Who owns Australia's parliaments and democracy?

What might have been
Another free to use public interest web site on the
Mosaic Portal Network

created by

Kevin Beck

It all ends in tears
As the curtain comes down

The Remainders

"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

June 2013: I doubt that Labor Ministers, their staff and advisers, know anything about this. Some contract public servants may also be unaware of its existence and objectives.

In the last week of June 2013 the Australian federal labor parliamentary caucus abandoned support for Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard reinstating Kevin Rudd as the Prime Minister and installing new Ministers. This makes a farce of Australia's democracy and federal parliamentary system as politicians demonstrate that the office of Prime Minister and the Ministries are theirs to play with as they see fit, for their own prurient political and personal interests.

It all ends in tears


Having studied the operations, and capabilities, of Australia's political parties for decades, I have come to the conclusion that they are not very well resourced for intelligence gathering and assessment. Out of all of the major parties the Australian Labor Party, and the staff of the Prime Minister, employ soem of the most amateurish intelligence gathering methodologies, and research techniques, of any modern day institution. Their inability to identify, assimilate and adapt to the world around them, to analyse and predict with any accuracy, and their myopia, all cause the situations in which they find themselves. If the Prime Minister is the director of all strategies then she must bear the outcome, the wipe out of Australia's oldest political party.

The offices of the senior political parties, their political leaders, Ministers, and other fountains of apparent knowledge, employ very rudimentary analytical systems, if any at all, which are incapable of distilling large amounts of infomration (if they can even find the sources) and reading between the lines, they have no systems for for matching, linking and tracking communications, detecting common themes. They are selective in asnwering communications if they anmswer any at all.

Every interaction seems to be treated in isolation of any other reality . Correspondence is cursorily read by, what it seems are semi skilled - semi literate, people. Anyone who takes the time to write, communicate or whatever are treated to a spectacle of oblivious rhote response and sometimes even stupidity. Replies are often bureaucratic tokenism that is unrelated to the enquiry or blinkered in terms of what the writer might do if given the brush off. People are too often treated as if they have no knowledge of the issue, the sources of or the actual policies or the operation of the administration and parliaments.

If Australia did not have a two party preferred (managed) preferential voting system, that is compulsory, it is likely that neither Labor nor Liberal would garner the required number of votes to form a government at state, federal or territory level. It is a matter of fact that where the preferential system does not exist (Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory) the major parties cannot get sufficient numbers in their own right and have to form coalitions.

The current situation for Labor, and Liberal, at the federal level is an example of my proposition that they are unsophisticated in their techniques and that individual parliamentary members, so busy with their constituency and workloads, have no clue as to who can actually influence and impact their political fortunes at local levels.

The politicians are all going into an Australian federal election in September 2013, flying around like bats who are seemingly selectively deaf and blind.
Contact Smokey Mirrors.

The Australian federal, state and territories, Public Services, for all of their technology and people, are no more adept at, or endowed with, human savvy and intelligence gathering synthesis and will attend meetings unprepared, unknowledgeable and oblivious to actual intent of the parties they are meeting. Senior public servants and those down the line seem to operate in isolation of the world at large focused narrowly on their own patch of work and world.

It is almost impossible to raise issues on the operation and performance of the Public Service least one attarcts ire and protectionist responses even threats of reprisals. Their interests are always paramount to the public interest and the notion of a "public servant" is long gone. Pessimistically I think it is now "government servant" and "self servant".


Consistently I have raised questions about the Australian federal Labor Party's strategic sense, and that of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and Ministry Members, their staff and advisers. There are so many examples of apparent inability to understand the fundamental processes of government and the role of the people therein. Labor, and more specifically the Prime Minister, and her closest allies, most notably the Treasurer, seem to believe that government is a soap box for addressing idelogical issues and their own rage against external interests. It is as if they believe that because they are the government everyone else must drop their own views, agendas and actions and defer to government embracing their own perceptions of reality and performance.

The electorate oevrall is disengaged and yet so many times the operation of government in Australia has become some internal school yard tiff amongst a small elite with excited political journalists and commentators ramping it up as a major event. The voters do not care about the carnival side show nor about whether T Abbott is as J Gillard claims a woman hater, they do not like either one so it is all a waste of energy on the politicians' part.

Labor is obsessed with mickey mouse gestures. The formation of "Women for Gillard" activist group, whose constituency is lacking both power and influence, demonstrates a penchant for flim flam. Julia Gillard is largely reponsible for the position she is in. Her task is no harder than a female CEO in a boy's club, it is just more publicly out there in terms of abuse, and slagging, under the veil of fair political comment, rather than hidden by the smoke and mirrors of the corporate world.

