would have the Labor Party's backing on an equal pay case before Fair Work Australia. But that was before a Government submission outlined the difficulty in funding any significant pay rise. The secretary of the ASU in New South Wales, Sally McManus, says its members are furious and they are questioning what the Labor Party stands for. "Anger would be an understatement," she said.

"There's fury, absolute fury because workers in my union and elsewhere too, when we went to the election, expected that Labor would support equal pay." Ms McManus says 31 Labor MPs, including cabinet ministers Tony Burke, Anthony Albanese, Greg Combet, Robert McLelland and Tanya Plibersek, all signed a pledge to support full funding for the equal pay case. But by the time the Government made its official submission to Fair Work Australia, concerns about funding any increase were also being highlighted. "Now for there to be a backdown or a betrayal it is a bit too much to bear," Ms McManus said. (Source:

In typical political form the spin machine of the major political party attempts to justify the unjustifiable in order to be all things to all people. This is the
immoral, parasitic mob that infests Ministry offices, paid from the public purse to mislead, and lie to, us whilst leaving their political bosses (theoretically) untarnished. This is a common practice of the Australian liberal, and labor, parties and their respective Ministers and advisers. In fairness I am providing a link to the Labor Party news site so that you may read all of their material and judge it in the context of my articles, and the content below. Click here for the ALP site>


When I received the email from the Treasurer, with the text of his speech at a book launch, and noted the heading "our politics" I wondered whose politics? Does he mean the labor party's ownership or the politics of Australia's parties and operation of government,implying that it is the collective? From reading his speech you can make your own assumptions. The ownership of government in Australia vests with a handful of political party members and machinists, controlled by the pre-selection process, and incumbency seniority it does not vest in the Australian people. Australians in my personal view are stupid, indolent and ignorant, for allowing this to continue.

Go to Mr Swan's speech

A politician sits in their office

Thought for today. What is my thought for today?

The musings of a few politicians

Image courtesy of Kitty Roach


Who is questioning Ms Gillard's Competency to Be Australia's Prime Minister?

There was jubilation as Australia's first female Prime Minister was sworn in, in the latter part of 2010. A lawyer who had worked her way up through the corrupt and rancid male dominated world of labor party politics. One could overlook her lazy, elocution, similar to Joan Kirner's annoying linguistics (former Premier of Victoria), one could overlook the frumpiness of Ms Gillard whose dress sense seems to be as elusive as her grasp of foreign affiars and other key elements of the role. But should one forgive her stupidity, and willingness, to accept whatever she is told by the political leader of a nation known for its abuse of human rights?

"A GRAPHIC video has emerged of a Papuan man being poked in the genitals with a fiery stick as he is interrogated by men who appear to be members of Indonesia's security services. The Papuan man, stripped naked, bound and with one of the interrogators placing a foot on his chest, is being asked about the location of a cache of weapons. After telling his interrogators the weapons were hidden in a pig pen, one of them screams at him: ''You cheat, you cheat.'' Another interrogator then says ''get a fire, get a fire'' before a colleague administers the torture with a stick that has been placed in a fire and is smouldering. The man screams in agony, and does so again when the stick is again pressed against his genitals." (Source: Torture of Papuan man shown on video, Tom Allard, Jakarta, October 18, 2010:

Activists say Papua torture inaction 'embarrassing' for Australian PM, Soldiers tortured a naked and bound Papuan man.[Asian Human Rights Commission]

Indonesia admits its soldiers have tortured detainees, Created: Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Matt Brown, Indonesia correspondent

Human rights activists say it is a farce that no serious investigation will be undertaken into the events surrounding a video that showed Papuan detainees being tortured by Indonesian troops. It was a hot issue when Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to Jakarta a few weeks ago, and Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono promised a swift investigation into the matter. The video was graphic and shocking. Indonesian soldiers tortured a naked and bound Papuan man, taking a burning stick to his genitals, supposedly looking for weapons used by local insurgents. Australian government officials were alarmed by what they saw and the Indonesian government quickly confirmed the torturers were soldiers. To date there is no evidence that Dr Yudhoyono's assurances to the Australian Government were based on anything more than an empty promise." (Source: ASBC radio Australia News)


People populating the governments of Australia, appear not to listen. It seems to me that they will not look for alternatives, stubbornly sticking to their beliefs and own selective propositions. They, if ever, rarley tolerate challenges to their basic beliefs, preferring their "gut" feelings and experiments.

The definition of a foll may be someone who repetitively does the same thing, dressed up as something esle, expecting a different result. They may pretend not to hear anyone who may contradict, or refute, their views, ideologies and fantasies. They will fashion experience, truth and events, to suit their own analysis of history, rewrite the history to suit. They will repeat the myth until it becomes a self fulfilling, and entrenched, outcome or event in their minds.

So it is with the outcomes of elections. Politicians, and party machine people, turn defeat into a win or a some form of success. They cannot comprehend that the general population no longer believes or respects them, or if they do comprehend they don not care for the system is corrupted and for the select few, in safe seats with guaranteed preselection, the votes of the Australian nation's constituents are irrelevant.

Along the way, they will quack the need for new ideas, for rejuvenation and new blood in the party, claiming to be formists, but in reality they will not embrace such propositions for to do so threatens their self interests, personal careers and positions of power and influence. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, the Nature of Australian Politics and Governments, 2010)


People who desperately didn't want Tony Abbott as prime minister felt free to vote for the Greens, an independent or even for the Opposition because they were convinced we'd win." (Source: 'Expectation problem' led to near defeat, says Karl Bitar, author James Massola From: The Australian November 09, 2010).

Where does Mr Bitar get his assertion (proof) that the voters thought labor would win? This web site
click here demonstrates, quite clearly, that this is not the case. The web site was constructed two months prior to the federal election. The campaigns referred in the web site were devised, and implemented, during the Rudd Prime Ministership and some elements well before that time.

Mr Bitar, like some others in labor, have talked of an ideas embracement and a rejuvenation of participation. This is motherhood rubbish, since the systems devised by the party machine people, including Karl Bitar, are designed to manage participation, control and debate in a rigid adherence framework. The labor party that Greg Combet, romantically refers to in his "values" statements no longer exists. Like Mr Bitar, Mr Combet is a party to the control of how thigs work.

"Dear Australian Electoral Commissioner,

On behalf of many concerned citizens of Australia I would like to make an application for the deregistration of the Australian Labor Party. Section 137 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 says that a political party can be deregistered if the Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a political party has ceased to exist. Although the Act doesn't say whether "ceased to exist" relates to the party's physical, philosophical or spiritual condition, it's a pretty safe bet in the Labor Party's case that it qualifies on all grounds. Finding "reasonable grounds" is easy: all you need do is compare Labor's constitution and objectives with recent Australian history." (Source: Kellie Tranter, Application to deregister the ALP, 17 MAY 2010, ABC "Drum Unleashed", .. and in response bloggers write, inter alia:

"Chookman : 20 May 2010 1:18:16pm, Kellie has written a very good overview of the now defunct ALP - and its descent into the abyss of neo liberalism. This demise began in the 80's and has continued to the point where Malcolm Fraser now looks like a bloody leftie compared to the ALP. Like many Australians in 2007 I was ecstatic at the demise of John Winston Howard, and his non core promises, however it appears that K.Rudd and the ALP are now ensconsed on the same pathway." ... "Greenkiller : 19 May 2010 1:26:11pm, Poor diddums Kellie. Once again, matters are not as she would wish them, therefore something must be wrong, or at least be "deregistered". Of course, if the ALP was to remain true to its outdated values and the ideals of the socialist international, it would never, EVER win office." ... "Aunty Social : 21 May 2010 3:28:13pm, Barry Jones once made a list of the idelogical differences between the Labor and Liberal parties, and writes in his last book, A Thinking Reed that those differences no longer exist. In 2004 Jones wrote "Australia now has two mainstream parties of the right: the ALP on the centre-right and the Liberal Party on the hard-right". (Source: ABC as above)

The primary objective of the two parties, labor and liberal, is obviously to win government. This is quite clear. For Karl Bitar to postulate that there is any other compelling requirement is to treat the listener as being uninformed. Julia Gillard already tried the smoke and mirrors approach to campaigning by presenting herself as a chameleon (and one without fashion sense to boot) offering us the shallow proposition of a new Julia. Does she now realise, and contemplate, how silly, and hollow, she is? The Australian labor party at the federal level seems to be staffed with incompetent strategists and people who trsuggle with the art of communication. Maybe they are lost in adoration of technology, twitter, facebook and the like, and sound bites, unable to articulate ideas and visions. The speech writers of modern Australian politics in 2010 are not a patch on Don Watson. Don encapsulated the world of Karl Bitar, and other senior members of the party machine and the parliament, in his book "Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon, Random House Australia, 2004".

'I think this language; it's the language of a cad. It's the language of someone who's actually trying to escape the reality and is unwilling to be honest about it. In the end it doesn't do any harm to be honest, I don't think.' Don Watson speaking on ABC radio, 5 November 2010.

Minister Penny Wong's
performance in her climate portfolio is littered with cliches and cant. Wayne Swan, Treasurer, labours over communication, and policy, explanations garbling jargon and vain threats. The media fires up the political heart when it says the banks are thumbing their noses at the government. Wayne and Julia break out into righteous indignation whilst knowing full well that they are largely powerless against the corporate banking monster. If the Australian labor government, and the liberal party opposition, want competition in banking then they should empower the credit unions to be able to offer full banking services under their charters. In the meantime Mr Bitar can ponder the prospect of a hung parliament for the Victorian state election of November 27, 2010. Kevin R Beck


It seems that every major initiative, handled by the Rudd - Gillard labor government, is applaingly executed. We have had the insulation debacle, the building the education revolution debacle, the East Timor regional refugee solution debacle, the climate change debacle, the mining tax debacle and now there is the Murray Darling Basin Independent Authority debacle. Are there no people of capable administration, and lateral thinking capacity, within the the labor party governments, advisory groups, senior advisers and bureaucrats, across Australia? Anyone with any awareness and sense of the psyche of regional Australia would have known the outcomes of labor's policy sets and their proposals, yet labor bullocked on ignoring anyone outside its own myopic views.

(October 1, 2010: distribution of this set of predictions took place to politicians in October 2010 - "FOOD, ENERGY, WATER AND STAPLE PRICES WILL RISE DRAMATICALLY UNDER STATE LABOR GOVERNMENTS AND FEDERAL LABOR PARTY POLICIES"

Click here

The Murray Darling Basin Authority published a draft submission of ideas and actions relating to water across multiple states in Australia. They beased their assumptions and propositions on thin evidence and little examination. The paper was entirely environmentally focused and as such one wonders what the capacity of the Chair, and Board, members of this authority might be regarding how the farmers and local residents in those affected communities might be? The reaction is set oput below. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia)

October 18, ANGRY predictions of dying country towns have forced the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to rethink the human cost of water clawbacks from irrigators.

The besieged authority will commission a fresh investigation of the socio-economic impact of proposed reductions in the volumes of water farmers can take from the Murray-Darling system. The authority has been ridiculed ....After a week of abusive public meetings in basin communities, authority chairman Mike Taylor said the message from regional Australia was "loud and clear". (Source: Murray-Darling Basin Authority rethinks water clawbacks, Michael Harvey From: Herald Sun October 18, 2010 12:00AM)

" MARK COLVIN: More than a thousand people queued up today for the first public meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority since it released its draft water buy back plan last Friday. Farmers and irrigators in Shepparton in the Riverina could not hide their rage. They claimed the plan would cripple rural Australia and cost tens of thousands of jobs....No how dare you buggers sit up there and tamper with our livelihood." (source: ABC PM, Farmers angry over public meeting of Murray-Darling plan Alison Caldwell reported this story on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 18:30:00)

" PROTESTOR: We want our water back. (Protesters throwing papers on a bonfire), PROTESTOR 2: Burn the plan! Burn the plan!, PROTESTOR 3: You bunch of wankers! Get out of here and leave us alone!

JULIA GILLARD (at press conference): Now I understand people care about this issue passionately. MAN 1 (at meeting): Governments couldn't give a shit about what happens to us people here. MAN 2 (at meeting): Basically the plan is bull shit. MAN 3 (at meeting): You're talking shit! MAN 4 (at meeting): You have hurt my wife and family you sons of bitches.

SIMON CREAN, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT MINISTER (excerpt from AM, ABC Radio): I know the television pictures show the anger.

TONY WINDSOR, INDEPENDENT MP (excerpt from 7.30 Report, ABC TV): I think the magnitude of the changes has actually frightened people.

SIMON CREAN (excerpt from AM, ABC Radio): People get angry.

PROTESTOR (outside meeting): It stinks, MAN 5 (outside meeting): Stupidity, absolute stupidity, MAN 6 (outside meeting): There's an answer to this you drongos. Build more dams, easy, MAN 7 (outside meeting): No water's no business you know? MAN 8 (at meeting): What happens to the farmers? What happens to us?, scrap the plan, take it back to Canberra, MAN 9 (at meeting): What happens to the farmers, what happens to us? You're only worried about the basin! What about us? (Applause and cheering), WOMAN (at meeting): Take it back to Canberra!

WOMAN 2 (at meeting): Who is going to compensate business when we go under because our communities are decimated? MAN 10 (at meeting): Is it the intention of the MDBA to bankrupt regional Australia? (Cheering) MAN 11 (at meeting): What you are doing is destroying communities. You don't care and obviously the Government doesn't either. NEWSREADER (excerpt from ABC TV News bulletin): The Federal Government has announced a parliamentary inquiry into the social impact of the Murray Darling Basin plan. SIMON BIRMINGHAM (water grabs @ 1:00), This is in many ways a weak response from a weak Government,

SIMON BIRMINGHAM (excerpt from Sky News): This is in many ways a very weak response from a weak Government.

GARY HARDGRAVE (excerpt from AM Agenda, Sky TV): Whenever you see the word commission you know there's a minister hiding.

MAN 12 (at meeting): You've done absolutely no good whatsever. MAN 13 (at meeting): All I can see is my future and my children's future being flushed down the toilet at the moment. (Source: ABC Insiders Programme,Major row erupts over Murray Darling plan, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast: 17/10/2010)

The Murray darling Basin Authority naively put out a report that was based almost entirely on environmental objectives and maybe the fools who did this in such a dim witted manner have learnt that operating in isolation of reality (the environmental agenda in governments today in Australia is a recipe for economic, social and political disaster and destruction)has its consequences. Julia Gillard should think carefully about her carbon tax, and climate change, ideas which are now proven to be based on ignorance, poor advice and flawed science and ideological propositions. Then she should open up her office, and cabinet teams, to some uncomfortable, and alternative, advisers who amongst other things have a broader set of accurate political and analytical skills. If she does not then her government will come tumbling down in 2013 at he hands of Kevin Rudd.

is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Competent?

September 2010: For many years critics have pointed to the continued failure of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Successive Ministers under labor and liberal governments have been derelict in their portfolios resulting in massive losses to investors. The government regulator's incompetence destroys lives and wealth It is time for the new federal Minister to take the reins and earn their salary doing a public good for a change.


Australia's parliament is finally balanced and is drawing much media and political commentary. People, with no experience of hung parliaments, and no experience of much at all, are extolling scenarios and beliefs. The coalition under Tony Abbott is whining that Julia Gillard is not the legitimate Prime Minister, because the people did not vote her in. A few independents delivered the crown. Well if Tony Abbott had been given the crown by the independents would he be legitimate? He was not voted in either. Their justification for being chosen to govern is another simpering claim, they state that they got more primary votes and more seats than labor. Big deal, they did not win the election under the rules of the Constitution.

Of course the opposition could be visionary and innovative instead of being ignorant. They could propose legislation and get it voted in because they are at the same level of parliamentarian representation as labor. But instead they revert to the historic view that an opposition is there to oppose. No wonder that the nation has grown somewhat tired of their self perceived roles, and games, and hung them all out to dry. The National Party, Senator Boswell, Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss cannot get past the fact that there are independents in seats that they deem to be their property. They also whine that the independents should have sided with the coalition because a number of people in those seats voted National after they voted independent. When they win they defend, and support, the preferential voting system, when they lose (especially by a little bit) they denigrate everything, cast spells and incant charms whilst behaving like sulking, immature adolescents with intellectual, and personality, challenges. The members of parliament are all now on show. Would they like to be remembered for their narrow minded approaches and self interest rather than for embracing the future and getting on with a new era and method of governing together. This is test for Tony Abbott and members overall not for Julia Gillard alone. Will Tony rise to the challenge? Governing, I put it to you, is the role of the parliament. It is not the sole right of a political party executive as has been the modus operandi for too long.

I am not sure that the signs are there that Tony can adjust. Mr Abbott could not turn his talent to negotiation when it became apparent that the parliament was hung. He stayed in robot mode. Even at the last minute when he should have been winning over the two independents he was still in election mode. Julia Gillard on the other hand proved that when there is a unusual task at hand, that is difficult and people focused, she can rise to it and she does not need an old song sheet like some carping (parliamentary and non parliamentary) dilettantes. (Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia, September 9, 2010)

Below is yesterday (election 2010), above is today, September 2010, Ms Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister


Julia Gillard represents the new breed of professional politician. Limited in career experience and with minimal job experience they enter politics and climm through the ranks of their respective political parties. They apply, within a rarified selection process, for the top jobs of Australia. They do not have a job interview like normal people, and are not judged by any relevant measure for the positoons for which they aspire. They learn to manipulate the system, use the public funds at their disposal and to capture the democratic process to their pown self interest.


Tuesday July 13, 2010: The Prime Minister said - "In a Gillard government ..." Ms Gillard continues the presidential style of governing. She purloins the peoples' government as her own. Actually Ms Gillard it is a labor government if your side wins, the 2010 federal election, not a "Gillard government". Humility is replaced by hubris in modern Australian politics and governments.

Australian voters are not enamoured with their political choices, and the two main parties, liberal and labor, have candidates at state and federal level who are uninspiring. The system is corrupt and the two parties have control so they do not care about the disenchantment. It is not as if the Australian electoral list is blessed with choices.(Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia)-

Go to Beck commentary
Read about the contest of mediocrity

the eagle sees all ... The ability to predict is the realm of the Futurist

Based on Tetlock's theories, and research, anyone's predictions are just as likely to come true or be off the mark as any of the expert predictions. One can only hope that through ongoing learning, observation, comparison, evaluation and measurement, reading and listening to the views of others one might minimise the probability, and continuance, of always being wrong. You be the judge.

The utilities of the Mosaic Portal are free to use.


cartoons courtesy of Sangrea: click


The art of strategy design and implementation


The Age Newspaper Melbourne Australia
Australia's Melbourne Age

Sydney Morning Herald Australia
Australia's Sydney Morning Herald

Human nature is such that people will not surrender to the truth that they are not capable of doing a job. Politicians present themselves time and time again. The options for voters are abysmal. One only has to look at the candidates in each election to see that they are rusted to the public purse of the electoral merry go round. Click Here

Australasia Region
Q News Australia (Gay)
Press Council of Australia Regulatory Body
Community Broadcasting Stations in Australia
Telstra Australia News
Australian Financial Review Newspaper
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Public Broadcaster)
State Broadcasting Service (Ethnic Multilingual Radio and Television in Australia)
Radio Australia News (Public Broadcaster)
Time Pacific Edition

Health - AMA Perspectives
Health - Nurses Federation
Health - Nurses Federation
Education - Education Union
Education - Professional Practitioners
Asylum Seekers Boat People - Federation
Peak Bodies by Interest Group (Directory)
Crikey Australia
Climate Change
Population and Immigration
Renewable Energy Australia

National Security and Australia


An alternative source of views, and information, about Australia, its governments and bureaucracies creadted, and updated, by Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia.

Australia's governments cannot pass objectional, and contentious, reform legislation or legislation that requires trust and integrity of arguement, because they have lost their legitimacy, lost the respect of voters, business and those who value the quality of their governments and democracy. Australian politics, and government, is decaying under the influence of political parasites, using spin. Australia's governments are extensively corroded, manipulated and corrupted. There are no visionary and courageous, leaders.


Inform yourself, find things that may impact your world of work and goals. Things beyond your horizon. There are a large number of commentary sites dealing with Australian politics, governments, consumers and corporations. Information sites about major issues that are impacting your nation, your work and community, things like climate change, sites for women, sites reporting on analysis and predictions (futurist), sites describing activism tools and communications utilities, vocational web sites for teachers, for professionals, academics, artists and thrill seekers. You will find them, and many more, below in the the individual Mosaic Portal site directory, click here.

Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia
.... Where will you go today, what will you see, hear and learn? Click here.....

Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, Australia services click here

Free to all, provided with the compliments of Kevin Beck, a lateral thinking, game theory strategist. Providing information, informing and educating, seeking out impact, and change, in targeted areas of Australia's governments, public services, society and economy. Sometimes taking an interest in the wider world.

Technology designed to communicate to, and interact with, politicians, governments, public officials, executives at every level in corporations, associations, institutions, communities, interest groups and individuals across the web. An activist utility.

If this section is blank turn your active content on.

Forum and Blog Article Archives
Distribution Utilities

the evangelical web

Bishop Echevarria

"Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society. Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate."

KEVINRBECK commentary writings
Click on image

Article: The Corrosion of Australia's Character by Politics and Business

Article: Restoring Trust After Accountability Failures



Come Fly With Me

Bored? Listen to the radio
Watch television

Australia's Emmission Trading Scheme, As predicted
Going. Going. Gone

Activism and Game Strategy
Get Into Election 2010

Oh Minister Wong It WaS Not True

Go to Politicians, and Governments, Corroding Australia

Gillard Must Stop Rudd's Public Service Model
Bringing Australia's Commonwealth Public Service Down

Counter networked sites, forums and blogs


Go social activism

A Patchwork Identity and National Security Policy in Australia

Read a "Letter from Canberra" here

Click on image

USA Politics Now Click on image

Sociology, tools for interpreting, and testing, spin speak

Information, Commentary and Reporting Sources

Research papers on Social Responsibility
Globalisation Impacts
Various Countries

A selected, personal view of the history of
public policy in Australia 2000 - 2010

It was not until Dr. Geoff Gallop had gone from politics that we could the see real man, see and hear his compassion and disillusionment with Australian political life. He resigned as Premier of Western Australia in 2006 when depression overcame him. He sums up the broken state of our democracy. "Yes we do have to eat to live, but we also need to breathe and to feel. Nor is it just a matter of soul. Life needs to be meaningful as well aspractical and relational," Gallop, June 2006.

Australia's two political parties have jettisoned their philosophies. They have adopted pragmatism and cyncical self interest as alternatives".

The leaders of Australia's federal, state and territory governments have not risen to their high office. Instead they have brought public office down to their level. The senior managers of Australia's public services have emulated this decline. Among other things Australia is a nation governed using fear as a principle political tool. Fear of terorism, fear of interest rate rises, fear of our neighbours and fear of ourselves. Advertised, reinforced and manipulated for political gain under our

The governments of Australia are managed by an elite few. We get the leaders, and the governments, that they decide, not what the nation may need or want. No matter how we may vote, senior career politicians and the labor and liberal political party machines will always remain in control of our parliaments and governments. No matter how self interested, corrupt, inept or incompetent they may be. The Greens and independents cannot challenge their control, they can only affect the balance of power in very limited circumstances. That is until a third major political party is ceated with the resources, candidates and the integrity, to challenge their domination and control, delivering real democracy and broader electoral representation.

Click here for commentary content
up to 2011

Sad Clowns
Click here for commentary 2011 to 2012

Image courtesy of Free

Article: The Corrosion of Australia's Character
by Politics and Business
Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia

Article: The GFC - Restoring Trust
After Accountability Failures

Social Responsibility
Globalisation Impacts

If you cannot see articles here turn your active content on

Kevin Beck Multi-Article Reservoir

Public policy in Australia 1999 - 2007

Custom Search

Click for "Foreign Policies of Australia
and Other Countries"

the evangelical web

Bishop Echevarria


"Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society. Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate."

Custom Search

cartoon by courtesy of Nicholson

Bookmark and Share

Wikileaks - a global source of information
kept from the people of the world
by the power collectives

Beyond the horizon sits the Shadow Server



Going going gone, was the headline in the Australian politics web site owned by Kevin R Beck. It referred to Mr. Kevin Rudd. It was posted fourteen days before the coup. I have access to a tool that can use a focus group of handful of carefully chosen people to determine if a sitting politician will hold their seat or if a candidate will win. ("The Demise of Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministership", Kevin Beck)


June 2010, watching the commentary on the demise of Kevin Rudd as leader of the labor party in government in Australia I noted the rush, by the commentators, to get on board and offer opinions and rationale. Perhaps one of the most common refrains from the "insider elite" is " no one knew" or "who could tell?" and "no one predicted this". Readers of this web site would know that someone definitely did klnow, and predict, the outcome. Similarly the economic watchers were caught flat footed, and out of the loop, on the global financial crisis, again justifying their lack of intuition by being part of the ignorant pack that claimed that it was not possible to predict. They simply did not know. Therefore generally the rest of us would not know. That also is not true. These are the things I do amongst others, assessing, analysing, predicting and implementing.

Politicians, political parties, government agencies, businesses, and corporations, could save a lot of money by reading, and studying, the content of my multiple topic web sites or by simply sounding me out in a conversation.

There is a lot more to
our arsenal of utilities and skills than blogging and commentary on the internet. Soon I will begin to examine Australia, through the eyes and mind, of the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. ("Some of us knew", Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, Australian Politics and Governmment)


The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades... about that disater."

The day we discovered we had no leaders in the state of Victoria's government nor in the public service. It is not clear to me how the Victorian Police Minister Bob Cameron retains his Ministerial portfolio and why the government lead by John Brumby shows no remorse or shame for its dereliction and in some cases corruption of Victoria's governance. (June 2010: "Leadership void", Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia)

Click Here



June 2010: What an irony, Australia's own federal government may well turn out to be the creator of a sovereign risk crisis plunging Australia into the realms of a third world country. More irony, as Kevin Rudd makes a mess of almost everything Tony Abbott cannot muster the support - Australia's political leaders, detached from the electorate, live in a world of their own illusions, delusions, egos and interests.

A book has been written about the collapse of the Enron Corporation, one of the US and world's most spectacular multi billion dollar failures. The golden child of commerce in the nineties and into the 2000s, it was the envy of the markets, capturing the accolades of world economists and financial commentators. Enron had a policy of hiring the brightest, and the best, from the world of academia. The impressive alumni of the globe. Let us transpose this practice to the Prime Minister of Australia.

Kevin Rudd's coterie of closest advisers, and the staff he surrounds himself with, are in their early thirties and they are all graduates, cum lauda, of their respective academic institutions. Mr Rudd's closest Ministerial allies are also alumni luminaries.

Academics tend to think alike, they swarm, and thus it is more accurate to describe Kevin Rudd as an academic rather than a bureaucrat. The common thread of the senior bureaucrat is their high level of education and their affinity for aceademia. If you want to get your written words to be accepted before a committee of the parliament or to have it examined by a bureaucrat then write it in academic vernacular and underpin it with a
research methodology and footnote published academic references and upporting research preferably peer reviewed. This is "evidenced based" dissertation. This is why Kevin Rudd demands the evidenced based approach to policy and why the Australian Public Service swallows the hook. He is an academic.

It is highly likely that Kevin Rudd's demands on staff, and the public service, exhibited during the term of his Prime Ministership arises from the perceptions of the smartest guys in the room that everyone can perform, or think and understand complex theories, like them. Lindsay tanner bemoaned the modern day media and its inability to distill complex concepts and details on the ABC Insider Programme on Sunday 13th June, 2010. It just takes commitment and purpose in the thinking of the smartest guys in the room

The problem for them is that only a small percentage of people are of academic leaning and thought. They cannot work it all out and they burn up. So we see a high attrition rate in Rudd's sphere of influence and those of the Ministers who view themselves among the smartest in the room. The smartest guys in the room speak helicopter and think way above and ahead of the average. They think in whole pictures not in clear sentences. This is why Kevin Rudd cannot communicate with an audience. He has gone past their last thought to his next paragraph whilst they are dwelling somewhere else.

The smartest guys in the room outline a hazy frameset of ideas, usually many at once, and then move on. They have an expectation that everyone got it. Thus the insulation debacle and the failure of Ministers like Julia Gillard to be able to admit that their work is mired in failure, her BER programme in education is anything less than steallar. She cannot conceive that the stuff up is her own short coming. She has been terribly let down by her department and the state, and territory,s public service. Every policy that the Rudd government ahs implemented has done damage to some section of Australian society and economy.

The smartest guys in the room usually have limited experience and whilst they may appear to be lateral thinkers and the brightest in the environment they are usually quite unable to anticipate, they rely on gut feeling and their own infallibility, unable to see the future. They do not see the pitfalls and if they do they relegate them to acceptable risks that can be overcome.

In the minds of the smartest guys in the room someone else stuffed up in the delivery. Never mind that they themselves are limited, and narrow, in skill and ability with a distaste for the detail. They profess a type of brain drug, an adrenalin of new ideas. This is their rush, it keep them fiting on all cylinders. They do not want to consult because that risks dealing with opposition and query. It slows them down and they cannot tolerate going slow. Kevin Rudd and accolytes are Australia's Enron.

They fail to see beyond their immediate horiozn to the hidden obstacles. They are not the smartest guys at all, because if they were then they would realise their limitations and see
who may be smarter than them. Like Enron they are flaming out quite spectacularly. The electorate is turning from Australia's political leaders because Australia is poor in quality representation in our parliaments. Australia's political parties became incestuous, and inbred, decades ago. The talent is well beyond the corridors of the federal parliament. ("The Rise and Fall of a Prime Minister", Kevin Beck)

Heavy duty campaigning by practitoners of the art

Click image for the tool box



Imagine this happened to your business or a business you work for or contract to.
In a given year the business makes a $100 profit before the following costs:
Head office or administration costs of $10 • Interest on overdraft or loan of $10
Giving a net profit before tax of $80 In the same year, the business invests $100 to purchase plant and equipment for the business.

Here is how it works:

Profit before admin, interest on loans and tax $100
Profit subject to Resources Super Profit Tax (RSPT) = $94
Being: $100 profit less $6super profit” return allowed (6% on $100 invested in plant &equipment)
Less: 40% RSPT ($94 x 40%) (-$38)
Profit after RSPT $62
Less: Costs not deductible for RSPT
HQ admin costs (-$10), head office or corporate Interest on business loan • (-$10)
Profit subject to company income tax $42
Less: Company income tax at 28% (-$12) Profit after tax is $30

So, how is the $80 of profit of the business divided?

Paid to the Government insuper” profits tax -$38
Paid to the Government in company tax -$12
Balance $50 (63% tax)
Left for the business owner $30 (37%)

The Government seems to be taking 63% of the businesss profit.

Under existing tax laws the business would have paid $24 in tax – 30% of profit
Ask yourself some questions:

Does this sound fair on the business owner who is investing all the money and taking all the risk?

If this was your business, would it make sense to keep investing in it?

If you were employed by this business would you be worrying about your job?

If you were a contractor or supplier to this business would you be worried about the future of the business? ("Watch the outcome of Australian labor's mining tax", Kevin Beck)

Kevin Rudd won the leadership of the Australian labor party and untested he assumed the office of Prime Minister. He has clearly failed in the role. On past, and current, performance he does not have the qualities, and skills, to be a leader of distinction. He is just another party apparatchik who used the system to his advantage and then was caught out. He has squandered so much and delivered so little.

Three years and the outcome: Rudd has failed to learn how to generate accepted policy, how to govern and has ignored the lessons of his attempts and failures.

It is difficult for me to find a quality in the Prime Minister that I admire or even like. I did not like much about Prime Minister John Howard but from time to time there was a glimpse of something to admire and quite a lot that one could respect. Kevin Rudd gives no such glimpses. It is as if he struggles with the average human condition. Desiring to be accepted he tries vainly to be, and sound like an ordinary man of the people. He uses words like mate, and strange made up rhymes like fair suck of the sauce bottle. His is a garbled vernacular that portrays insincerity. All in all the Prime Minister fails to inspire confidence and trust from my perspective. Mr Rudd's popularity rating will fall further before the 2010 Australian federal election a He approaches the prospect of failure of his re-election much as he approaches the failure of his stewardship, with alacrity, and ignorance, of his situation. Blinded by what? A mind set that cannot grasp real versus theory? A bureaucratic approach that is devoid of human interaction and behaviour. Misconceptions of the nature of power and government? Who knows why Kevin Rudd has fallen from grace.

It is obvious that he lacks the ability to communicate easily, he cannot coherently articulate his policies. Kevin Rudd now (June 2010) resorts to the traditional tools of the mediocre, public relations, media spin and ppublicly funded slick advertisements.

Kevin Rudd, and the federal labor party, should by any logical measure lose the 2010 federal election, because they are grossly incompetent and in many respects dangerous as decision makers. Their standards are lax, actions rushed and ideas are implemented without adequate research as to the full implications. They lack the ability to see beyond their own perceptions limited by a lack of experience, very poor advice and the support skills around them. The labor party has so machined its environment that it hs killed ingenuity and challenge. It is the world of "yes Prime Minister, yes Premier", no one tells these people that they are wrong. No one pulls them up and asks them to judge their own actions.

Similarly John Brumby, and labor in Victoria, should lose following his totally unacceptable time as Premier, particularly during the time of the bushfires and after. We see examples everyday. A political adviser in a government Minister's office penned a strategy to mislead and corrupt the planning process as if government is the play thing of an elite few. The play thing of corrupt political parties and people within. The administration of emergency services in
Victoria by the labor government Minister, Bob Cameron and senior leaders of the CFA, DSE and the Police Commissioner herslef of the time, is not appalling, it is a sad indictment of irresponsibility, and disregard, measured by the death of 173 people and the destruction of whole towns. Yet liberal leader Ted ballieu is ineffective regardless of all of the failings of John Brumby and the corrupt practices of the Victorian labor party. Kristina Kenneally, and labor, should lose in the state election in NSW yet the liberal leader of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, is also ineffective aginats corruption, and corrosion, of governmment by the labor party. The public service is moribund. The liberal party, across Australia, with the exception of Western Australia, is choosing leaders who are incapable of capitalising on the misrepresentation, corruption and ineptitude of the labor governments of the nation. Taking down labor and the government of Kevin Rudd down can be so easy given all of the ammunition that labor hands over. It was similarly so under John Howard. Yet the opponents continue to rely on their own abilities limiting their chances dramatically. This is human error and human foibles at work. A beleif in self despite all of the signs. maybe if we do it this way, maybe if we just wait, maybe if we run on law and order, education and health. The same old hoary claims and policies. failed and recycled. Dressed up by employed spin doctors and the parasites that infest the public paid institutions of the nation. The political system, like any other, operates to keep the players within it in their positions of influence despite their abilities. Our poractitiners used different tools to China, and Burma, but the end objective is the same. It is not a system that promotes and nurtures talent. New candidadtes are chosen for their glamour potential or because they have done their time.

At the federal level the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, is a person who cannot forumlate and implement a cohesive and strong set of strategies. This is evidenced by his stupid approach to refugees and a return to the
rancid policies of the previous government. Liberal spokesperson Scott Morrison attempts to explain the liberal party refugee policy. He peddles a policy of fear, a colonial mode of thinking where we must guard our way of life against the invading masses of unwanted. The language of politics is divisive. It harks back to a style of paternalism where aboriginal children were taken away to be assimilated. Abbott would be offended and deny this. He sees himself as a guiding light keeping Australia safe. he is a fool in this regard. Tony Abbott's proposition for asylum seekers is about deterrence and power. It is founded on beating up the oppressed, torturing the afflicted for political gain under a pretence of protecting Australia's borders.

The disadvantaged are easy targets for thugs of all types. Mr Abbott's policy, like that of his predecessor John Howard, hinges on getting countries in the Asian, and Pacific, regions, to take refugees and house them whilst Australia processes their applications. Oh we will pay for this wonderful and totally knew concept. Pay in many ways not the laest in a further degradation of our esteem as a nation. It is a policy that plays to be the fearful amongst us and the bigots. People who get their information and beliefs from the Herald Sun newspaper, the shock jocks and the semi literate who are unable to distill complex ideas and a humanistic approach to Australia's future.

The liberals are oblivious to the colonial tone of this blight. They do not want to talk about whether the poor nations nearby will jump at the chance to make a few dollars. Abbott knows that this is a simple rude policy and set of statements that he may not have to deliver.

Mr Abbott is devoid of ideas of his own borrowing most of his policies and arguments from others. He rides alone through the nation, all muscly and compact. Too much excerise may well stunt the blood flow to the brain. The mouth may become detached from time to time popping out thought bubbles. We demand so little of our political leaders and cannpot be bothered t take an active role in governance. Companies and individuals will only bleat and take aninerest if their own interests are affected. Where are the great Australian examiners of government and political philosophy? Driving trucks in the outback mines perhaps where the money is better.

There is a saying that the definition of stupidity is a person who keeps doing things, the same way all the while expecting a different outcome. The Prime Minister is clearly within this definition as is Tony Abbott. Most governments in Australia in 2010 are in this category. Kevin Rudd has pushed every policy into the electorate in the same manner - crude and rushed with little or no communication and discussion. His is a style of being in charge, the boss, who encapsualtes a thuggish and bombastic approach treating the community as lesser intellects in the glow of his being.

The super profit resource tax is no different an approach. It is indicative of Kevin Rudd's consistent inability to articulate coherent messages that the Secretary of Treasury has resported to explaining the policy impact and justification. Kevin Rudd is a proven failure at strategy and tactics. There is no greater demonstration of thuggery than Senator Conroy. When the senior labor members are challenged they resport to theats and belittlement treatng the sceptics and the challengers as if they are stupid and ignorant. Kevin Rudd has no place as Prime Minister and Austra;lia would be better off if he lost the election and his seat in parliament.

Julia Gillard, pops out to defend the policy all the while ignoring her own massive failure, the waste of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in the over priced, over hyped Building the Education Revolution. Not only is she shown to be extraordinarily slack with the money, and prone to bending the facts, but also her department, and the state agencies to whom she gave the money, are as incompetent. All of this though is largely irrelevant to the those, with thick hides and egos, who would continue to promote untruths such as the BER saving jobs and the economy as Julia Gillard keeps up even though the evidence shows her arguments are hollow and untrue. She has no idea of reality. Perhps Ms Gillard simply ignores the truth becuase it is too much a burden? If they are not lies, and Ms Gillard believes what she says, then one should question her capacity to be Deputy Prime Minister and a Minister in government.

Kevin Rudd, and his senior team, do not merely misrepresent they control access to information, manipulate, mixing lies and half truths. This has become a game of power and winner take all. Andrew Robb, another liberal spokesperson ridicules the research paper underpinning the taxation review committees assumptions for the resource tax. He derides it as the work of a university graduate. On that basis Andrew Robb may well have derided the thoughts, ideas and writings, of Einstein, Galileo and Copernicus, among others. Mr. Robb is not demonstrating a capacity for innovative, and creative, thinking. Instead of debate and examination we have chest beating and the passing of wind.("The nature of Australia's politicians", Kevin Beck)

Is Australia doing as well as the Rudd labor government claims?

I would hazard that it is not. There is a growing level of poverty and monetary stress that is quite deliberately being pushed into the background. Kevin Rudd has failed to alleviate disadvantage. The power hungry individual who thinks that if he simply says that he is going to do it that it will happen. There is no realisation that Rudd understands dynamics and the depth of the challenges and objectives he sets. The Australian government is not all powerful. Surrounded by many who believe that the government means power to implement, Mr Rudd seems bemused that it is not so. Political commentators write that advisers in Mr. Rudd's office are perplexed. They are so myopic in their perspective that they miss the clues. They do not run a sophistiacted intelligence operation from within the PM's office. They are unable to grasp why it is all going wrong.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan tells us that the government's policies resulted in the saving of our economy. Julia Gillard says the government saved obs and the Australian economy. Perhaps they might explain how it is that out of 23,000 children surveyed in the home state of Wayne Swan, Queensland, in a place called Logan, over 10,500 children reported that they had no lunch, or breakfast, because their parents cannot afford the food. Schools rely on charity. Perhaps Swan and Gillard may explain why Australia's largest retailer, Coles, finds it necessary to have signs telling how faa family can be healthily fed for under $A10 a day. Perhaps they can explain an additional 60,000 Australians seeking welfare from charities? wayne Swan, Julia Gillard and their closest labor coleagues in government, are yet more untrustworthy participant in the ever passing cavalacade of politicians whi relay on spin, who peddle fantasy and engage in self delusion. If they fail to even know of, or acknowledge, the growing poor in our cities, and towns, prferring to tell us lies for their gain, then they are unfit for not only government but for parliament.

The government is about to spend $A38 million on advertisemenst, to convince us of their merit of their taxation policy, even though it does not affect too many Australians. They are cloaking it in the veil of beneficial superranuation and more money in the teaxation coffers. Ms Gillard tells us that the electorate is hungry for information. What rubbish. Does she think that all of the electorate are gullible or that the journalists to whom she trots out her garbage are particularly challenged, intellectually? How much information, about a complex multilayered pilicy, will there be in a television commercial? The Minister who granted an exemption to the labor government, labor Senator Joe Ludwig tells us that he was swayed by the argument of the Treasurer to permit the advertising exempting it from scrutiny. He implies this was recent application. He is lying. Advertising agencies were pitching for the business three weeks before Labor made the application and before Minister Ludwig claims to have received the application. Lying is a hallmark of decrepit, and corrosive, politicians of low grade infesting our nation's parliaments.

What a load of tripe comes from the mouths of our government Ministers. They prostitute democracy and government for their own purposes, pimps on the public purse.

The industry leaders in mining are not all that flash in their own right with their apish, and hysterical, responses, snide remarks and resorting to carefully contrived use of statistics. They are as unethical today as our governments. There are valid, and cogent, arguments that we should have this tax. Though it is very questionable why the policy includes a caveat to have the tax payer take the risk, 40% if the project fails. Obvioulsy the creators have never worked in the resources industry. Such a carrot would cause those who are vertically integrated to ensure that the mining resource segment of their business runs at a loss, taking the tax deduction and passing the cheap commodity through the chain to the end consumer. Who would do such a thing? Energy producers who also happen to be miners of coal, and producer of other fuels, would be tempted.

So here we are locked ina hairy chested cavalcade of bullshit from testosterone pissing little men who are driven to be combative regardless of the interests of others who employ them. Whatever it takes is the mantra of modern corporate management and of politicians who happen to be in government. ("Spinning Australia's governments", Kevin Beck

Ethics and morality are casualities.

How is it that Mr Rudd and his tacticians have not learnt from the climate change and the pink batts and the BER and the rest of his moribund attempts at reform? Could it be that he thinks he is good at what he does and wants to be the sole hero if one of his actions, and strategies, is successful? Maybe they think that those failures are those of others? The climate change catastrophe was the making of others over seas, the pink batts the fault of crooked and untrained operators, the waste in the school's buildimg programme is the fault of the states. This time however Rudd and his nappy brigade cannot blame others. It is of their own making. Dr Ken Henry is the only bright player in this facade. The Treasurer, Wwayne Swan, has a demonstrable lack of capacity in both macro and micro economic complexity. He seems to learn a few lines, and buzz words, and trots them out, over and over. having never managed a significant investment or business he promulgates third party theories like a parrot. What a enerous allownace Swan has given before the tax kicks in. Investors can spend billions and when the return market hits just over 6% Swan deems that a reasonable return on the billions and the risk. It would be far better to invest the billions elsewhere and get a better return. Rudd says these are valuable resources and we should get the maximum benefit for them. If this is the case why is it that the federal government does not fund mining and resources development? We know the reasons. They are many among them that the governments of the nation cannot spend the money needed to develop the mines. Yet would seek to penalise, and limit, the returns to those who they want to invest. What were the business representaatives on the review committee thinking when they agreed that the assessment perameter should be the Australian bond rate? labor will have to set it at 12% - 15% to be realistic.

The senior labor Ministers of the federal labor government, and their staff, disregard advice and rebuff offers of help preferring to trust overblown self beliefs in their abilities. Communication falls on deaf ears and revenge is the order of the day if they are really confronted.

Woe is my lucky country. For we are truly lost with the quality of our parliamentarian representation, governments and public services. Billions, upon billions, gone through mismanagement and maladministration. More billions wasted on onerous, self protecting administrative practices in the public sector, e.g tendering processes.

On the other side of the parliament house sit the opposition, endlessly hanging around waiting for their turn, at government, in the fullness of time. Labor and liberal, actors in a Shakesperaean play, the Comedy of Errors. Sadly the Australian electorate that puts these people into office is detached and unable to distill complex issues. They prefer to camp out at a store all night waiting for a feckless new piece of technology to add meaning to their empty lives.

Meahwhile thinking people can puke, and wretch, when the Prime Minster engages in his rivetting style of dialogue - "well mate" and "well Koche" (he calls him Koshee)..... exhibiting the characteristics of a nauseatng person who gravitates towards being patronising and disingenous.

perhaps more perplexing for those who analyse government and look at the decision making and thinking, is the apparent inability of Kevin Rudd and his stratgey team to comprehend what is happening in the electorate as a result of their failed or jettisoned policies. What does Rudd and Wong not understand about the reaction to their abandonment of the ETS and their walking away from the hard yards of
climate change. As labor and liberal fail across the nation to engender confidence the electorate shifts. Behind the scenes the manipulation of democracy and voting goes apace. Front (false candidates) are being prepared to stand for elections. They will garner votes and pass their preferences to their respective major party backers, all the while acting as if they are independents and free thinkers. Assess your parliamentary candidates candidly and carefully. Nowhere on the horizon are there stirring members, and candidates, of stature and vision. ("Never learning a lesson" Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia)


As we head towards a federal election in 2010 it is time to assess the performance to date and the likelihood of reelection of everyone in the government and the opposition. Here we start with the self absorbed, mean, little, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia. There is plenty of evidence to suppport my harsh, perhaps offensive, description of him.

Have you noticed how Kevin Rudd gets agitated and angry when opposed or becomes unable to cope when the politics gets hard? Did you see him snap at the school student on the television show when she challenged him?

"One student even asked (at 42:20) him whether the Climategate and IPCC scandals, and the Dutch Governments decision to review the IPCC advice, made him think twice about relying on the IPCC, too. Even more interesting, the question got sustained applause and Rudd was visibly angered. He refused to look at the student while answering, knowing the young man had his hand in the air, wanting to object to his claim that the IPCC just comprised 4000 (sic) scientists who justmeasured things”. True, there was even more applause for Rudds Ill-save-you-from-warming exhortation, but the strong division among the students was extraordinary. The great scare is crumbling, even on Rudds turf.

Another student, again with applause, noted that the Copenhagen climate summit was a failure (at 44:47), and Rudd struggled to show it wasnt." (Source: Rudd with more Qs than As, Andrew Bolt, Tuesday, February 09, 2010, Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia)

The advisers within Kevin Rudd's office may lack experience and knowledge. The turn over of staff working near Kevin Rudd is too high, too costly and points to the poor human relations skills of the Prime Minister. Is he a "control,freak" as some opine? Is he really abusive as even more report? We have seen public instances and heard stories, many stories. Could it be that not too many people, who know him, actually like Mr. Rudd? I heard a woman sya that she wants to slap him she finds him so offensive. I can relate to that.

  1. But all of this is a side show. Let us lok at his time as Prime Minister. Mr. Rudd exhibits poor judgement, is prone to grandiose gestures and statements. He tries to be one of the mob and uses quaint terms like "fair suck of the sauce bottle" As proof of poor judgement and promises given carelessly, I point to his behaviour following suspension of the insulation programme where he took the names of people affected by his policy failure and promise dthey would not be disadvantaged, he said "we get it". That is one of his many shallow, disingenous little ditties. The banter of the sleazy used car salesman.

    For the period of his Prime Ministership, and in the lead up to the election, as Opposition Leader, he enunciated his great plans and visions all cloaked in hyperbole. Everything was going to be a "revolution".

    Poor Kevin, he severely underestimates the challenges, the barriers and appears to ignore risks if he ever knowws that they are there. Revolutions require vision and leadership. Prime Minister Rudd sems to have no awareness of the required effort to deliver the promises. ("A Revolution Fizzler", Kevin Beck)

    Climate change and the emmissions trading scheme (ETS) two gross misrepresentations wrapped up in spin and selective interpretation with a healthy dose of lies thrown in. The government's environmental initiatives, such as the housing insulation scheme, water buy back and claimed education revolution, the over statement of health reform and the many other over blown (spin) rhetoric. Mr Rudd's obsession with managing the media instead of the government is offesnive. he was elected to be Prime Minister not Communications & Media Minister. If his staff paid as much attention to the nation's welfare as they do to the media cycle Rudd may well have delivered something at least. It is easy to throw billions at a problem and create a false stimulus, it is much harder to create a strong economic, and social, foundation foundation. Kevin Rudd is nt lone in being unable to do this. John Howard could not do it and Tony Abbott does not demonstrate any better capabilities.

    In 2007 Kevin Rudd promised to build hundreds of child care centres, now (April 2010) Minister Kate Ellis tells us they will not build them. Kevin Rudd said he would reinstate the housing insulation programme to assist businesses damaged by their trust of government. Minister Combet says that the programme will not be reinstated (April 2010). Penny Wong says that the green loans schee has its problems and it too has been abandoned. These clowns destroy peoples' motivations and in some cases their livelihood and place people in harm's way. ("Labor's holographs", Kevin Beck)

    The list of failures, and damaging debacles, incompetence and wsate, is long. The loss, fraud and incompetent management is measured in the hundreds of millions and may be in the billlions. The government's Building the Education Revolution (BER),
    hospital reform policy negotiations with the Australian states and territories, lack of awareness of barriers and alternate power bases, including labor itself and covert, and overt, campaigns of resistance. Mr Rudd also appears to be oblivious to, or dismissive of, the antiptahy againts him within the parlaimentary, and rank and file, labor party itelf. Mr Rudd brands labor Premier John Brumby as acting like Jo Bjelke Petersen, and being in the same political mind set as liberal Tony Abbott, significant insults. Mr Rudd I think is not all that smart despite all of his academic posturing and evidence based facades.

    His biography does not support the proposition that he has the experience to conceive, orchestrate and implement complex operational policy issues and ideas. below are Mr Rudd's qualifications and experience.

    Qualifications and Occupation before entering Federal Parliament

    BA(Hons) (ANU).
    Diplomat 1981-88.
    Chief of Staff to the Hon. W Goss 1988-91.
    Director-General, Cabinet Office (Qld) 1991-95.
    Senior China Consultant, KPMG Australia 1996-98.
    Source: Australian Parliamentary Web Site,

    There are unansered questions regarding Mr Rudd's time as Director General, amn episode known as the
    Heiner Affair By contrast, the Australian newspaper, in Genesis of an ideas man Kevin Rudd's political personality was shaped by a pair of cathartic losses in the 1990s, writes Andrew Fraser From: The Australian December 05, 2006, -, inter alia, says "Goss and Rudd were appalled not only at the corruption and attacks on civil liberties under the National Party government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, but at the lack of planning for Queensland's future and a belief that the state's sole industries were mining, farming and tourism. Both also shared a belief in process and rational government: that if the process of government was right then the correct outcome would automatically follow.

    Rudd was not averse to using Goss's name and authority to get results. It is generally recognised that his biggest triumph was the teaching of foreign languages in schools. Susan Johnston, who worked with Rudd in the cabinet office and later became chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council (and is now a professional director), says Rudd was exceptionally good at absorbing a brief, even on subjects on which he had little background knowledge. "He has the ability to get on top of issues very quickly," she says.

    "But he also has a very good ability to work out what he should know about a subject. It's more than reading a brief: he has the ability to know which questions to ask."

    His success, foreign languages in schools. Reading and sborbing a brief is not exactlt high qualification for guiding government economy and society in Australia (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne, Australia, April 2010)

    In April 2010, Deputy Prime MInister Julia Gillard moved to complicate the government's agenda, and activity, even more by announcing a review of the funding of education. She is also engaging with the teacaher's union regarding her myopic wonder regarding the MySchool web site and demands regarding literacy and numeracy testing, creating (inadvertently league tables amongst schools. The senior Rudd Ministers, Roxon, Gillard, Wong and Garrett seem unable to determine appropriate language and resort too often to bullying and threats. Roxon says there will be a refendum if the health plan is rejected. Really Minister? What is the question that wil be put? She is full of bluff and using a vernacular "manure" in relation to that hollow furphy.

  2. Poor human resource management skills, intolerance, badgering of staff, turn over rates for staff in the Rudd labor government (2008 - 2010) approach, or exceed 100%, in some Ministries, against a, Australian private sector average of 10%.

  3. Lack of monitoring of performance of Ministers by the Prime Minister, resulting in poor outcomes and variable value for public expenditure

  4. Gross mismanagement, failure to gain an understanding of the dynamics, and limitations, of government and the federal public service

  5. No accountability nor responsibility taken by certain senior Ministers and no discipline, and no role model of excellence, is conveyed (publicly) from the Prime Minister, to the Ministers.

  6. Paranoid focus, by the Prime Minister and his advisers, on media management rather than good governance and delivery, managing media, and political interest of the government, is placed over and above the public interest

  7. Lack of grunded substance in the Prime Minister's actions, lack of detail and consideration of risk

  8. Anecdotal and other observed evidence suggests the Prime Minister is prone to abusive outbursts, abusive language, intolerance and rage tirades whilst holding himself out as the font of knowledge

  9. Refusal by Prime Minister and certain Ministers to consider alternatives, will not brook criticism or interefrence with underlying ego, as The Minister for Health and Aging, Ms Nicola Roxon has said "we (the government)are convinced".
  10. Cost of policy failures, blunders, poor management and ignorance are now in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with attendant death and injury.
("The resume said it all", Kevin Beck)

The day we discovered we had no leaders in the state of Victoria's government nor in the public service
Click Here


Peter Costello was the Treasurer, in the Howard coalition government, for elevem years. In that time he made no reforms. He made surpluses. That is something that any person of reasonable skills can do. There was no innovation and no investment in the longer term welfare of the nation under John Howard. Peter Costello is lauded as a good Treasurer. He,a nd Mr Howard, are examples of the mediocrity of the two major parties who occupy the highest office in our parliaments. Similarly there is no brilliance in the states or territories. Politics in Australia does not attract the creative and the unusually visionary and talented.

The last great reformers (all labor party leaders) were Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The follow ons were, and are now, nothing more than a parade of the very average. Kevin Rudd is far more dangerous than John Howard to the average Australian and the nation as a whole. Whilst Kevin Rudd, and his clown Ministers, damage the economy and the lives of people Tony Abbott trots out inane dribble. He burped up a policy for maternity leave, where he would impose a levy on the big corporations. Then he suggested that the unemployed should all go west and work in the mines. Never mind the fit of talent and skill, the lack of infrastructure, and the implied proposition that employers should simply take the dross that is on the dole. Never mind that the mining, and resources, industry cycles on bust and boom. Never mind that in the rest of Australia the economy is mediocre and in some places no existent in terms of job opportunity. Abbott and Rudd have no answers and no ideas.

If we examine the labor, and liberal policy sets we find there is nothing there to inspire. The Australian media does not examine this lack of policy. They themselves lack the capacity to distill complex offerings prferring to find the fool who will oppose the policy with a vacant, biased mind. In their respective education policies we find they are focused on shallow competency (short term) skills. The
liberal and labor parties, are about literacy and numeracy, reading and writing. At least the liberal party lists an education heading. As at April, 26, 2010, there are no policy links on the labor party web site.

There is no political, or for that matter corporate leadership, in Australia, able to imbue, in Australians, a love of life long learning. We are generally not a nation that taxes our mental abilities. In the majority we are a lazy, dullard, nation. The focus is on skills. This is a dumbing down approach to education and learning.

The recipients, of education and training, are there to serve the needs and whims of employers and the economy. The members of the Howard and Rudd governments were quite happy to take advantage of Gough Whitlam's visionary free education but now they would have us pay. They are hypocritical parasites who think our learning should be self funded. Where does it say that the goal is to nurtue a love of learning for learning's sake. The ignorant lead by the ignorant.

"Lifelong Learning in Australia

EIP 03/13

Executive Summary

The lifelong learning policy agenda has four distinguishing features:
  1. The recognition of both informal and formal learning;
  2. The importance of self-motivated learning;
  3. An emphasis on self-funded learning; and
  4. The idea that participation in learning should be universal (Section 1.1).

The lifelong learning policy agenda is built on assumptions about the importance of skills in the new economy. Almost all industrial sectors are increasingly ‘knowledge-based and economic returns are obtained from a range of ‘intangible inputs, one of which is workers skills. Participation in education and training is increasing and economic rewards are flowing to people with high skills (Section 2.1)." (Source: Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and work Place Relations: "Lifelong learning in Australia")

No government, since labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, has championed
"life long learning". The Australian nation is largely semi literate. The well educated are in the minority, the basically educated and the semiskilled are in the majority. In 2007 Kevin Rudd trumpeted an education revolution. Again all talk.

" THE education revolution announced by Kevin Rudd almost two years ago is drifting off course, having failed to adopt key strategies critical to improving schools, including giving principals greater autonomy, improving teacher education and introducing different models for running schools as in the US and Britain.

International education consultant and former dean of education at Melbourne University Brian Caldwell yesterday said the education revolution was heading for failure and risked giving Australia one of the most centralised and bureaucratically run systems in the world. Professor Caldwell assessed the Rudd government's education policies against 10 strategies considered critical for improving education systems, marking the education revolution 43 out of 100. "We've hardly loaded our rifles for four of the key strategies that our research tells us will help create success for all students. Top-performing nations are leaving us behind," he said." (Source:,) Poor marks for education revolution, Justine Ferrari, Education writer From: The Australian November 02, 2009)

Why single out Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard? Tony Abbott was a former Minister, he and his colleagues in the Howard government were as mediocre in their championing of education and their own ideas. The natio is dull as a direct result of the policies of the Howard, and Rudd, governments. ("Competency skills versus life long learning" Kevin Beck)


The Rudd government, via the simply excellent stewardship of the Wong/Garrett combination has abandoned the fabulously contrived "green loans programme". Thousands of assessors across the country now have no work, just like the insulator companies. How does the insulation and green loans failure balance out against Gillard's claimed protection of jobs? Rudd has created the "reject shop" style of governance, whereby he, and his clones, come up with really neat ideas and then trash the lives of the unsuspecting with their shoddy offerings. This is not a federal government is a circus that camped in parliament House and has more than the traditional number of clowns.

Penny (Constantly) Wong has conceded that there are problems. Really? Only 4,000 or more problems. At least she is a bit more on the ball than her colleague, the remarkably incompetent Peter Garrett who has managed to stuff his environmental and his arts portfolio with a lack lustre, incomprehensible performance of ignorance, and ineptitude. 100,000 house are waiting, as at April 2010, to receive their environmental assessments, just as 200,000 plus people are waiting, scared shitless in their homes, to see if their roof is a fire hazard. A whistleblower in his department is telling the media that senior officers of the Minister's department told their management and Garrett's advisers that there were extreme dangers. The informant claims that they palced the importance of doing Rudd's bidding, and creating jobs, ahead of the risks. There is one conclusion from all of this, as there is in most cases where the governments of Australia are in particular arenas, incompetent and derelict.

Down the road a bit local councils, across the nation, may have stolen $A1,300,000,000 of federal funds allocated to roads improvement, for their own purposes, operations, administration and projects. Local government CEOs are grossly over paid. Local government council membership is a training ground for labor and liberal party aspirants. It is a publicly funded "school of politics".

The federal labor governments Fix it Guru, Greg Combet, might be construed as saying that the fiasco of people being killed, and houses catching fire, people losing their livelihood and conmpanies going broke, has an upside because it highlights the need to clean up the insulation industry.

He joins the ranks of the stupid political spin meister, burying themselves daily in a manure of their own making.

The programme investigator, for the pink batts insulation programme, Mr Hawke, says Minister Peter Garrett responded in a timely manner. This is public service speak. Mr Combet thinks that the outcome now is one of restoring "consumer confidence". ("Austarlian government's policy failure, death and mayhem, is water off a duck's back", Kevin Beck)


Every few weeks the Australian media publish opinion polls. The content of these is consistent - preferred Prime Minister, two party preferred vote and whether the electorate likes Kevin Rudd better than Tony Abbott. To my mind these are shallow and fairly unilluminating assessments. They are offered up as positive pointers to conclusions regarding popularity and likely election outcomes.

But we are looking at a different set of questions and what they will tell us. To see some of the survey samples (limited access) being distributed, enter as a "guest" or join the forum, and contribute. You may complete the various polls if you like and we will transfer the results to the live polls in circulation. Our polls are demographic. They are ongoing.
click here. Given Kevin Rudd, and a number of senior Minister's performances, one wonders when the electorate might get tired of it all? (Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, Kevin Beck)

  1. Is the Prime Minister trustworthy?

  2. Are you affected by broken promises made by government? Insulation, child care and other?

  3. Do you think the Prime Minister is more spin than substance?

  4. Are the "revolutions" really revolutionary?

  5. Adding up the insulation, education building, emissions trading and climate change failures what do you think the losses are? (a) tens of millions of dollars, (b) hundreds of millions of dollars or (c) more than a billion dollars?

(Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, Kevin Beck)


Ooh the thrill of it all!

April 2010: Tony Abbott claims that the Rudd labor governmment has lost control of Australia's borders. What an idiotic, and untrue, statement. That implies that anyone can walk into Australia through our ports, arrive on any coast line and come here by any means and the government, and its agencies, are failing, unable, to stop them. Mr. Abbott borders on incredulity and thi is plain misrepresentation regarding the refugee issue. In this he should be treated as being questionably competent to be Prime Minister. Hysteria, and a propensity to tell porkies, to exagerate, is a worrying quality in someone who would seek to be Prime Minister. He is, to my perception, demonstrating of late, that he lacks integrity and truthfulness. His general statements about many things border on veiled benevolent fascism.

He casts our minds back to Tampa, and the regime of John Howard, when ignorant, and fearful, little people were in charge of our border, and immigration, policies. John played tough on the Norwegian ship that had rescued refugees from the sea, and then, in contravention of international shipping las and good grace and behaviour, was treated disdainfully by the little John Howard. Mr Abbott's policy ideas may be reflected
in this archive site.

All Mr Abbott has to offer, in the way of ideas, policy, actions, are borrowed themes, and practices, from a former politician and political era. He is a clone of the Howard style, and thinking. He claims that we have to get back to the situation where we decide who comes here. This is disingenuous because he knows as all thinking Australians know that we do hvae strict decisioon making criteria exactly for that. Enveloping himself in galadiatorial verbage he says that he will do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect Australia's borders, to keep our country safe. What pomposity.

On hospital funding Kevin Rudd continues to seek to wear down the state governments. To me, Mr Rudd is hollow in his rhetoric. I find though, I look assiduously, that there is little substance in most of what Mr Rudd extolls. He says that he has put in to his hospital take over (well not quite a take over just putting up 60% of the money whilst purloining 30% of the GST, - misrepresentation again) policy a protection for small regional hospitals to ensure their survival. What like Victoria's, Phillip Island hospital? It closed under his watch and under the Victorian Premier John Brumby. It is now a 90 kilometre drive to the nearest hospital from this sugnificant community and tourist destination.

ramoing up the game play, Mr Rudd has written a letter about his plans and there are graphs in it! Wonders wil never cease, what spontaneity and use of innovative presentation, graphs. How compelling it must be. I must put graphs on this web site and emulate the innovative thinking of the Prime Minister. What graphs might I create to misrepresent facts, and reality, to my own ends? The possibilities thrill me.

As I observe the day to day meanderings, and antics, of our senior politicians. I am lead to contemplate what hypocrites, and liars, Australian politicians are. They
lack ethical foundations.

Soon the tax reform paper will be on the table and we will see the shadowy influence, and control, exercised by what some business people, and other watchers of government, may see as Australia's real Treasurer, public servant, Dr. Ken Henry. Among other things he favours a rent resource tax. The Robin Hood tax as it is called. Why not? It is our dirt that the resource companies are mining and exporting. At least the overall population, rather than a few, may benefit from the wind fall riches of the voracious appetites overseas. I tingle at the thought of being as powerful as Mr Henry. Ooh it thrills me, but I will never ever ascned to such heights. The intrigue, and the conspiracies, that flow through the halls of the centre of power, the Commonwealth must be exhiliarating. Easter is upon us and Mr Rudd can get a whole lot of picture opportunities at churches, and not only on Sunday. Is this just a bumper time to be Prime Minister! ("Monitoring politics in Australia", Kevin Beck)



April 2010: There is hardly any defining difference between the major political parties (labor and liberal) in state and federal politics in Australia. We are being brain washed day in day out that the economy is the be all and end all of primary focus in government. If we take an interest in our governance we are given short spin bursts that one or the other is the best at managing the economy and there are no alternative choices. One will trot out a policy, and the other will, if they smell a wind change in the electorate, say "me too". Thus it is with Tony Abbott and his response to the Rudd government's proposals for hospitals. There is nothing new and exciting in the Rudd government's policy unless we think that thrwoing buckets of money at specific elements of health care is new and innovative thinking. Boring hackneyed, ideas and policies, are dressed up in new outfits and recycled back to us. Then there is the tough talk.

The Australian leadership psyche is "macho managerialism", whatever it takes and always talk tough. The leaders of governments in Australia, the Ministry and the political parties, border on benevolemt fascism. They dictate and tell us what is good for us. They pass legislation to keep us in line and on the path they think is best. They brook no contravention or rebellion.

The leader of the federal opposition, Tony Abbott, has decided that the number of desperate people coming by boat to Australia, villified as illegal entries and possible dangerous types by red necks, in the labor and liberal party, is a crisis of huge dimension. Never mind that it is hardly a blip in terms of population and the global problem of refugees. Play the fear game and ramp it up with the assistance of certain media running headlines such as "they are among us". It is like some soap television show with highly paid fools as the cast members. Never let fact get in the way of "macho" iron man imagery.

Whatever it takes Abbott intones. So what does that mean, back to the
Howard government's practice of order?

What is it within our system that inculcates that certain (value questionable) career politician, who, on the merry go round of public funding, year after year, promulgates their narrow minded bias, hypocrisy, bigotry and mediocrity as strong policy and action? Why is it that this rich Australian nation, wallowing in a resource boom of a golden age, that stretches forever, with deals day after day, in the mega billions, is unable to afford things? Who is getting al of this economic wealth and growth?

We have a media, that is as unthinking, laterally, as those they report on. How will we pay is for this, is the bleating refrain. Meanwhile the graeter number of Australians are disengaged from politics and will only react if it affcets their ptach of life, or they are required to vote. One only has to look at the outcome in the state election in Tasmania to determine that the voter is fundamentally thick and not very discerning of how the political system works or the hidden systematisation that makes their vote, unless they are in a marginal seat, largely ineffective and worthless. Our electoral systems do not reflect the ultimate will, and intent, of the people in reality and nor is the make up of our parliamnets representative.

Acknowledging, and allowing for, the impact of the Hare Clarke System:

"The Origins of the Hare-Clark electoral System

The Hare-Clark electoral system is named after Thomas Hare (1806-91) and Andrew Inglis Clark (1848-1907). The Englishman Hare was the originator of the idea of using the single transferable vote (known as preferential voting in Australia) to provide proportional representation. Clark was a Tasmanian and in the late 19th century the state's Attorney-General. He first introduced what became known as Hare-Clark on a trial basis in Hobart and Launceston for the 1896 election. Clark modified Hare's original system by incorporating a modified quota calculation, and a more precise way of determining the distribution of preferences from elected candidates.

After its initial trial, Hare-Clark has been used for Tasmanian state elections continuously since 1909. Hare-Clark is one version of a category of electoral systems often called 'quota-preferential'. Candidates are elected from multi-member constituencies, but not using the proportional representation methods common in European countries. Candidates are elected by achieving a quota of votes, and those votes can be made up by votes cast for the candidate, or votes transferred to the candidate as preferences. Hence the term 'quota-preferential'. (Source: Antony Green, Electoral Guide, ABC News On Line,

The Tasmanian parliamemt is now hung with Labor having tens seats, Liberal having ten and the Greens having five. The voters followed the how to vote cards which allocate the preferences and this would naturally lead to the current outcome. The voters are detached. In Tasmania and emerging around Australia, particularly in the metropolitian areas, there are now a number of "class voters" which might be loosely categorised as those who (a) focus on work, career and income, and home (b) lifestyle, and quality, including environment and (c) the rat bags who cannot be bothered treatig elections seriously, or who choose not to vote.

Why anyone would vote Green? It is not logically apparent to me given that this party is purist in theory and practice, and unable, to compromise. The Greens party members, with the exception of Senator Bob Brown, rarely create anything. Bob invested his own money into a "not for profit - public interest" called "Bush Heritage" that started off with two properties in Tasmania, and is now (2010) national in scope, nearly a million hectares of land, over 2700 species of plants and 700 species of animals, and measured in the tens of millions of dollars. It employs and it adds to the quality of life. By comparison Bob's colleagues are very careful committers of their own funds and resouces, almost anti-risk oriented, preferring to demand that somoen else pay and do all of the hard work. Thus the electors of Tasmania have now stalled their government until the next election. How bright is that?

In South Australia it is not much better although the labor government has been returned. The vote just flipped flop by 12%. The state is still governed by a political elite whose vision is standard. Many of the voters report that they simply could not be bothered. ("Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia", Kevin Beck)



The grass roots of people activism can be seen in the web activities of disparate individauls creating a web pattern in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Mosaic Portal's tool kit for activism.

Several million individuals across Australia collectively referred to as Mad as Hell

"Disability group mad as hell and ready to fight, Mike Steketee From: The Australian March 27, 2010 12:00AM

Voters are being asked to back only parties that promise a national disability insurance scheme IN the 1976 movie Network, Peter Finch in his role as a television broadcaster urges people to go to their windows, stick their heads out and shout: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this any more." Windows are thrown open and the words echo around the country. Australians with disability and their supporters are hoping for something similar from the campaign they are launching via their "australiansmadashell" website. As it says, "we are not going to take it any more -- and there are millions of us". They are asking people to take a pledge to vote in state and federal elections only for parties that promise to introduce a national disability insurance scheme. The responses will be compiled and candidates, particularly in marginal seats, will be told of the number of pledges in their electorate." (Source:

"Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, predisposition of voters", Kevin Beck



March 2010: Minister for Climate Change and Water, the Honourable Penny Wong, is another failing Minister of the Rudd government. Gullibly Ms Wong has swallowed the climate change theory, hook line and sinker. The Minister champions the very dangerous Emmmissions Trading Scheme. Ms Wong has no runs on the board. Yet, ironically, she chooses to deride Senator Barnaby Joycem, who has just been appointed the role to shadow her portfolio management. Ms. Wong is the classic person in a glass house, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, she snipes at others whilst failing to concentrate on the task at hand, rectifying the collective stupidity of these Minister to date. The education revolution will bite Ms Gillard on the political arse. The Rudd government Ministers deride the economic credential of the opposition. Whilst not acknowledgeing tha the loiberals have any ownesrhsip of economic superiority this would have to be a bad joke given Prime Minister Rudd's, and his senior Ministers' performance, pissing billions up against a wall on the spurious justification of saving jobs. The economy as a central plank of good govrnment is a bygone, used concept. Fools who have not learnt the lessons of the global financial crisis keep rattling on about the ecoomy.

Mr. Rudd and his labor government Ministers have come to believe their own spin and may think they are doing a real good job. They will not enterain the possibility that they, being Mr. Rudd, Ms. Gillard, Ms. Wong, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Swan, are actually incompetent.

Barnaby Joyce annoys the senior labor Ministers greatly. He is far more popular than they are. His continually harping about debt has enraged the squandering Rudd government and they throw diatribe at him. His liberal collleagues, lacking any ability to create a strategy, turn to the hackneyed past, they lack new policies and any unqiue thoughts of their own. They also snipe at Barnaby and one may well ponder if they are jealous.

What is it that the generic politician and Minister cannot handle about Barnaby? Is it that maybe is quaint and tells the truth or what he believes to be the truth? Whilst they lie or echo the party line. Listen to Gilard, Swan, Gareett, Wong, they all are little echoes of the boss or the "chosen line". They are lexicon robots. If they had an individual thought they know they would be lonely in Rudd's little inner sanctum. Best to be a clone then. What else don't they like about Barnaby? He has his own mind and tells it like it is, in fairly plain speak whilst rudd prattles his convoluted twaddle.

Tony Abbott proved he lacks iconic leadership capacity, and people analysis, skills. He is yet another knee jerk politician who will cut someone loose if there is an enough sniping and carping by the mediocrity. Is it a complex theory - borrow too much and you xannot pay it back? What fools the politicians are to listen to their media dvisers who are part of the media clique. So many ordinary types fail to see the innovative potential of Barnaby Joyce.

Mr Abbott did what he was told by internal politicains and a hectoring media, removed Barnaby from the finance portfolio, giving it to Mr. Robb. Abbott recycles the dregs of a by gone government.

The nation's voters can make a difference this year, they can vote National, democrat and Independent in the Senate and in the House of Representatives coveying the inept, and corroded members, of parliament who are in labor and liberal to the political dustbin. ("Monitoring voter perceptions in Australia, in a political leadership vacuum", Kevin Beck)


March 2010: the Australian media was in alater. Behind the scenes the moles, who talk to the media conspirationally were apparently agog. Kevin Rudd had called a debate between himself and Tony Abbott. The Prime Minister apparently had told no one an this was intriging to the ceerbrally challenged press gallery members. It was to be at lunch time at the Canberra Press Club. There was much speculation, by people whose intelligence quota is apparently limited to the gladiatorial spectacle of two testosterone egos, going for it. Neither participant actually prepared and instead they treated the exercise, like they treat the electorates, with minimum attention. It was as if they were playing a childish game. Tony Abbott had the opportunity to present himself as a statesman instead he bordered on buffoonery. Kevin Rudd had his poker face on, the one of studied disregard that he used on the NSW Premier when he humiliated her over the hospital negotiations. Abbott's advisers obviously have no vision or little influence on their boss. He is not Prime Minister material based on his performance. Rather he is an ignorant clown in a carnival side show, called federal parliament.

Kevin Rudd did not come up much better and should be voted out of the Prime Minister's office and the parliament. Though the liberal national colaition offers no better talent and innovation. It is the same old, same old.

After it was all over the vision of the participants, in the debate, turned out to be not quite to reach the wall of the Press Club. It was a dud. But that ws to be expected given Rudd's record. He is a light weight senior politician masquerading as a visionary change reformer. He is too often detached in his demeanour.