The gladiatorial nature of Australia's immature political system may excite the avid press gallery in canberra, and the obervers who look at every nuance, but it passes the general voter by. The majority of voters are watching a Current Affair or My Kitchen Rules, the Biggest Loser or some other piece of dross rather than Question Time in the House. A small time radio announcer in Perth garners national, and international, attention for a stupid sleight and this becomes yet another glaring example of how we treat Australia's first female Prime Minister. There is racism, there is misogyny and there is bias and nasty undertones towards women as there are in any society. These, however, have little to do with competent government performance and accountability.

The Australian media, and observers, (including the detached voters) might instead ask - why is it that our Freedom of Information laws are deliberatley skewed to protecting the internal activities of agencies, public servants and politicians against transparency and accountability? Why have Australian federal agencies not investigated corruption claims against BHP, regarding their business operations in Vietnam, Cambodia and Western Australia, when the US agencies are? Why is the takeover of GrainCorp, by ADM (US corporation) not being subjected to a full independent, and transparent, economic and ethical evaluation by the FIRB and ACCC in Australia? What are the pros, and cons, of selling all of our grain handling facilities to one international company that has a history of unethical practice and has been fined for engaging in cartel activities? What are the special interest relatonships between local government, and political parties in Australia, and is it these that are driving Labor's referendum for Local Government inclusion in the Constitution, at the next federal election? Any of these, and many other maters, are of greater import than mocked up feminine rage.

They all arrived at the same time and the same place to collectively achieve the destruction of the Australian labor Party

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has managed to provide her political opponents, and critics, with a smorgasboard of ill judged statements, prediction and promises as well as a litany of poor judgements. Ms Gillard wasted many months in progressing the disability insurance scheme despite it being accepted by state governments and the community at large. her intransigent refusal and continued public statements against a levy have cemented a view of stibborness to the last minute endangering the project and the credibility of her office and government.

In January 2013 she stated that the millions being given to Ford Australia would create 300 new jobs. The message from the labor government was that their action would result in expanded exports. Ford announced this month it will close its manufacturing in Australia in 2016. her emphatic statement and predictions were wrong.

In 2012 Ms Gillard slapped down those who said the mining resources boom was over, including her own Minister Simon Crean, who dared to differ with her views. Ms Gillard addressed conferences and media stating that the boom would continue with mega billions of new investment. In 2013 those investments have been abandoned and the prediction was again wrong. Not by a little amount but by billions. So wrong that the budget slid from a slim surplus to a slim deficit prediction to a whopping $A19 billion dollar wrong prediction at May 2013. Month after month for over a year Ms Gillard and Treasurer Swan said a surplus was iron clad.

The mining tax and the carbon scheme are poorly thought out and are based on fals assumptions and a lack of experience and research analysis.

None of Ms Gillard's statements are iron clad.

We can ponder why this is the case? I think that ms Gillard has no experience and little knowledge of the arenas in whihc she operates. It is like the teenager told by parents that they are special and the teenager develops a self confidence that exceeds capability. Ms Gillard has been politicaly mentored, nurtured and promoted, by a narrow group of labor power brokers, ultimatley achieving the Peter Principle.

The Peter Principle was first observed by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and published in his book "The Peter Principle" in 1968. Dr. Peter also states that a promotion to the higher-ranking job position may not necessarily reveal the employee's incompetence, but rather the new position may require different skills the employee does not possess. Dr. Peter sums up the Peter Principle with the saying: "the cream rises until it sours." The Peter Principal can be a problem for businesses which can be solved through continued education. Even with proper employee training, the Peter Principal predicts the employee will fail.

Leigh Steere, co-owner, Managing People Better, LLC has an alternate view, "I personally do not believe in the Peter Principle. The field of neurolinguistic programming says that any behavior/skill can be learned. In other words, if a person does not already know how to do something, he/she can be taught. "Sometimes, however, we have internal barriers to learning and achievement that keep us from growing intellectually and professionally. Limiting beliefs, such as 'I'm not smart enough' or 'I'm not good at math,' can keep people from attempting more complex challenges. This is not an issue of incompetence. It is an issue of limiting beliefs -- or an 'emotional intelligence' gap. Stagnation, reverting to a lower position or being fired can result will eventually get to a position where they are incompetent because of further promotion."

Marcia Reynolds, PsyD, author of 'Wander Woman: How High-Achieving Women Find Contentment and Direction' proposes that "With each promotion the person has to give up some of the things they have done before and take on new tasks, responsibilities and perspectives (including work values). What they did before will not ensure their success in the present. However, if the person doesn't get good mentoring, training and a manager who can support the shift, they are not given the tools to succeed. They could be competent if given the chance."

Could it be that Ms Julia Gillard had no real mentors, and tactical experienced advisers, when she finally achieved high office and still has none? Cold it be that her political coleagues are all so inept as to add to her isolation?