Some in the media opined that Kevin07 had returned. Given that the media are generally besotted with that past image, it may be argued that they are not all that bright in their ability to distill complex issues. They instead tend to be shallow and light in their observations and conclusions. There was a "worm that moved across the television screen". I think that a worm may be most appropriate to measure the performance of close relatives.

Both Kevin Rudd, and Tony Abbott, lacked substance in their presentatiins, were boring and the jurnalists who asked questions did not demonstrate an ability to draw them out. It was a waste of time. The audience was not engaged, and the two were very unilluminating as to their policies and ideas. There was a lot of hand movements, inflections and overall mediocrity on display.

They played the puerile games perhaps of boys not yet grown.

We can ignore Mr. Abbott and his lack of substance, credibility and policy. We must however question the ability, and cognisance of the Prime Minister as to his role and position, and we should question the capacity of his advisers. These advisers ask jounalists seeking interviews what is in it for them? This shallow cofected man, proved yet again that he is very lacking in the where with all to manage, and deliver, his grandiose agenda. He is supported in his helath reform agenda by Minister Nicola Roxon who is incapable of stemming massive fraud in her portfolio, systemic failure and is manipulated by external vested interests. She would rather accede to raising health insurance rates allowing for a the fraud to become embedded as an acceptable corcumstance. Like Mr Rudd, Ms Roxon fails to deliver a justifiable performance for salary and position.

Here is a extract email that the Minister sent me following the dbate. It demonstrates the dwarfish intelligence of her media staff who thik that a few lines of spin and broad spectrum bile suffices as communication and information.

"Time for Mr Abbott to be positive and constructive about Health Reform

Dear Kevin,

What we saw today from the national televised debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, is that Kevin Rudd has a plan to deliver better hospitals and more doctors for working families across the country, and Tony Abbott only has a plan to criticise, complain and be negative. He has no plan to improve public hospitals. The establishment of this National Health and Hospitals Network builds on record investments in health and ospitals made by the Rudd Government over the last two years, including a 50% increase in hospital funding, increasing GP training places by 35% and training more nurses. The Rudd Government's action stands in contrast to the Liberals who ripped $1 billion from our hospital system when they were in Government, capped GP training places and ignored the shortage of nurses in our community. The below chart shows how Federal funding for hospitals declined while Tony Abbott was Health Minister. (then there is concocted chart that purports to indicate a reduction in helath spending Bt Abbott when he was Minister).

(then a web hyperlink) Read more about Tony Abbott's health funding chart gaffe and funding cuts.

Mr Abbott is out-of-touch on health - please let your friends know about Mr Abbott's record on public hospital funding.

Nicola Roxon

Minister for Health and Ageing"


Isn't that a deep and evaluative communication full of factual proof and substance? No, it is far from it. It is trite and there are thousands of these being emailed every day. What an insult from the parasites, the media advisers and political apparatchiks, of Australian politics who think that using the internet makes up for their lack of deep and intelligent cohesive, and compelling, arguments. They are paid from the public purse to con us and esure that their political bosses are protected. They really are insulting twerps using dumb communications, minimal content and mediocre strategies. I am hoping for more intellectual power, and substantial communication, from Nicola Roxon.

The Prime Minister has been shown to have been very aware of the massive failure of the insulation programme which killed people, ruined lives and caused people to live in fright in their own homes. Billlions wasted and a programme loved by charlatans and thieves. Billions wasted and a dangerous programme allowed to run.

Similarly it has become apparent that Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's, construction programme in her
education portfolio is being rorted by hundreds of millions also. She too responds with inane justifications bleating that they spent the billions (and will tolerate the waste and inneficiencies) to save jobs. Whose jobs? Local builders and trades people in rural communities seem to have missed out. What Gillard, and her departmental officers, did was to allocate billions of dollars and the management to the states.

The inept, and shady, education bureaucrats siphoned off hundreds of millions into state coffers through administration overhead charges, management fees and other internal costs, flat percentage charges on the amounts. As the contract price escalates the money going into state government coffers escalates. It is a transfer payment system.

The bureaucrats then used their standard procedures, issuing complex tenders full of irrelevant rubbish, and ideological, clauses (OH&S, Fair Work practices and other drivel) paying lawyers for probity services that are a waste of money. These probity people are there to make the process look fair and even handed and to enable the public servant to avoid accountability and responsibility. The big corporations win the tenders and siphon off their fees and charges, and allocate the work out by sub contract to their regular contractors and to people who are prepared to accept the amounts on offer. This pyramid system results in massive over charging, and massive cost over runs, with little actually being spent on trade and construction on the ground. ms Gillard refuses to accept reality and stoically soldiers on, because there is no accountability in the world of politics.
What should have been done is hat the money should have been allocated direct to the school community council to be administered locally. This could have been audited and the community groups could have been assisted where they did not have the expertise. But no that is too simple and annoying to the state and territory Ministers and bureaucrats. They wanted to siphon off money and would have missed out.

Allow the Rudd federal government to take over hundreds of billions of health funds and GST taxes and watch them squander that on stupidity, ineptitude, croneyism and personal political grandiosement. The Australian hospital system will collapse under the conspicuous talent challenged, Mr. Rudd, Ms. Gillard and Ms. Roxon.

Add in the
ETS and climate change fiasco, within the portfolio of Senator Penny Wong, and the single handed destruction of the solar energy investment and research industry by Peter Garrett, and there a litany of multi billion dollar debacles based on falsehood, maladministration and poor skills.

Oh it is never their fault, it is always someone's elses ineptitude, lies and corruption. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has no managerial competence standards, a demonstrated questionable ethical foundation and the Ministers hold their positions through factional political power brokers.

The modern Australian political party, and government, is more about managing perception, media and their careers than about public benefit and governance. Government is a sinecure handed around, a political club that is maintained for the few at the disadvantage of the majority and the bulk of stupid Australian voters are oblivious to, or tolerate, this. We desreve what we get abd we could be a far richer, and more productive, nation than we are. We are shackled by the mediocrity of our legislators and the corruption of the major political parties. ("The inability of our parliaments (COAG) to agree, and frame, national interest policies, Politics and a Candy Shop Mentality", Kevin Beck)

Pick one, spin or substance

March 2010: There is a serious matter before the parliament and the public and it is called health. Both major political parties (labor and liberal) play puerile, and immature, games when it comes to policy particularly when an election year comes around. At this moment we have our inboxes being flooded by Tony Abbott's teaam to convince us that labor's claims about his track record as Minister are not true. So Tony's team send me an email with his digital signature embedded to give it substance and it is addressed "Dear Kevin". It has a nice little statistical diagram in the middle.

Now I know quite a lot about Tony's time as a Minister (Employment and Health) and his love for statistics. When bureaucrats wanted Tony's attention and agreement they plastered their paperwork with statistics. However on the drak side when the statistics were not in Tony's favour e.g in the employment portfoilio, they were doctored to suit. So Mr Abbott let's cut the crap about what the statistics tell us. We are not all that gullible, and detached, as the bulk of the electorate are. Then we have labor. They cliam their preeminent skills to be in health and education. That also is a crock. Labor rolls out the hackneyed shallow short trem training as a proof of their doing something. In Mr Rudd's current health promotion there is no detail. There is no substance. It is ageneral broad brush of pushing money from one tin to the other and a nebulous system of governance by local committees. I thought that most states in Australia ran their local health districts by committee or is that a myth? So what is it that Mr Rudd has come up with? He will not actually tell us. He prefers to media manage perception and information and use the standard tool of the dullard politician, spin, and massage, of facts just like Tony.

Concurrently Health and Aging Minister, Nicoal Roxon, pops out a press release about how they will solve the doctor shoretage crisis in general practice. The mandatory big number statement is included. The bigger the "million or billion" estimate the better. Typical fairy dust and crystal balls. What a load of rubbish lies in the statement - 1,200 delivers 5,000,000.

" Analysis by the Department of Health of the Governments $632 million investment to train 1200 new GPs a year has shown that the move will deliver around five million extra GP services across Australia. Those services are much needed in all parts of the country, but particularly so in rural and regional areas. With half the new places to be provided in rural and regional Australia, this will go a long way to reliving the pressure on stretched local GPs. I spoke to the Breathing NEWLIFE into General Practice Conference today about the importance of GPs, and particularly GP registrars, to our primary care system. It is clear that we cannot reform the health system as a whole without investment in primary care and our GPs – the lifeblood of our health system.

Australia has a significantly higher rate of hospitalisation than comparable countries – double that of Canada and significantly higher than the United States, the UK and New Zealand. It is estimated that last year, some 441,000 hospital admissions could have been avoided through providing better care in the community – nearly one in ten hospital admissions. These additional five million services will provide a welcome boost to our efforts to improve primary care. The many GP registrars at todays conference are central to our future health system. Delivering better primary and preventative health care will keep people healthier and out of hospital and, importantly, take the pressure off our essential acute care services. The Rudd Government is determined to deliver real change to our health system, so that all Australians can have better health and better hospitals. " (Source: Five million extra GP services Nicola Roxon Thursday Mar 18, 2010, 11:32am,"

On the face of it this is tremendous and wonderful. This is actually a fantasy rather than an actual effort to engage the electorate in meaningful debate. Talking at us with small paragrpahs of manipulated facts and content. Grow up Ms Rozon because there are many who are onto you and the government as a whole. Nicola Roxon only wants to hear the good news and dismisses anything that is contrary to what she wants or believes, she is a politician not a health practitioner, and her stuff above sounds good on paper, is logical and the illinformed masses may find it credible except the people who actually live in rural Australia. This is spin over substance and reality.

Beneath the surface lies the hidden truth that no bullshit analysis by a subservient department is going to hide. Past governments including labor have brought about the problems of medical practitionber supply in Australia.

"there have been particular moments where the numbers of medical practitioners have been assessed as either too few or too many to meet the needs of the population. Following from these perceptions, the policy response has been either to restrict or increase medical student numbers. However, such reactions have sometimes had unintended consequences, such as compounding the underlying shortages of practitioners. This has been to the detriment both of patients and practitioners as patients in some areas are unable to access an adequate array of medical services. For medical students this type of approach has also meant that at times there are insufficient places available in medical schools for all those who wish to study medicine. Understanding better how the transformation from student to ‘specialist medical practitioner works and the roles of those institutions which contribute to, and influence that transformation may help to lessen the possibility that these types of negative outcomes unnecessarily beleaguer the health system." (Source: 15 July 2009, 2009–10 Medical practitioners: education and training in Australia Dr Rhonda Jolly, Social Policy Section, Parliamentary Library of Australia, page 3,

There are not enough medical trainers and medical trainig facilities to meet these objectives. The system cannot physically handle the numbers plucked out of the air by the Rudd government and Ms Roxon. There are many stake holders involved in medical training and the simple statement by the Minister belies the tensions and constraints that underpin and influence the training, the numbers and the infrastructure. Here are some examples:

Australian Medical Council (AMC). This independent national standards body for medical education and training accredits the university medical schools and specialist colleges that deliver medical education and training. It also provides advice to governments, medical education providers and medical boards on a range of issues.

Specialist medical colleges. The specialist colleges (not including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, see the point below relating to this college), in consultation with other relevant bodies, are responsible for determining standards of education and training required for qualification in particular specialties. These colleges also determine the numbers of training places they will provide.

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). This College supports general practitioners, registrars and medical students by assessing doctors skills and knowledge, monitoring professional development activities, developing resources and guidelines and assisting generally with issues that affect practice and accreditation processes. Unlike the other colleges, the RACGP does not provide fellowship training. This is delivered by a government-run organisation, General Practice and Education Training Limited (GPET).

Private hospitals also provide and fund a small amount of training to postgraduate medical students.

Postgraduate medical councils in the states and the Northern Territory support and develop education and training requirements for junior doctors and hospital medical officers in the prevocational years.

It is costly to train a medical student—more costly in some universities than others. The number of scholarships are limited. Students are also expected to pay a financial contribution towards their education. This contribution is set by higher education providers within a limit imposed by the Government. Students can elect to pay their contribution upfront and receive a 20 per cent fee discount as a result. They can make a partial fee payment of an amount over $500 and receive a discount on the amount paid or they can defer the whole contribution amount. Students who choose the latter option can apply for a HECS-HELP loan.40 Following graduation, repayment of HECS-HELP loans is required on a scale set by the tax office once graduates earn a minimum income ($41 595 in 2008–09)." (Source op cit, page 13). Medical students who are Australian citizens or permanent residents are also able to apply for support under the two bonded medical places schemes offered by the Australian Government. Applicants for these schemes need to meet the same entry requirements as other students and selection for all bonded places is undertaken by relevant universities. The first of these schemes, the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme, provides 100 scholarships annually for extra places in medical schools. Scholarship recipients, who must be Australian citizens or permanent residents, receive an annual tax free, non-means tested, indexed payment for as long as it takes them to complete their medical degrees. In 2009, this scholarship payment was $23 686. In return for support under this scholarship, students agree to practice in rural or remote areas of Australia for six years continuously upon completion of their medical and vocational training.

The second scheme, the Bonded Medical Places Scheme, also provides extra university places for students who wish to study medicine. The number of places available to students per year is set at 25 per cent of all students commencing in Commonwealth supported medical places.44 In return for the opportunity to study medicine, students commit to work in areas where there are workforce shortages (Districts of Workforce Shortage or DWS) for a period equal to the length of their medical degrees. (See Appendix B for information on DWS). There is no direct funding to students under the Bonded Medical Places Scheme and students are required to pay the full student fee contribution, unless they choose to train or work in a rural DWS. They may then be eligible for the HECS Reimbursement Scheme. This Scheme reimburses one-fifth of HECS-HELP medical fees for each year of rural training or service.

The South Australian and Queensland State Governments offer bonded scholarships. The South Australian scholarships provide full time undergraduate students with $5000 per year for a maximum for three years. To be eligible for these scholarships, students need to have resided in rural Australia prior to undertaking study in a variety of disciplines, including medicine. They are required to live and work in rural South Australia on completion of their undergraduate degrees for a period equivalent to that funded under the scholarships.46 In 2008, the Federal Government agreed to reimburse Queensland for the costs associated with the training of 235 bonded medical students under the Queensland Health Bonded Medical Scholarship Scheme. Queensland Health scholarship holders have their full tuition fees paid to undertake the graduate medical course delivered at Griffith University. They also receive an annual Education Support Allowance of $21 000 for the duration of the course.

The Australian Defence Force sponsors an undergraduate scheme which is available to medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, law, environmental health, engineering, Business or Arts students. Under this scheme, students are paid a salary of $33 750 per year while they study, their student debt is paid and they receive free dental and medical benefits. Upon graduation, they are required to serve as officers, in the service of their choice, for the length of their sponsorships plus one year(Source: ibid, page 15). ("Managing PR instead of government", Kevin Beck


Clinical training is an essential part of a medical degree. As the Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand note, this training is necessary for students to ‘contextualize and further explore the clinical problems and systems learned in the classroom and skills labs. In the initial years of a degree clinical training often occurs in general practice or community settings and may consist only of observation, although in recent times, early clinical training has included experience in clinical skills training laboratories.

Clinical skills laboratories are considered to provide flexible, controlled learning environments that allow junior students to make mistakes, while avoiding risks to patients.

Senior medical students traditionally undertake their clinical placements in hospital settings. While some private hospitals provide these types of placements, overwhelmingly this clinical experience is provided in public hospitals. Students generally rotate through a number of specialties as part of their clinical experience.

For some time there has been concern that the number of clinical training places has been insufficient to cope with increasing numbers of medical students. Professor James Angus from Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand argued in September 2008 for example:

By 2012 there will be nearly 60 per cent more medical school graduates than that expected in 2008 … However there has not been a commensurate increase in clinical training places. There is very little point in training Australian medical graduates if there is no significant increase in the number of clinical placements to cater for these students and the quality staff to train them. Students cant learn by looking over the shoulders of 10 others. In response to such concerns about the adequacy of clinical training places for medical students, an additional $500 million for undergraduate clinical training places, which includes increasing the clinical training subsidy to 30 per cent for all health undergraduate places, was agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on 29 November 2008." (Source: 15 July 2009, 2009–10, Medical practitioners: education and training in Australia Dr Rhonda Jolly, Social Policy Section, Parliamentary Library of Australia, page 20)

Then comes the exacting nature and type of training and the debate about the effectiveness of problem base learning. Thta is beyond the scope of numbers and physical facilities. Then finally it comes down to the graduate, the doctor's preference for location. They do not want to go and live in the far and remote locations of the nation and many do not want to live in the suburbs. Specialisation offers the lure of higher income far above a general practitioner's lot. ("The failure of Australia's health policies is a labor and liberal failure", Kevin Beck)


Peter Costello is Australia's longest serving federal Treasurer as at March 2010. We all have seen a company losing billions one minute, on the ropes, such as BHP, years back and the next, they are in surplus and have recovered. The Australian government, along with the states and territories, are no exceptions. They have all created these accounting smoke and mirrors miracles. They have squandered, in the past decade, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money without being held accountable or responsible. They have all pork barrelled electorates.

Journalists and commentators, report economic marvels of turn around. making a surplus and puuting in the ledger is apparentky best practice government.

Let's not get too carried away with Pete Costello's attack on Tony Abbott. Peter Costello may have been a long time as Treasurer but that is it. He squirrled money away and the Prime Minister John Howard gave it away. It is simply vote buying to retain government.

Peter Costello wanted to be Prime Minister and did not have the ability to achieve that. He could not disloge John Howard. He did not have the grit that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating had during their time in politics. They took the office.

To my mind and based on his record, Mr Costello achieved his level of ability. No risk, no gain, no pain path, and ultimatley a government book keeper of sorts. Mr Costello had, during his time as Treasurer, a competent Reserve Bank, and a set of banking enterprises, and business exectives, who worked to make Australia prosper and shield it from the real world. ("The legend of Peter Costello and the Surplus", Kevin Beck)

Prime Minister Rudd exhibits appallingly bad manners

One may well think that sleazy politics and corruption should have destroyed the labor brand in Australia, at state and territory levels. It is a resilient party and one eyed, or detached voters, have little interest in the quality of our democracy, governments and the poeple sitting in our parliaments. It is one thing to be incompetent and corrupt it is quite another to be incompetent and full of one's self at the same time adding rudeness to the mix.

Yet there are some discerning voters whose stomach turns at the low grade perfomance of many, including the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Today (Saturday, March 13 - 14, 2010, in the Weekend Australian at page 4, one can see the real persona of Kevin Rudd.

The arrogance, and the ignorance, of a man who is full of himself is captured in the picture. The Prime Minister has two faces. The sly matey type who trots out trite collohialisms as if he ahs been at the dentist and had too much laughing gas and the other a mean, acid tongued, short tempered weasel. He does not have the good grace to be civil to NSW Premier
Kristina Keneally, to look at her while she speaks to him. He treats her with indifference. He cannot bring himelf to act with manners and aplomb.

Kevin Rudd is, it seems to me, a thuggish little brutish character who degrades the highest political office in the land. Unlike her he lacks grace and good manners. Is more suited to selling used cars, property and pyramid schemes than being a great Prime Minister of the Australian Labor Party. Does Kevin Rudd think he is teflon man, able to stand arrogantly before the nation and get elected again? He seems to believe in some personal invicibility. If Kevin Rudd accidentally fell under a bus Australia would not suffer the loss of a worthwhile Prime Minister, the natio may well be rid of a surly, foul mouthed man, who has a record, since assuming the office of Prime Minister, of abusing females with crude four letter words. The media has reported this trait and then there are rumours. When challenged about having to work on a weekend, it is rumoured that Rudd told the female staff member to "have the (whatever) on my desk by Monday, - - - -" (a four letter disgusting word for female anatomy). This obnoxious one man band, a self centred crusader of full of hubris and bile, whilst demonstrating very little of value, and ability, in administration and human resource interaction knowledge, masquerades as a deeply religious, and caring, human being. He needs to watch his "Ps" and "Qs" from now on and be on his very best behaviour to counter those who want him out of office. Many of his labor colleagues in the parliament are mortified by his behaviour towards Ms Keneally. He is alienating people in his own members of parliament, labor, as well as other voters. He has now attracted an, active, dedicated, well resourced and singularly focused,
campaign by people outside of politics to try and make him a "oncer" Prime Minister. Mr. Rudd should apologise unreservedly to Ms Keneally immediately.

lacking the skills to negotiate legislation through the Senate, that John Howard possessed, Kevin Rudd, has given that away and moved on to beating up the states perhaps believing that such a tactic requires less problematic talents. His select cabinet members, Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Julia Gillard have not been actly revolutionary in their abilities and success. They have geenrated a lot of hot air and adopted the thuggish threatening style of their boss. ("Counting down the numbered days of Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck)


Big talking Kev has arrived at the Lodge and he is going to be a "game changer".

The Australian commercial media are, it would seem, unable to correctly report the facts. Kevin Rudd presents his health plan as something sensational and reformist. Rubbish.

Before the election, and more recently, he has bragged that he will take over health federally. If blocked by the states there will be a refernda. On what? The Prime Minister is overstating, as usual, creating yet more falsehoods, smoke and mirrors, grand standing as he travels across Australia meeting the Premiers. Kevin Rudd has no idea what it takes to run a health system just as he had no idea what the impact of his brilliant rushed idea to insulate every house in Australia. There is a probability that this plan can result ion even more deaths and damage to peoples' lives.

Disingenuously, Mr Rudd is only offering to fund 60% of the cost, up from 40%, with the states still carrying 40%. He says that he will end the blame game. Can he not count? 60% is not 100%, so the blame game has just altered by a few percentage points and can go on unabated. Mr Rudd is so full of crap that it may be addling his ability to think clearly.

Kevin Rudd made 600 promises before being elected Prime Minister, what sort of tactical strategy is that? He has a record of failure now measured in the hundreds but it is rumoured that he may be working on 2,000 for the next federal election. Let's have another 2020 style summit and get a lot of ideas from people that can be ignored. Ignorant of the members of his government Ministry who are actually good performers and skilled in their jobs he steals the lime light so that their efforts are lost in the Prime Minister's day to day stupidity, and reckless, regard for parliamentary process and protocol and the fundamental processes of good governance and federalism. Mr Rudd is to my mind one of the parasites of the Australian political system who climbs the ladder of party structure, and politics, to fully embrace the "peter" principle in all of its irony.

Labor is beside itself that Tony Abbott trumped them on maternity leave for women. Labor has a whimpy (pandering to business) policy and they are now faced with a six months, full pay, policy, which plays on the voters disenchantment with big business. Abbott will pass their legislatoon through, he is a more considered tactical politician than Kevin Rudd.

Elements of the voters will, be devastated at his demands on the rich - "oh the poor hard done by executives, and Board members, of the big companies, we feel for you as you bleat about a 1.5% levy to fund it. The fat cats of the banks who gouge and steal the pennies of the ordinary citizen whilst collecting the mega salaries." Boo hoo Heather Ridout.

In response Wayne Swan mutters vacant semi literate responses, he tells the ABC Insider Programme that labor is not into policy on the run and the simple propositions. Really what is the insulation policy and fiasco if not that? Where is the surplus that Wayne had? Nicola Roxon sneers at the proposition that Tony Abbott is the friend of women, Lindsay Tanner screams about big taxes and mac taxes. The political class, who run our country, seem unable to debate with substance, coherence and good manners. Their bag of tricks are lgely about insults, innuenda and trite slogans and immature observations. Our political represents are not all that articulate, and sophisticated, in their roles.

Keneally poise grace and manners
The epitomy of poise, grace and manners, Kristina Keneally
Premier of NSW, March 2010

Rudd ignorance, hubris and arrogance
The epitomy of hubris, arrogance and appalling bad manners, Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister of Australia
("The Dreams of An Every Day Prime Minister", Kevin Beck)

What a good idea Prime Minister except has been tried before

Kevin Rudd, and his strategist advisers, have yet again proven their lack of operational experience and knowledge and failure to adequatley research their bright ideas before they trot them out via the Prime Minister or altrenative Ministers.

Some years back Victoria was paying performance bonuses to hospitals. In 2008 - 2009 Victoria's bureaucrats, and government, discovereed the hospitals were rorting the statistics to get more money. These were not onlt small hospitals but the big metropolitian ones. So they abandoned the practice. If Kev had bothered to ask his advisers to adequatley keep up their knowledge base or to go out and look he would have known this. Now he risks another claim of negligence like his insulation programme.

On that topic we learn in parliament that Mr Rudd actually knew about the fiasco whilst in the apst weeks he has by slippery dancing avoided that admission. The poor planning and skills have cost this nation tens of millions probaablt hundreds, but so what its not their money is it? Mr Rudd may appeal to the uninformed, and less discerning, who see politics as a charde and in a narrow prism of celebrity, when he uses folksy and chatty language and Australianisms, but to those who want to see depth and knowledge he comes across as disingenuous. A famous quote comes to mind and whilst it is not produced here in the same vein, and context, as when King Henry without careful thought said it, there is a political connectivity as we go to a federal election, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" ("The knives are being sharpened", Kevin Beck)


Let's begin with the topic heading, why "paper boy"? Well the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wasa public servant in Queensland under the Premiership of wayne Goss. He was the person who coordinated the cabinet (paper) submission papers. Thus he was the 'paper boy".

Tony bbot, well we know what budgie smugglers are, they are his swimmers. However, he has a far more impressive background than Kevin Rudd in public life. He has been a Minister and now leader. He is also a far more awarded university graduate than the Prime Minister and I would hazard a better scholar and politician. At first one may well question why Mr Abbott does the things he does and on the face some look foolhardy and not thought out, I doubt that this is the case. In politics strategy and thinking usually goes much deeper but the commentators and media are often not equipped laterally and cognitively to discern that. Thus, the proposition that the public prefer Kevin Rudd over the Tony Abbott either demonstrates the lack of indepth analysis of the selected pollster interviewees or the shallow comprehesnion of the Australian voter.

Three things elect governments and they are not poll creations nor can they be statistically determined or calculated by a new formula of the Australian newspaper. The results of the next Australian federal election are like the global financial crisis, the pundits are guessing and full of bullshit.

The voters are party oriented. They vote liberal, national, green. There are few exceptions who vote independent.

The voters either like, dislike, or do not care about, their local member, at the time they enter the ballot box. It depends on what their favourite shock jock or tabloid newspaper said. It depends if theirs elf interest is tweaked. Austarlian voters, I argue to the contrary, are not deep thinkers.

The voters are prepared to accept the nominated leader (without too much evaluation and assessment) to be Prime Minister, in concert with the above sentiments.

Swinging voters are a nebulous, and shallow, lot who may not fully value their democracy and government. maybe they should, like immigrants, have to fill out a form every three years, or four years, to qualify to vote. That would be a totalitarian regime though. Our governments are totalitarian but well dressed. They have no guns also. Unfortunatley democracy does not work like that, our politicians are in many respects a worry, the calibre is not all that falsh and the system of selection is somewhat fixed and dodgy.

Have a look at the USA and see what happens when the government, and the democratically elected constituency, cease to function correctly. Government falls apart and the nation suffers. Here we mask it a bit and our two major parties, labor and liberal, are not all that far apart in ideology uin comparison to the United States. We also do not put out boots on the necks of the poor and use them as fodder for others' forunes. We may not be as greedy as some others. We are not as overtky racist.

We can look at the Australian Health Policy proposed by Kevin Rudd, in the context of our system of federation. We can place it within the context of the articles below, about competency.

5,000 public servants in the federal Health and Aging department and not one of them operates a health centre today. Many do have policy, and operational, health backgrounds at the any level - state, or territory - but that does not seem to have an impact on perfromance of the agencies at federal level. They are not influencing Mr Rudd and his team.

We have the selling Ministers out front, Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon. The snake oil caravan, of old, that passes through town. They have zip operational experience between them in health. Lacking legitimacy, and experience, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has to reosrt to a threat, the states have "four to six weeks" to decide. He has the temerity to bluff a referendum. This man, being fool hardy, has not rationalised what that might mean for him. Does he think he knows the outcome?

This is the stuff of ego, that says because I am Prime Minister, and in charge of money and the country, you will obey my wishes and promptly so. Kevin Rudd appears to have no idea of the complexity of the federation, work required or the problems, people issues, administration, vested interests and so on. The doctors control health in Australia. They control the functioning of hospitals.

Mr Rudd is fast demonstrating some sort of "savant detachment from reality." Perhaps the Prime Minister is really an autocrat in costume masquerading as Prime Minister? Kevin Rudd is supported by his loyal, yet similarly, thuggish Deputy, Ms Julia Gillard, whose every second word drips with challenge and the veiled threat. Ms Gillard is well known for threats and a snakey misdemeanour when challenged.

In the political world populated by people, with limited experience and knowledge, there is a tendency to resort to threat, bluff and hyperbole. The avoidance of complex questions, through vacant answers, or misdirection down an alley, is a sign that Kevin Rudd, and his health policy, are on shifting sand. ("The quick sand of health policy in Australia", Kevin Beck)

The "oncer" labor government or a reforming one?

March 2010: The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has sent in Mr ("fix it"), Greg Combet. How many Greg Combets does he have? He has not many and in any event it will all come to naught. Whereas Kevin Rudd cannot foretell the future some of us can.

The staff of the Prime Minister allowed the debacle of the insultaion programme to unfold due to their lack of lateral thinking, analysis, intellgence and prescient capabilities, they lack vital life experience and a low in the required complex personal skills. Ministerial staff, focused narrowly on their own portfolios fail to see the signs of problems and major disasters unfolding that will ripple into their Minister's sector. One only has to look at Health and Climate Change to see this.

The Prime Minister himself appears to lack a lateral thinking capability to anticipate. He has hired around him, people who are indeed loyal, but are ill equipped to carry out the ambitious agenda he has set. They have failed him most dismally. Yet Mr. Rudd struggles on with the millstones, into the blizzard.

The Prime Minister seeks to reshape the Australian public service, in hs own mould, or some other vision, that he has. he has gone through the motions briging back the old brigade. They like the person whom Rudd has at the helm have spent decades mired in the decline of Australia's public services, across the nation. They have stood mute as the politicisation, and neutering of thes ervice has taken place, and the skills base has been largely removed. All of this in the name of service of the government of the day. The Prime Mimister is envelloped in incomeptence and historical decay that has come home to bite him and his Ministers. There is more to come.

If Kevin Rudd wants to achieve his agenda, and succeed beyond a first term, he must now take the hard decisions of the true Managing Director/CEO. He has to let his novices, and proteges, go. He has to seek out a most unusual group of people to do what he seeks. Probably those who have no background in the labor party and no factioanl alliances or aspirations. The people Rudd needs are mercenaries. But, I would hazard, that like all of the political leaders in modern Australian politics today he has no recognition of this, nor the capacity to break the mould at the core of his problem. Surround yourself with sycophants, and loyal subjects, Prime Minister and risk the ultimate humiliation. ("The numbered days of an Australian Prime Minister", Kevin Beck - A Futurist in Australia)


Kevin Rudd is infatuated with trying to talk low level with the ordinary folks. He is out front of parliament having a "yack". He says that he "aint" and hat the "buck stops", he uses the same set of phrsaes more at home in midland America where folksy drivel and homilies pass for deep and meaningful context.

Big Kev is taking the blame and wearing sack cloth for his sins. He is disappointed in himself and is going to put in a greater effort. God help the poor wrteches that slave for him now. His human resource management skills are almost non existent so be prepared. Meantime Kev lives in that rarified world of politics, where people get demoted on full pay. Kev thinks that we are disappointed with him not rolling things out. Well here is a scoop. The people are getting to see Kev in a real light. maybe he is a flim flam man? he says on telly that he has experience in the fields that he is getting into, harking back to his own perception of his experinec and capability in the Queensland state government sphere. When examined. Mr. Rudd's background is hardly stellar, and gives an insight into a narrow prism of management practices and ideas. Whilst he is planted in academia of some sort, he holds a set of skills that appear moulded by bullshit and the sleazy, lying world of diplomacy.

Opposition parliamentary leader Tony Abbott aptly dubs the Prime Minister the "milky bar kid". So let's, as you say, call a spade a spade, Prime Minister, uou are not cutting it and are less likely to in the future. In addition there are key people in your caibinet that are simply not up to the task and they are making the talented labor ones look bad. And while we are on the reform agenda, so dear to your heart, and the insultaion stuff up and disasters, who is in charge of service delivery for the Australian Public Service, Mr Terry Moran, the imported staate bureaucrat? What role has he played in wasting billions, and failed delivery? Could it be that he has no idea what a federal public service does? Why pillory the Environment Department alone? Why not include the Ministers and Secretaries for Health and Climate Change? They are both unable to deliver to the Prime Minister's ambitious agenda. I note that, eye candy, Senator Wong is still a senior cabinet Minister even though the ETS, and CPRS, are a dog's breakfast of cobbled together stupid policies and propositions based on problematic and questionable modelling, discredited premises nd gobbly gook. She of course is also on full salary despite the abject failure. Senator Conroy another bovver boy who presides over tens of millions of waste and a war on Telstra for no purpose other than teaching someone a lesson about how tough and rough he is. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, in her quite open threat, it is dangerous to oppose the government.

" And now I see in the newspapers this morning that his deputy Julia Gillard is threatening the business community with injury if it doesnt stay out of the industrial relations debate. Now this is the ugly face of the Labor Party, this is bullyboy tactics." John Howard. (Source: AM - Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 08:05:00, Reporter: Chris UhlmannABC Australia On Line -

As for the future in 2010 - 2011, what will Kevin Rudd do when the nasty balance sheet entries, pasted onto the puboic sector last year have to be taken back into the private sector? Pee in his pants and take the blame, for that
new, and unpredicted, fiasco too? ("Hey mate, fair suck of the sauce bottle... oops I spilt it" Kevin Beck)


February 2010: The Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, was besotted with golf balls in parliament in the last week of February. The Minsiter ridiculing others, shrugs off her own momolithic underperrformance and failures. She has been unable to deliver the Prime Minister's health reform plan or the suoerclinics, and improvements that were the stuff of dreams and fantasy in Rudd's fevered pre-elction mind. The Minister ought to ook at her stewardship of a portfolio that bleeds hundred sof millions due to the inadequacy of the politicians who are tasked to deal with it. Should Gre Combet, the fixer, also be given a mantle for health? He could ten maybe get a pay rise from his $206,000 a year and a seat in cabonet in place of either the failed Peter Garrett, on $260,000 a year despite having been demoted. perhaps Roxon could take a pay cut for poor performance and ignorance?

The Minister's office has been told in writing that the estimates for fraud in both the private and public health secto are grossly underestimated. There is a system that esnures the spin doctors, and parasites, of the political system (unelected paid on the public purse) dismiss any correspondence that might prove embarrassing or too hard for their mediocre political bosses.

An Australian private sector health practitioner, the largest in his field, has provided documentary evidence to Medibank Private fraud managers and advisers, to the office of the Minister for Health, the office of the Minister for Finance (the owner of Medibank Private), to the Office of the Minister for Human Services, a subsequent meeting has been held with as senior public servant of that agency, material has been sent to the Treasurer and to the burueaucracy in general, all pointing to a system being manipulated for gain by vested interests. Why bother being a concerned and good citizen when dealing with a detached government focused on its own self indulgence? The correspondence the evidence, has been ignored except that perfunctory and peurile responses cpme back, thanks but no thanks.

The Office of the Prime Minister has been alerted to look for the correspondence but that is like sending documents into a creche.

This health practitioner has also provided complementary research to support his claims. He has paid for all of his research and arguments. yet the message falls on deaf or it is - ignorant ears? He has questioned the structure, membership and value of the preferred provider agreement. How many preferred providers can one have before they are all in? In short he has put his money where his mouth is, unlike the people charged with the public interest and those who occupy official positions.

The Senate Estimates Committee needs to look at the whole health fund charging and agrement exercise, the level of fraud and what the public service knows. The Health Minister and Minister for Finance need to be brought to account for their slack attitude. Medibank Private is a multi billion industry owned by the government with 30% of the market and its activities require looking at.

This is yet another example of the slip, shod management and administration of Kevin Rudd's cyclonic drive for reforms and action. There is a theme song developing in labor, it goes: "There's no business like show business, like no business we know ..and we do not know much ...(add labor refrain - do not bother us with the detail, we are on a mission from Kev and we are zealots to his cause and whims." ("Fraud in dental health coming to haunt Australia's labor and liberal politicians", Kevin Beck)


Prime Minister Rudd has told us the level of ethical and accountability standards he requires of Ministers in governemnt setting a new benchmark in poor leqadership. he should immediately look on ebay for an ethical compss. He states, in his tradional, school principal lecturing style, how there are two fundamental tests of accountability and responsibility - (1) Did the Minister seek an indepndent review? and (2) Did the Minister act on the advice of his Department? If the answer is yes then all is okay. One can be as dumb as dog shit, waste billions, be incompetent and show no emotion when actions result in death, loss of livelihood or other impact as a result of a Minister of government but it is alright because political expediency and interest are the unstated measures.