I do not know if Ms Gillard seeks advice or listens to anyone. I do know that she is slective in answering correspondence and ignores direct overtures from outsiders who seek to assist her government. Unlike Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean who embraced external criticism and assistance.

Did Ms Gillard grow up in a world of political mistrust? Or does Ms Gillard possess a self belief in her own capabilities, to the extent that she is blinded to reality and consequence? perhaps both are true to some extent.

It is somewhat apparent that her advisers, both political and office staff, along with union officials, are not demonstrating a stellar ability to assist her. Wayne Swan, Greg Combet, Penny Wong and Stephen Conroy along with others enior cabinet members have not demonstrated any superior capabilities to Ms Gillard. They themselves are also often wrong.

Ms Gillard exhibits a destructive and vengeful trait evidenced by her destruction of Simon Crean's political career. Here we have a junior novice labor politician (Ms Gillard) using her official office (improperly in my view) to take down a Prince of the party with a proven track record of loyalty and competency. It is this particular incident that to my mind cements the proposition she is unfit for high office.

One final point. What is the probability that some of the most inexperienced, inept and incompetent members of the Australian labor Party would all arrive in the same place at the same time collaboratively adding to the destruction of one of Australia's oldest political parties?

May 2013:the Greatest Spin
using and Corrupting Public Office

On Tuesday May 14, 2013 the Australian Treasurer, Wayne Swan, will rise in the Parliament to present what is lilely to be the last budget of the Gillard lead Australian government and the last one for Labor for many years to come. The horrendous and excruciating spectacle must go ahead since this is the government. It has been allowed to stumble along wasting billions of dollars, increasing the administration of government by billions whilst rarely if ever delivering the promised outcome or any outcomes by a self indulgent group of Independent members of Parliament. This rag tag bunch has, together with inexperienced, inept and often hubris filled career politicians, created an environment of humiliation, and degradation, of our parliament and federal government. The central tenets of "party discipline", "leaders of iron will never showing weakness and retreat", and the propensity to spin and lie, as a natural working of government, have diminished everything.

How can we accept a budget from the Australian labor government, in any credible manner and without sniggering, when it seems they will not be there to deliver it and to vote it. They are likely to have less than 50 members in the House of Representatives by
close of business September 14, 2013. Mr Swan, I expect will tell us a story of his furtive imagination coloured with memorable gems of history rewritten and sung around the campfires burning bright in the heart of Labor's night. He will tell us that the billions of dollars of money within the Gonski reform are a measure of future productivity entrenching one and for all Labor's confusing education with competency training for work and employment. labor knows nothing of the humanities and the behavioural aspects of education. Politicians generally do not. That is why education in Australia never reaches the cliamed objectives of every term of any state or territory government. Politicains are keen to measure teacher performance but watch them when we demand to meaasure their performance. They tell us we do that at the ballot box. Sure, in a managed (by a few) duopoloy party syste.

Swayne will tell us the enduring credentials of a government that did not anticipate, read, analyse and anticipate any market, and revenue, data accurately. They ignored the predictions of many people including Nouriel Ruibini in New York, he predicted the GFC, they ignored material from the owner of this web site. They did not once get it right, but not only that they were out on their calculations by tens of billions. The deficit in 2013 - 14 I think will be $A20 billion. A government that squandered the enormous wealth flowing from the resources boom and a government, despite all of the signs, and evidence, which continued in late 2012 to tell us the boom times would go on. They so believed this that they used very optimistic revenue and growth numbers which no one of an economically balanced mind would contemplate. Why did the Department of Treasury agree and give them these numbers? On the face of it one might question the veracityand competence of the department. Or is it that under our corrupted system of government public servants are not fearless and independent, they are servants of the government taking directions and keeping quiet? Public servants are in a conflict, their code of conduct demands that they support and protect the public interest, their employment (boss - the Minister) says to the Department do as you are directed. The problem for us is no one is accountable.

Wayne will stand in parliament having presided over an increase in government administration cost and public service expansion, meaasured in billions of dollars. An expansion under a Prime Minister, and former Education Minister, who has not delivered under any of her portfolios. All the while the Prime Minister and certain Ministers have been engaging in attack style politics, and fnger pointing. They have gone in search of villians to blame, the rich entrepreneurs and the multinational companies. In labor's fevered mind the people who run the companies are up to no good and the common man (the nation) is somehow being ripped off. The villians are many in their psyche.

Mr Swan will blame the villians, rest of the world and the opposition politicians in Australia's parliament.

Even in their end of days they will pull tricks that again bring into question their ethics. The Treasurer will present a ten year budget, not a four year one breaking from tradition. He will apparently continue his crystal ball, optimimistic guessing style. The goal of the Gillard labor govoernment is to wedge the opposition (likely incoming Coalition government) into accepting Labor's programmes particularly the Gonski Education funding model and the Disability Insurance Scheme. Australian federal Labor are so obsessed with their crusade, and own concepts of fairness, and policies, that they would seek to subjugate our democracy, and shackle future governments, to their political objectives and policies. The Gillard labor government has, to my mind, used public office for personal politics, and political interests, using the office to favour their supporters with promotions and appoinmtments and particularly favouring and empowering Australia's trade unions.

Treasurr Wayne Swan says he is prepared to take his political licks, what cant.

"Cant - a Noun: Hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature. A slope or tilt.

Cant - a Verb: Talk hypocritically and sanctimoniously about something. Cause (something) to be in a slanting or oblique position; tilt: "he canted his head to look at the screen".

Then having finished he, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers, along with the labor parliamentary troops, and the union leaders, will embark on a travel quest telling anyone who will listen and the media about the great (last) Labor budget.

Forward, the Light Brigade!
Was there a man dismayd ?
Not tho the soldier knew
Some one had blunderd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
The Charge Of The Light Brigade, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, 1854

The litany of errors

Australia holds about 20 - 23 days of petrol and diesel supplies. The Australian government refuses to spend the funds necessary to fill storage tanks at strategic locations around the nation. We hold less than New Zealand and about 29 other countries that are members of the world energy security group. Successive governments have allowed storage tanks to be decommissioned.

In 2010 Australia's largest motoring organisation issued this statement:

NRMA To Make Energy Security An Election Issue
Author: NRMA MediaDate: 03 March 2010
Labor and the Coalition will be publicly graded on the transport energy security policies they present to the Australian people in the lead-up to this year's Federal Election. Speaking at NRMA's Alternative Fuel Summit in Sydney this morning, NRMA Motoring & Services President Wendy Machin said the NRMA would publicly rate the major parties' energy policies for the first time. "Australia has no transport energy policy," Ms Machin said. "We are running out of our own oil and growing more reliant on oil imprted from the most volatile parts of the world - unless a policy is implemented the economy will suffer. "In this election year the NRMA is committed to holding both parties accountable. "Australia needs a workable plan to end our dependence on fossil fuels and secure sustainable, domestically driven alternatives that will create local jobs and clean the environment." "The best policy will get the thumbs up from Australia's largest motoring organisation. (end of release)

So much for the bluster nothing happened and today March 5, 2013, rhey return to the issue. Labor is deaf and dumb to things that are beyond their scope and vision.

The Labor government, under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Minister S Smith, and the ones before him in Defence, have a record of giving scant attention to all aspects of the nation's security failing to agree with the states on whole approaches to security in ports, airports, telecommunications, power, water, gas and transport. Labor has proven to be derelict in a duty of care and is dangerous because of its lack of knowledge and experience within its policy vacuum. The Greens have had a big input into defence, border and energy security spending and priorities.

The Adequacy of Aviation and Maritime Security In Australia

This little piece examines, and comments, on the Australian government's response to the recommendations made by a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement (PJC): Inquiry into the Adequacy of Aviation and Maritime Security Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime, 2011 and also the state of Australia's National Security policy and actions by all stakeholders.

I would preface this commentary by noting that those who try and participate are not easily accepted and are rebuffed. Further to try and make a contribution to debate, to offer positive criticism or to assert that Government, public service or the private sector is not taking National Security (in all of its multifaceted components seriously if at all) does not elicit a two way interchange in the national interest rather it provokes a defensive, hostile and sometimes retaliatory response from Governments (state, federal and territory) or mostly no response from the States and Territories and a disregard by others including major Australian corporations.

Within the Australian Government's response they claim "a multi-layered and cooperative effort between Commonwealth, and State and Territory agencies, as well as partnership with the aviation and maritime sectors."

I would assert that the approach is fragmented, impacted by political considerations and a lack of awareness, understanding and experience in national security and the broader implications of the obligations of federal and state as well as the private sector. The States and Territories appear asleep at the wheel, or have no ponderings, as to national security matters and implications within their jurisdictions. But they are not alone, the private sector pays little attention within the larger picture of how they may have a role or they cherry pick according to their own interests. Large and influential enterprises owning their own facilities within a larger enterprise, undertake their own "stand alone" security measures and there is no consistency and quality across the operation - example Sydney Airport.

Whilst the government may assert that at airports and seaports, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection) is "responsible for protecting the safety, security and integrity of Australia's border through a wide range of regulatory and enforcement powers with key functions include preventing and intercepting illegal movements of people and goods (such as illicit drugs and firearms) across the Australian border", we have now seen how such systems and protections are compromised by naughty Customs people who are then disciplined with a wet lettuce leaf by their employer.