This is indeed a flakey standard typical of the decline in
ethics Kevin Rudd's standrads, beliefs and capabilities are the best we have in the nation? This is truly a sad reflection on the quality of cnadiadtes and members of our parliaments. Day after day Mr Rudd disappoints and demonstrates a lack of ability to inspire as a leader. He best work hard at relection for as February 2010 comes to a close, the labor party should be in terminal decline for a second term. The electorate however are not all that discrening and appear to have a low regrad for their democracy and government preferring to whinge, and whine, mislead their intentions in the polls questioning, trather than participate. ("Mean Prime Minister on slide", Kevin Beck)



February 2010: What is more important, and valuable, to the nation? The integrity of the Australian Commonwealth Public Service, and protection of its dedicated officers, or the vain prurient, self absorbed interests of politicians? Politicians, supported by reprehensible political staff who feed disinformation to the media in order to discredit, and undermine, senior public service officers, on behalf of their immoral, and unethical, bosses. Political staffers who usurp the role of elected politicians. We have seen the undermining of the nation's elite public service by someone associated with the office of the Minister for Communications and the Digital Age. We haves een the undermining occur to protect the incompetence of the Ministers for the Environment and Climate Change. We have heard it from the Prime Minister's own mouth some time back when he pronounced that whilst there were some people criticising the burn out hours being demanded he had news for them - there would be a lot more. Big deal, akll he is demonstrating that he is a tough talking, myopic little man, with limited human relations skills and regard for the well being of others. Let Mr Rudd work himself into the ground, risking the likelihood of ill thought out reactionary decisions. Let hom go on Good News Week and act as if he is just an ordinary guy. Who cares really, the voters? I don't think so.

Am I, and others, deemed to be stupid enough to believe that the Ministers, and their staffers, do not make decisions that are bad and then try and pass them off as public servant incompetence? They operate a system of isolating the Minister from their reprehensible antics so that he or she may have deniable protection. This is a less than subtle line to cross and only the most naive or rusted on ll, would believe Senator Conroy when he sits in the Senate (February 2010) and denies that he has knowledge of the media being prepped about his failed tender that cost the nation $A17,000,000 in waste. Pity we do not have a Senate that is truly impartial and acting in the public interest. What a corrupted, and corroded, process we tolerate in our name.

There are Ministers, and staffers, across all of Australia's governments, who think that the general public out here are oblivious to their lying to the Senate or ther Committees and their general heinous behaviour. Their minions work to cover their sanctimonious, incompetent, bosses' arses. Some Ministers, and their Chiefs of Staff, at the federal level of government, especially, really need to look beyond their short distance horizons and see who is watching, and it is not merely There are many people in business, and private life, who value the public service, I am one one of them. Not that this registers with the dim witted political staff. Fortunately they come, and go, but the public service remains. It is irksome that they can last for years, but that is the price of democracy and the stupidity of the electorate. I have little time for the parasites that infest public office for their own political gain. Most recently some of the federal members fall into this category of eople t be treated with contempt because they place their interests before the public interest. They are ethical vacuums.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and a handful of novice Ministers are destroying the quality, fabric and reputation of Australia's premier pubic service. They are degrading and corrupting policy and process through ignorance and incomptence. You have between now and the federal election to act. They need to go to ensure that the damage they are wreaking does not render the elite service to a low grade acquiescent and failed service. This may clash with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the Ethics of the Australian Public Service but there is much at stake. Don't openly defy them, mutiny nor deliberately sabotage the activities of the poorly talented Ministers under which you labour day and night. Just act with reserve and do not come to their aid, when they stuff up, let them hang on their own petardes for they will surely engineer their own demise without too much help from anyone else.

The role of the Australian Commonwealth Public Service is one of policy development, domestic and international, management of key, core functions such as immigration, national crime policing and in concert with international organisations, health and research at the upper levels of the system and national interest things like certain parts of the environment function and education theory and practice. There is a sharing relationship with the states. The federal governments of the apst started to blur the lines of responsibility and the Rudd federal labor government has largely obliterated them forcing federal agenfies into areas where they have neither a charter nor the experience. The great winners out of all of this are the lawyers and consultants brought in aas public service management attempt to manage and divest risk. Policiesa re rushed, not tested and changed at the whim of the Minister and necessity as it all goes to shit. There are no sound policies that have been put in place and bedded down by this labor government. lack of care, competing challenges and political ideologies and needs are bundled in with political expediency.

The lack of knowledge of the role of public servants by the Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett and by the Education Minister Julia Gillard are demonstrative of this shift and subsequent damaging outcomes. If Kevin Rudd, and his novices, want to be Ministere in charge of delivery then they should transfer to state politics and stuff it up there. The state public services cannot be degraded, in terms of capability, and serving the unethical, demands of their politicians, any more than they are now under labor governments in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Then we have South Australia and Tasmania, the latter being brazenly unethical in its modus operandi of government. ("Managing Australia's Public Servants for Political Self Interest", Kevin Beck)


New, and inexperienced, federal government Ministers, and the Prime Minister himself, may have no clue about good management and quality leadership, and the value of Australia's Commonwealth public service, but are full of arrogance, and bile, for those who do not conform to their views and values. The Prime Minister may burn the candle for long hours of work but there is a big difference between hours and productive outcome. He is typical of the workaholic whose output is of low value often bringing others down to a lower level.

Perhaps we are observing the slow death of a oncer government? Good riddance to bad rubbish according to the polls as the slide begins. Pity the seasoned, intelligent and knowledgeable, labor Ministers shackled by their incompetent colleagues and factional politics.


February 2010: Try and tell any of the Rudd novice Ministers, and their parasitic minders, anything that does not fit with their view of how things are and you may learn that they will ignore you. They only react to their perceptions of who is influential or threaten their agenda or make them face embarrassing questions or events.

I term political minders parasitic because they are employed, from the public purse, to pursue partisan political interest at the expense of good government. I am not talking about public servants on sceondmen to assist Ministers I am talking about the political staff.

They act in many respects as if they are the pseudo Minister without having been elected. They, particul;arly those in Prime Ministerial offices, demand, cajole and threaten Australia's public servants with reprisals. They are a blight on our governance. One is likely to get a better and more coherent reponse from one of the seasoned Ministers, John Faulkner, Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson, among others, than the pet coterie of the Prime Minister. Interaction with the Rudd government is an onerous task and in many respects a waste of time, resources and effort. They all know better. They "take advice" and do what they think anyway regardless of cost and risk.

This is a grossly incompetent government, in the hands of people whose understanding of the principles, and processes, of quality government are limited at best. Mr Rudd was never a star in the Australian public service diplomatic agency and never a great reformer of public servce and delivery of portfolios, under his stint in Queensland. he has a record of mediocriity and yet the Australian public are mesmerised by his smoke and mirrors. perhaps they are glazed by his babble and confuse this with being smart?

At the head of the queue of incompetent politicians is the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. A mind numbing bore who ran out 600 promises at the election and then decided to put them al in in three years. What a stupid decision that is proving to be and who can remeber what his 600 promises were or who actually cares? Mr Rudd is, annoyingly, unable to continulaly articulte a simple proposition. When confronted with challenge he snarls. When he performas badly others in the Ministries and public service suffer. He is to many an insufferable egotist who lacks a grasp on detail whilst trying to micro manage everything. There is even greater decay in the quality of government, and public service, under the federal labor government, if we are to go by the performance of the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard and her agency the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations (the introduction of modernised awards), the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong, and her agency (the debacle that is called CPRS and ETS, the agreement between the states on water) and Ms Wong's inability to actually inform us correctly. She states that the ETS, under her supervision, will cap and reduce Australia's carbon pollution. This is not true and it cannot be. The polluters are being given free permits and when taken into the Treasury moddeling apopear to be an impost below $A1.50. Tpo do what Ms Wong claims would require a carbon price/tax of somewheer approaching $A100 a tonne to render technology alternatives viable. Yet she has no problem trotting out cant and rubbish. Either she is ignorant of her department's driel and Treasury's questionable modeeling or is misleading with intent. Anyway Ms Wong should not be beleived as she is a novice in a complex Ministry.

The federal government government under Kevin Rudd's management, and all over the plaace shallow style, is riddled with incompetence, arrogance and extreme waste. Minister Stephen Conroy pissed $A17,000,000 up against a wall because he was not prepared to listen. He then gives the free to air television netwoks a gift of $A250,000,000 of taxpayers' funds, even as his colleague Lindsay tanner struggles to offset a massive deficit. Senator Conroy is ably supported by yet more of Kevin Rudd's mind fantasies as they spin a story, off the top of their heads, to suit. Mr Rudd said that the money was an offset to assist the change from analogue to digital. never mind that that was funded elsewhere in the communications portfolio from the previous Howard government. Senator Conroy tried another con, the payment was to sustain local content. What sort of content? My kitchen rules, Australia's greatest slob or what passes for current affairs on the commercial networks? What a double vaudeville act Messrs. Conroy and Rudd are. They both should be stars in a disappearing reality election.

All of the Rudd government's major flagship programmes that he bloomed in his psychedelic mind have failed to deliver. Oh he claims that a lot of the 600 have been delivered. perhaps he could name a few hundred in another one of his pubescent riddles of the English language. Where are the computers, the child care drop off centres, Grocery Watch and the GP Super Clinics? They are mired, and lost, in the incompetent clutch of novice, incompetent new Ministers of the Rudd government. One doesn't see too many stuff ups, on a scale like these others, from federal Ministers Faulkner, Tanner, Crean and Ferguson. How sad that they should be tarred by their colleagues.

It seems that Prime Minister Rudd and the brigade of novice Ministers, he gave us do not understand the function, and capabilities, of the Australian Public Service. In this lack of insight, and knowledge, they are destroying the core foundation of our federal government public service. They are political vandals bringing everyone else down to their base incompetent levels, in pursuit of their own political purpose and interests. Write a letter telling them this and they either do not see it (most probably because they have parasitic minders who are a blight on government) or they simply are lacking the prescient capacity to see the future. They are oncers at this rate. And good ridance even a "drover's dog" would be better at government.

The Minister for the Environment, and the Arts, Peter Garrett and his multiple departments (insulation and solar), doesn't bear talking about what an insular and stupid Minister. Then we have the Minister for Health and Aging, Ms Nicola Roxon, she seems unable to read coherently. Her multiple agencies (national health and hospitals, engage in some form of fantasy about the possible, and happily go on accepting a level of unspecified fraud in medicare, and the private health sector)that inflates costs and rates. The Minister for Human Services, Chris Bowen, seems to have little interest inn the real level of draud that infests the health and social welfare systems despite the fact that he and Ms Roxon have been told by medical practitioners that it is well above the department's estimates. The senior government Ministers, of health and human services, are quite happy to allow an inherent level of fraud to steal from the public purse and inflate the rates for the Medibank Private public sector fund. meanqwhile a $A100,000,000 leaches from the pharmaceutical benfits scheme, overseas.

People are dying due to the ineptitude, and inefficiencies, of Australia's agencies. Peter Garrett tells us that he approved a new training module. There you have it. One of labor's everyday offerings to all things hard - unemployment, recessions, problems and cirisis, training. A competency based shallow curriculum, typical of the overall
education platform of the Australian Labor Party in the past, now and into the future.

Hundreds of millions are being wasted, daily across the nation, by the incomptence and mismanagement of Kevin Rudd's favourites. The Prime Minister blithely tells us to "call a spade a spade" and he is demonstrating a capcity to blather and talk in riddles. he says that they must get on top of it. There is no apparent recognition of the absolute breakdown of governance under the Prime Ministership of Kevin Rudd. It may be a just a political glitch?

Kevin Rudd stands in front of hiss enior public service and lectures them about his background and his skills berating them to something yet unspecified. He demands time, effort, labour and resources without clear objectives and without apparently good Ministerial guidance and talent. The government of Kevin Rudd is dangerous from many perspectives and respects. What a disappointment this must be for many. The choices that we have in the federal parliament are truly appalling in the near, and long, term. The government is being
cleaned up like skittles and they may not know by whom. It is not Mr Abbott doing the number on them, as the pundits may conjecture, it is far more complicated than simple politics and opposition. It is a mosaic of interests beyond their horizon. ("The Corrosion of the Character of Australia's Public Service", Kevin Beck)


February 2010: Prime Minister Rudd appeared on the ABC Q&A programme and demonstrated that he is ill eqipped for the office of Prime Minister. He became irked and tetchy at a 16 year old girl's questions of him. Over thirty minutes Australia's head of government was mauled by young people. he is a facade and his government is proving dangerous. Under the Environment Minister and his department's watch, people die from electrocution delivering the government';s ideological policies.

Minister Peter Garrett was an instrument of the short sighted, temporary and shallow strategies of the labor government seeking to maintain employment for the poorly skilled lower end of the socio economic demographic. The Minister, and the Department Secretary, Robyn Kruk overliookde or were oblivious to the general reaction of opportunists who smell money and lack of control. Why else would firms with no experience in insulation, including call centres, be attracted to the task? Now the householder will have to cliam the money back after paying out $A1,000 plus. The Minister and Department still expect to achieve the benchmark numbers.

"At every step of the way I have acted on advice to ensure the risks are managed accordingly", says Peter Garrett. Well they weren't too well managed were they since they increased dramatically across the nation, houses became at risk of being electrified and four people died. Is Garrett serious? He says that if he had known the real statistics of the shylocks applying to install the induslation he would have acted. Where is the Department Secretary and senior staff in all of this? Are there no performance standards and codes pof conduct in the Department of the Environment? Let's ee the Minister wield the axe on the highly paid 'wind in the willows" corridors of his agency.

In Australia you can report any danger you like, to life and limb, whether it be children, indigenous people, aged, visitpors to the country and generally, citizens every day welfare and the information will be ignored. People are dying through negligence at state and federal government levels. There are very inadequate performance demands on the public services of the state and federal governments, because many of the Ministers are incompetent. They are embarrassing to their more dedicated colleagues. Kevin Rudd is surely an embarrassment to the seasoned members of the Australian government, as Ministers Wong and garrett surely are. If not then we, the people of the nation, are in a very bad place with our governments.

The quality of government in Australia is a disgrace, denigrated by politicians who do not deserve to be in public office. They have, over two decades, destroyed the integrity of Australia's public services, and agencies. Whilst decline is generally applicable to both major parties, in government, labor ad liberal, it is, on the face of it, more likely that the Australian labor party is the most corrupt, and degrading, political party, in local, state and federal governments, in Australia, today.

The strategists in the office of Prime Minister, Minister for Climate Change and Environment are extraordinarily inept at seeking out the influencers that change opinions in Australia. They persis with what is in front of their faces looking to the pundits and the known names. They think big business influences the voters and the opinions. It is far more likely that the people in the pubs and the clubs have more influence and impact. It is highly likely that web bloggers and other commentators beyond the horizon of the politicians are the ones who are the undoing of governments across the nation. The labor party will not be able to implement an ETS, carbon trading or any other dodgy idea, of major impact and reform, in any portfolio, in 2010. Their credibility is shot. The electorate have seen that the popular Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is perhaps a man of straw.

There are many hard working, and credible, labor party federal Ministers. Simon Crean, Senator Faulkner, Lindsay Tanner and Martin Ferguson, to name some Then we are accoisted by the likes of the quadrella, Rudd, Gillard, Garrett and Wong. How is it that the government became captive to this lot of shallow, manipulative, self gratifying politicians? They are weak on substance and semi articulate in their arguments, pushing dangerous agendas. The two most dangerous, in my opinion, are Minister, the Honourable Senator Penny Wong pushing an argument she seems to know little about -
climate change. Ms Wong may be very well credentialled in indsutria law, but her knowldege and talent around Climate Change and Emissions Trading sucks. There is a farcical game on in our political system to pop out a bigger number. ms Wong and the Prime Minister start in the lower billions and at the end of the day these numbers have ballonned out to tens of billions. They appear immature and often infantile in their attempts to justify the rubbish that emanates from their portfolios and departments. Ill prepared they bluster and fabricate, dissemble and at times express crude insults.

Then we have the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, pushing her glossy education web site as a major event in the
education revolution of Australia. There is no revolution unless we count stupidity in policy and action. One may well wonder if the policy makers within Australia's governments (state, territory and federal) were born stupid, or they just grew into the roles?

Ms Gillard is yet another spruiker of competency based education, demonstrating the political propensity of obtaining a senior role whilst seemingly lacking knowledge, and good advice, in a very important (critical) portfolio. She pontifictaed that the My School web site would provide invaluable information to government, not available before, for planning and decision making. If it was not available in that or any format then where did it come from? It is frightening that policy, and funding allocations, would be determined on the content of a web site. If Ms Gillard wants to improve educatinal performance then she should start at the very foundation. Telling her department to produce a life long learning policy first. Then promoting a regard for, and valuing, education, at the society level, in the home where the children live. She might notice how many people have linmited education in Australia and tothers who do study do not go on to expand their knowldge. The performance of primary school children rarely reflects their later perfomance in secondary school. This is not to say that literacy and numeracy are not important or that there is no merit in testing to see what differing performances there are. To propose that there is a correlation between the LAPLAN performance scrores of children and the perceived socio economic disadvantage of a certian demographic area is simplicity that provides no deep analysis of individual circumstance.

Whilst it may interest the media that Ms Gillard could become Prime Minister, diverting their attention from substance, a more indepth examination of her credentials, and the performance of her Department, under its managment, may deliver much more of an insight. ("On your bikes, your day is coming - monitoring voter sentiments about all aspects of Australian labor party in government", Kevin Beck, "The rout of NSW and Queensland will come first")

Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong Bungle ETS

Did they deliberately set out to mislead us?

It is not clear how Kevin Rudd arrives at strategy and who has influence? It is clear that the Australian labor party, or for that matter also the liberal, national and greens parties, have substandard intelligence gathering networks and systems. If the labor party had a sophisticated mechanism in place then they would not have been blindsided by Tony Abbott. They would also be well aware that the Australian electorate is not on board with the government's ETS (Emission Trading Scheme). They would also have a better understanding as to where to gather their information and identify the protagonists and the barrier creationists.

The government's Emission Trading Scheme is under serious threat internally within Australia. Climate Change and Water Minister, Senator Penny Wong, has not covered all the bases and has failed to clearlt articulate the scheme. To simply put a "spin" argument on the web purporting to be a full justification is not the manner in which this issue should be approached. There are hidden forces, and interests, who intend to stymy and kill off the government's ETS.

The process adopted by Kevin Rudd, regarding policy development is a myopic and bureaucratic one. The Australian media has focused on Mr Rudd's propensity for the "research and enquiry" based approach. What they have not looked at are the pitfalls in this approach. The practically oriented, invariably those who may have little regard for, or little deeper education, may eschew Mr Rudd's approach. They may prefer historical experience

"If practitioners shun theory then they must rely on experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type of issue. However,it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will teach leaders everything they need to know (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75)." (in Theories of Educational Management, Tony Bush,

The Climate Change Department of the Commonwealth government may have failed the Senator in its role since it is a new and powerfulk department at the apex of government policy. What has been the focus of this agency?

"Niskanen argues that the size of the discretionary budget (Y) reflects the reward structure in the bureaucratic environment...Niskanen begins by showing that bureaucrats maximize personal utility (wages and perks) by maximising the agency's budget. Actually, he corrects this statement. Instead: bureaucrats maximise objectives defined in terms of the agency's discretionary budget. (The discretionary budget is the difference between the budget parliament gives and the cost to the agency of producing its output)." (Source: Niskanen: Bureaucrats and politicians, Journal of Law and Economics 18 (December): 617-43.)

"In an address to senior public servants in April 2008, the Prime Minister observed that, evidence-based policy-making is at the heart of being a reformist government. I want to explore why that is profoundly true; what it means in practice, and some implications for those of us in public administration. In doing so, I will draw on the experience of the Productivity Commission—which with its predecessors has been at the heart of evidence- based policy-making in Australia for over three decades to distil some insights into what is needed across government generally if we are to be successful.

It is as important that we have a rigorous, evidence-based approach to public policy in Australia today as at any time in our history. This country faces major long-term challenges; challenges that have only been exacerbated by the economic turbulence that we are struggling to deal with right now. When the present crisis is over, we will still have the ongoing challenges of greenhouse, the ageing of our population and continuing international competitive pressures. We should not underestimate the significance of those challenges, which place a premium on enhancing the efficiency and productivity of our economy." (Source of extract: Contemporary Government Challenges Challenges of evidence-based policy-making, Gary Banks AO, Australian Public Service Commission)

Thus we might say that the Prime Minister is more academic than bureaucrat, though there are overlaps in the profile of each type. In the case of the Australian ETS proposal there is little evidence to show that the examination, and choice, of this particular mechanism (ETS) to address climate change was academically, bureaucratically or politically astute. Because a topic is complex and detailed, that should not mean that there is no attempt to explain it. The government's behaviour in ths regard bears examination and demands explanation.

The Honourable Minister, Senator Wong, appeared to my mind to speak all too often in generalities bristling with political barbs. Then the government, and particularly, Mr Rudd and Ms Wong, intertwine Climate Change and the ETS as if they are homogenous and synonymous. This is not merely disingenuous it bordres on both misrepresentation and questionable behaviour. The ETS has nothing to do with climate change. The ETS is a contrived (creatd) market instrument. The theory is that price and market forces bring about Emissions reduction, investment in renewable energy and changes in behaviour.

"ETS will kill Tourism, Transport and Trade, By Viv Forbes Saturday, Canada Free Press, September 12, 2009

Emissions trading schemes proposed for the western world will guarantee another global financial crisis for tourism, transport and world trade. All carbon control schemes have at their core two essential features aimed at reducing man's production of the harmless gas, carbon dioxide. Firstly, increasingly severe rationing of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. And secondly, taxes on all permitted emissions and punitive taxes on any excess. They are all Ration-and-Tax Schemes and they will all enforce arbitrary reductions by 2020. But not one car, truck, bus, train, plane or ship can move without producing CO2. There is no possibility that this will change significantly before the doomsday year of 2020, just a decade away. Therefore neither Australia nor New Zealand can cut CO2 emissions by 2020 without slowly strangling all those industries that rely on moving people or goods.

Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes.

Australia and New Zealand comprise four lonely islands in the vast southern oceans which stretch from Africa to South America However, world population, political power and finance are concentrated far away in the Northern Hemisphere.

Apart from a few stock horses used by drovers, the occasional sailing yacht, some suburban bicycles and some hydro power that moves trains, our transport fleets rely totally on petrol, diesel, gas and coal. There are no solar powered aeroplanes or sail powered ocean liners – all produce CO2. Neither country can import tourists, get mineral and food products to their cities or export goods to world markets without producing CO2." (Source of extract as cited, An Honest Climate Debate, Exposing the truth about the Man-Made Climate Change theory,

When will the Northern Territory government be be made to govern and perform, with integrity, by the Commonwealth government?

Kevin Rudd has many dangerous ideas, climate change and an emissions trading sheme, among others, and if he succeeds in getting them in, he is likely to create an Australian economic crisis allon his own.

November 2009: Why is there an assumption that if people oppose the passage of the Rudd labor government's ETS legislation that they are climate change sceptics or worse still branded as criminal? These are totally unrelated spheres. Perhaps Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Minister Penny Wong, should look at their failure to fully explain, and educate, the population on what precisely is intended by the ETS and how a contrived market can lead to a direct impact on global warming? They might explain why they think that an ETS is the way to go? Because the rest of the world believes it to be so? The EU model is not all that flash and has not delivered. Jyoto has not delivered.

The proposed Australian ETS model, and the assumptions of Treasury and the advisers, who have put the ETS market model together are open to challenge. They are, in many respects, nothing more than theory, and guess, with big numbers attached. They guess the impact, the outcomes and the costs. This is a dangerous way to determine, frame and implement policy.

The Rudd labor government, and the Australian government Treasury, and public service agencies, collectively have no strong record of assessment, with demonstrably accurate modelling. Yet we are to rely upon a crystal ball government modus oepnadi, and set of arguments, and the creation of a contrived market. In the mid nineties the Australian electricity market model was created. It failed to reach any of the expectations of costs and revenues. It was contrived just like the ETS. In today's modern governments the policy makers and the bureaucrats prefer to focus on "nebullous future" predictions over current every day pressing matters. It is far easier for people, who may be struggling, bereft of ideas, and plans, to address immediacy and today's problems to instead to turn to things that cannot be measured and challenged accurately. To blow up the hysteria and the urgency to move attention away from general failure of government. Billions are thrown around as if the billion is equivalent to a mere hundred in our minds. A billion today! That is nothing! Governments can manufacture a surplus with the sleight of a pen. They cannot deliver effective water, health, education and transport services so they turn to things that are nebulous. Things based on theory and that will not make them immediately accountable. Tings that are impressive and to which can be attached evidence from people whohave been in the twilight rabbiting away. They come into the light and go crazy with teir warnings, predictions and theories. One upmanship takes over the more mundane processes of a boring life. Prime Minister Rudd, and colleagues, prefer to take a stab at guessing the future.

So we see extraordinary claims, and fear mongering, competing and nmore bizarre theories and claims published on the government climate change web site. If we do not do something now the cost in ten, or twenty years, will be x billions of dollars. If we do not do something now all of Australia's sea coast will be inundated. We are seeing government bodies such as in Victoria (VCAT) making decisions on planning applications using guess technique assessment methodology: what will happen on the Australian coast some decades into the future based on inarguable propositions that the sea will rise 0.7 centimetres. These are quite stupid deliberations and costly soothsaying.

The Australian ETS called the CPRS has put a cap on carbon price of $10 a ton till 2012. By doing this; the CPRS is not creating a market at all, it is creating a centrally planned market economy for carbon. On top of this the government decides which industries are part of the CPRS and which are not; which industries get free carbon credits and how much. In addition, it is allowing overseas carbon credits to be bought in Australia to the tune of 100%. What this means is that carbon reduced in other countries as part of their ETS can be bought by Australian companies and they do not have to innovate to reduce their carbon output. By putting a cap on the price, by providing free credits as it seems fit, by excluding some industries and providing access to foreign carbon credits the government is acting as a central planner and distorting the idea of a carbon market. Centrally planned economies do not work. A distorted market will not provide the benefits of a free market and in this case it will not lead to reduction in carbon emissions. What else will happen is hard to fathom?" (Source: What will the Australian ETS achieve? or What can a centrally planned carbon economy achieve? Posted by: Suhit Anantula on: November 17, 2009, World is Green,

Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the opposition in Australia's federal parliament, has precipitated a crisis by forcing the convoluted mixing of climate change theory and ETS theory onto the liberal and national party parliamentary members. The media is focused on the leadership issue since gladiatorial contests are far better entertainment tan dry analysis of the facts. In this regard Malcolm Turnbull joins the government in an inept methodology of deciding policy based on evidence and fact. The government would claim that there is evidence. But of what? Climate change, not the prrformance of their ETS. World concensus is that an ETS is the ay to go. World concensus was that we slice and dice debt until it disappeared. What did world concensus deliver? The global economic crisis. Mr Rudd is likely to create, by accident or design, the Australian economic crisis. ("What drives this Prime Minister to self destruction?", Kevin Beck)

November 2009: Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, damaging the social fabric of Australia

November 2009: Rudd and Coterie Unimpressive
Why ask New Zealand to take the Sri Lankan rabble
parked on the Australian customs ship off the Indonesian Coast?

With the exception of the Australian Newspaper, Australian media has generally lauded the operational style of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and his fiefdom of close apparatchiks. The media, of course, are not going to acknowldge, or admit, that they are captive to spin merchants and psycho babble technocrats who dress everything up as "policy grounded in evidence based research. This is just tripe and is a stolen definition from the book of academic herbs and spells.

An examination of Mr Rudd's decision skills and the work of his young gun, advisers, and chief of staff, to date, appears to demonstrate a fundamental failure of basic thinking capacity. perhaps they use tea leave reading, throwing bones, whilst using the passing off arts. Could it be that they have no administration, and management, capabilities beyond the media cycle manipulation?

Below in this web site I report the "failed states of Australia", the "non existent
education revolution", the "non existent building of aboriginal housing" in the Northern Territory, the "national public housing fabulous sleight of hand", the "non existent grocery watch and petrol watch web sites" and the "carefully crafted, highly selective and misleading, climate change magic pudding." The latter is under the deft hand of thes celte and very foxy Senator Penny Wong. An industrial lawyer who takes no prisoners whilst eschewing any demonstrative, deep thought analysis and eviodence, as to what effect the government's ETS will have on the nation, economically and socially.

Now, from the Kevin Rudd, House of Marvels and Magic, we have the "terribly, not so effective, evidence based (yes we can see it and them) boats on the ocean experience. Evidencing stupidity, the Australian government may have asked New Zealand to process the Sri Lankan mob. New Zealand, in case Rudd's little stars had not noticed, or learnt in their recent schooling, is a bunch of small islands with a total population equal to one Australian major metropolitan city. Why would they demean us (who cares about them demeaning themselves) by proposing that soemone else should clean house for the Australian government? The Sri Lankans should be returned to their own country now. What is occurring now shows us that when the real wood is on Mr Rudd he is incapable of innovative and/or Prime Ministerial thinking. The proposition from Stepehn Smith that we have all the patience in the world, implying that such is a valid act of government is quite simply drivel. Rudd's one big bang policy action, the only action, was to spend money when the world financial system farted and shit itself. Now the government is doing the same over the boat people. ("Stumbling along in the Prime Minister's robes", Kevin Beck)

November 2009: Failed States and Territories

The Northern Territoyr has given up any pretence that its elected parliament acts in anyone's interest other than their own and the power collective. Blatant stealing of federal allocated funds for purposes other than they are granted is endemic. These monies are used to feather the nests of a cotoerie that acts against democracy corrupting the process and operation. The parliament is a rabble of self interest and the public service is sycophant to the whims of the political and business class. The Australian government tolerates this indiacting that the current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is both hypocritical and morally questionable.

"Nicolas Rothwell | October 24, 2009, Article from: The Australian

The Northern Territory is a lost cause. We've had three decades to get it functioning, and now it's time to admit the system doesn't work and needs to be replaced IN Australia we are used to seeing progress in governance, not failure. We expect governments in our jurisdictions that function well, provide efficient services, and maintain a fair match between the rhetoric of politics and the facts on the ground. There is, though, a failed state in our midst. That state is not Aboriginal north Australia, where the social fabric is in shreds and tatters. No: it is the jurisdiction largely responsible for entrenching this degree of indigenous disadvantage: the modern-seeming, self-governing Northern Territory. On the face of things, all the standard attributes of a democratic society are present here in Darwin: a parliament, political parties, government departments, a range of key social institutions that look much like their southern equivalents. But in fact the Territory is best understood as an interlocking set of interest groups. It is heavily dependent on outside funding, the bureaucracy is shot through with politics, almost all medium-sized business relies on public sector contracts and the entire system is founded on the administration of an Aboriginal underclass." ,,,,

"The unicameral parliament, housed in a large wedding cake structure, is the most visible of the Territory's failed institutions. On the 33 days a year that it sits, it is a place of confrontation, not a chamber for debate between its 25 members.

"With the state sector so all-dominating, and its patronage so rich, political affiliation matters. Why support an opposition party when you will be excluded from the circle of favour that expresses itself in consultancies, contracts and development opportunities? In this environment, a party-state comes into being, and both sides in politics have developed such a regime during their years in power. Bureaucrats carrying out party dictates, politicised appointments to key posts, a climate of obedience, a culture of prudent silence: these are features of the Territory's map. It is easy to blame the present regime for some of the system's more peculiar traits: the creation, for instance, of parallel constituency "offices of the chief minister" in regional centres, staffed by failed parliamentary candidates. But in their quarter-century in power, the conservatives presided over a similarly bizarre "total state", with implicit codes of loyalty and allegiance lying at its heart. Buttressing this inner cement of unspoken ties is a culture of vociferous announcement. At the core of the Territory system is a mind-set reminiscent of Pacific Island cargo-cults. An institution is named, set up, housed and lightly staffed: problem solved. Thus Darwin is full of facades rather than real structures: an Environmental Protection Authority without powers, an indigenous advisory panel without input, a climate change portfolio without policies, a museum with insufficient funds. Such facade institutions, and the philosophy behind them, infect the air.
they create a fantasy approach to administration, where Canberra always lurks, saviour-like, in the wings, and the declaration of a policy is sufficient to change the world."(source of extract as cited at opening)

In South Australia the speaker screamed "shut up" to the members of parliament who have allowed the house to deteriorate into a rabble of make testosterone driven hubris. The Premier, Mike Rann, leads people who are thugs in suits. As in the Northern Territory politics attracts some of the lowest moral characters and the ethically challenged on the ladder of society. These precious, shallow, politicians are cioncerned with ego and their own beleived prestidge.

THE Speaker of the South Australian parliament has threatened to resign after a second day of uproar over opposition probing of Premier Mike Rann's relationship with a former parliamentary barmaid. "The Speaker, Jack Snelling, stunned MPs, including a visibly shocked Mr Rann, by screaming at opposition whip Ivan Venning to "sit down" after he had complained of a threat made across the chamber by Treasurer Kevin Foley. Regaining his composure, Mr Snelling, a father of five and former union organiser, said: "If I don't feel that I am able to control this chamber, if members continue to ignore my calls of order, I will resign -- I will go over to Government House and hand in my commission. "The behaviour today has been nothing short of disgraceful. It makes me ashamed to be a member of this place." The extraordinary scenes came at the end of a tense question time during which Mr Rann was asked about the payment of legal bills associated with an incident at a Labor fundraiser on October 1. Adelaide businessman Richard Phillips, whose estranged wife Michelle Chantelois was previously friendly with Mr Rann, has been charged with aggravated assault against the Premier. The hostility between the two major parties was palpable as parliament resumed yesterday and the level of anger among MPs rose quickly."(Source: Extract Michael Owen, SA political reporter | October 30, 2009, Article from: The Australian)

In New South Wales the media reports that the Premier Nathan Rees has resorted to spying on his colleagues. "NSW Premier Nathan Rees has ordered a spying crackdown on his ministers, with special phone-tracking equipment to be installed in their offices. Staff from the Premier's Department have met at least one company to discuss close monitoring of ministerial phones, with a plan to put sophisticated technology into Governor Macquarie Tower, where Mr Rees and his ministers are based. The move has outraged his colleagues, who accuse him of unprecedented interference and rampant paranoia. ''It took [former US president] Richard Nixon 30 years to get this paranoid - Rees has got there in 12 months,'' one said. At the same time, tensions are reigniting between former health minister John Della Bosca and the Premier over Mr Della Bosca's attempts to retrieve private information from his confiscated computer hard drive." (Source of extract: Rees spies on ministersLISA CARTY November 1, 2009, Brisbane Times)

One might well query the moral and ethical capacity of senior bureaucrats who would participate in this degradation of the people's democracy. But this is not surprising examing the calibre and operation of the NSW public service where appointment is clearly reminiscent of a by gone "royal court".

So as the foundations, and integrity, of our democracies, and parliaments, crumble away in the hands of corrupt and self absorbed egos and interests, the Australian people, and media, are consumed with 78 Sri Lankans on a boat off the coast of Indonesia. Kevin Rudd has mcuh more to deal with than a boat if he is to achieve anything worthwhile in his time as Prime Minister. But does he know what is important? ("The bankruptcy of ideas, and management capacities, within all of Australia's governments", Kevin Beck


A public service management (CFA and DSE) suffering a lobotomy at the hands of the Victorian labor government
Brumby, and the Minister, should have resigned long ago.

October 2009: The state of politics
Oh please with the obligations, threats and insults

Yet again we saw on display the low grade intellect and behaviour of Queensland's prominent citizens. The Premier Anna Bligh has been attempting to change the culture of corruption, ignorance and stupidity that typifies business and politics in that state. She is severely challenged in this goal.

" Steven Wardil, September 30, 2009 12:00am,

MINING magnate Clive Palmer has blasted Australia's foreign investment policies as "racist" and called on the Government to lift restrictions on China. In speech to the Queensland Media Club, Mr Palmer called the Federal Treasurer "Wayne Goose" and threatened to take the Foreign Investment Review Board to the High Court...."I must say to the Treasurer Wayne Goose, no Wayne Swan . . . I must say that I object to that as an Australian citizen too," he said. The National Party honorary life member's comments come after FIRB director Patrick Colmer last week warned the Chinese not to use the media and lawyers to fight the review board's decisions.

Mr Palmer responded by saying the FIRB was a "racist body" operating against the laws of the World Trade Organisation and the Australian Constitution." (Source of extract: Clive Palmer says investment policies are racist, Courier Mail Brisbane,

Noel Pearson says that it is every Australian's responsibility to ensure cultural vitality, economic and personal health of aboroginal people. This is quite simply tripe. For decades in my life I have watched the chest beating and sycophantic "we acknowledge their land" dribble of politicians, and other bleeding hearts, opening mettings, conferences, entertainment, festivals and a new fast food or supoermarket outlet. One can tire of the endless recriminations that arise form those who make their living, reputation and public persona on the back of some interest group or cause.

One can become tired of the recriminations against white Australia for having failed the aboriginal people. There is no let up just constant pressure which eventually defeats the cause and turns the average person cold to the plight. The champions of under porivileged causes, and special interests, must send the parliamentary members and the officialdom spare with their endless whining , sniping and critiques. The greater number of Australians, including myself, do not get off their arses and participate in the volunteering and in looking closely at the problems. We sit back and demand governments and the public service do it. In order to ameliorate the antipathy of those who do harangue, money is thrown at them for their lifetsyle participation in forums and conferences.

Do the people in the Australian Council of Social Sevices (ACOSS) want poverty to end? Do those who minister, and berate, on behalf of the have nots want everyone to be rich and successful? Of course not, they would have no livelihood and no causes to pursue. They would not be sittin g in the airline member lounges and flying at the pointy end and dtaying in the nice hotels.

The nation has spent billions on aboriginal people. yet we never seem to ge the weight, and demands, off our backs. These people want to live in the desert, to drink and be stupid, not to send their kids to school, not go to school themselves, live on the dole and in shanties, let them. When they beat and rape their wives and children then treat them as normal citizens and prosecute them.