A jumble of Acts and regulations and the interests of politics and the objectives of public and private sector stakeholders serve to compromise Australia's national Security. It is asserted that the Office of Transport Security (OTS) "follows a risk-based, outcomes-focused approach to regulation through consultation with industry and international engagement. OTS works with industry to ensure compliance with the law and regulations by effecting changes in industry participant behaviour towards their regulatory obligations". >br>
The identity application process and subsequent issued card to anyone applying for an entry to an Australian airport is nothing but comical in topology and out dated security. One can make it on a cheap desktop printer. The Auditor General expressed a view on this several years back but because it had little or any interest to the Minister, and no funding, the situation of rather simplistic application processes, identity issuance and access to facilities (airports) is allowed to continue putting at risk security in Australian ports. Poor OTS has to busy itself in trying to enact the necessary things highlighted by the AG by undertaking environmental scans as to what is out there in the world of security. The art of looking like something is being addressed has been honed by Australia's state and federal public servants (sorry Government public servants) over decades.

The States and Territories retain the primary responsibility for enforcing state offences and criminal law at Australian ports largely as an outworking of the Australian Constitution. This adds a major workload to stretched agencies and personnel. It also shows the failure by COAG to take National Security seriously. Their policies, implementations and attention to security, and identity, at facilities within their jurisdictions are limited and are much like other COAG relationships, accountability and responsibility shifting. State and Territories have little if any policy on their role in Australia's National Security. One may ponder what precise set of National Security policy and initiatives the Northern Territory might have as big enterprise sits in the harbour and the arrival of US troops is pending along with anyone who has a row boat.

Multiple government agencies have coverage of some aspect of security operations at Australia's ports, which enable the 'shifting sands and smoke and mirrors' modus operandi of our Federation to continue untroubled by notions of what happens in other parts of the world. Maybe it is our distance from the reality of major continents that creates a malaise in our legislators and the Board and CEOs of Australia's critical utility and services? The Government is currently focused on the nebulous navel examination, and counter measures, of cyber-attacks and not on the physical, which hardly ever occur.

The committee recommended that the scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 be widened to include serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.

Rather than be decisive, the Government "Noted this" The Australian Government does not have an action plan it has an "Organised Crime Strategic Framework" which says that industry "has a key role in understanding its environment and identifying potential opportunities for organised crime exploitation". The Government's approach to organised and serious crime is based on "preventative partnerships" between government and industry participants. Beaut, this works so effectively, there are no drugs in Australia and no illegal goods coming in and Customs is squeaky clean and everyone who works at Sydney airport and any other access point in Australia are all on board and humming along nicely. There is a national regulatory framework for the aviation, maritime, and offshore oil and gas sectors. Administered by an Australian government agency that is starved of funds. This requires industry participants to prepare transport security plans and implement risk based preventive security measures aimed at facilitating transport by reducing the risk of unlawful interference with transport systems under their control. One wonders what the register of plans looks like and what might happen if it was audited? National Security is worked out on a policy of minimising the impact on industry, "in line with the Government's objective of achieving an efficient, sustainable, competitive and secure transport system." Of course another way of looking like one is addressing key requirements of Australia's national security is to create another forum, a favourite activity of the Rudd and Gillard labor Governments and one highly valued by state, territory and federal public servants because it fills their busy days with exciting deliberations, an "aviation and maritime industry forum to examine options for organised and serious crime prevention at Australian airports and seaports in partnership with industry. This will include examining legislative change options, such as the potential to enhance powers under the Customs Act 1901, in the context of working with industry to address serious and organised crime in the aviation and maritime border environments. This would be informed by ACC risk assessments relevant to organised and serious crime in Australia's airports and seaports. The verbiage is just wonderful in its construct

The committee recommends that security at major airports be undertaken by a suitably trained government security force. Forget that, not agreed. This matter was considered by Government in December 2009 as part of Flight Path to the Future: National Aviation Policy White Paper. This document confirmed that the current industry led and government regulated model provides an "effective, efficient and sustainable security service, notwithstanding evolving threats, increased security requirements, and increases in domestic and international aviation traffic".

A more centralised model was not supported on the grounds that a government agency screening model would be overly prescriptive, more expensive and less efficient than current arrangements. Rubbish, such a concept would step on the toes of too many vested interests. Instead the Government continues to work with industry to improve the current system through improved industry guidance, enhanced technology and better training. Industry (focused on profit and shareholder interests) is about reducing costs and focusing on revenue whilst Government seems to focus on anything and everything but nothing in particular unless it serves political interest.

The committee recommends that joint maritime taskforces, mirroring the functions of the Joint Aviation Investigation Teams and Joint Aviation Intelligence Groups in the maritime sector be established in every state and the Northern Territory. These taskforces should include officers of the Australian Federal Police, state or territory police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Crime Commission.