Everyone wants to get on the band wagon of celebrity high profile causes. Regardless of their abilities, intellectual capacity, knowledge and commitment. Now Missy higgins, an Australian song writer, and entertainer, thinks that she can expand her capabilities to commentary on what is environmentally damaging with regard to gas development in the Kimberley, with self belief in her expertise. What amount of time and research has she devoted to determining the economic and social impacts, against the cerebral cant of environmentalism? She has added her two bob to an endless streqam of diatribe and rubbish about what should be preserved, the odd shrub, a frog, a parrot and other miniscule rodents. Are these people serious? We should live in caves turning the nasty coal power statons off. We should worship the wind and the sun. A little bit of public exposure, fifteen minutes of fame, goes to the head. We have celebrities who think they are catalysts for social issues, media shock jocks believing that they can elucidate with deep thought and analysis and pontificate on complex issues. There are all manner of fringe dwellers who live on others' contributions, extolling the nature of things and telling us what our obligations are.

In Tasmania we have the never ending example of the politician who wants to make hay from some activity but cannot say what it is, because it is commercially confidential, but it is exciting.

"Mr Aird will visit the European headquarters of a major multi-national corporation considering a significant new job-creating project on the North-West Coast. He has been asked to deliver a presentation to the company board outlining why Tasmania is an ideal place for it to make a major investment worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Senior Australian Government officials will also join this meeting in a joint effort to demonstrate the Australian case for this project. The secretary of the Department of Economic Development will also attend. Mr Aird said the Government is unable to disclose further details of the proponent or project at this stage due to commercial-in-confidence reasons but will do so at the first opportunity." (Source: Tasmanian government media releases,, Michael Aird, MLC, Treasurer, Tuesday, 15 September 2009.

The typical tripe that media spin types (parasites on the public purse in parliemnatry members' offices) put out trying to put substance into something that they should keep their mouths shut about. These people dwell in the nether world. Do they realise that there are enterprising people out there in the real world, who will take an interest in this subterfuge, making it their business to find out what the Minister and public servants are up to? They trumpet the 'secret mission" as some flimsy justifiaction for paying the Treasurer, looking as if he is doing something worthwhile for the state. It is pathetic that open government is not the mandate of those elected to parliament. Instead they employ people to divert attention, trick, mislead, lie and obsfucate.

many of the players in our daily lives, seeking to shape and influence, are fringe dwellers living on the creativity of others, ever demanding a share of the cake that they did not create, trying to bask in the sun shine of nearness and relevance. Add to this the worthless efforts of the state public servants in getting anything done and we have a major waste of money, time and effort entrenched in our system of economy, society and government.

Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the opposition, tells his party coleagues do it my way or I will resign. Such is the quality of leadership and managerialism in public life. Malcolm's time as leader has not been auspicious. he has failed to articulate any clear thinking on the economic crisis, and the failure of the institutions of which he was formerly a participant. The whole Emission Trading Scheme proposition is based on theory and differing opinions. The Rudd government claims it is clear, we are on our way to destruction courtesy of carbon. These people have been eating magic mushrooms. The crash through approach os typical of the hubris that envelopes governments in Australia. It is an adversarial system, not only within the halls of parliaments but one that taken into the wider world insulting the nation's intelligence and demeaning the democratic processes.
climate change the panacea of relevance for the fringe dwellers.

Climate change is the cause celebre. The proponents of the theory see this as an opportunity to be relevant and to have their moment in the sun. John Howard's government denigrated academia. Thus they waited. Kevin Rudd is an academic. The peer hierarchy of the scientific world are not about to give up access to funds, credibility, relevance and access. The lower levels of the hierarchy know, as in politics, how the game is played. If they wish to rise through the ranks of academia they must not challenge their peers. They wil lose reserach funding, status and position. So it goes in every facet of society. The sycophants are like the stock market investors they are sheep. Better to be on the bandwagon than off.

The academia of economics, overall did not predict, the failure, refusing to challenge the orthodoxy, or challenge, the theory of endless growth. It rises again like a phoenix becuse the same power collective remains. Better to be on the side of common wisdom than not.

Thus it goes with climate change. Malcolm Turnbull claims that there is an excess of scientific evidence. There is not. There is the manipulated and the common ideology. Better not to rok the boat than to be irrelevant in politics. Thus is the decline in our democracy and in intellectual debate in Australia. The greater number of us go like sheep to the altar of cliamte change embracing erroneous theories and the world of the average. Towards a system destined for failure, Kevin Rudd's ETS.


Australian federal opposition, parliamentary front bench member, Joe Hockey announced the liberal - national agenda for the rest of the federal parliamententary term. They will go to the election with a single proposition. They will reduce the annual budget by $A14 billion. This is typical. Then we have the drivel coming from Sharman Stone regarding the influx of refugees coming by boats. this has always been the principle low grade scare tactic of a morally bankrupt set of politicians. made all the more hypocritical because many in the liberal party disagree with this approach but remain silent looking after their own political career interests. There is only one member of the liberal party in Australia that demonstrates the quality that all members should aspire to. The Victorian Senator Judith Troeth.

"Judith Troeth crosses Senate floor to end billing of detainees, Christian Kerr, September 08, 2009, Article
The Australian.

LIBERAL Senator Judith Troeth today crossed the floor to back government moves to end billing of immigration detainees. The vote has ended one of the more contentious immigration decisions from the Howard government.

The Victorian Liberal told the Senate:No advanced society should have on its books laws like this. Senator Troeth said figures from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees showed Australia had received just 4500 asylum claims in recent years. That is 0.5 per cent of the worldwide total and almost all of them did not arrive by boat, she said. I challenge the theories of those who want to say that this is opening the floodgates."

The liberals left her to stand tall shwoing the Australian electorate the calibre of their morality, ethics and their lack of spine. Sharman Stone and the front men, and women, of the Australian liberal party (not only in the federal parliament) are a reflection of the declining quality of Australia's national parliament. They are bereft of ideas and thinking. Forget policy formulation, analysis and creative thinking. Mr. Hockey and the moribund liberal party, under Malcolm Trunbull, have no vision for Australia. Similarly the Premier of NSW and the state labor party in government are as vapid, nut unlike the federal parliament, the A government mired in corruption.

In South Australia the labor leader Mike Rann treats the parliament as his personal fiefdom showing contempt for process and demonstrating degradation every day he satnds in the house and opens his mouth. In the Northern Territory the government has been given billions a year ago and has not built a house for the aboriginal people under the federal government grant. In Queensland Premier anna Bligh deals daily with sleaze and corruption across the party.

"Rudd talks about integrity. It's lacking in his back yard. Its also lacking across all the Labor states. NSW reeks. Victorian Labor figures are becoming regulars in the magistrates courts. Tasmania has had some colourful corruption scandals.

And The Australians Adelaide bureau staff is doing a sterling job revealing the relationships between business and the local ALP.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann made an interesting intervention into matters yesterday. His state doesnt have an ICAC, or something similar. He has said they dont need one. But he announced yesterday he would back the creation of such a bodyif it were done nationally. I'm more than happy if there is a commonwealth ICAC he said.In fact, I think that makes common sense. Rudd famously told voters thatthe buck stops with me on health. He promised to intervene if the states could not sort our their hospitals. He seems to be a little more reluctant to act on the matter now, despite his health review. How would he feel about taking responsibility for sleaze? One thing is certain: there would be much less moralising." (Source: Integrity is lacking, despite an outbreak of moralising House Rules Blog | August 06, 2009,
The Australian

At the federal level Mr. Turnbull probably became unhinged when the world as he knew it, through the eyes of a successful merchant banker collapsed in a heap of discredit. All his beliefs shattered and all of the principles, and theories, which nurtured his world, proven to be somewhat haphazard,unreliable, unethical and immoral. He desperately casts about for a credible foundation upon whihc to demonstrate his credentials. The liberals cling to hackneyed and worn economic management as the pathway to greatness and power.

The labor party vision, under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, is one of buliding things and dressing them up as revolutionary innovative action. apparently a school hall is an education revolution. It is not it is a stimulus to create work. To dress it up as an education revilution is spin and a stupid lot of twaddle. The govermment members who call it a revolution treat all of the electorate, particularly the majority that vote for them, as if they are as stupid as the proposition itself. Politicians get away with this is because to many it is irrelevant. Kevin Rudd's poppularity lies not in his leadership and abilities for making parliament of house of quality but bacuse the electorate is ill informed, lazy in examination and demands regarding democracy and often ignorant.

Mr Rudd and Ms Gilllard are relying on the states, and territories, to deliver their policy outcomes. This is stupid also. They are flouting responsibility. They cannot (politically) acknowledge that these labor governments, and their public services, are incapable of managing the general delivery of everyday services let alone extra billions of dollars of public funds. This is however a short term consequence because the objective of keeping regional Australia and construction workers in jobs will be met.

The government's policy to spend in construction is a sound one, driven by the impacts of the global recession. They, unlike others, in the Australian federal opposition, in the media and in Australian business, trawled the
information sources and opinions for disparate jigsaw pieces that might predict where the economy was, and is going. The opposition thinks it is over. Thus Julia Gillard has the unenviable task of keeping in work by a crude and expensive process, being rorted by state and territory governments, corrupt and opportunistic consultants, builders and contractors and very inexperienced, inept public servants. ms Gillard is exposed by her own Department's inability to manage and protect her programme. The Secretary of the Education department has demonstrated no ability to carry out this role. Ms Gillard must bare the same types of insults she metered out in the past regarding the opposition's own project and policy management skills.

The parliaments of Australia are ignorant of creative, and quality, government and public service. Kevin Rudd wants a quality federal public service, so he has announced an enquuiry. Such is typical of a person who has not conceived that his own inadequacies will alway hold back the brightness buried deep within the system. An inexperienced, and uneluminating, Prime Minister surrounded by political advisers barely out of diapers.

The labor party has few conviction politicians, and deep policy thinkers, left, in any of the nation's parliaments, and the liberals have none on the front bench of any parliament anywhere in the nation.

Barnaby Joyce in the Senate is a conviction politician as is Senator Bob Brown. This is beyoind sad, it reflects the ignorance of the Australian electorate who are besotted with image rather than substance. Kevin Rudd's popularity is a thing of wonder. He has demonstrated no substantail policy creativity operating with a single philosophy and ideology, spend money and ridicule using flowery language. The government's policies are bound in wwasle words, lies and misrepresentations. Shallow low grade (euphemistically called) training is presented as a maajor and significant stragey and when it is failing the Rudd government resorts to distortion of truth and bluster. Those who think that government should be something more and that politicians should earn their money are beyond being disenchanted, they are in despair that the nation's house, policy and performance, could come to this. ('pardon my political self interest, because it is synonymous with the public interest", Kevin Beck)

Gloating politicians laud their opportunities, and good fortune, of the past. Support from governments not available to aspiring young people today

September 2009:

Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, both delivered speeches to students this past first week or two. Both lauded the former labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam's, visionary implemenentation of free tertiary education. Both crowed (low key of course) how they had benefitted, how the opportunity of a free education had added to their successful careers. Pity that these two nostalgically inclined, but myopic speakers, could not think see the irony in their content. The people in the audience would have no such opportunity. The audience would have to use the Higher Education Scheme, which would burden them with high debt, not a free education. Some may well have characterised the two as free loaders by comparison. Why is it that in this age of excess and tremedous wealth Australia cannot have a free education system? There is no reason actually just bullshit about the costs. The visionary objective of these two senior leaders, in the modern day federal labor government is a spin (education revolution) campaign, with gross misrepresentation and hyperbole, full of irony and hypocrisy, underpinned by a policy to build rather than educate within the schools of the nation. The billions being poured into school buildings across the nation could well have been applied to imbuing a love of education and perhaps a move towards free education in Australia, a nation with
no life long learning policy and no action plan to start on the long road. Kevin Rudd has launched a review of the public service because he wants a modern, innovative service. He fails to see the fact that he is not at all innovaative hiself so what would he do with an innovative service? Plageurise the ideas most likely. Do not expect any innovation out of Julia Gillard's federal education department. Just an aping of the now embedded public service process of second guessing the Minister.

The waste of time, money and poor delivery of hyped government services grows. Despite labor Minister Jenny Macklin's recent bravado, and promises, not one house was built in the Northern Territory in the recent past and none in over one year, not one since she came out a few months back and said that she would deliver 700 houses. Tawn, sure Jenny.

Mr. Rudd, Ms Gillard and the labor party generally are not expected to deliver a revolution in any portfolio based on the performance of the new comers to parliament, to date. The visionary party members struggle in the background in Defence, Trade and Immigration whilst those in the front line have the sotlight showing an empty loft. The underperformance of a number of new, and inexpeienced, Ministers of the federal labor government, is being overlooked by the graeetr part of the Australian media, which is focusing on polls and celebrity rather than substance. A few lone Australian media icons are questioning the gloss and the glamour as the gold shine tarnishes. The Australian population generlly are not deep political thinkers and observers. This is a sad reflection on how we value our democracy and government. save the whales, dolphins, apes and the environment but not Australia's demoracy.

And of one of the new comers, what does the Minister for Government Services delivery do? He got the job because he delivered certain politicians success in NSW. Again we see that party political machine ability is not a good gauge of the ability to be a Minister in the parliament. The same Minister, Senator Mark Arbib, is also the Minister for Employment participation. Pity that there are a lot of people not participating via his tremedously advertised, but somewhat failing, programme. What was the claim by the Prime Ministerm 50,000 jobs? Are we to assume that services delivery covers the government training scheme to get the unemployed a job? If so that is not delivering as the government claimed it would. Mr rabib did not even know what his programme was all about.

Extract: "Gillard defends Arbib over PM's green jobs scheme 'error', Christian Kerr, July 31, 2009, The Australian

DEPUTY Prime Minister Julia Gillard came to the defence of her junior minister today, explaining that "anyone can make an error" after his bungled explanation of the Prime Minister's green jobs plan.

Mark Arbib, a rising Labor star, took the gloss off the Prime Minister's first ALP National Convention speech by stumbling during in an interview with Sky News.

“Anybody can make an error on live radio, live TV,” Ms Gillard, the Employment Minister, told ABC Radio today. Mr Rudd said thatMark would admit himself, he didn't have the best of days”, adding:That's not unique to him, that's not unique to politics.” Asked on Sky News yesterday how many jobs would be created, Senator Arbib said:Well, straight off the bat 10,000 jobs with the new Green Jobs Corps”. Asked to clarify his comments he claimed that thework experience program is a job”.

When asked again whether these 10,000 positions were jobs or work experience, he again statedwork experience is a job”. (Source: The Australian Newspaper)

This a labor rising star. God help us if this man is the future of a labor government. Does this Ministry also include delivering the housing scheme in the Northern Territory? The one announced April 2008, supposedly delivering 700 or is it a 1,000 houses to under privileged aboriginals? If so not one house has been built as at September 2009.

Extract: "Not one house built out of $700m Fed Govt fund, Emma Griffiths reported this story on Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:10:00

PETER CAVE: For decades politicians have been promising to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of Indigenous housing. Now the Rudd Government has been forced to defend claims that the largest ever investment in new homes in the Northern Territory has failed to deliver. Seven-hundred million dollars in housing program was announced by the Howard government and adopted by Kevin Rudd. But two years on not even one new house has been built. Emma Griffiths reports from Canberra.

EMMA GRIFFITHS: In the Northern Territory more than 60 per cent of Indigenous people are living in overcrowded homes. In some cases dozens of people can live in the one house and the conditions are known to contribute to chronic health problems and education difficulties. When the Federal intervention rolled through, the Howard government allocated $670 million to build new homes and fix up others. The initiative is called the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and it was picked up by the Rudd Government. Earlier this year the Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin announced that work had begun to do up more than 300 homes in the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt and in Tennant Creek. That work is due to be finished by the end of next year. But of the nearly 1,000 new homes promised under the program not one has been built." (Source: ABC Australia, The World Today)

So government service delivery seems a bit wanting. When Mr Arbib is questioned about his portfolio and activities he presents as a less than assured Minister on top of his responsibilities.

Looking again at Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the litany of underperforming delivery examples within her multiple portfolios, continues. She has more talent than the average person in society because she has risen through the ranks of decrepit politics to achieve the second highest political office in the land. That however does not make her a good manager of complex issues nor a successful Minister. The criteria are completely opposed. She ran with the Medicare Gold project in opposition, on behalf of Mark Latham, quietly abandoned because it was too expensive and it was fantasy bordering on stupid.

"...anyone over 75, even a multi-millionaire not in any urgent need, may jump the queue at a public hospital. (Queues of course are an inevitable feature of socialised medicine.) This recalls those earlierreforms” of the 70s to provide aged pensions and free university education without any regard to need. Neither lasted for long, but long enough to do damage. The universities have never fully recovered. At the heart of Medicare is that sacred cow, bulk billing, which was always a flawed concept. Bulk billing requires that not only the taxpayer subsidise each consultation, but also the doctor accept a fee substantially lower than that charged by tradesmen and professionals. There is no limit to the number of consultations with each patient, even when these are clearly unnecessary. When doctors demonstrate their lack of interest in doing the politicians bidding, state governments compound the problem by allowing hospital casualty departments to be misused as a surrogate for bulk billing GPs. It is difficult to think of a more foolish waste of resources than bulk billing, although providing competition in the pay television market by having parallel cables in suburban streets came close. (Why not also encourage competition between tramway companies by encouraging them to lay parallel tracks?)" (extract:'Medicare Gold' and the golden age of health care, David Flint)

Extract:" Julia Gillard stands by Medicare Gold, ABC Australia, AM - Monday, 4 October , 2004 08:06:00 Reporter: Alexandra Kirk

TONY EASTLEY: Labor's Health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, is standing by the costings in Medicare Gold and says contrary to the Government's claims, the Opposition has submitted its policy to the departments of Treasury and Finance for scrutiny. She maintains Econtech's figures are wrong, telling Alexandra Kirk she doesn't accept the private health insurers' criticism.

JULIA GILLARD: Medicare Gold is properly funded, properly costed, the costings have gone into Treasury and we are…

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But the Government says they haven't.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, the Government's wrong. The costings have gone into Treasury and I am more than satisfied that Medicare Gold is fully funded and properly costed.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: And will Treasury and Finance have time to go over your figures before the election?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have an answer. There's a full week there for Treasury to look at it.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Part of your Medicare Gold policy is that if people aged over 75 and on a waiting list want to have private hospital treatment that they can. Why wouldn't they take it if they were offered it?

I mean, you're arguing that not everybody will end up in a private hospital, but the Government says they may well. Why wouldn't people take up the option if they were given it? JULIA GILLARD: Look, I don't think that older people are going to be combing through every private hospital in Australia looking for the best room. I think people will make the sort of decisions they do now, which is which hospital is closest to my home so people can come and see me in hospital, which hospital does my doctor operate from or does my doctor recommend for the procedure that I need?

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Now Labor is pledging as one extra election promise to spend around $700 million to reduce the cost of prescription medicines by 60 cents for pensioners and concession card holders."
(ABC Australia,

Now (2009) As Minister for Education she, and the Department, sat around for three months while disadvantaged students, largely from the country, suffered misery and depravation, from another stupid decision under her stewardship.

Extract: " THE Federal Government has given ground on the contentious youth allowance issue and will allow students currently on a gap-year before attending university to qualify for youth allowance under the old system providing they have to move away from home to get their degree. After fierce lobbying from regional students, with the backing of The Nationals, the Greens and Independent MPs, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that students who have taken a gap year and must move to attend university will be entitled to claim independent status for Youth Allowance under the existing system until 30 June 2010. Ms Gillard said while the changes to youth allowance, announced in this year's budget, were designed to help more people access the assistance, she acknowledged some students who had chosen to take a gap year in 2009 would have been disadvantaged during the transition between the two systems. But she said to pay for the change, the alterations to the amount a student can earn before affecting their youth allowance will be deferred by 18 months. Students are currently able to earn $236 a fortnight before their youth allowance payment is affected. This will now rise to $400 a fortnight, but will now not be introduced until 1 July 2012." (Source: Gillard gives ground on youth allowance 26/08/2009 9:44:00 AM, Stock Journal)

"Author BJP River ® Date/Time: 22 May 2009 12:20:10pm
Subject Youth Allowance, Double Standards

What a brazen set of double standards we live by. Who is setting a prime example on this front but none other than the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Federal Minister for Education Julia Gillard? The other morning (Wednesday) Ms Gillard was on radio (ABC) dictating / justifying her proposed budget position regarding the new rules for Youth Allowance qualification, where university students from households that earn more than $42,599 pa will not qualify for Youth Allowance. A reason given for changing the rules was to tighten up the system so that those who are well off can no longer claim youth allowance. Apparently now if you earn more than $42,599 in your household you are now classified as well off? For country kids, moving to the city to study, many of whom move many 100's of kilometres, Youth Allowance is basically their "living away from home allowance" contributing to covering such costs as rent, utilities etc whilst pursuing higher education. My daughter is expecting to move to Adelaide next year, to undertake her studies at Flinders University which she has deferred for a year in an attempt to qualify for youth allowance under the old rules. The double standard kicks in here where Ms Gillard, as reported on Today Tonight the other night, openly claims $215/wk "living away from home allowance", $8500 for half of last year, whilst living in her own home. My daughter will be living 300km from her home next year, living in some sort of rental, but under Ms Gillard's new rules, WILL NOT qualify for Youth Allowance (defacto living away from home allowance) because we earn more than $42,599. I can tell you this though, what my wife and I earn, our combined income, would not come close to what Ms Gillard takes home on her own, yet she gets to make these claims whilst living in her own home."(Source of extract: The Country Hour, ABC Rural message board, Discussion: Youth Allowance, Double Standards)("Counting the days of decline of the Labor governments, federal and state" Kevin Beck)

Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told us of an education revolution in the lead up to the election. This is not an
education revolution, it is spin and misrepreresentation, designed to elude and cover up mediocrity, poor planning and management by federal and state agencies, corruption in pricing and mates, with spin from a celebrity politician. ("Travelling circuses corrodes nation's governance and prospects", Kevin Beck)

cartoon by courtesy of

The above equates to a $1.7 billion dollar over run on the education (fizzling) revolution. It is according to Ms Gillard, a bump in the road. So successful is the programme that every wants in. Why? It is easy money. An exercise that is an over priced, corrupted and inept big spending project on physical facilities for schools whether they want them, need them or want something else. Like health, education is a blaoted over administered portfolio at every level of Austrlia's governments. Services are taken away from schools to funds a whole army of pen pushers, paper shufflers and career fat cats. She is lauded by shallow journalists for her parliamentary performance. Is it eloquent and quality presentation to refer to a parliamentary member as a "poodle"? This is not a smat intellectually challenging retort. It is a circus performance not becoming of a highly (publicly paid for) educated person in high public office.

" PM-to-be Julia Gillard hits a road bump, Article from: Laurie Oakes, August 29, 2009 12:00am, Herald Sun Newspaper)

"DON'T look now, but St Julia's halo has slipped. Suddenly the Deputy Prime Minister's competence is being questioned. Since Labor won office she has been Teflon-coated. While other ministers copped their share of criticism, nothing seemed to stick to Julia Gillard. Her image has been all polish, apparently untarnishable. Even the country's most conservative commentators have expressed admiration for her.

But a $1.7 billion blow-out in the Government's stimulus spending on primary school infrastructure may have changed all that. Now there is talk about possible feet of clay. The bottom line is that an extra $1.69 billion has had to be found for Gillard's infrastructure spend on primary schools. It will come from money originally earmarked for other programs, most notably social housing. Comments in the report about administration and procurement processes - along with the ordering of guideline changes to ensure value-for-money in contracts with builders and purchasing of materials - also lend credibility to Opposition criticism. The huge cost blow-out focuses attention on claims that Gillard is not capable of handling both Workplace Relations and the Education portfolio. Calls are mounting for her to give up one of them. Making the most of all this is Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne. Back in February, Gillard made the mistake of ridiculing Pyne in Parliament as a mincing poodle. Since then he has pursued her doggedly (pun intended)." (Extract source: Laurie Oakes, PM-to-be Julia Gillard hits a road bump, August 29, 2009)

This debacle in the education portfolio follows on the genius of putting a computer on every school kids desk without anyone in her office, and in the bureaucracy, the federal Departmanet of Education, thinking about the ancillary costs. Then there is the modernisation of awarsd, yet more spin and doctoring as this exercise also turns sour. What does Ms Gillard, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, call this calamity? A speed hump in the road. A glitch, accordint tob the diatribe of spin, this cost over run is an exhibit of the wonderful policy that is just so exciting, and revolutionary, that so many schools, and not so bright people, have like sheep, embraced that they have all demannded more, and of course the government has listened, causing the cost blow out. Then she blames the states for the "crooks in the private education" sector. never mind that this is also a by - product of poor policy and stupid education ministers, never challenged at the state level, in the Australian federal government who dreamed up, and enacted, policies (albeit Howard's liberal - national coalition) on competition and selling education to the highest bidder across the globe.

Oh please, this is not a revolution nor is it an indicator of success. It is apparent that Ms Gillard is in trouble when federal labor politician Anthony Albanese comes out to defend her failures, dressing them up as successes. He is not that plausible but never mind the hubris that runs in the veins of the career Australian politician.

She has dressed up, and looks quite comely, often startling good looking on television.

Will Australia ever return to the golden age of quality investigative journalism that examines political performance deeper than the make up and acid tongue? Are we about entertainment or good government, and public service quality? The federal Department of Education is not known for its challenging of policy, and Ministerial mediocrity and poor decisions. Rather it has a record of giving every Minister what they want to hear, read and see. This department's hallmark, within sections of the Department dealing with parliament, is sycophancy at great cost to the nation and the intellectual, and educative, development of Australia. The Department demeans the notion of fearless public service. Can't blame them though cause that "utopian concept" passed away long ago, with the corruption of public service by the Austraian Labor, and Liberal, parties in goverment, across Australia.

There appears to be no admirable political leaders in any of Australia's governments.

August 2009: The ethical, and moral, substance of today's governments across Australia

The Honourable, Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, would have us believe he is doing a good job, as would Ms Anna Bligh in Queensland, Mr Nathan Rees in NSW, Mike Rann in South Australia, Paul Henderson in the Northern Territory, Colin Barnett in Western Australia, Jon Stanhope in the Australian Capital Territory and David Bartlett in Tasmania. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Ignoring the corrosion and corruption, of the governance of Australia, ignoring the ethical, and morally, challenged administration, and governance, of each of the major political parties and the government leaders, and we are still left with the gross failure of public service and management. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is travelling the country talking to health professionals. The federal government has committed to major reform of health delivery in Australia. This will be an extraordinary achievement if the Rudd labor government can get the moribund and inadequate state and territory governments to get off their collective self interest and deliver service as they are elected to do. A picture of state, and territory, mismanagement, and failure, dangerous decisions and other scandalous activities, within state and territory health, is being starkly painted. The management of health by our governments is a disgrace for a modern nation and represents the public face of misrepresentation, lies, and stupidity of the public service administration and the politicians who are in charge in the states and territories. There are two core fundamentals that make society -health and education. The Australian governments, collectively, in the past have failed on both portfolios. Every election the theme is the same - it will be fought on health and education. Is it that the state and territory Ministers and health agencies are collectively incompetent? Health, across the nation, is a bloated over managed system full of bureaucrats and consultants leaving insufficient funds for the employment of health professionals and supply of resources. It is a mix of vested interests both public and private. Why would anyone vote for the health Ministers of the states, and territories, when they demonstrate such incompetence year after year?

In Queensland medical malpractice has resulted in death with health administrators disregarding the reports and exposures of nurses. Whistleblowers are treated with contempt. The Queensland health system is
riddled with corruption and mismanagement. In Victoria the government failed to address major dysfunctions, poor administration and technical neglect in the state fire fighting services. Premier John Brumby expressed his support for the under performers of the bureaucracy. He arrogantly reappointed the most senior before the Bush Fire Royal Commission had handed down its report. John Brumby is not a leader of an Australian government worthy of great respect.

Australians die, and others suffer greatly, as a consequence of failures in governance, and public service. There is no accountability. Across Australia the labor party sells access to Ministers and garners favours via lobbyists.

In the Northern Territory, the government, and public service, has squandered, or stolen, millions in allocated federal funds for aboriginal communities. They have failed in their duty of care in every facet of their decrepit political administration.

Liars, cheats and thieves, along with former political party mates and former senior Ministers and members of governments, infest the political spectrum of the nation and the two major political parties, the Australian labor and Australian Liberal parties. In NSW the government hangs onto office whilst being publicly pilloried for its stupidity, maladministration, corruption and arrogance.

No less culpable are the states of Queensland and Western Australia, which are riddled with corruption, and poor public service administration. In Victoria Mr. Brumby is not interested in contrary or scathing opinions, speculation on his failing moral compass or any other studied examination of his under performance. Mr. Brumby says that paying for access to his Ministers of government is a sign of a healthy democracy. This is his idea of government in action. We have an ethical, and moral, void in Victoria within our government and public services.

Yet even more telling of Mr Brumby's ethical base is his response to the deaths, and devastation, wraught by the fires in Victoria that killed 173 people and burnt 2,000 homes, 11,000 animals and countless assets. He says that "in terms of responsibilities we all feel, all Victorians feel responsible for what occurred on February 7, all of us do, I do, Russell (Rees) does, everybody does... there were systems which worked well on the day and there were systems that didn't" (Brumby media conference, Australian newspaper, Tuesday August 18, 2009.)

What a load of crock, and sanctimonious bullshit, flows from this man's mouth. I am not responsible for the deaths and failures, Brumby, his Ministers and public servants are. Really Mr Brumby? You are the head of a government that failed to create the foundation of workable and responsive systems. You are the head of a government that failed to clear fire breaks and create protection systems. You are the head of a government that is inept at every level of its administration.

The Victorian Bush Fire Royal Commission has found that all of the emergency services policies created, and managed, by this government were inadequate. The Commission found major failure at the leadership level of the Country Fire Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Development. The Commission found that the two senior managers of these critical authorities showed no leadership, did not take charge and that no one was in charge at the Integrated Emergency Coordinated Centre. What an irony that name is. For the leadership of the two critical agencies it was all about following the rules. For John Brumby it is all about following the political handbook guide "soin 101" plausable deniability and don't look at me. Where is the Minister for Emergency Services, Bob Cameron, in all of this? Nowhere, silent. No one took charge and no one is responsible, just the "collective we". The outcome of this terrible evequite a number of qualities that define real leadership, ethical and moral fibre.

No one is in charge in any of the labor government portfolios. The Victorian transport system for Melbourne has been privatised. The most recent tender (July 2009) exposed, as in Queensland, the shadowy, behind the scenes presence, and influence, of labor party linked

The governing political parties of Australia (labor and liberal) have corrupted the public service process and should be held in contempt. They are thieves of democracy and government. Business prefers to deal in the cesspool of the system than demand an open and transparent process. Business buys access and donates funds to these corroders of democracy. Business is complicit in the decay and degradation of government in Australia.

The two political parties wait their turn on the carnival, merry go round, that is dressed up, and passed off, as democracy, and government, in Australia. ("The theft of Australia's democracy and governments", Kevin Beck)


August 2009: A senior officer of the Australian Public Service, Godwin Grech, has betrayed the Australian Public Service eschewing the Code of Conduct in favour of seeking to consort in an inappropriate manner with politicians. In doing so he has shamed the service and put a spotlight on the lack of ethics and honour of members of Australia's parliament. It has emerged that both political parties, laboe and liberal, have lied to us about their integrity and ethics. Both have actively encouraged betrayal of public service office and by accepting the fruits of improper gians for their own benefit degraded the highest offices in the land. For this they should stand condemned and be seen for what they are. Kevin Rudd fumed when his integrity was impugned by Malcolm Turnbull yet he is part of a ystem that impugns, corrodes and corrupts every day. Not a part, an active leader who lacks the integrity and stamina to put and end to it. Do not be folled by this little man's protestations. He is as guilty of neglect of principles as all the players in this sordid tale. His home state, and governing labor party, lacks integrity and thus he learned his lessons in a cesspool.

Politicisation, and corrosion, of the Australian Public Service (APS) began somewhere back in the eighties when a federal labor government decided to harness, and neuter, the Australian public service to its own personal interests, political causes and objectives. It is not enough to have destroyed its base, successive governments have gone further and deskilled it making it
ineffectual and a poor service provider leading to the employment of consultants, contractors and others lacking the ethical base of a strong service.

" In practice 'new public management' has led to (a) politicisation of administration (b) emasculation of Public Services; (c) and ineffectual governance with symptoms including: unbalanced economic gains; consequent social stresses; and chronic weaknesses in infrastructure, service delivery and regulatory roles. The dominant goal of Public Services shifted from helping the public by ensuring good government, to 'helping' the government of the day to retain political power. Ironically this model often led to unexpected electoral backlashes against state administrations who were seen as 'autocratic' after 5-6 years incubation, probably because they had surrounded themselves with 'yes men' and thus lost touch with the fact that not everyone shared their assumptions. This approach was reportedly being put in place in the federal government in 2000." (source: THE DECAY OF AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A DIAGNOSIS, CENTRE FOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS, Queensland)

A google reference: [PDF] Public sector corruption and its control.... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML world's highest, corruption has afflicted Australian public life to varying degrees for .... ened with decay, the risk of state collapse can impact on Australia's .... legislation, and a politicised public service. ... - Similar - by P Grabosky - 2000 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
Once appeared on the Australian Government web site, now in its place:
"Sorry. What youre looking for isnt here at the moment. The AIC website is being redeveloped and the page you requested is currently unavailable." (Australian Government Institute of Criminology)
,br> The irony is that Kevin Rudd pens two essays attacking the nature of capitalism and extolls the virtues of binding social commitment, and values. he walks from the church on Sunday, the epitomy of the Christian man who represents values. He lives in the short term of here and now political advantage using the very tools that he belittles, managerialism. He is a member of the cancer of the modern political movement that will go to any lengths to win.

"No long term" is a principle that corrodes trust, loyalty and mutual commitment. The short time frame of modern institutions limits the ripening of informal trust. Strong ties depend, in contrast, on long association. And, more personally, they depend on a willingness to make commitments to others. Short-term capitalism threatens to corrode our characters, particularly those qualities of character which bind human beings to one another and furnishes each with a sense of sustainable self." (Source: Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Charcetr, The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism by Richard Sennett,
(pub 1998 by WW.Norton and Company) ISBN 0-393-04678-8)

Departmental Secretaries, long the barrier to unbridled political excess of the exeutive of government, were put on contract. The practice of permanent sinecure in high office was stopped. Departmental Secretaries now owe their livelihood to self interested, sometimes petty, egos. They owe their livelihood to the flippant ignorance of Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who arrogantly, speaks of working public servants harder without too much thought as to the message he conveys. They are not his personal slaves and work horses to do his puerile, and often politically concocted, tasks. Even though he might, as others, think they are. They are supposed to examine issues, and give good balanced advice. How can they when they are subjected to ignorant, self serving, political demands that are often nothing more than window dressing? Kevin Rudd wears his own frenetic working style as if it is a badge of honour instead of a red flag of stupidity. How can he give the nation good service if he lacks sleep and leisure? He cannot. To think that he can raises questions of judgement.

John Howard, and the liberal party, took this corrosion of the APS to its greatest corrupting end game, during their eleven year reign as government. They were aided in their absolute "heeling" of the senior members of the Australian public service by an Australian judge who ruled the Defence Minister John Moore could remove a Departmental Secretary at his personal whim. No longer would the APS operate without fear or favour. They are on office at the whim and pleasure (note the word) of the Minister. It is an official term, "at the pleasure". Appointment to the pretigious positions of Departmental Secretary, by the two major political parties, is now entrenched. It has been patently an anti-public service outcome and a further corrosion and corruption of our demiocracy and government. It is one of the practices of the modern Australian government across Australia, that creates bile, distaste and derision, in those who cherish democracy, and government, as something with a higher purpose than the prurient interests of a few flakes who acieve high office in the political party wing and the government executive. States and territories have followed suit.

The APS, like other bureaucracies in the nation is a hierarchical, class oriented, structure mired in hubris and the snout in the trough of executive privilege. There arethose who work hard, treat their staff with respect but still enjoy privilege. They obey the government also. Secretaries enjoy the perks of their office, free membership of the ultimate airline lounges, such as the Chairman's Lounge of Qantas, the business, and first class, cabins and the five star hotels. They eat the finest food and drink the finest wines rubbing shoulders with the elite. They never meet with the lower ranks of community and business. That is for Assstant Secretaires. Their status is unquestioned and they are allof to the general public. They enjoy salaries higher than our elected parliamentary members, including the Prime Minister and Premiers. Salries decided by an idenpendent tribunal, on spurious justifications that they are senior executives much like corporate bosses. The
Senior Executive Service criteria, for appointment, is gobbly gook nonsense of etherial, unmeasurable, dimensions. They are there to be the Minister's feel good, and look good servant, regardless of the Minister's talent and capabilities, recruited to serve the political interest. Never mind the higher aspiration to serve the public.

Today the senior executive of the APS serves the government sycophantically. It gives hypocritical credence to something called the Public Service Code of Conduct. It is politically partisan to the government regardless case and merit carrying on a charade of advising without fear or favour. The Australian Senate is going to have a Privileges Committee hearing. This is another farce of the Australian bi cameral system. The notion that the Senate exercises independence, has teeth and is a house of review. If were not for the independents, the Greens and the National Party, the labor and liberal political machines would have fully corrupted this institution to its own interests ages ago. Part of the squeeling rubbish, August 6, 2009, is that a public servant leaked information, someone coached someone and the Senate may have been contempted. It cannot be held in as much contempt by this concocted situation than the thinking people of the nation who wonder at its hypocritical tripe expressed as sanctimonious, mock outrage. many of us despair that we have lost our democracy to thugs and sometimes criminals, sycophants and some (not all) highly paid stooges. Not only do politicians coach, as Senator Conroy, has been exposed doing during the Senate questioning of Mr Grech, when he tells his Queensland colleague what questions to ask because the Senator appears to lack cognitive reasoning abilities of his own and is a puppet of his political colleague. Senior officers of the Australian Public Service accompany lower level members of the APS, to Senate Estimates and other hearings, coach them and intervene at will with their Ministerial minder sitting near by. What a joke this is. Godwin Grech is the public face of a system that is defiled by political appointments at the highest level of the APS and by members of the political class, whose ethics and moral character are beyond description in pleasant language.

The Senate should have its Privileges Hearing, since the players of constant low grade theatrics are the privileged class. The dedicated, and caree public servants who believe in the public service principles are overshadowed and abandoned to their own fate by the decrepit few above them. ("The end of public service", Kevin Beck)


July 2009:

A colleague described Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as the ultimate fraud. Among other things as justification he said that the Prime Minister walked out of a church on Sunday extolling christian virtue but behind the walls of the poliitical office he reportedly used the foulest of language and unchristian like behaviour. My colleague went on to say that prior to the election Mr. Rudd described himself as a fiscal conservative but now in government he was a full on Keynesian, throwing money at problems. It is a compelling summary which I find attractive. Such character analysis however does not actually enlighten as to the performance of the Prime Minister beyond personality It might, however, go to credibility and sincereity..

The national Australian Labor Party conference, in Sydney July 2009, tells us nothing of the capacity of the government other than the tendency to wax lyrical about each other's greate abilities, and traits, as the Deputy Prime Minister did of the Prime Minister. The labor party is exuberant that it has climbed the Everest of Australian politics to dislodge the conservative government of John Howard. The performance of new Minister for Employment participation, Mr Mark Abib, tells us that appointment to ministerial portfolio may have a lot to do with factional numbers power and relationship with the Prime Minister rather than ability. Mr Abib was oblivious as to the substance of the announcement of the Prime Minister, regarding 50,000 new jobs, falling within Mr Abib's portfolio. He unceremonially outed the Prime Minister through this neglect since there were no 50,000 new jobs. It was instead a snow job. Similarly we may question the performance, and worthiness, of Senator Penny Wong, as the Minister for
Climate Change, who talks populism, and rampant ideology, rather than coherent and provable scientific facts, not entertaining any contrary views, a single minded Minister refusing to give ground. Australian Steve Fielding has more credibility on climate change science, having spent hos own money and carried out hos own extensive research, and should reap a greater number of votes at the next election. Senator Penny Wong swallowed the hook, the line and the sinker with little evidence of personal examination and research on the public record. She has been conned. The Australian government is going to hand the energy companies, the coal industry and the polluters a gift of billions. Free permits, price rises, a trading scheme like a casino where the house wins 9and its not the government) and unending justifications. Many of them, such as the Latrobe Valley generators, were nearly broke if not broke. They have put together a cunning, and shrouded, plan and extracted themselves from financial collapse. Minister Penny Wong is being roasted slowly by powerful forces and the kings of money with power. As she burns her new department, Climate Change, preoccupies itself with drivel doodsday documents predicting the demise of heritage buildings in the heart of Melbourne. Fear not, my Minister for Climate Change, the opposition of Malcolm Turnbull, but the collective forces beyond the horizon, of which you are oblivious. The game is affot. The labor has not realised that it is playing and end game. orces that can create barriers, hide their true intentions and con with aplomb, are rallied against whatever objective of government they so choose. Come in suckers, Ministers Rudd, Wong and Garrett.

The language of the federal labor party is biblical and religious, bordering on evangelical.

A deputy prime Minister who is judged on her political abilities and oratory manner rather than the depth of her portfolio performance.

Mr Gillard is in charge of the government's "education revolution" which, like Kevin Rudd's dissertations are nothing mor than rheortic and government spending for economic purpose dressed up as something else. The building of new gymnasiums and the like does not enhance education performance. The Commonwealth is throwing billions at building (construction) projects across Australia via moribund, corroded and inept state and terriory public services. The objective is to keep local construction companies, tradespeople and apprentices in work. It is dressed up as a major education reform agenda by the Rudd department spin doctors. In Queensland, a labor state regime mired in
corruption, the Queensland education department has placed a ban on principals talking about the expenditure and where it is going and their thoughts and views. This despite Julia Gilard stating that she wanted a rigorous debate. So much for democracy under labor. The federal departmeht of education, under Ms Gillard ministerial hand, is a bloated multi - portfolio, bureaucracy managed by senior officers with a clear lack of innovative thinking and action. Where is the Australian policy platform for "life long learning"? The department's web site does not mention life long learning and instead focuses policy on economic and social engineering objectives.

Extracts from the home, and subsequent, pages of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

"Several programs have been migrated into the new site:

Digital Education Revolution
Forward with Fairness
New Employment Services
OECECC (Office Of Early Childhood)
Office For Youth
Productivity Places
Review of Australian Higher Education
Social Inclusion
Trade Training Centres

Training and skills summary

" The training and skills sector, also known as vocational education and training or VET, gives Australians the opportunity to gain the skills they need to enter the workforce for the first time, to re-enter the workforce, to retrain for a new job or to upgrade their skills for an existing job. Australian Apprenticeships are available in traditional trades, and in a diverse range of emerging careers, in most sectors of business and industry."

"There is growing recognition that career development skills can help individuals to meet the constantly changing needs of the labour market and maintain their employability so that they can achieve their aspirations and participate in the community."

The policy, issues and reviews page of Australia's education and science department (DEST) does not mention life long learning.


Career Education Quality Framework
Career and Transition Services Framework
Employability Skills Framework
Framework for Vocational Education in Schools
OECD Review of Career Guidance and Public Policy - Australia Country Note
National Youth and Careers and Transitions Advisory Group
Stepping Forward
The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century
Issues Feasibility Study into the Establishment of a National Institute for Career Leadership
Professional Standards for Australian Career Development Practitioners
The Australian Blueprint for Career Development
Vocational Education in Schools
Reviews Review of Career Development Services in Tertiary Institutions
Career Guidance and Public Policy: Bridging the Gap
Footprints to the Future
House of Representatives inquiry into Vocational Education in Schools
OECD Review of Career Guidance and Public Policy - Australia Country Note
Senate Inquiry into Skills Shortages
Structured Workplace Learning Student Destination Survey, 2003
Young Visions 2003: A follow-up study of Young Visions participants and their destinations one year later
Most people need support to help them take advantage of opportunities that present throughout their career.

Higher education summary

The Australian higher education system is seen to make a fundamental contribution to the future of Australia and plays a vital role in Australias intellectual, economic, cultural and social development. The higher education sector educates our future professional workforce, creates future leaders, provides jobs for Australians, drives much of our economic and regional success, and facilitates cultural and trade links with other countries. The sector plays a key role in the growing knowledge and innovation based economic health of Australia. It enriches our social and environmental landscape and promotes the tolerance debate that underpins Australian society." End of extracts

Commentary by Kevin R Beck: Isn't that just dandy. A focus on being employed. Why is it that a person who wants to continue study and learning, in an Australia, higher education institution, has to pay exhorbitant fees to further their learning? Where is the rigorous debate that should be nurtured by a proactive bureaucracy and a penchant for engaging inl,earning for learning's sake? Is learning, if not for work, a hobby under Kevin Rudd or for that matter any government before or after at state or federal level. Well, folks, in this federal department of education and employment it is employment and career that is the focus and it is highly unlikely that the senior management are going to challenge the government on anything. Well, yibbity yibbity, that's all folks. (For those who have had no dealings with the department and the Secretary, staff messages and audio viduals carry the openning "hi folks" as the signature of the Secretary.)


Extract: "JULIE BISHOP - Well when I spoke to the Chinese acting Ambassador on Wednesday it was apparent the Government had not even called him in at that stage to discuss the issue. So I would have thought that would have been one of the first issues the Government would have done when they learned on Sunday night that Mr Hu had been taken into custody. And my criticism of the Government is that it has been very slow to react. As I said Mr Hu was taken into custody last Sunday night, his whereabouts, his welfare has been unknown. The Government had admitted that it had no idea where he was being held, how he was being treated, whether he had been interrogated or in what fashion, and it appears Mr Hu has had no access to his family, his employer, any lawyers or Australian consulate officials since Sunday evening.

JON FAINE - Hes not exactly Joe [inaudible], hes not exactly a beer-mat-mum in Thailand is he? Hes got Rio Tinto and all the resources, the money, the influence and connections that Rio Tinto can bring to bear which in fact, in my estimation, could well be more than the Australian Government brings to bear, thats all going into bat for him.

JULIE BISHOP - Except that he was denied access to his family, his employer or any lawyers. And it was deeply concerning that the Rudd Government was describing it as a consular matter, like a tourist in trouble overseas. Now its clearly more serious than that." (Source of extract: ABC 774 Mornings with Jon Faine Friday, 10 July 2009, Subject: Detention of Stern Hu in China -

Commentary by KEVINRBECK: What humbug Ms Bishop goes on with. Why is it clearly more than a consular matter? What makes the internment of one particular Australian, over another, so different and warrants a phone call to the sovereign government, of another nation, by our Foreign Minister or Prime Minister? What merit does Mr Hu possess that he should be singled out for special treatment by the Australian government? As ABC journalist, talk back host broadcaster, John Faine, says, "Hes got Rio Tinto and all the resources, the money, the influence and connections that Rio Tinto can bring to bear which in fact, in my estimation, could well be more than the Australian Government brings to bear, thats all going into bat for him."

What is it that the Prime Minister, or any other government politician, can do regarding law practices and processes in a sovereign country? The most annoying thing about Ms Bishop is the trait of the modern professional politician to detach themselves from the reality of their professional training, and knowledge, to adopt without any compunction populist statements designed to impress the uneducated of the Australian population. Maybe the liberal leaders' political, and media, advisers are not all that bright in proposing she take this spurious line of argument? Ms. Bishop and Mr. Turnbull, both lawyers, know very well the constraints, and limitations, of the Australian government's powers and opportunities, in this matter, but would have us believe that there are special powers conferred upon the person who becomes Prime Minister.

Mr Turnbull, and Ms Bishop, may want to read something into this case and may have conspiracy theories, and perceptions, and all sorts of prejudicial views yet the facts ares imple. China has arrested Mr Hu under their powers and apparent laws and will do with him as they see fit. Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop were not all that flash in relation to China when they were in government. The call, by Ms Bishop to have the Prime Minister ring someone high up in the Chinese government and circumvent the country's due process is an insult to a thinking person's intelligence and to the Chinese government. One might well question the Rio Tinto Board, CEO and legal counsel about what efforts they are making? Has their Chairman rung the Chinese Premier? ("Humbug and Australian Politics" Kevin Beck)


The Australian federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, is examing a report prepared by the Preventative Health Taskforce, which apparently, amongst other things, recommends a ban on liquor sponsorship of sport, limited, or no advertising, of alcohol and a diet, and exercise, regime for fat people, new labelling laws for food and associated products. Like tobacco, the governments of Australia are hypocritical about alcohol. Ignore the taxes, these are legal products yet wowsers, and do gooders, who would have us live in a world of abstinence, based on the proposition of reduction in health costs. We have entered the maternal/paternal era of governments, in Australia, paricularly labor governments.

Extract " Call to ban alcohol sponsorship of sport, By Steve Lewis and Ben Packham July 17, 2009 12:01am, Herald Sun, Melbourne Australia

Health task force wants end to alcohol ads
Would stop sporting sponsorship deals
Massive loss in revenue for codes
PREMIER sporting codes would be stripped of up to $300 million a year in alcohol sponsorship under a radical blueprint for fighting disease and increasing life expectancy. The National Preventative Health Task Force, handpicked by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has also called for an end to alcohol advertising on the internet and in youth magazines. Under the shake-up household names such as Bundaberg Rum, VB and Tooheys beer would disappear from TV screens and sporting arenas, The Daily Telegraph reports. It would rob Cricket Australia, the AFL, National Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union of a massive revenue stream. And it would pit the Rudd Government against the powerful TV networks, who stand to lose lucrative alcohol-related advertising...

If Nicola Roxon believes that she can implement any section/s of the report then she is politically naive. She may be a Minister in the government but corporate interests have far more resources and money than she does. If she recommends to the Australian government cabinet aspects of the report for implementation then she best understand that she is asking the Prime Minister, and her Ministerial coleagues, to spell the end of many a political career. Perhaps the Rudd government as a whole. This may not be a bad thing looking at performance to date across the balance of portfolios. One grows extremely tired of wowser, paternalistic governments, public services and committees full of bleeding hearts, hangers on and those who would have us all march in line to the same tune. It has taken the younger, and inexperienced, political staff members of the labor government over a year to realise that the government is not all powerful simply because it says so. Some have not yet ralised this and fail to see "beyond the horizon" of their narrow perceptions of power, politics and reality. ("One term for Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck)


WAKE IN FRIGHT RAINING ON THE RUDD - SWAN PARADE: What is coming in 2009 - 2010 for the economy, government and every Australian. ("End of days, for Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministerial role, tick on", Kevin Beck


June 2009 marks the end of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct

23, June 2009: Below in this site I made the comment, some weeks back, about the maturity, and experience of people advising, and supporting, the Prime Minister, and that that the propensity of the federal labor governments' staffers to mislead would damage the credibility of senior politicians of the Australian federal parliament. A senior member of the Australian Department of Treasury sat before a Senate Committee facing questions from Senator Abetz. This was a game of cat and mouse where the Senator knew that this particular public servant had close relations with the liberal government. The Senator already knew the content and thought he knew the answers to his questions. Instead of investigating the ethical relationship of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan, with specific car dealers the Senator pursued the legal inquisitorial line. Similarly in the House of Representatives Malcolm Turnbull sought to trap the Prime Minister and Treasurer legally. This is not a legal issue it is an ethical one. Should any senior government Minister or public servant, in any government of Australia, lobby (take a specific close interest) for the benefit of a particular person, persons or a sector? Should a wealthy Prime Minister accept gifts (in this case a vehicle, on road costs and other benefits) within his electrorate even if he declares them? The principle should be no. However the modern politician, particular labor leaders, seem to lack both principles and ethics that might define them as true leaders of the communities they govern. This particular senior treasury official has no place in a public serviuce that prides itself on its high standards and independence. Though he has had little leadership in maintaining distance and impartiality from his management. There are questions about the close even sycophantic support of the Rudd government by the head of Treasury, Dr. Ken Henry. These are serious issues and there is a need for an indepoendent arbiter and steward of the public service ethical behaviour. Today the public service is at the behest, and cultural management style of the head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Secretaries of Departments along with any other two bit political power broker from a Minister's office. The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct is mere words on paper and nothing more than motherhood and perhaps a fantasy.

"APS Code of Conduct

APS employees are required, under the Code of Conduct, to behave at all times in a way which upholds the APS Values

The Code

The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must:

  1. behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment;
  2. act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment;
  3. when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment;
  4. when acting in the course of APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws;
  5. comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction;
  6. maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff;
  7. disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment;
  8. use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner;
  9. not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment;

not make improper use of:

  1. inside information, or
  2. the employee's duties, status, power or authority,
  3. in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person;
  4. at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS;
  5. while on duty overseas, at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia; and
  6. comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (regulations available here)

Source: Australian Public Service web site.

We are seeing the creation of fake records, attempts at fraud and activity bordering on the criminal. Public servants briefing members of parliament secretly behind the scenes in order to assist political advantage and personal interest. We are seeing duplicity within the Australian Public Service and a breakdown in the fundamental nature of trust, integrity and honour.

The two senior politicians in question here, the Prime Minister and Treasurer have corroded good government and defiled it for political purpose.

They employ people to assist them in this regard. The role of political staff in the day to day government activity and their interaction with the public service is something that needs deep examination and clear rules. Currently the political staff modus operandi corrupts, and corrodes, democracy, government, parliaments and the public services across the nation.The ute gate (Oz Car) eopisode demonstrates what can happen when this corruption gets out of hand. The episode that has been dubbed "ute gate" has opened a window into the tawdry and false world of government. false because millions of dollards of taxpayers money is spent \presenting a facade. The Government of the day would have us believe that they are above prurient interest, personal interest and corruption. But history, states like
NSW and Victoria and current events show us, that that is not true. There are many who know how the political system, and reward, works. Donors to the party, special people and special relationships are looked after in the back rooms. Political staffers, the parasites of democracy (unelected and paid from the public, not political purse,) have amongst their many dirty tasks looking after the privileged. If you talk to any mid level public servant or any of them who have integrity they will tell you that the advisers and the staffers lean on them. They make it clear what the Prime Minister, and their Ministers, want. They write emails, they ring and they visit. They threaten, cajole and twist the wrists. Every day someone from Rudd's, Swan's and most senior Minister's offices corrode and corrupt democracy. So now we can surmise on the balance of probability that someone within the Prime Minister's office made contact with a Treasury public servant. He would ahve discussed the contact with his boss and they would have as all good public servants do, follow the handbook. Obey the government, obey the mouthpiece of the Minister especially the Prime Minister, unless you are senior enough, like Ken Henry, head of Treasury, to argue an alternative, Ken Henry did not. t would be the expectation that good people would think that henry did not know. I have a view that all Secretaries, of longevity, know when a request comes from the Prime Minister's, or a Minister's office. Thus the Prime Ministerial staffer set the freight train on its way.

The assertion is that the request went from Prime Minister's office to Treasury and of course to the Minister, Wayne Swan. If this is the case then the motions were put into play to reward the loyal. Albeit they would have a look and see what they could do. Did a request emanate from the office of the Prime Minister? I think so though it was probably verbal rather than written. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, took up the cause and became custodian. This is the way that the special are protected. One thing is prominent, politicians know how to technically avpid lying and misleading parliament. The problem here is that Kevin Rudd's staffers may be incompetent at the art of the inetraction with public servants using too much smoke, mirrors and invisible manipulation. The email was issued, by whyom to where and for what purpose and someone removed it? What was its source? If as Mr Rudd says it does not exist then one wonders how Mr Garnt came to be in discussion with Mr Swan? Did Mr Grant have a conversation with Mr Swan? If so who initiated it?

Now everyone is caught up in the affray and the public's money will be wasted further as the Prime Minister, and Treasurer, slither around tring to extracate themselves. Agencies will be called in to investigate. This is a method of sanitising the situation and clouding the issue. The majority of senior politicians, and their staffers, of both sides of politics (particularly in the labor and liberal parties) should not be allowed in parliaments across Australia.

Arrogance and hubris along with inexperience and stupidity of staffers and perahps Wayne Swan himself, intertwine to create a sordid pot of intrigue that like the Sun drags things inwards to melt and swirl. The politicians, staffers and public servants get burned. As is typically mandated, by the modern spin doctorate and political handbook, denial is the first tactic. Everyone denies everything and then says that they cannor recall.

Treasurer Wayne Swan came out of his box barking that the opposition leader's attacks regarding the "Rudd car gate" issue were outrageous. He further denied any real knowledge, or interaction, with the person at the centre of the government's self made fiasco. later it emerges that there is a taril of communications and documents regarding the issue have been faxed to the Treasurer's home from Treasury and elsewhere.

"Steve Lewis and AAP June 20, 2009 12:00am, UPDATE: 1.30pm WAYNE Swan has hit back at Malcolm Turnbull over allegations of political favouritism to an Ipswich car dealer.

It's been revealed the treasurer's office allegedly lobbied on behalf of John Grant, a friend of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who was seeking a government-backed loan." (Source:Herald Sun, Melbourne)

Public Servant, Godwin Grech, found himself at the centre of the wtorm when questioned in Senate Estimates. The government and the role of the Senate could again be seen as questionable and damaging to our nation's democracy as both a senior public servant, and labor senators, sought, to stop Mr Grech from truthfully answering or answering at all. For decades the Senate has been treated with contempt by both major parties, by senior public servants and others within and without parliament. Mr Grech stood his ground and in doing so demonstrated that he is a public servant of integrity and substance.

" Lachlan Heywood and Malcolm Farr, June 19, 2009 07:48pm:

UPDATE: KEVIN Rudd has continued to deny that he or his office tried to help Ipswich car dealer John Grant secure a government-backed loan. Speaking to reporters late on Friday, Mr Rudd disputed evidence given by a Treasury official to a Senate inquiry that his office had contacted Godwin Grech regarding Mr Grant, who is a friend and nighbour of the prime minister.

However, Mr Rudd has asked the auditor-general to investigate the matter.

Restating his previous denials to parliament, Mr Rudd said: "As of now, I have no basis before me which changes that position..... ..Earlier, a senior public servant has contradicted Mr Rudd's claim there was no request from the PM's office to help a car dealer friend and neighbour. The public servant, Godwin Grech, told a Senate Estimates hearing this afternoon that the initial contact seeking assistance for Ipswich motor dealer John Grant from the Government's Oz Car scheme came from Mr Rudd's office. He said to the best of his memory, he had seen a brief email from the Prime Minister's office. But Treasury said searches had found no evidence of the email. The hearing was repeatedly interrupted as Government members sought to stop Mr Grech answering Opposition questions about the Utegate affair. Earlier, outside the hearing, it emerged that Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull lectured an adviser to Mr Rudd over the affair at a Canberra function. "You should not lie to protect your boss," Mr Turnbull said, according to a statement today by Andrew Charlton, Mr Rudd's economic specialist. "This OzCar issue will be very damaging for you," he quoted Mr Turnbull as saying. OzCar is the Government's finance body for car dealers, established when credit was tight earlier this year. "You know and I know there is documentary evidence that you have lied." Treasurer Wayne Swan today said Mr Turnbull was attempting to bully and threaten the adviser. " (Source: Courier mail,,,23739,25659339-953,00.html)

The latter tripe from wayne Swan regarding threatening the staff members demonstrates the peurile minds et of the people who occupy position sof power in the rarified atmosphere of parliaments and government. On balance I think that the Prime Minister was not approached about getting access to thes pecila fund, but I think on balance he knew and knows most of the details of the events, being advised by a third party. I think wayne Swan and his staff are up to their ears in it. Where the documents are may be any one's guess. Maybe theye are in thes pecial repository used by public servants to ensure retenetion. In the Department of Employment, Education and whatever (Julia Gillard's department) this special receptacle is known as "TRIM". One can put stuff in and recover it, but not delete it. Does Treasury have such a facility, yes, and so does Prime and Minister and Cabinet. Does the email in question indicating the approach to the Prime Minister's office by the car dealer exist now or in the past? It existed at some time, most likely, in my opinion. An alert, and very experienced public servant, would receive a short email pointing out that "x" wants a benefit, or favour, and the public servant would probablty keep that communication where no one can delete it, waiting the moment they need it. Mr Grech would be such a public servant, I think. He waited at the last moment of the questioning, and blocking, to drop his qualified "bomb" on those who would seek to under,ine his integrity and reputation for their own survival. As he says, no public servant should have to be subjected to this. The fact that the government allowed it raises questions of their ethical compass. Kevin Rudd, and others, who employ inexperienced political apparatchiks in their offices and in some cases people of questionable integrity, deserve what they get.

Despite the motherhood emanating from their mouths about the government existing for the people, these exercises show that it truly operates for the few. Political interest first, partisan interest next and the public interest a poor last. Hopefully the email will emerge and show us clearly the
level to which government, political and business, integrity and ethics, has plummeted in the nation in the last twenty years. ("Governmment by thuggery in Australia", Kevin Beck)

June 2008: The Contribution of Kevin Rudd, et al, to the corrosion of government, and ethics, in Australia. Ethical Editorials.

June 2009: Kevin Rudd, and his personal staff of manipulators, risk a pandora's box
A lack of depth in the government's mantra and the skill base of Prime Minister's office

Back in the late eighties, and through the nineties Australia's federal, and state, governments implemented sophisticated media, and communications, management cells within the offices of the Prime Minister and Premier. Whilst Paul Keating's labor government was the first real manipulator the practice has been honed by the likes of media savvy, Bob Carr (labor Premier NSW), Peter Beattie (Labor Premier Queensland) and John Howard (liberal (coalition) Prime Minister). It is now fully operational under Kevin Rudd.

"Rise of Rudd's sentinels of spin, Greg Callaghan and Drew Warne-Smith | June 06, 2009

Extract - Article from: The Australian
"IT'S important to be who you are," Kevin Rudd was fond of telling journalists during the election campaign when asked about his leadership style and his freshly minted image with the Australian public. Twenty months after Kevin '07 swept to victory, the PM's burgeoning media machine has become so practised at controlling his image and massaging his message that some political analysts liken it to a PR state, one exceeding the sheen of former prime minister John Howard, whose renowned National Media Liaison Service (nicknamed aNiMaLS) set a new benchmark in spin. While ostensibly serving as a liaison between the press and the Prime Minister, Rudd's media advisers serve one principal function: to boost their boss's image, say observers.

"He (Rudd) is a micro-manager, he doesn't know when to stop, and that flows through to everything he does, including trying to control the media," says one member of the press gallery. Largely invisible to the public, the Rudd Government's growing force of press secretaries, media advisers and consultants is nearly double the number employed during the Hawke and Keating eras.

After initially vowing to slash ministerial head counts, including media, across all departments, the Rudd Government employs 40 communications staff in the Department of Agriculture, 30 in the Department of Innovation, 23 in the Department of the Environment and six in the PM's office. Communications spending on consultants is also rising. The departments of immigration, broadband and innovation forked out $7.4 million for public relations experts in 12 months. Yet figures alone can't convey how the media machine is controlling the day-to-day discharge of information..... "Keating would bore the bejesus out of you to make his case and Howard's office was willing to brief senior journalists on policy background. Now the PM's office is ruled by 12-year-olds," says one 20-year press gallery veteran, referring to the ages of Rudd chief of staff Alister Jordan, 29, senior press secretary Lachlan Harris, 29, and at least one other 20-something in the PM'soffice." (Source: as cited, the Australian)

The apparatchiks in the Prime Minister's office have taken the media massage to the "nth" degree making it an insidious tool. They manipulate the news and information flow to the extent that democracy, and access, is being damaged. They corrode, and corrupt, the peoples' government.

"How Rudd spins the gallery, Andrew Bolt, Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 05:00am

Media Watch details one of Kevin Rudd's trickiest techniques of spin - telling senior reporters of press conferences too late for them to attend and ask him awkward questions:

It is a recurring pattern, the bureaux tell Media Watch. Specialist political reporters, and their pesky questions, arent welcome at the PM's photo-opportunities.

In fact, Rudd will even refuse to bring along a pool reporter to cover a pretty-pictures press stunt he announced last minute at the other end of the country: Once again, one TV channel in Perth - this time Ten - was told there were seats on the PM's plane for a camera operator and a sound recordist. Ten said it didn't need a soundo. Could it send a pool reporter instead? The answer was no. Ten camera operator Claire Leeman tells Media Watch:

There was at least one spare seat on the plane. Then there is Rudd's technique of making big announcements to divert attention from reports that might be critical:

0media people from the PM's office have taken to dropping round to the press gallery at around 10am to find out what stories they âre working on. If the office doesn't like the news agenda, it quickly finds a new story to feed the chooks. The ABC's Political Editor Chris Uhlmann told us:

The PM's announcements are driven not by policy but by the media cycle." (Source: Herald Sun blogs, Melbourne)

Extract - " PMs media manipulation beyond a joke, by Bernard Keane (

What a Jekyll and Hyde mob this Government is. While John Faulkner is commendably leading the charge toward greater transparency and accountability, the Prime Minister is engaged in a deeply cynical and unashamed process of manipulation.

I suggested on Budget Night that Wayne Swan was purposefully avoiding mentioning the deficit figure in order to deprive the Opposition of a grab for future advertising, but foolishly thought that game would end once it became apparent what they were up to. In fact it was merely the start of an ongoing effort by the Prime Minister and Treasurer to avoid saying any numbers that could be used against them, right down to persistently refusing to saybillion” after numbers.

Yesterday The Australians Matt Franklin asked Joe Hockey at the Press Club if things were reaching the stage where we couldnt even have a decent public debate if both sides were scared of their words being used against them in election advertising. I suspect the Government also does not want any grabs on nightly news bulletins of them uttering the numbers.

It gets more blatant and more cynical, however. Last week Crikey ran a tip that the Prime Ministers office, which is usually excellent with churning out transcripts, had failed to put out the transcript of the Prime Ministers rather robust interview with Neil Mitchell the day after the Budget. The transcript remains unavailable. The transcript from Mondays Lateline interview ?—?one of the Prime Ministers worst?—?is also unavailable.

Then theres the Prime Ministers Offices predilection for trying to manipulate media coverage. In late April, the PMO changed the way it advised the media of Rudds appearances. Instead of stating a time for the commencement of a press conference or media event, which had been the typical approach until then, the time of the event is now advised asMedia please assemble by …”, even for press conferences in the courtyard in Parliament House, meaning the Prime Minister is never late." (Source of extract:

I (Kevin R Beck) personally view the employment of political staff within Ministries, paid from the public purse, as a misuse of public funds. These people, to my thinking, are parasites on the public purse and on democracy because of the damaging effects outlined above and the fact that they are not elected, assimung various roles and powers undefined by constitution or legislation. The majority are unable to actively participate in the government of Kevin Rudd, except by managed means, the town hall cabinet meetings, included. Mr Rudd's advisers, and strategists, now risk a backlash and campaign on unforeseen fronts by both conventional means and political and citizen activists, who collectively have more combined resources (technological and human) and unknown networks than the Prime Minister, Minsitries and the Public Service, employ. These disparate groups are now coming together, not only in known entities such as Get Up, but in loose coalitions of information, and web technologists, private and business people, who are out and about, and a plethora of others, beyond the horizon of the Prime Minister's manipulators.

These hidden respondents can turn their attention to specific issues such as
Emissions Trading Scheme which has been soundly attacked bu such colaitions, to othjer portfolios, e.g health fund insurance rises, benefit fraud, consumer issues, local electorate issues, intelligence gathering and dissemination of material to others for their use, government performance critiques, national security, defence, spending, budget, immigration or whatever takes their fancy, according to their whim. In doing so they trigger more than publicity. They trigger action in their own right or by selected interests taking up goverbnment resources and time, diverting attention, creating abrriers, ultimately enacting their strategic actions across a breadth that Mr Rudd's manipulators never dreamed of. These people may, or may not formally, or informally, join with media, lists, action groups and any other interest that is disenchanted with the level of manipulation of the current regime. They may turn their attention on the work horse of the government, the Public Service. Put bluntly the operatives in the Prime Minister's office do not have the experience, breadth of talent, lateral thinking and the smarts to handle what is now underway. Conventional responses such as selective retaliation by the PM's staff will merely engender an even greater response. This is going to be real problem for the Prime Minister and his fetish for micro management.

I have a question. When the federal government Health Minister approves a rise in the private health isnurance rates what is the level of acceptable fraud that the Minister tolerates, and perahps unwisely, or unknowingly, includes? Under what provision does this fraud get passed on when the Minister/s have been advised through communication to their offices and a request to outline the fraud has been declined?

The cost of providing health cover in Australia, both public and private, across all of the disciplines includes a level of fraud. The relevant public service agency, here the Australian Health Insurance Commission, or some department under Huamn Services, calculates a level they think is reasonable, or happening. I have the feeling, like Treasury on their assessments of anything, are way of the mark. They have instigated anti-fraud measures within Medibank and other agncies, as their justification for opposing the Access Card or as their way of supporting the government's spurious arguments before the election, and to have them proven to be ineffective would be a blow to pride. The problem they have is that the evidence, set out generally in the correspondence, is not theoretical. Probably their estimate is 1% - 2% of the total annual cost of the health rebates paid out by the private and public sector remembering that the govermnment ownes Medibank Private and it has what 50% of the private health insurance market. Then add Medicare and fraud is a very big number.

Discussions I have had with people during the past three years indicate that a low figure like the above may be way off the mark, more likely say 7% or even in the teens. The former liberal government, during its Access Card project, had a fraud level calculated that varies greatly with what labor believed, or put about, prior to the election. Perhaps it suited labor at the time to belittle the claims of the former government, ably assisted by some in the Australian public service and other interest groups. To stick to tis false assumption now they are in government will pose problems down the way. I think labor cherry picked what they wanted and made an augument to suit and now regerdaless of evidence or contrary opinion will persist.

When an enquiry was recently made to the Health Minister, and others in the Rudd government, to meet and discuss this issue, the communicator was summarily dismissed. The reason for dismissal was probably that the communication, and request, for a meeting was looked at by an inexperienced, unaware, perhaps sometimes unthinking staff member in the relevant Ministers' offices. It could be that the matter was seen to be of low importance. It would be a very bad judgement indeed, on the part of senior staff within the Ministries, that received the communication to misjudge what would be a follow up to the declination.

The evidence, set out generally, in the communication, indicates a substantial fraud is taking place and is condoned, and passed on to the consumer and tax payers of Australia. Since it has been brought to the attention of the Ministers' satff members (more than one Minister) it could trigger independent investigations and a claim that a Minister/s of the Crown has/have breached his/her/their fiduciary duty, albeit via the inadvertant actions of a political staff member, under their parliamentary oath. To allow any fraud to be committed, to be allowed to continue unabated and not addressed carries a wide range of actions under many umbrellas not only within the parliaments but within the commercial sectors of the community. Let's see where this goes and who it bites? "The Corrosion of government in Australia", Kevin Beck, June 2009.

May 23, 2009: The 2009 Rudd Labor government and Wayne Swan budget.

It is a document that currently may be hardly worth examining in its wider scope. The underpinning base assumptions, are questionable. They are predictions provided by Treasury and government advisers who have no credible record.

It is now two, and a bit, weeks since Wayne Swan's less than inspiring presentation in the Australian federal parliament, on Tuesday May 5, 2009. The first ten minutes was, in my opinion, pure rubbish. The Treasurer said nothing of substance. The final segments of his speech lacked detail and vision. He rattled off a list of road and infrastructure funding projects as if that is the stuff of economic foundation. wayne Swan had returned tp the leight weight presence that denoted his first year in government. Then followed the spin and manipulation. The Prime Minister, and the Treasurer, have become captive to advisers whose inetellectual rigour and under standing of governmment is at best infantile and immature and at worst quite ludicrous and dangerous. The public are treated with scripts penned to limit complex issues to thirty second logos, symbols and perambulation around labor traditional grounds.

The figures upon which Mr Swan and Mr Rudd have founded their assumptions are
suspect. Describing the modelling, and assumptions, as "suspect" is being kind, given the record of Treasury and the quality of the performance of the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's offices and their media advisers. The offices of senior politicians, in all Australian governments (state, federal and territory), are infested with parasites. Unelected, they are paid from public funds, and devote their time, and role play, to corrding, and corrupting democracy, degrading the processes of communication, obstructing open, and transparent, government and in some cases assuming the persona of the Ministers they represent. These people, being political appointees, should be paid from the purse of the political parties they serve.

The Rudd lead government is in trouble. They do not do their homework and seem to rely upon some crude, and ill founded, perception regarding the real world and effects of careless policy propositions and the implementation outcomes.

"Blunder turns into national fiasco as more schemes die, Thu. May 21, 2009; Australian Financial Review - Damon Kitney. with Ashley Midalia, Patrick Durkin and staff reporters The employee share scheme fiasco is for many yet another example of the government neither consulting nor listening, writes Damon Kitney."

The employee share scheme refernced above, and the
Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) are glaring examples of the propensity of this governmment to rush into areas where the its politicians, advisers and strategists, have little or no experience and a huge serving of hubris. Many policies are the fruit of ideology and "seemed like a good idea at the time" thinking of a young, and perhaps immature (in terms of experience and work diversity), lot. One might look at the profile of the senior staff of the Prime Minister and other Ministers as a guide to predicting the likely performance in the future. "As one close observer notes, Alister Jordan (a confidante of Prime Minister Rudd) has only ever held two full-time jobs, both with Labor MPs."

Those concerned about the apparent emphasis of the Rudd Government on spin and stunts wont take much comfort from the make-up of the Governments staffers. The first comprehensive analysis of the new Governments advisers shows that ex-NSW ALP staffers and senior bureaucrats are playing a strong role in shaping the new Governments policy and political direction. Crikey has looked at the backgrounds of over 100 of the 200-odd ministerial advisers in the new Government and found that 22 of them are Carr or Iemma Government veterans, or were senior bureaucrats in the heavily-politicised NSW State Government Public Service. This includes nine of the Governments Chiefs of Staff, about a third." (Source: - The whos who of Rudds spinners, sorry, staffers Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane,Monday, 28 April 2008)

In 2009 we are seeing the effects of the selection process.

"For evil to triumph it is enough only that good men do nothing", Edmund Burke, an 18th Century British Statesman". Where are the good men, and women, of Australian politics and parliaments?

They are obviously not to be found in Victoria. Prediction - May 2009: The Minister for Local Government, in Victoria, Justin Madden will be sacrificed to protect labor state and federal members of parliament. ("Bbye bye to Minister Justin Madden, Kevin Beck)


Yesterday (Thursday 16, April, 2009) a small craft appeared 600 kilometres of the Australian coast line, near Ashmore Reef, carrying Afghans.