Ah, noted again! Apparently all is working well and the Government prefers the 'ad hoc - cobble together a team - once the criminal threat has been identified. Apparently marine is unique and flexibility is well regarded as an alternative.

The committee recommends the formation of a Commonwealth maritime crime taskforce that would act as a national Australian Federal Police led "flying squad", responding to specific intelligence and also conducting randomised audits of maritime and seaport security.

They didn't like this and it was not agreed

Because these activities also involve a range of Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies, and the Australian Federal Police does not have sufficient expertise in this area. So what would a logical administrator do about the latter?

Then there is the old fall back, the committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department conduct a review of current information sharing arrangements between law enforcement agencies and private organisations in the aviation and maritime sectors.

This is the "down the road don't have to stress response of Governments and Ministers, of course it was agreed. There will be consultation, a cast of thousands, travel, hospitality, food and .. "AGD will lead this review in consultation with the AFP, ACC and Customs and Border Protection." It is consistent with the Organised Crime Strategic Framework's objectives of strengthening information sharing between law enforcement agencies and working more closely with industry."

Then there is the barbeque stopper, the slack jaw and the heart palpitating recommendation. The committee recommends that it be made a legal requirement to provide photo identification confirming passenger identity immediately prior to boarding an aircraft.

No hesitation, "not agreed, the recommendation as specified is not supported, particularly the requirement for all passengers to provide photographic identification." Industry stakeholders have also expressed concerns that an approach such as the one recommended may lead to delays in passenger facilitation (especially at large airports that are close to reaching capacity) and additional costs to industry and the travelling public.

Under current arrangements, it would be ineffective and impractical for such activities to be conducted by airport check-in staff who are not trained to recognise fraudulent documents and have no law enforcement powers. So what about adding value to the jobs of the humble, low paid security personnel looking in your bags, at X-rays and sniffing the clothes? No! Imagine paying security people a good salary for a job that has National Security and lifesaving implications. Border control officers and police at immigration gates and elsewhere are trained in forensic identification. The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship has an excellent accredited (TAFE) course. It is also not feasible for a government official, acting as government security officer, to conduct identity checks of all passengers on domestic aircraft services as there is not sufficient capacity to staff each boarding gate in order to conduct identification confirmation. I imagine if there was a major security incident, where lives were lost and things exploded or other, the Government might change its mind.

And you thought that agencies and industry shared information like in CSI?

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government review the technical and administrative requirements necessary to facilitate the effective sharing of information between airlines and air cargo agents and law enforcement agencies and the Australian Crime Commission Fusion Centre for the purpose of enhancing aviation security and law enforcement activities. The review should include research into technical requirements for such a scheme, the costs involved and any relevant statutory or other barrier to the sharing of such information. The findings of the review should be reported to the Australian Parliament. Of course a review, agreed!

The AGD will lead this review in consultation with the AFP, ACC, and Customs and Border Protection. This recommendation is consistent with the Organised Crime Strategic Framework's. If you want to get something up then be consistent with Frameworks that do not require the Government to actually do anything.

Then, there is the secrecy clause, the Commonwealth will consider options for reporting the findings of the review. As the review may contain operational sensitivities that cannot be made public, it may not be possible to report the full findings of the review to Parliament".

If you do not know what the review found or says then you cannot critique it. What operational sensitivities are there, procedures that the hundreds of people working at airports, or the companies putting stuff in, or Qantas policy and processes that they do not already know?

The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide further resources to support an increased presence for currency and illicit drug detection canine units at Australian airports", more noting. The Commonwealth considers that current levels of currency and illicit drug detection canine The "Budget measure" together with Customs and Border Protection will consider whether additional resources for currency and illicit drug detection canine unit are needed.

The committee recommends that access to port security areas prescribed under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 should require verification that the Maritime Security Identification Card belongs to the individual seeking access, either through human gate operators, verification by Closed Circuit Television or any other appropriate solution. Again it is noted. While face to MSIC checks are required at some higher risk facilities, in areas of lower risk, other security approaches, such as electronic swipe access coupled with random inspection and controls may be appropriate. Never mind that the technology is out dated and low grade and that if someone has an identity card for access to one airport or sea port entry (that is not encoded) they probably, in reality, have one for all.

The committee recommends the development of a system that enables the confidential movement and examination of containers that increases the likelihood that trusted insiders involved in serious or organised crime are not alerted to law enforcement agency interest in a container", noted.

The problem as I see it is - there is no feasible technological or human method of checking every container.

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government further invest in CCTV at airports and ports, with consideration of a number of ongoing improvements, including:

" that CCTV cameras should be capable of producing footage of evidential quality;

" the continuing lead role of Customs in coordinating the monitoring of CCTV networks; and

" that CCTV networks should be complemented with automated number plate recognition, and/or facial recognition technology.