"3 Afghan boat people dead after explosion off Christmas island; 34 being treated for burns by: ashok Thursday, April 16th, 2009

Thirty-four suspected asylum seekers, some in a critical condition with severe burns will be treated in Australian hospitals, reports AAP quoting the West Australian health department. Puffin, an offshore oil rig, 740km west of Darwin is being used as a triage centre for the injured, which include a number of children. According to a report in Melbourne based South Asia Times, three refugees have died after the explosion on the boat they were travelling in. The asylum seekers are reportedly from Afghanistan. Asylum seekers doused their boat in petrol before a fatal dawn explosion off the north-west Australian coast, West Australian Premier Colin Barnett says. Mr Barnett said it was unclear how the flames ignited. “It is understood that the refugees on the boat spread petrol and that ignited, causing the explosion,” Mr Barnett told reporters in Perth. Mr Barnett would not elaborate on the claim when questioned further. At a heated press conference in Canberra this afternoon, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, said that the Government did not want to speculate on the cause of explosion due to ongoing investigations." (Source: The IS Times,

Boat people coming to Australia, seeking sylum, has a special trigger and sends conservatives into a lather. Melbourne "light article" columnist, Andrew Bolt, pontificates from his desk surmising all sorts of things. Media, politicians and the guardians of the nation break into chatter, hooting and after a time may incur aphonia. Others drop apophthegms. Their recollections of history, and assumptions as to what these boat people may harbour are apocryphal.

"Opposition quick to blame Kevin Rudd for loss of life, Paul Maley, April 17, 2009
Extract Article from: The Australian

"THE Federal Opposition has gone on the attack on the issue of border protection, blaming the Rudd Government for indirectly causing the death of at least three asylum seekers and likening its softening of immigration processing practices to putting up a welcome sign for people-smugglers. Within minutes of news of yesterday's tragic explosion aboard an alleged people-smuggling vessel off Ashmore Reef, Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone began the recriminations, squarely placing the blame for the deaths on Labor. "You can't slash funds, you can't take your eye off the ball, you can't announce a softer policy and then expect people not to lose their lives through people-smuggling," she told Sky News. "Which, of course, is all about cash, nothing to do with getting an individual, a young person, a family safely to Australia." Dr Stone's strongly worded attack drew a sharp rebuke from the Government and caused her leader, Malcolm Turnbull, to tone down the Opposition rhetoric by insisting that the Opposition did not want to make political points over the tragedy." (Source: The Australian newspaper).

The number of boat people is by comparison, to Europe, a few. Surely a nation of 20,000,000 with modern warfare capability, a rich nation, is not scared of a few homeless people? What would Andrew Bolt, Sharman Stone, et al, be saying if we had 36,000 coming across our borders? They would be apoplectic, prone to aposiopesis and in the case of Graeme Campbell prone to apostasy. Malcolm Turnbull's pronouncemenst are in the category of apostils. The herd clucks like Australian apostle birds, a greysih brown nesting communal flock in the interior. They engage fitfully in the apostolic succession of Howard's beliefs as to whom may decide to come here and under what circumstances. Watch out if the boat catches fire or the chidren are thrown overboard, it is surely a sign of the impending doom and the devil's curse of those who are illegals. Emotive rubbish and hyperbole spills from the mouths of critics devoid of common sense, care and ethics. Everything presents an opportunity for spin, gross exaggeration, or even lies, in our political system. People who would, otherwise, be largely irrelevant get a voice and take a stand. They are outraged. They want Kevin Rudd, and his policy of being nice, to asylum seekers and the less fortunate to be handled by Appollyon. Who will rise from the tombs of the parliament house to flagellate and scurge the desecrators. They pray but Appollyon does not come. They sulk and are prone to becoming apochromatic, perhaps muttering apologues.

We should remind Sharman Stone, Malcolm Turnbull, and hysterical supporters of the former Howard government policies and of their cardinal sins. Look at those sine against humanity through the images of those the former goverment locked up and mentally tortured for having the audacity to try and better their lot in the world. I do not respect, nor want the politicians who thought this was the right thing, to be in any government in Australia.

Images that redefined Australia. Should we go back there, hand in hand, with the immoral labor and liberal parties?


April 2009: Australia has long suffered from a protectionist policy where successive governments have allowed the nature of our communicatiuons to be dictated by a few. This includes the former publicly owned Telecom (now private Telstra), and the commercial television network owners (3). Simulated, and bureaucratic contrived competition models, managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, have dominated planning and policy. For all the spin every government up until 2009 has failed to deliver the full capability of technology to Australians. The mantra for every good idea has been we cannot afford it. For some reason every question that arises when a plan is proposed for anything is how much will it cost and how will it be paid for? This ludicrous, and presumptious reaction, has been adoptede not merely by politicians seeking to shoot down everything but by radio and television reporters subjecting interviewees to a grilling. Ipso facto we cannot afford it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the opposition, was first off the rank. He claimed, in a vacuum of knowledge that it would cost $A150 - $A200 per month and no one would subscribe at that price. Good on his crystal ball, may be can borrow it.

Everything must come out of the surpluse, a concocted number devised by a unique accounting methodology that makes all governments of Australia llok good. We must not ever borrow, go into debt, invest or take any action that might cast doubt upon out nation's fiscal rectitude. We must not attract a negative rating by agencies that have demonstrated the full extent of their credentials, and rating capabilities, during the financial fiasco of 2008-2009. It is not enough that everyone runs scared of proposing anything to the nation's voters. When something like this policy (apparently costing $A49 billion) is announced the detractors move to misleading, fear mongering and irrational arguments, based on spurious facts, strange assertions, too often from people who lack experience and knowledge. We look in the rear view mirror constantly having swqallowed the single mantra - "it's about the economy stupid" - when in fact it is much more. The nation advances backwards under the dead hand of the herd mentality and inept policy makers.

Australia's largest telecommunications company, Telstra has the widest reach copper cable network and focus has been on that barrier to enabling high speed broadband. It inherited its assets, not from purchase but by bequest of the nation and the federal government. For decades Telecom, now Telstra, has manipulated its monopoly position to block development and to control the availability of products, services and technology to the Australian nation. It has sought to frustrate at every turn conducting guerilla commercial, and political, warfare. Telstra should have been broken up years ago. It is of note that a past government that failed to deliver should now, in opposition, snipe at any one who might support a broaband nation.

What the Rudd labor government, and Australia, now faces is not dissimilar to the problems facing Europe, and their experiences, for example Italy. The research for brodaband in regional Italy is a useful example since it is taking place in an environment of low technology understanding, use and up take. Here in Australia the population is a mature user of technology.

"In residential markets, all couriers shared the opinion that the availability of broadband services did not represent the principal issue. In their opinion, the main barrier to adoption was that service costs are still too high for the average household budget. In this respect, competitive players see the high influence that the ex-monopolist still exerts on the industry cost structure, and considers this a limiting factor. All main national operators serve the metropolitan area; however, market segmentation has considerably dampened the effect of price competition. The only courier operating on proprietary networks has positioned itself in a high-end user niche, thus not invading the incumbents mainstream market. All other players targeting middle or low-end users do not own a proprietary network. As a consequence, the ex-monopolist exerts a deep influence on its real competitors cost structure, can maintain higher prices levels and avoid a fierce price reduction competition. Many competitive players thus viewed the role of the regulatory authority as key to a decrease in retail prices. Although this may be true, it should not be forgotten that a reduction of retail prices may also be obtained by competitive players through the acquisition of efficiency gains.

Another barrier to the diffusion of broadband among residential users was the immature use of the technology due to limited computer literacy, on the one hand, and to lack of multimedia content, on the other. To overcome these barriers, investments to guarantee a wide availability of Internet connections within all levels of education were reported as important factors, as well as the switch in the distribution of the television programmes from analog to a digital mode. For business users, operators still perceived high infrastructure investments as a hurdle and demonstrated very cautious attitudes towards the profitability assessment of infrastructure expansions aimed at acquiring new business customers. In this respect, an interesting business model was adopted by a utility company that recently entered the business segment in the main metropolitan area. This company, by bundling its fibre to the building offer with the applications provided by other operators, eliminated the risks related to infrastructure related investments. In fact, if a client decided to change providers, they would simply need to change the courier they were bundling their offer with. Although this business model represents an interesting method to foster infrastructure diffusion, further research should be conducted in order to investigate whether it could be extended on a nation-wide scale and across all market segments. " (source: Broadband diffusion dynamics: a systemic analysis, Enrico Ferro, Technology to Business Intellingence Unit, Istituto Superiore Mario Boella,
Int. J. Electronic Business, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx, enricoferro)

Mr Turnbull cites figures of $A150.00 to $A200 per month for subscriber charges indiacting that these are too high and will not be taken up. He seems to exlude the "bundling" of complementary services - telephony, pay television, pay radio, internet, business and home services, fixed and mobile, plus other as of yet undefined service offerings. What does it cost the average household to have all of these now, in disparate form? Well above $A200.00 per month.

Many Europeans buy their home telephone service from one company, Internet access from another, mobile-phone service from a third, and cable or satellite television from yet a fourth. The result a blizzard of monthly bills and customer service channels leaves many yearning for a simpler arrangement. About 80 percent of European consumers would prefer to buy all of their telephone services and Internet access from a single provider, according to a recent survey of more than 7,000 people in eight countries. Given the option, about 40 percent of consumers would purchase everything, including media services such as television, from a single company." (Source:Bundling Europe's broadband, When it comes to phone and media service, a lot of consumers want a package deal. FEBRUARY 2005 Josep Isern and Jos Perdomo, the McKinsey Quarterly)

For the first time in recent history the Rudd Labor plan is to provide a nationally owned open access infrastructure for all competitors and content providers. Thus on the first glance of the material above, Mr Turnbull's argument is flawed economically speaking. Mr Turnbull, in focusing solely on end user cost, which he is guessing. He has obtained a figure from some source that bears no relevance to reality or fact. He narrows the exercise to how much will it cost the average Joe, the Aussie battler, when it should the justification should be expanded to its social and economic contribution to the nation. His is a myopic, and politically contrived argument, based on the Australian political tradition of fear mongering. It focuses on home use almost entirely. It also is based on some historical data, that does not exist here since there is no comparison technology available other than the manipulated prices of the current market. He has based his argument, I presume, on the case where the market is not fully covered. That is a market where there is no real competition, in which there is only one provider or at best two dominant players, some minors trying to eek out an existence where a monopoly in some segments applies (Telstra copper cable) and what amounts to a duopoly in the other areas such as mobile, internet and telephony(Telstra and Optus). This situation, and its challenges, for policy makers is examined in detail in, "Service Bundling and the Role of Access Charge in the Broadband Internet Service Market, SHIM, Sunghee and OH, Jungsuk COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES, Septemb er 2006", and Mr Turnbull and goverment policy makers would do well to read that research before they bvurst out assertions, as fact, as Mr Turnbull and the telecommunications spokesperson for the opposition, Senator Minchin have done.

The competitors, aspirants and others in the Australian market may well desire another scenario than the rejection offered so emphatically by Mr Turnbull.

Enrico Ferro says, "all operators shared the belief that policy makers should design policies to encourage the use of telework. As a matter of fact, this practice would significantly contribute to boost broadband needs of both residential and business users. Moreover, it would help in reducing mobilitys aggregated costs and the costs due to the negative externalities that mobility entails (i.e., environmental, social and health related costs). " .... The influence of household size on adoption could be linked to the amount of total traffic generated. As a matter of fact the higher the number of people living in a household the higher the likelihood of having one or more internet users generating traffic. From both the descriptive statistics and the multivariate analysis, the presence of three to four people in the household seems to be the minimum threshold for making the adoption of a broadband connection economical. To further test this hypothesis, data concerning offer prices and internet usage were analysed... in order to make use of broadband connections as a mainstream phenomenon, progress along the usage evolution path must be made by society in order to raise the volume of traffic produced. This, coupled with a physiological reduction of bandwidth prices, should allow usage patterns and connection costs to meet, thus resulting in higher penetration levels." (Enrico Ferro, ibid)

"The UK city of Cambridge is essentially a high technology island in the middle of rural East Anglia. The surrounding countryside is relatively sparsely populated and the population is concentrated in villages with a thousand or fewer inhabitants. Many of the villages within about 20km of Cambridge have small technology-based businesses and they also provide homes for people working in Cambridges industries. As a result there is a significant demand for broadband services. Unfortunately this demand is not usually high enough to justify equipping the small telephone exchanges that serve these villages with ADSL equipment. The standard ADSL interface unit supports 300 customers 1 and it is highly unlikely that a village with even a thousand telephone lines would have enough broadband customers to use most of its capacity. Cable TV coverage outside Cambridge is very patchy and, given the current financial state of the UK cable industry, the cable network is unlikely to be extended significantly in the next few years. Broadband access using cable modems is therefore not an option for most Cambridgeshire villages. This means that, although people and businesses in Cambridge itself have good access to broadband communications, there are villages as little as 5km from the city boundary where the mainstream communications companies are unlikely to offer broadband services in the near future. The situation is the same throughout most of East Anglia and other rural parts of the UK. A broadband access solution for such villages needs to be viable with a few dozen customers, be scalable and involve low up-front infrastructure costs.... The ‘Cambridge Ring projects demonstrate how affordable broadband services can be delivered to medium and small rural villages using Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b) technology. An important element of the business model is identifying and stimulating demand by means of an active marketing campaign within and involving the local community. The technical solution uses widely available, and hence low cost, equipment and is scaleable from dozens to hundreds of customers." (Source: Community broadband networks in the east of England)

Thus an effective broadband network across Australia is likely to be made up of cellullar components feeding off a backbone. The closer the backbone the better will be the remote service delivery. Now let us look at the possible impact on the Australian economy overall with ubiquitous access.

"On the national level, one study found that ubiquitous broadband deployment across the U.S. would produce as much as $460 billion in economic growth per year. Estimates made by Accenture in 2003 suggest broadband could contribute $500 billion to GDP in the United States and as much as $400 billion in Europe.

The nationwide impact of broadband begins in communities and individual businesses, where research has repeatedly identified positive effects including greater productivity and rapid employment growth. One study estimated that for every percentage point increase in broadband penetration in a particular area, employment would increase 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points per year. Another study found that from 1998 to 2002, U.S. communities that were among the early adopters of mass-market broadband experienced more rapid growth in employment and number of businesses in IT-intensive sectors.

Internet business solutions have enabled private companies in the U.S. to save $155 billion and have helped companies in France, Germany and the UK increase revenues $79 billion. A survey of more than 2,000 businesses across the U.S. found that Internet business solutions had already resulted in a net gain of almost $600 billion by 2001 and would add .43 percentage points to future productivity growth through 2011...." (Source: The Economic Impact of Broadband in Developing Nations, Best practices enable developing nations to reap economic benefits of broadband. Intel Corporation 2009)

Broadband networks can also be used to bring more citizens and businesses from rural and remote areas into the formal national economy. Transitioning more people into the formal economy can enable governments to strengthen the basic infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, etc.) in rural areas. Connecting the nonmetro population via broadband also enables access to e-government for citizens and businesses, and better educational opportunities for students who can be introduced to the technology necessary to compete and succeed in the 21stcentury global economy. ( Source: The Economic Impact of Broadband in Developing Nations, Best practices enable developing nations to reap economic benefits of broadband. Intel Corporation, 2009) Conclusion: For personal users, it is the product offerings that will attract the user and also the household demographics, not merely the price. For business, institutions and society overall, the gains are enormous.

Today, low-cost broadband and information technology are creating new kinds of businesses and entire new industries. They enable companies to be global exporters including the export of skills, knowledge and culture which were never portable before. They can ensure that schools in remote regions and inner cities have access to the latest information tools. They link rural healthcare providers to leading medical centers and local law enforcement to national information grids. Individuals and local businesses can go global in search of low-cost, quality vendors, and Web-based tools can increase community involvement. By boosting the economic and social well-being of communities, broadband and IT can reduce the incentives for their young people to move away in search of opportunity and a better quality of life – but only if communities know how to put them to effective use.

There are some factors should be considered as main factors while implementing broadband economies. Those are :
1. Community involvement
2. Technology Development
3. Income creation
4. Social cohesiveness
Source: Broadband Economy, Muhammad Awaluddin

Washington, DC, January 14, 2009 The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program today released its new report ICT: The 21st Century Transitional Initiative. The Report calls for bold and broad measures by the new Obama Administration to promote widespread diffusion and adoption of broadband communications, promotion of new applications in government and private industry using communications, and the use of communications to save energy costs and reduce carbon emissions.
View the report

"High speed data infrastructures are vital for the widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in public services, SMEs and households. They should be considered as important to the development of the Knowledge Society as (rail)roads, canals and roads were for the Industrial era." (EUROCITIES Broadband Manifesto, EUROCITIES is the network of major European cities. Founded in 1986, the network brings together the local governments of 129 large cities in some 33 European countries. EUROCITIES represents the interests of its members and engages in dialogue with the European institutions across a wide range of policy areas affecting cities. These include: economic development, the environment, transport and mobility, social affairs, culture, the information and knowledge society, and services of general interest. EUROCITIES website:

So what is the economic equation?

There are a lot more players in this potential market than a few million potential subscribers, and a handful of telephony companies. Whilst the capital cost of the physical infrastructure may be $A49 billion what will be the aggregate value of all of the content carried on the network and what fees will the network owner garner from all of the participants over and above subscriptions? Will the subscriber base be Australian only or global? Not only television operators will pay, but education providers such as schools, colleges and universities, governments, enterprises of all type will want to create content offerings. These buyers of access for their content will be here in Australia and from overseas. They will want to be on a state of the art broadband network. They will pay the owner of the network and what will that annual income be? Hundreds of millions or maybe billions? If the income for the content is very high then why would the consumer be paying $A150.000 or $A200.00 per month. Prices will range in value according to content accessed and the type of access. Much like pay television but a lot more economical and configurable. The user is not the only source of income to cover the capital build and is by far the lesser contributor. The providers of the content will be world wide and they will pay a premium. The potential is limitless and the only barriers are our imagination and that of the members of our parliaments and bureaucracies.

Perhaps no one has informed Mr Turnbull of the inclusion of television, data providers, public and private enterprise and a plethora of other as yet unidentified potential contributors? Whilst Mr Rudd may have embellished the description as "Australia's greatest nation building proposal" he may be far closer to the mark than Mr Turnbull. If the opposition leader continues with his current argument then he will be proven to be not only incompetent in understanding and effectively analysing public policy in detail, with relation to ICT, and without prejudice but very wanting in his vision for Australia and its future.

I predict that the broadband project iniated by the Australian labor Party will over the years turn into a political debacle and an albatross (Kevin Beck).

Determing the value of assets, stocks and property et al
Foundatioons for rational policy making and action plans

An asset's assessed value should no longer be used to determine market value in 2009 and beyond. The growth of values fro almost everything (except consumer goods) in the past five years has been abnormal and eveything was, and much is still, over priced. This is particularly so with housing prices in Australia. In the USA they are plunging as in Britain. This effect has not hit here yet and will be exascerbated when unemployment climbs in the second half of 2009 and defaults rise. To determine the likely value find a point back in time where the normal growth compound per annum was about 2% - 3% and extrapolate that forward to today. That will be the likely value of property in Australia in 2009 - 2010. Real estate agents are looking at demand and supply and that is a false indicator in this financial climate. They must look at the spread, and type of debt, and income, across the Australian community. The government should immediately engage the Australian Bureau of Statistics to undertake a census. Another wil have to be undretaken in 2010 to provide assessment points. Only then will the hidden effects be exposed, enabling policy makers to plan with some reliability. The current methods used by the Australian government Treasury Department are discredited.

Beware, the end of the Bonanza-land is nigh.


APRIL 2009: Broadband and the Brilliant Tactic of the Labor Government

Catching the Opposition (Malcolm Turnbull, Nick Minchin and liberal front bench, analysts and pundits, flat footed

For over a year interested parties have been watching Minister, Senator Conroy, and the federal Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, grapple with a recalcitrant, and anti-public interest, telco company, and the delivery of the election promise, of Australian labor, to build a high speed, to the node, broadband network across the nation. It was always logical to build a second major open access, open architecture network to enable true competition. The privatisation of electricity in Australia is a contrived model requiring mandated access on common transmission lines. This was okay because the State Electricity Commission of Victoria was a public entity. The telecommuicatons backbone in Australia was a public entity but without deep aforethought the government sold off the entity making a rod for its own back. Thus Telstra came into a monopoly. They were always going to make it difficult. If we look at the return on the asset base, for Telstra, it makes a monza from its copper cable. This is a nation of 20,000,000 people and the number of consumers that make an electricity company profitable here pale into insignificance against the Telstra market domination. An 8.2% government issued infrastructure bond, with a maturity date eight years out would be a high quality investment. The actual earnings of the entity would be between 20% - 30% after costs and and 15% - 18% after taxes. It is a brilliant equation. The opposition parliamentary parties and the small independents would be neutered on their criticisms. Telstra wants in. Why? Because they know that what I am writing here is the future.

Again the commentators, and experts, who profess a political canniness about waht government may do, about the economy and about most things of importance, have been found to be off the mark. As usual they are all focusing on the money. Radio talk jocks, with demonstrably limited experience, awareness and knowledge, and those seeking to gain notoriety, and a voice, in the debate, demand that the government convince them. As if they are within that select group destined to be the appointed protectors of the public interest. Many are barely able to conceive the technology let alone assess viability. Where were they when the recession was knocking loudly?

The mass record of analysis, of experts and critics, across the spectrum, is quite frankly
very poor in comparison to mine. However that is another issue.

The government's proposal will gain both credibility, and support, provided that the underlying intent is to open up the communications market and break Telstra's damaging, and anti public interest, monopoly. To add an investment sweetener would be another fillip. If, as a supplementary outcome, it was to get rid of the company's senior management, and current Board (as at April, 2009) along the way, that may be a benefit to, and please, shareholders and raise value, or not. I am long time Telstra customer and I could care less if they disappeared. They express little regard or communication with me perfering to be hidden on the net. I am an Optus user also and they by comparison are talking to me quite regualraly. They give a better service. Yet again that is another issue. It depends on your personal view, and experience, of their performance and capacity. You may not have been ridiculed by an unknowing, unaware, Telstra spokesperson in a parliamentary forum like I have been. Am I bitter not in the least. When they were booted out of the tender I noted it was because they thought they were above the process. I complete tenders everyday and I have to slave through and present a full complying document numbering thousands of pages, not a handful as Telstra presented. Good riddance to bad rubbish and on ya bike amigo.

Off the blocks, and fast away, in the critiquing, and carping, was the Opposition spokesperson on telco stuff, The Honourable Senator Nick Minchin, denigrating the proposal, with not too much aparent thought and deep analysis as to the veracity and substance of their argument. Senator Minchin is the former Minister who spruiked the wonderful benefits of developing a light metals industry in Australia including the failed magnesium support, and investment, strategy of the former Howard liberal coalition government (2000 - 2003). Wasn't he thinking of putting $A200,000,000 up to a magnesium company in Queensland back around 2003?

The sometimes odd Senator Fielding entered the argument, with typical disconnect between intellectual, and sustainable, economic analysis, theory of the ill informed and shallow drivel. He likes to get into an argument eraly to maximise his profile and that of his 1.6% or thereabouts, member of the Victorian state electorate. What the relevance, and linkages, between the Family First policy platform and that of this debate, and proposition, is not clear. The Greens are yet to raise their demands and tru to link the whole thing to climate change, environment, sustainable cities and blue sky. Nick Xenophon the other independent Senator was more circumspect. He will look at the debate carefully and pose probing questions. The government knows that he is a credible player in the debate as is National Senator Barnaby Joyce, who can do the numbers. Brnaby wil be on board all he wanst is the service at his constituents' doors.

Then out popped Malcolm Turnbull, reinforcing the perception that he is not up to the challenge with his poorly framed response and typical reliance on a bygone era and reputation. A reputation now shredded by the greed, stupidity and afilures of others. He asserted, without any proof, that the government's proposal for a commercial vehicle to build and operate the fast speed network, with open access, would require a very large number of users to pay rates per month north of $A150.00. On this basis Malcolm, and the liberal party, would oppose privatisation of the nation's electricity system, lead by the state of Victoria, in the nineties. On that logic there would be insufficient users as customers to all of the competitors. The electricity transmission grid would be too expensive to provide the network supply infrastructure to the participating electricity distributors and retailers. Then we have the discinnect between current date and the history of their pronouncements. There are plenty of examples of malcolm, and others, jumping on the Internet value argument cliaming that Australia needs a high spped broadband to enhance its competitive position in the world. There are examples of them soothsayng how many small businesses could arise, and grow, little entreprenurs beavering away out in the bush and regional areas. People conducting business from anywhere in the nation. They have sparse, and selective, memories. Apparently Australia can only ever do anything innoavtive or mildly logical if its cheap. Thus the Snowy Eelectricity Scheme, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and telecom, as examples would never have got off the ground on the current thinking. $A48 billion, woe betide us all and shock horror. What if the radio talk jocks, and the other poundits, were to actually develop another method of objection, and critique, than the expedient, and evocative, response - what about the cost? What about it? It is a commercial vehicle and investment proposition. We shpuld never build another power station, another mine, another rail line or any other blooody expensive thing.

Politicians and their advisers have a record of failing to connect the dots of a nation's activity, and policies, and translate arguments across similar sectors. Eelectricity and telecommunications are similar in their behaviour, cost and outcomes. They both power everything.

The Opposition argument, of Malcolm Turnbull, will be found to be spurious and all the labor government has to do is use the electricity privatisation as a foundation model and guide along with good design, commercial acumen and evaluation. In the next eight years technology will change just as the cost of the PC has dropped to small change. People need to be aware of this.

When Malcolm Turnbull was challenged with the claim that Optus stated that he, and Senator Minchin, were wrong he resorted to (a) denigrating them as having an interest and (b) referred to his business qualifications, and success, and the expertise, and so very reliable, and skilled merchant banking industry analysts. We know how good they are. They now require the governments of the world to save them first least the financial foundation of the world as we know it, ends.

The government should, and is, go for it. They should disregard the demand that the talk radio hosts be convinced and the pthers who have very little intelelctual property to contribute. It will, in the long run, be a far better investment, and economically valuable asset, than the claims made, and decisions, by the former Prime Minister for selling off ownership, and the public (Mum's and Dad's) investing in Telstra. John Howard, and his liberal coalition colleagues, paied 100% of public funds, to build a railway from Adelaide to Darwin as one of his nation building legacies. That was a wonderful investment, was it not Senator Minchin, Malcolm Turnbull? Let us have something other than humbug to chew on in this debate.

Australian politicians and their staff, lying and misleading, the public

" Trip denial "a lapse in judgement" Leo Shanahan, Canberra, March 30, 2009,

ACTING Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dismissed Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's failure to disclose trips to China paid for by businesswoman Helen Liu as a "lapse in judgement". With the Government continuing to defend the embattled minister, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's office has denied it had any knowledge of an internal defence investigation into Mr Fitzgibbon, but is refusing to say if any other minister's office had concerns raised with it about the minister." (source: Fairfax: The Age, Melbourne, Australia,

"And if the Prime Ministers chief spinner Lachlan Harris denied the story when initially put to him by Steve Lewis, its a remarkable act of self-directed stupidity." (source: Kevin Rudd: the PM who can do no wrong,FRIDAY, 3 APRIL 2009, Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane, Crikey:

"A fireside chat in the Oval Office. A visit to Number Ten. An audience at Buckingham Palace. And one of the biggest headline from Kevin Rudd's two-week trip abroad is a "mile-high meltdown" from when he tore into an air hostess on board his VIP flight to Papua New Guinea earlier in the year. The "hostie" could not provide him with a special non-red-meat meal, apparently, so he reportedly spat out the prime ministerial dummy and reduced her to tears...
Perhaps there's a nagging sense that he sometimes seems more energised by his job when he is outside of Australia rather than within it - the feeling that Australia is not really big enough to accommodate his talent. Your comments please. As for the mile-high meltdown? We all have tempers, but his is particularly interesting because it stands at odds with the public geniality which he tries to project, and which partly explained his political rise (those chummy, regular early morning appearances on Channel Seven's Sunrise programme were vital in showing that he could appeal to middle Australia). A while back, a Labor insider described to me a meeting with the Prime Minister at which he erupted into a "child-like tanty" [a tantrum] when someone crossed him. The episode speaks of a politician who has always found it easier to command respect for his intellectual prowess rather than attract genuine affection...
13. At 3:24pm on 04 Apr 2009, TheFirstRalph wrote: 5: Dennis, yes we do all have bad days but to bully a person that can't fight back in a way that would get you arrested on a commercial flight is a different matter. It would also be easier to excuse if Lachlan Harris, the Rudd?s spin doctor hadn't denied it happened, and been forced to change his story it only after the RAAF brass contradicted him. (Source: Nick Bryant, BBC - Nick Bryant's Australia, Mile-high meltdown Nick Bryant | 01:44 UK time, Friday, 3 April 2009,

Rudd short with the truth: Turnbull, Lenore Taylor | April 04, 2009
Article from: The Australian MALCOLM Turnbull said Kevin Rudd's initial denial of a mid-air outburst towards a female RAAF cabin attendant, before his eventual admission that it happened, was further evidence the Prime Minister "only tells the truth when he is forced to". The Prime Minister's office initially denied Mr Rudd had berated the attendant on a trip from Papua New Guinea to Canberra because his requested meal had been unavailable." (source of extract:")

These are just some of the recent examples (March - April 2009) of the manipulation and denials that now permeate every crevice of Australian public life. When the most senior people in our institutios and business lie and mislead they say to the rest of Australia, and its people, it is pokay for you to lie and misrepresent the situation. We should have little respect for anyone who acts in this fashion and those who have to deal with these people should consider being very careful about trsuting them. The
decline in ethics permeates the nation no moreso than in the parasites' nests of Australian political office.

Footnote: A parasite, used in the above context is, to my mind, an unelected person, working in a political office, paid from the public purse, who is not subject to the codes of conduct of the public services of the relevant jurisdiction and who places their political masters' well being, or their work role, above the public interest, above ethics and the nation's democracy and parliament. ("No ethics here - governments and political constituency in Australia", Kevin Beck

The labor government has begun its social and thinking re-engineering and Kevin Rudd is seen for what he actually is

The fact that the Chinese attempted to comprimise his communications, mobile lap top and presence at the Olympics he resorted to the bureaucratic response. He quoted verbatim a security document as if that is substantial evidence and indisputable fact and a protection. In the world of bureaucrats words are comfort, and powerful instruments, to be quoted. Kevin Rudd is a bureaucrat not a Prime Minister of individual, persoanl substance. He relies on oratorial eloquence and is not all that good at it. He is not compelling. The worthless cant he put forward, in his diatribe about how he is not worried about China spying on him, about a focus on security and best effort is hollow.

Mick Keelty, the federal Police Commissoner, had ensured that anything the Prime Minister or government may offer is trite against the fact that a person was beaten to death at Sydney Airport. The Prime Minister has failed to act and is a contrived political persona, who resorts to the weasle words of bureaucratic thinking and motherhood. Here, look is the published words, the policy, the mantra, the gauarantee, he runs it off at will. The media are obviously incapable of seeing what Kevin Rudd sees, the critics are off the mark, here it is he says -in black and white on paper. We wrote it, and it is therefore substantial and effective. It is evidenciary and self fullfilling because we wrote it and published it. Never mind that a man died in front of people in Sydney airport, The Prime Minister and his minions take safety, and security, very seriously. Mr. Rudd, I feel, is full of it. It will notv take the electorate too much time to come to this conclusion. In his world that is the evidence words on paper. he has no orther resort, he waits for each enquiry to print its report.

He will alter his spiel, and quote from new sources. His thinking is ordered and academic. It is a deep understanding of the system. It is humbug dressed up. It is about resaerch and having information, it is about analysis, It is subject to conditions like the advertising small print that cons us all. It is sad that a great place like Australia should endure mediocrity in its political leaders and now be captive to perhaps nothing more than a twat. History will tell but that is too late.

Every government in Australia could actually be a oncer, except that hubris, and self interest, precludes the two major parties from stitching it up each time. The rule of George Bush proved this concept. Winning political office, in any individual or holistic electorate, is a product of money and external talent, not the quality of political candidates. Malcolm Turnbull should know this given his background. Yet he is not indicating that he gets it.
We can put anyone, with a reasonable personality, communication skill and presentation ability, into any parliament or a whole party into government, anywhere in the nation, at any election. It is quite simply a product of money, lots of money and reach into the voter's world.

There is a company caled
Horizon that has a a research methodology that can assess electoral suport for a candidate without the need for expensive, and often, inadequate conventional polling methods. This information coupled with the communication's strategy delivers the outcome. It is just a matter of how much money the aspirant wants to spend. For this reason independents, and small parties, rarely achieve success.

However human foibles stymie achievement. Individuals within political parties, large and small, it seems, would rather maintain their
personal positions, and power, than risk losing their personal status by winning government or putting the party interests above their own. The NSW labor party is the leading example of this selfish behaviour, in an Australian parliament.

Because of this the quality of democracy, here in Australia, is less than it could be and the parliaments are an unrepresentative, engineered, system of self interest and political graft. There are insufficiuent independent oversight bodies to reign in the politicians, who do as they please. The declaration of personal interest, by members of parliaments, as well as donations and campiagn funds, is a sham and largesse is accepted as part, and parcel, of public office. Graft, and the private support of members of parliaments across Australia, is hidden away and used when needed. When the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was confronted with the Minister for Health the Honourable Nicola Roxon, approved (march 2009) a rise in private health insurance charges whilst presenting a justification for increased costs.

"Families to feel pain as private health cover fees rise, Article from: Perth Now, (
Michelle Draper, Jeff Turnbull and Jane Bunce, March 06, 2008 04:13pm

"AUSTRALIAN families with private health insurance will pay about $100 extra a year in fees after the federal government approved higher premiums. The fee increases announced today were another blow for Australians struggling to meet soaring mortgage repayments after the latest in a string of interest rate rises. Consumer groups said some families would struggle to pay the average 4.99 per cent hike in private health insurance on top of rising grocery, petrol and housing prices. The fee rises, which come into effect on April 1, are expected to cost Australian families an extra $2 or more a week. Federal health minister Nicola Roxon said the government had managed to negotiate the funds down from the average 5.21 per cent rise they were seeking, although one fund was still asking for an "extremely high'' fee increase."

This rise allows the funds to continue to pass the costs for the embedded fraud within the Australian private, and public health systems to the public. This fraud encompasses the manipulation of reimbursement claims, through item number manipulation, banking benefits for the future and overt and covert fraud by providers. The patient may or may not be party to these practices which will be exposed in May - June 2009.

The Australian Minister for Employment Participation is Brendan O'Connor, appointed on 3 December 2007. The position is within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Julia Gillard and is administered through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This role is a junior ministerial one. There is an irony in the portfolio nomenclature - Employment Participation. It is a spin name, created by the parasites working on the public purse whose role is to mislead, and dissemble, using weasle words, slogans and slick titles. The Minister has announced a renaming of the employment services, again with another spin title - Jobs Australia. The Minister talks of efficient systems. Humbug. There is no substance in this and the amount of money soent by the Department and the government on thinking of this name would boggle the mind. It is a waste of public monies when a government spends effort trying to erase the former governments footprints. These elected officials do not care. Their personal, and party, political interests are superior to the public interest.

If you listen to Brendan O'Connor it is apparent that he is a parrot. He trots out the spin lines without any contribution from his own intellect. He is a minion following the senior Minister's directions and the Office of Prime Minister. He cannot substantiate an argument. He is short on detail. Reegineeering employment sevices will, ironically, cause the unemployment of several hundred people. O'Connor when queried on this claims that these people have skills that are in demand and they will get jobs.

" Jobs 'at risk' in Network tender, Nicola Berkovic, Dennis Shanahan | March 30, 2009 Article from: The Australian

"THE Coalition has urged the Rudd Government to consider suspending its $2 billion Job Network tender, warning that thousands of people would miss out on retraining and assistance in finding work as the dole queues lengthened. Opposition community services spokesman Tony Abbott said many of the 600,000 clients of the Job Network would miss out on crucial services because of government bungling. "A very large percentage of Job Network sites are going to be closing down in the next couple of months," he told the Ten Network. "There will virtually be no Job Network services in these sites in the three months it takes to close the existing ones and the further six months to start up new sites." In the past week, some of Australia's biggest and best-performing job agencies have been told they have lost their government business to provide employment services to the unemployed, as two new British providers enter the market. Employment Minister Julia Gillard yesterday defended the Government's handling of the tender, saying it was being conducted at arm's length and that it would be improper for her to interfere." (source: The Australian On Line,,25197,25260876-5013404,00.html)

Jobs being lost but detailed account delayed, Stephanie Peatling, April 2, 2009

AT LEAST 60 organisations employing hundreds of people have lost government contracts to run employment services but the Federal Government has refused to confirm the extent of the job losses. The Minister for Employment Participation, Brendan O'Connor, announced yesterday that the tender process to select which companies will run the revamped job-seeking program, Job Services Australia, had been completed. But he would not provide details about which companies had lost contracts or quantify the number of people who would be out of work, saying further details would be announced today. "What I say to those unsuccessful tenderers and those staff is we need their skills," Mr O'Connor said. "We want them to stay in the sector." He said 72 per cent of companies already running employment services for the Government had won new contracts. But he would not comment on the suggestion that this meant between 60 and 70 companies no longer had contracts." (source: Sydney Morning Herald,

This is motherhood tripe and demonstrative of the quality of the Ministers that govern the nation. Invariably, government is a mangerial exercise within a political straight jacket. So may parrots in public office unable to elocute substance and prosecute a compelling, and truthful, argument.

China sells weapons to terrorist nations. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd rails against terrorists. Yet he is silent on this proposition regarding China. Many countries sell weapons including Great Britain. They end up in the hands of terrorists. China engages in torture, breach of human rights and is a communist, authoritarian government that tortures its own citizens. Rudd supports China why? For profit, for trade and for pure politics. He is in this regard ignorant and immoral.Mr. Rudd embraces a more prominent role for China in the International Monetary Fund. This is the immorality, and double dealing, of politics.

China rebuffs Rudd over Tibet dialogue, Dennis Shanahan | April 10, 2008, Article from: The Australian

"CHINESE Premier Wen Jiabao is ignoring calls from Australia to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama over the question of Tibet. Mr Wen met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for two-and-a-half hours today for discussions which were described as "good and solid". But Mr Rudd admitted that they failed to see eye-to-eye on the question of Tibet, which the prime minister yesterday described as "quite a significant problem". "It's quite fair to say that the Chinese government in their discussions with me ... their position today was consistent with the position China has adopted in recent times," Mr Rudd said. He said he had a responsibility to put his position and he had done that. "We have a challenging period ahead of us on this question," he said. "We have a different view, that is quite plain." But the leaders have also agreed to ratchet up the relationship on climate change with a new ministerial level partnership agreed upon. Mr Rudd said the two countries would have a semi annual dialogue based on intensifying cooperation on reaching a post-2012 agreement on climate change as well as ways of developing cleaner energy technologies. The countries also agreed to "unfreeze" negotiations on a free trade deal between them." (Source: The Australian,

The Prime Minister has a strong background in Chinese diplomacy and is well versed in the culture. This may be his archilles heel if he beleives that he has their measure. The situation of Minister for defence Joel Fitzgibbon is not his problem alone. Anyone who is a student of Chinese history and politics knows well that high ranking Chinese citzens overseas are a mine of information for the government. Anyone occupying a position even down to student level in universities is also of interest. A sophisticated human and machine surveillance network encases the world.

Obviously the Australian government cannot entertain the crack pots who would have us stop trade, and investment, with China. The proponents of such responses are not unedaucted. The Greens and the Democrats border on the illogical and irresponsible. Yet there is a telling argument that western nations tolerate China's abuse, spying and general nasty, and highly, ignorant behaviour because they want the money. There is no ethics in politics, trade and economy. The proposition of regulation of human nature, greed and stupidity as a means of fixing the economic, and financial, crisis is doomed to failure.

Then we come to Mr Rudd himself and his public persona. This has some very interested. What motivates a person who is at the top of their career to abuse, or treat others contemptuously? The Prime Minister is said to have had a hostess, on the RAAF Prime Ministerial jet in tears because she could not fulfill his culinary wishes. He did what one of his federal politicians did, abused people and he demanced that she attend anger classes. Will Kevin Rudd attend anger classes? Of course not he is the boss and bosses can act as despicable at they choose because they have pwoer. Kevin Rudd has no personal power, he derives it from others.

Listening to his explanation I gained the impression that he was bored with the episode and dismissive of the whole affair as an inconvenience hardly worth his attention. He is engaged in heady issues and is at the forefront of saving the world's economies. For people in his position such matters are trivial. In response to questioning of his behaviour, he replied that Prime Ministers make msitakes and if he had offended anybody he apologised. making mistakes and being sorry is the new mantra of the political leader which worked so well for former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. The Prime Minister is also said to have harshly berated (again displaying contempt for) Senator Fielding in front of others who are not members of parliament. The Senator is not well liked by the two major parties. His elocution and analytical skills are deemed to be wanting and his stance and arguments on significant legislation before the Senate does not stand up to deep examination.

These glimpses of Kevin Rudd, the man who works hard to create a whole other persona, are telling. It is easy to stick it to the people who cannot resspond. Lapses are to be forgiven. Rubbish. The abuse of a person under any circumstance demaonstares that the abuser is not a leader worthy of respect from others. Pomposity, and arrogance, are too often accepted traits of our political leaders. Academics, sociologists, political commentators and human behaviouralists are starting to take an interest in the managed facade that may be Prime Minister Rudd. This should trigger a warning of a growing, high risk to the Prime Minister and his minders.

The federal political arena is not a state political arena and it should be rememberd that Mr Rudd has minimal experience at the federal level having come out of the public service. He is surrounding himself with apratchiks from the states and this will cause ructions, and changes, in the Australian Public Service. On the face of it public servants are a-political, only on the face of it. We can look at the Federal Police Commmissioner as representative of the hierarchy. Mr. Keelty thinks that the response of the federal police at Sydney airport was within the accepted tolerances. A person was beaten to death in front of travellers at Sydney airport but the police response is acceptable to Keelty. This is the same person who spent an enormous amount of resources and police time dwelling on an innocent doctor in Queensland, Dr Haneef, resulting in his deportment. This failed exercise cost the tax payer about $A7,000,000. Now the government will have to pay compensation. Is this within tolerances? Kevin Rudd has failed to show decisive leadership in relation to Mr Keelty who in his role is an ever present danger to the well being ordinary people in Australia.

Despite these inconsistencies, and poor record of actually doing something other than giving away money (a powerful aphrodesiac, and pacifier, to the electorate), the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (April 2009) enjoys a 70% approval rating according to the political pollsters. From whom? Unthinking Australians who are void of awareness and prone to off the cuff perceptions with little evidenciary substance? This is a bullshit popularity rating. The Prime Minister I think has an actual approval rating more llikely to be around the 50% - 55% range. This is largely helped by an Opposition political party which lacks a strategy, oratorial skills, has no great debaters, little if any deep, innovative and lateral thinkers, within its ranks. It is not in search of any because the political system is about waiting one's turn. The political polling methods, and selection of who is asked, are flawed and the questions are trite. The polsters stated that the Queensland election would be close. It was not and Anna Bligh was returned to office as this commentator predicted with a healthy margin. Public opinion lags the polls and the Prime Minister is on slide to a hiding regarding China, the economy, social engineering in climate policy, education and employment. During the electioneering Kevin Rudd said that there would be open government and changes to freedom of information. That was a silly thing to promiose and there are many advisers who are counselling against such wild abandonment. Fate will spell the outcome. China will do something that cause major incident and pause. It may be Tibet, it may be in pacific or it may be an avaricious hunt for world resource domination and pricing control. The claim that the OzMinerals take over was rejected because the Chinese could look over the fence at Woomera test range from the mine border on farce but are demonstrative of an underlying mistrust. ("Stumbling out of office - a soap opera produced, and directed, by Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia

Ministerial accountability, reality and ethics

The Australian labor Party across Australia has a problem with ethics, accountability and responsibility. The current Defence Minister Joel Fitgibbon (March 2009) knows the parliamentary rules for declaration and yet fails to register substantial gifts. When questioned by the media on Thursday 26th March 2009 he describes how he failed to register receipt of small gifts (plane tickets to China and a suit), he misrepresents the position in his parliamentary role. He then issues statement apologising. The Minister is lacking ethical integrity, describing how he made a mistake. The Prime Minister says that he is doing an exemplary job. The Prime Minister says that it is right that the Minister apologised, apparently on the oredrs of the Acting Prime Minister. Prime Minister Rudd seems to place political expediency above ethical integrity. He also has a narrow perspective on performance of the Minister'[s role in the Department. It is not all that flash let alone exemplary.

The Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has held a secret meeting with Chinese officials which raises questions as to reason and purpose for secrecy. Some contend that this was done due to the impending visit to the United States. The reason is known only to the Prime Minister and his confidantes.

Extract source: "PM Kevin Rudd keeps Lodge talks with Chinese secret, Cameron Stewart and Michael Sainsbury | March 24, 2009, Article from: The Australian

AS far as Beijing was concerned, the discreet lunch held at The Lodge was a case of exquisite timing. With Kevin Rudd about to visit Washington for his first meeting with President Barack Obama, who better to bend the Prime Minister's ear than the propaganda chief of the Chinese Communist Party, Li Changchun. ...... Normally such a meeting would be big news, but it wasn't because the Australian media was not told. ... Yet China's state-owned media was ushered into The Lodge and Mr Rudd was splashed across the Chinese press with footage of his talks on the nation's main television station CCTV. As a result, hundreds of millions of Chinese knew more about Mr Rudd's diplomatic activities than did his own countrymen." The Australian newspaper.

Once in the United States, Prime Minister Rudd heartily endorsed the Obama administration's Fiscal Package, relative to toxic assets, going as far as stating that it would work. What if it does not? The theory is that assets will be taken from poor US citizens, property, packaged into securitised invsetment opportunities. Greedy investors from the private sector salivate at getting a house for a few hundred or few thousand taken from the purchaser by the morally bankrupt US banks and on sold to the morally rank and disgusting invsetors who live off the unfortunate.

This is typically American capital greed and fiscal enslavement, dressed up as for the benefit of the nation. According to the politicians, and the financial wizards, the neconomic crisis is due to slack regulation and the desire of consumers to at first wildly spend and then to commit another sin by not spending. What about corporate debt and greedy, inept management and boards?

The Prime Minister of Australia heartily endorses the process. He also is gung ho on being in Afghanistan with the US. Apart from the US appalling record at overseas military exploits, Afghanistan has a history of defying the most militarily endowed. The body count will escalate and the infidels will triumph. Apparently fighting an unwinnable campaign alongside the US is better than common sense and looking after the lives of our military or is theree a reasonable level of collaterla damage in Rudd's world of diplomacy?

He really should look at himself. Mr Rudd takes too many risks. The message behind all of the current financial wheelings, and dealings, is that the wealthy, and developed, nations and the power collective membership are to be protected at the expense of poor countries and peoples. The whole approach is reprehensible and the Australian Prime Minister deserves to be humiliated by the impending failure of this "toxic activity". The Reserve Bank of Australia has its head in the sand and its analysis of the future as at March 2009 is substandard and blinkered. There will be a rise in defaults and drop in property values as the market deteriorates and an Australian bank, local governments and other institutions and financial enetrprises, take a hit on derivates. The debts of the poor people in the United States should have been paid with the trillions given to the US banks. On the military campiagn Australia and the Us would have to invade pakistan and stop the insurgents there to affect the outcomes in Afghanistan. ("kevin Rudd, Australia's High Risk Prime Minister", Kevin Beck)


Malcolm Turnbull says (March 2009) that he is about creating the economic climate whereby people can take advantage of new jobs that will be created. He says that new banks will arise and that once the balance sheets of corporations are restored Australians would be well posirioned to take advantage of the new era. He talks of the sound Australian economy and hopes that Kevin Rudd will learn something from President Obama. What might that be? How to misinterpret the world, and America's place in it? Or perhaps how to adopt an immature and childlike belief and hubris. Mr Turnbull does not quite expand on what Mr Rudd may learn Unfortunately Malcolm Turnbull has either overlooked, or having ignored the signs, not told Australians, what is coming. Then again listening to him he may not even know. A debate about whether a small business is signified by 15, 16 or 20 employees shows us the quality of our policy makers and members of the federalo parliament. A total of 225 amendments by the opposition members in both houses, to the labor industrial relations bill, Fair Work, March 2009, were largely around minutae. A search by some politicians for relevance where they otherwise would have none other than by mere election to the parliament. Senator Fielding demponstrates the paucity of talent and ability to negotiate which are all too often the trade mark of small parties like Family First and One Nation. Fielding claims to have broken the back of alcohol's domination of our society? Another Senator appeasr to be deaf and unable to hear the clanging bells that go on in the house when a vote is imminent. Nigel Scullion says that he did not hear them because he was in a stair well. What rot. The bells permeate the building. Many parliamentarians can be dismissed as crowing about things of which they know, or understand, very little. ("Nice Liberal but wrong on broadband", Kevin Beck)

People familiar with the history of the Boxer rebellion will realise what I am implying. Political statements, and soothing responses to the USA, were at stark contrast to what was happening behind the ' scenes. Opportunists in the corporate world across the gobe, talk of China emerging. However I contend in my predictions web site that China is emerging not in the way that the speculators are expecting.


March 2009: Why concentrate on pilloring executives for their pay scales when local government executives may be receiving exorbitant salary packages? There are some well above the Australian median salary range for local government. " THE chief executive of Brisbane City Council now earns more than the Prime Minister after she was awarded a staggering $70,000 pay increase. Jude Munro recently received the inflation-busting 20 per cent increase - despite the economic slump. She now earns $410,000. Last month Ipswich City Council executive Carl Wulff also enjoyed a $73,000 pay rise - a 26 per cent boost - taking his wage packet to $350,000. Just weeks ago, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called on workers to show wage restraint as Australia rockets towards a recession... Mr Wulff and Ms Munro are among a growing number of Queensland council executives now earning record six-figure salaries, including Moreton Bay CEO John Rauber, on $380,000. Meanwhile, Toowoomba Regional Council is advertising for a new CEO through recruitment firm Hudson. An officer at the firm said the base salary was $300,000." (Source: Hannah Davies, February 11, 2009, Courier mail, News Ltd, Queensland,

Melbourne City Council CEO David Pitchford is listed as one of the big rollers pocketing over $350,000 plus benefits paid for by the City ratepayers and money collected by corrupt traffic officers. More then John Howard and Steve Bracks. Is he worth it? David Pitchford was paid a bonus on top of his salary last year even though the Ombudsman found the City Council under Pitchfords stewardship, with the assistance of ex-City Council legal adviser Allison Lyons, tried to thwart the Ombudsman investigation last year in an attempted cover-up of the crime of ripping off motorists. Maybe this is why he received a bonus. The Herald Sun reports: Councils spend big, Peter Rolfe Sunday Herald-Sun March 25, 2007

BIG-SPENDING local councils are paying senior staff more than the Prime Minister receives.

Flush with funds as property owners pay record rates and charges, at least three Melbourne councils are rewarding chief executives with pay packages that eclipse John Howard's. At least 12 are paying chief executives more than Victoria's Premier, Steve Bracks.

Melbourne City Council chief executive David Pitchford leads the list of high earners, pocketing a package worth more than $354,000 a year. Apart from a cash salary of $241,553, Mr Pitchford is also entitled to a 25 per cent performance bonus plus superannuation, a car and expenses.

Mr Howard's total annual package for running the country is just over $309,000. Mr Bracks is on $235,000 a year.

Monash Council chief David Conran has an annual package of $315,750, including a salary of $250,000. Boroondara boss Peter Johnstone earns more than $337,500 to administer the suburbs of Hawthorn, Camberwell, Canterbury and Kew with a 25 per cent bonus on top of his $232,371 base salary plus a car and superannuation. And Whitehorse chief Noeline Duff earns more than $292,700."
Sunday, March 25, 2007, CEO High Roller)

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong not connecting with anyone in particular
Partisan self interests, questionable public service contribution
and idiots in the climate change debate mix

The future according to the Rudd Labor government is based on analysis, and modelling, undertaken by a wide range of sources many of whom are tied to the ideological mind set of the government. The Australian Treasury is unable to provide a foundation from which the Minister can bring the public forward. This department has a long history of getting things wrong. The Australian Government Department of Treasury modelling is heavily critiqued. Minister Wong, like Minister Joel Ftizgibbon (Defence) both know what happens when their departments add to the problems through their service operations to government. It intrigues me as I interact with governments, and public services, that their quality and depth of research is narrowly focused. They are aware of forces directly in their face but tend to be oblivious to the myriad of interests beyond their horizon. Most of those interests are not politically threatening since they are not locally based and organised. They become a worry to certain individuals, and interests, when they are annexed by local activists to build on political and social community and other themes and actions, here in Australia. Then there are those who use modern technology, and human networks, to influence international, powerful interests, governments, and corporations, social activists and the like, that can impact Australia's local politics and diplomatic policies and interactions overseas.

Minister Wong has released the government's
Emission Trading Scheme draft legislation. In the climate change debate is further clouded by the hysterical, and unfounded statements, of Green Senators in the federal parliament, their supporters and delibeate misleading political partisan propositions. The business interests are not likely to examine the benefits in the coldight of public interest preferring to frame their responses for self interest cloaked in emotive spin, like loss of jobs, fear mongering and holier than thou hand on heart take the money and run. We know this methodology from the current behaviour of manufacturers abandoning ship in Australia whilst trying to suck up every last public dollar or demanding public funds to hang around.

The greater number of people, in Australia, simply take little interest in anything to do with public policy and government unless it directly affects them. In Victoria we have the government saying that they will invest a $A100 million, provided the federal government matches that amount, to build a solar power station. This wonder of technology will serve 50,000 residences. This is the sort of trite and quasi justified irresponsible propositions put about by politicians who want to get on the climate change band wagon and spruik their credentials. This, like Victoria's energy hungry multi billion dollar, desalination plant is a gross waste of public money.

Over, and above, there is the short sighted electoral process where governments do things that are good for their next election prospects. They will drop anything, like a hot potato, if it hurts their individual political control of governments. Thus let's see what they abandon and when. (Australian Political and Social Commentator, Kevin Beck)

Kevin Rudd could help Aldi create jobs so why doesn't he? Why do the state, and territory, governments and the ACCC not help Aldi? The answer lies in self interest, anti competitive systems, a modicum of corruption and collusion at the local goevrnemt level where planning and approvals are the province of a club, of developers and political party apparatchiks.

The modern Boxer Rebellion, bringing down the west.

The primary objective of banks enslavement to debt. The organ grinders making monkeys of Australia, and the world's, governments.

The Reserve Bank of Australia says that opening up the ATM market for charges to consumers would, via competition, reduce the costs. They also kept interest rates high to attack inflation beyond the necessary time frame. They also failed to predict the current economic collapse. The Australian Reserve Bank, like the Department of Treasury within the Australian government seem to make some poor decisions for the public cost, impacting adverseley on consumers and the economy. They appear to hardly ever get it right in their estiamtes and assumptions. It i9s generally put about that no one could have anticipated what is occuring now in the global and Australian economies. This is not the case. The experts are, to my mind, not very good at asimilating data, events and activity ultimately extrapolating into a set of future scenarios.

Nevertheless neither the Australian Reserve Bank Board, nor the Treasury Head and senior officers, will be held accountable or charged with incompetence for they are part of the power collective. The club that benefits regardless of performance or circumstance. The Reserve Bank, the regulators here and internationally, the past Treasurers of the Australian government since 2000, are an integral part of the network of collapse of the Australian and world economies. ("Can they see the big one coming? ", Kevin Beck, Futurist)

The Prime Minister scores a political coup. Those who have lost their homes in the fires of February 2009 will go to the top of the social hosuing component of the $A42 billion stimulus package. The former merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull proposes that the rebuilding be a in aseparate package. Why?
Visit the Foster Home of the Victorian Bushfire.

Do Senior Executive Service members (SES - not to be confused with the State Emergency Service) of Australia's public services provide real value for money?

I do not think many of them at state, and federal, level are delivering the goods for the salary they are paid. The Australian Treasury has a poor record of predicting the future. Model away you hundreds of keyboard pushers and see if you can at least get somewhat close, once! Surprise us.

On the face of it, it many of the public service departments in state, territory and federal government, appear to be unaccountable. They are performing taks with ever increasing failure rates, and offering advice, whilst avoiding any risk of being held to that advice and absolutely no risk of being held personally responsible. My rather caustic attitude has arisen from watching senior public servants in Senate, and other Upper House, hearings. It comes from communicatin with them regularly to receive no reply, an uncomprehending reply or a lot of drivel that misses the mark. Occasionally I get a surpirse.

I perceive many of the senior executives to be smug, engaging in gratutious self indulgence in the lime light ofn their own rarity. The public services of Australia are a hot house of their making, gestation and longevity. They rarely demonstrate invaluable public service, but rather mastery of the rarified world of pompous public service, internecine politics and government sycophancy. They are government servants and the public comes well and truly last in the pecking order.

Many of them decide what they will answer and what information they will provide to the parliaments. I think anyone who declines to answer a Senator or an Upper House member of a parliament adds to the corrosion of democracy and the denigration of parliament. It is a contempt swathed in the bankrupt proposition of confidential advice to government and arrogance.

How do the Australian federal, and state Department Secretaries, compare with Australia's most under paid, most valuable, and most laudable,
public servants? Obviously they cannot even come close to the sacrifice of the men, and women, who face Australia's greatest terrorist - the bush fire. They are volunteers or lowly paid, by comparison, public servnats on the front line. Opposing this are the very senior public servants, across Australia's public services, are paid a large salary whilst delivering questionable value in public benefit and manipulating the public process of Senate enquireies and the operation of parliament. They cannot run transport, health, education and community care such as child protection. Yet they remain aloof and unaccountable. ("State governments in Australia are unaccountable, so vote the party out of being a party" Kevin beck

February 2009 government stimulus package and Julie Bishop

The liberal opposition has decided to block the Rudd government $A42 billion stimulus package. The opposition spokesperson on Treasury Ms Julie Bishop has ket again demonstrated unsuitability for this important role in parliament. She exhibits a cavalier regard for poutting points forward with care. On radio (Wednesday 4, February 2009) she stated that $A200 billion dollar deficit would bankrupt Australia. This is blatantly false, designed to create fear in people who are not well versed in the value of the Austalian government sector and economy. I marvel at how easy it is to turn a deficit of a massive number to a surplus for a new government. Wunder tresaurer Costello ssemed to have this extraordinary talent. Or did he?

Ms Bishop implies that Australia will be in debt for the next generation. Yet the Howard government, according to their own legendary claims, reversed a deficit of near $A100 billion that they inherited from the Keating labor government in 1996. Mr Costello took the budgett to surplus in a matter of a few years. Ms Bishop also disregards that a large proportion of the proposal is directed at asset building particularly in the education sector. This means that the $A42 billion will not be wasted as hysterically being promoted but will be offset by gains in social, intellectual, human and economic capital.

The current modus operandi of the modern politician in the labor and liberal parties is one of lying and misinformation, spin and all too often, carelessness. Ms Bishop treats the electorate abysmally as if we are stupid and unable to rember and think. When such tactics are used it is usually because the perpetrator lacks the intellectual depth to argue the case proficiently.

malcolm Turnbull was a merchant banker. He worked in one of the major entities that today stands humiliated as a leading participant in the global economic collapse. He is thus tarred with a brush of questionable capabilities and one of the areas where he is suspect is in economic and financial analysis and planning. He says that the government's proposal is wrong but does not celarly explain why. he also states that he has a better proposition but again can not elaborate. He is lucky. He left the financial world to take up a pubic office. If he were still in the field of finance and banking he may well have suffered a different financial fate. Ms Bishop might consider returning to practicing law and one hopes that she is more talented in arguing case law than finance and economics. At last we have thrown of the shackles of always seeking to manufacture a surplus and are engaged in nation development through investment. The scrooge economics of the modern government have held Australia back and the illusion of wealth has been shattered.

Waiting for a stimulus package February 2009

Waiting for another failure. Various sectors of the Australian business community and the traditional economists and experts are clamouring for an injection of money from government. The theory is that consumers must be stimulated and that spending must occur. The scond theory is that the economy must grow. If there is credit available business invests and grows and conusmers buy. But waht if the greater number of consumers cannot buy? What if the government spends on infrstructure will that create jobs and spending elsewhere? Yes but with limited effcts. Then there is labor's hoary theory that everytome there is a downturn and unemployment training is part of the required panacea. Never mind that it is a placebo. Shallow competency based training, the fall back, and harping position, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is training largely focused on the people who will not deeply educate themselves. Theer is an associated theory that people undertaking such skill training can be migrated to some other sector of employment.

Let us look at this scenario. A large number of people, with incomes between $50,000 and $150,000, mortgaged the equity in the house they either owned or were paying off because the assumed value had risen steeply. Interest rates were cheap so they used those funds and borrowed to buy an investment property or to renovate to a larger scale dwelling. In many cases the debt on the property portfolio was above 100% of the real value. Then they used credit cards to fund the additional lifetsyly, wekly payments, school fees and partying. In many cases the credit card debt ballooned beyond $10,000 to $20,000, $30,000 and believe it or not $40,000. Then it crashed. The interests cannot go back up because tens of thousands will be bankrupted and yet there are a lot of people who earn their living from interest on funds. It is a vicious circle, a trap from which there is but one escape route.

Due to the debt trap and the vic ious cycle described above there are not enough consumers with the ability to spend left in the Australian, and probably many other economies. Their debt is too high and their disposable income is gone. The value of their assets is depleted. So creating credit access, and stimulus, will not do the job. So what must the governments of Australia do? They must reduce the debt to a manageable level first and foremost. This is an anathema to the market purists and the Australian Treasury. Pay off taxpayers debt partially? Why not? They did it just before Christmas. Is it better to give taxpayer funds to thieving and robbers in the commercial world? The bankers got themselves into this, let them crash. The governmment can look after the savings in them as it has done through its guarantee. Take all of the savings out into a government bank. laughable as this would destroy the bank base. So there we have it a vicious set of alternatives and scenarios, none of which are palatable. Brought about by crooks, charlatans, greedy fools, the uneducated, the unwary and the uncaring. Governments, regulators and the public service were asleep at the wheel. They bleat that no one could have predicted what we have now. That is quite simply not true. Correspondence flows into government offices and parliamentarians every day. It is read cursorily by people with limited lateral thinking, experience and knowledeg. The governments, their advisers and the public servants and the experts simplt did not look, read or take notice. They still will not. Their egos and positions are blocking the dialogue and the communication.
If the government does not reduce debt quickly what will happen? Probably nothing initially. Then the Rudd government will have to fork out the money in a Keynesian world. In public and behind the scenes many will go broke. American empire and European Union will stagger and fall on their knees. ("Tomorrow when the world ends", Kevin Beck)

Why don't they get it? Everything is over priced! However in retail cheap is the new luxury Read what is coming? Reality will bite.

Australia is over regulated by zealots in the bureaucracy and our major infrastructure is subject to gaming. The bureaucrats are paranoid about competition and access. They create false markets and barriers to investment and growth. They are stifling the nation at state and federal level. That will have to change.

January 25, 2009: The Fallacy of Endless Growth

Economists, politicians and investors keep talking of returning to economic growth when the current(2009)depression ends as if it is quite soon. What if we are still in this mess in five years? The seeds of the proposition (theory) of endless growth were sown in 1971 the Americans and driven by their self belief and massive commercial engines.

"The American people have been told by no less an authority than the President's Council of Economic Advisors that, "If it is agreed that economic output is a good thing it follows by definition that there is not enough of it" (Economic Report of the President, 1971, p. 92). It is evidently impossible to have too much of a good thing. If rain is a good thing, a torrential downpour is, by definition, better! Has the learned council forgotten about diminishing marginal benefit and increasing marginal costs?" (source: STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS, By Herman Daly, Chapter 5: A Catechism of Growth Fallacies

"The part played by orthodox economists, whose common sense has been insufficient to check their faulty logic, has been disastrous to the latest act." (J. M. Keynes, 1936).

Consumerism became the centre of the theory and this requitred a focus on monetary policy. The consumer is required to spend forever, rather than save, so the theory attacked the savings and superannuation basics. Some countries such as Australia had politiical leaders who could take a helicopter view, Paul Keating, Australia's Treasurer, for example. The labor government of Hawke Keating brought in mandatory contributions to super. However Keating knew the level of 9% was not enough. John Howard, and Peter Costello, by comparison did not and so spending has outsripped savings.

Governments (run by rating agencies who scare them with bogus AAA ratings and whose predictions and assessments were, and are still, spurious) babbled on about surplus. This was, and still is, according to the free enterprise proponents, preferable to investment in public assets. Privatisation cannibalised the asset base of countries in search of never ending profits. Governments embraced the privatisation and "public private partnerships" voodoo put about by the masters of the financial universe - consulting firms and investment banks. They too cast the bones, and spoke voodoo.

Underneath all of this sat the theory of developing economies and consumer aspirant demand. Places like India and China with huge populations clamouring to reach the American consumer dream and have the feckless technologies of the Ipod, MP3 players, the latest phone, the talking rock and the ever better devices, cars and symbols of wealth.

The poor, well they could get credit and aspire to being rich at least in their minds. The second plank is productivity. There could be no wage rises threatening profits unless there is a countering productivity trade off. Voodoo theorists love this. Public servants, human resource managers and con artists at the management level created measuring systems and did what good staticians do, they created the result that management, politicians, the ratings agencies and the markets wanted. The third foundation was to create new financial instruments because finance, services and trinkets would be the new economic growth machines, not manufacturing. At one instance, in the late nineties fools prophecied that the "www - internet" would reshape us all, replace reality, bricks and mortar. There was the tech wreck, in the late nineties, which might have warned the average but in the convoluted and mosaical structure of the new paradigm the warning was lost. The finance sector grew hundreds of times faster than any other. The world casinos of the stock exchanges were pumping. We were driving our economic machines in the red zone day after day. Then they invented the risk reduction platform. This took very bad debts, investments and the poor credit stuff and sliced each into slivers. These slivers were put with mediocre, and some better performing slivers. The aggregate would thus spread the risk to minimal proportions. The theory was that the risk could never be realised in catastrophic terms. If any failure occurred then only a sliver to two would be affected.

massive capital amounts were hoarded (hedge funds) and used to manage and play the stock casinos. Short selling to make a profit was rampant. Justification was that short selling exposed flaws in the value of enterprise and that it exposed porr performers. This was all nice and good if everyone playing the market knew this. Many investors were self appointed personal game players enthralled by their new electronic access to the stock exchanges. Trading became a challenge and a pass time enhancing socila position, conversation and sometimes wealth.

Huge bonuses, and the demands of poorly educated, and greedy, investors turned management to the short trem. CEO's and Borads that challenged market theory, the voodoo economics, the mantra of surplus and the driving at high speed and revving were dispensed with. The demographics of stupidity, that is the population is a pyramid, with the brightest and smallest sector at the top, had sway. One could be both rich and stupid on a scale that would ultimatley bring the whole lot down.

Today, in 2009, we have all of the above in play intertwined with theories and practices, that are reasonable, or bunkum in part or whole.

  1. The consumer is king and that if we give the consumer money they will spend and we will return to normal, they way it was
  2. Business needs endless supplies of credit and living within the means of income and expenditure is not a worthy objective because that stifles growth
  3. All governments must have surplus
  4. saving stifles growth and mandatory superannuation at 15% is by inference bad because it increases costs of employers
  5. It is better to have a buisness operating to employ people on some wort of wage rather than not operating at all
  6. Corporations are real persons with real rights and the corporation muts be protectdd at all costs
  7. Monetary theory and fiddling interest rates trumps fiscal (Keynesian) theory and practice
  8. ratings agencies are the fount of all knowledge and governments should dance to their tune
  9. Politicians should be paid less than people in the private sector because the latter are worth more as a public benefit
  10. banks are pivotal and the bankers are, as above, experts, worth more and generally right
  11. Privatisation trumps public ownership
  12. Institutions, acdemics and the chattering classes, should be marginalised particularly by governments.
  13. Training in shallow competencies, short skills, and business demanded scope, prepares a nation for growth and challenges

So we need to examine all of the above and any I have missed that are pertinent. While doing this we need to challenge the foundations, theories and practices and beliefs that underpin the way we work in society and the mosaic.

"To ascertain the state of an economy most analysts rely on a statistic called GDP (Gross Domestic Product). This statistic is constructed in accordance with the view that what drives an economy is not the production of wealth but rather its consumption. In short, what matters here is demand for final goods and services. Since consumer outlays are the largest part of overall demand, it is consumer demand that sets in motion economic growth so it is held. ... By focusing exclusively on final goods and services the GDP framework lapses into a world of fantasy where goods emerge because of peoples desires. This is in total disregard to the facts of reality i.e., the issue of whether such desires can be accommodated. All that matters on this view is the demand for goods, which in turn will give rise almost immediately to their supply. Because the supply of goods is taken for granted this framework completely ignores the whole issue of the various stages of production that precede the emergence of the final good.... However, it must be realised that at no stage does the so-calledeconomy have a life of its own independent of individuals. The so-calledeconomy is a metaphor it doesnt exist.

Through lumping the values of final goods and services together government statisticians concretise the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. Furthermore, by regarding theeconomy as something which exists in the real world mainstream economists reach a bizarre conclusion that what is good for individuals might not be good for theeconomy and vice versa. Since theeconomy cannot have a life of its own without individuals obviously what is good for individuals cannot be bad for the economy. The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or on account of capital consumption....

We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world. Notwithstanding this, the GDP framework is in big demand by governments and central bank officials since it provides justification for their interference with businesses. It also provides an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials. " (source: Is GDP an economic fallacy? Dr Frank Shostak, BrookesNews.Com, Monday 3 September 2007).

FALLACY 1, U.S. Goods Cannot Compete Effectively with Those Produced by Cheap Labor in Countries Such as China

FALLACY 2, Immigrant Labor Confers Economic Benefits on the Host Country

FALLACY 3, Globalization Acts to Raise Living Standards in the West

FALLACY 4, Countries Forming a Common Market Reap Economic Benefits

FALLACY 5, Rent Controls are Necessary during a Housing Shortage

FALLACY 6, The Fact That Womens Earnings are Significantly Below Those of Men Is Evidence of Discrimination

FALLACY 7, A Reduction in Building Costs Will Reduce House Prices

FALLACY 8, Jobs Are Lost When a Factory or Business Closes Down, and Vice Versa

FALLACY 9, A Competitive Private Enterprise Economy Tends to Produce Economic Efficiency

FALLACY 10, A Subsidy to University Education is Justified Since it Promotes Equality of Opportunity and Confers Benefits on Society as a Whole

FALLACY 11, The National Debt Is a Burden on Future Generations

FALLACY 12, Inflation Is Caused by an Excessive Increase in the Supply of Money

FALLACY 13, The Rate of Economic Growth Over Time Is a Good Index of the Growth of Peoples Satisfaction

(Source of the fallacies above: Thirteen Persistent Economic Fallacies, E. J. Mishan, Praeger Publishers

January 20, 2009: SO WHAT WILL THEY DO?

The world governments will have to buy the debt of a large section of the world population with regard to home ownership, perhaps credit, and other core items which are bankrupting economies. The governments should not buy 100% but they can buy the differential between what the house is actually worth and the unsustainable value they paid less any funds/convertible assets they may hold.

The basis of the decison as to how cuh should be the economic evaluation of the multiplier of what a house is worth in the average suburb. It is worth 5 - 9 times the annual average income. Thus a person who earns $50,000 should be able to buy a house valued at $250.000 to $450,000 maximum. One house, not two and not houses for investment. Those who bought for investment and not for living should not have their excess debt proportion paid. This is not a concept this is what the governments of the world will have to do.

As for shares and other instrumenst they were all overpriced. They will not return to where they were and will be probably 50% of the values we have seen during the boom years.

International banks are withdrawing renewal of loans to Australian businesses. Since the banks are do not have the billions to replace those funds the government will have to turn to the superannuation funds. They too have been hard hit. The rules will have to be changed to allow funds to make loans and investments. Coupled with this will have to be a series of supporting measures.

  1. The mandated contribution from salary and wages must rise by at least 1.5% preferably 3%, providing a wider capital base to offset risk.
  2. The funds must charge a premium for the risk and service of 0.25% to 0.50% above market rates the international banks may have provided
  3. Federal, and state, governments must enter into a partnership to provide guarantees protecting peoples' superannuation
  4. Lower the fedral government 15% tax contribution rate or abolish it and provide incentives for people to take cash annuities and not lump sums when they want to retire
  5. Provide incentives for people to stay in the workforce
  6. The Australian community at large needs to be developed for tourism instead of a focus on the coastal regions and major cities. The market segments overseas require greater srutiny to match destination and experience to the segnments. Mass marketing advertismenets are not effective.

    The Australian regional travel infrastructure, facilities and services, to take tourists to outer communities is very poor and over priced. The services are low grade. State governments have faield to build rail lines or closed them in a corrosive impact on development and a stupid fixation with surplus as it suits their political agenda. Now surplus is irrelevant as they face annihilation.

    Places like Port fairy and Warrnambool, Ballarat, Cowra, Kyneton, Camberra, Cooma, inland from the coastal regions, the coast of South Australia, Margaret River, Cable Beach, Mornington Peninsula, the wilderness of the Northern Territory and Queensland and the outback are gems that are wasted through neglect, poor resource allocation, by myopic policy, investment and decision making.

    Vested interests are controlling and stifling development, opportunity and innovation. There is a great gap between the incentive, and capacity, of communities with many remainng in the doldrums and others steaming ahead on their initiatives and talents using what they have with effect, on small, medium and larger scales. Others suffer internal restrictions e.g Swan Hill, Bega on the south coast of New South wales or Portland in Victoria, where industry has branded the town and is seen as the economic dominance with tourism, food and hospitality relegated down the list. There is actual antipathy to tourists in some places.
  7. The Bendigo Community Bank concept needs greater expansion, and support, from Austarlia's governments.
  8. The stranglehold Qantas has on air travel needs to be broken by government decision to open up markets and locations. Incentives for others to come in quickly must be provided
  9. ("The Horsemen of the Economic Apocolypse" Kevin Beck)