More noted

Some CCTV is in and there is a strategy.. In consultation with relevant stakeholders, Customs and Border Protection has developed the CCTV Strategic Outlook 2020, a strategy to guide future investment in CCTV at the border. within current resource constraints, the implementation of the initiatives is being prioritised according to the business needs of individual Australian's eight international gateway airports and 63 gazetted seaports, and the level of risk presented by existing systems". In addition to the work of Customs and Border Protection, the National Counter Terrorism Committee, Legal Issues Sub Committee CCTV Working Group is developing a national policy and strategy for CCTV regarding the production of footage of evidential quality and a Practical Guide for law enforcement and national security agencies for use when using CCTV vision in counter terrorism investigations.

The committee recommends that Customs be given the power to revoke a depot, warehouse or broker's license if it determines, on the strength of compelling criminal intelligence, that an individual or individuals are involved or strongly associated with significant criminal activity.


"Customs and Border Protection will examine options to further strengthen its licensing regime with initiatives such as the power to request and assess staffing data."

The committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department, in consultation with the Australian Crime Commission, reviews the list of relevant security offences under the ASIC and MSIC schemes to assess whether any further offences are required in order to effectively extend those schemes to protect the aviation and maritime sectors against the threat of infiltration by serious and organised criminal networks.


DIT and AGD, in consultation with the ACC, will review the lists of security-relevant offences to assess whether any further offences are required.

The committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department arrange for a suitable law enforcement agency to be given the power to revoke an Aviation Security Identification Card or Maritime Security Identification Card if it is determined that a cardholder is not a fit and proper person to hold a card on the basis of compelling criminal intelligence.


Imagine cancelling an identity!

So instead we have "DIT and AGD will consider options. This policy work will be conducted in conjunction with the proposed review of security-relevant offence criteria to respond to Recommendation 14." The committee recommends that the MSIC eligibility criteria be harmonised with that of the ASIC scheme so as to make two or more convictions of an individual for maritime security relevant offences grounds for disqualification if one of those convictions occurred in the 12 months prior to an application, regardless of whether either conviction led to a term of imprisonment.


But always the caveat*:

The DIT will assess the eligibility criteria exclusion mechanisms in the ASIC and MSIC schemes with a view to greater harmonisation *if appropriate.

Now being an ordinary citizen would you presume that everyone working at an airport or port would be covered by a National Security action policy? Well they are not, they may have a local employer company or some other issued access card or identity but there is no national consistency:

The committee recommends the expansion of the coverage of the ASIC and MSIC schemes to capture a greater part of the overall supply chain, including some or all of the following:

" staff at cargo unpacking and stuff-unstuff facilities;

" transport workers involved in the transmission of cargo between ports, airports and other parts of the logistical chain;

" customs brokers that do not access port facilities; and

" human resource staff and management at companies with employees that currently must hold ASICs or MSICs.


"The DIT, in conjunction with the AGD and relevant portfolio agencies, will evaluate the potential security benefits of expanding the categories of people required to hold ASICs/MSICs.

The committee recommends that AusCheck and CrimTrac work together to develop a database system that enables continual assessment of a cardholder's criminal record in order to ensure that cardholders are disqualified very soon after being convicted of a relevant security offence.


Now would you, as a citizen assume that there is a system that would automatically disqualify someone with a criminal offence and get their identity card back? Well how do you feel about a "mandatory self-reporting requirement designed to identify those card-holders who may be convicted of a security-relevant offence in order to reassess their eligibility to hold a card." Yes that is as it says the criminal or the employer has to self report.

Now it gets sticky, biometrics!

The committee recommends that use of biometric information, particularly fingerprints, to establish a unique identifier for applicants for the purpose of maintaining an accurate database of cardholders.

This can only elicit one response from the Government,

"The Government notes the recommendation and will consider the use of biometric information in the context of its work coordinating Australia's National Identity Security Strategy, a cross jurisdictional initiative endorsed by COAG in 2007. One of the key elements of the Strategy is enhancing national inter-operability of biometric identity security measures which is being progressed through the development of a Biometrics Interoperability Framework."

The above is frog shit, that Strategy, developed when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister has never been enacted

The Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers signed the IGA at the COAG meeting on 13 April 2007. The key objectives of the Strategy, as set out in the IGA and detailed in the reports to COAG, include:

o improving standards and procedures for enrolment and registration for the issue of proof of identity documents (POI)

o enhancing the security features on POI documents to reduce the risk of incidence of forgery

o establishing mechanisms to enable organisations to verify the data on key POI documents provided by clients when registering for services

o improving the accuracy of personal identity information held on organisations' databases

enabling greater confidence in the authentication of individuals using online services, and enhancing the national inter-operability of biometric identity security measures.

At that meeting, COAG also noted the progress made to date in giving effect to the six to the six elements of the Strategy, and acknowledged the value of this work in providing guidance to government.

The public service produced yet another framework, which is a recommendation guide but not legislated policy. "The Biometrics Interoperability Framework" since 2007 it has been "exploring specification of the uses of particular biometric types, namely fingerprints and face; the manner in which biometrics information is validated, stored and shared; and the data standards applicable to achieving interoperability." It is still exploring away and there are conferences and meetings to go to every few weeks to keep everyone excited and to fill their busy days.

The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the use of biometric information for the purpose of controlling access to security controlled areas in the aviation and maritime sectors.


I am excited that there will be exploration and more.year after year after year

The committee recommends that AusCheck establish memoranda of understanding with the Australian Federal Police and other key law enforcement and intelligence agencies in order to allow the timely provision of information held in the AusCheck database to those agencies. Agreed

And there will be and there are "Memorandums of Understanding" between the agencies.

And finally, after an exhaustive period the Parliamentary Committee comes to its final recommendation

The committee recommends that current ASIC and MSIC issuing bodies are replaced by a single, government-run, centralised issuing body.

And down on the touch line at the final siren, it is "Noted" and there will be a "functional review, in consultation with industry stakeholders, unions and Government agencies to identify preferred issuing body functional models and operational structures for the ASIC and MSIC schemes. This comprehensive review will undertake a cost benefit analysis of preferred functional models, including the option of a single, government-run, centralised issuing body. It will also seek to identify potential unintended consequences - such as airport and seaport operational issues - that may arise from the introduction of different models, as well as consider transitional issues should a new model be introduced as Government policy."

Expect to wait many more years and since there will be an election in September 14, 2013, do not expect National Security to be anything beyond the political big themes of "Refugees, Military, Wars and Immigration".

meanwhile just about anyone, with some smarts and a bit of nouse, can gain access to a secure area of a telecommunications facility, a water storage, an airport or sea port, a bank, a public service building.

However to be fair, there has been amending legislation to cover off the need for a consistent identity for all categories of employees (staff at thecargo mentiond above and some others, and the easy bits of the reccoendations have been acted upon. There is an expectation that the long suffering Transport Security Division of the Department will get some money and I think a better hearing under a Colaition Government than a labor one, following the federal election.


Looking at the calibre, and performance, of Australia's union management, and officers, what do you think their career and salry prospects might be if they did not work in a union, did not have access to the union's funds and did not have career paths up the greasy pole onto the leather seats of parliaments? Would they achieve the salary and benefits based on their own abilities?

I think there is a corrosive belief within the Australian Unions and the Australian Labor Party that the personal interests of the power brokers, the factions and the union bosses, are synonymous with those of members (of the party and the unions) and the public at large. It is a very arduous task for an Australian Union, affiliated to the Australian Labor Party, that they are not in some shape or form or manner bent and even corrupt. Union members' funds are diverted to Australian labor Party coffers and particular person's political interests on the spurious proposition that their ascension into political office and onto the public gravy train is somehow in the interests of union members.

Oh Julia Why?
Play Me

Go to Kevin Beck

Hit Counter by Digits


Current Document Distribution:
Go to Forum

Play Me

Go to Kevin Beck
Current Political Commentary

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. (Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, 2012)

Promises, Promises, come 2103, we promise
Play Me

Trashing Australian Labor Party Brand

Bang Bang
Play Me

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...

What might have been
Play Me

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, Melbourne Australia)


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 - This was a public document: "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 and they made this patently clear at an industry briefing in Canberra, another public event. The decision on the face of it 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. According to the chatter in canberra there were only three prime bidders. This is not actually known since DFAT, like every other public sector agency, hardly communicates. This is beacuse they follow a straight jacketed set of regulations dreamed up by lawyers and based ona prtext of fairness and probity. getting public value under this mechanism is difficult. It is also used as a catch all to make people involved in proceeeses that they find somewhat questionable, keep quiet. Puboic agencies will threaten anyone who dares breach their rules regardless of motivation or public interest.

According to the cahtter and own observations 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, it seems again according to chatter, but not confirmed by DFAT in any formal manner, did win. A good guess or something else by the industry competitors? So a system maybe worth about say $A30,000,000 will cost updwards of $100,000,000 as the public service loads the project to cover their own internal costs and to buy pass the Australian Government's budget austerity.

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 the agency 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

Make one dream come true
Play Me

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?

Click here

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)
...... click here


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

.. click here for a musical rendition

Source of image.. SXC

Click here
to go to Gillard and Rudd
A Federal Labor Government Soap Musical

Image courtesy of.. click


Tony Abbott was frantic to persuade the independents to throw their hats in with him to form government. "THE way Tony Windsor recalls it, Tony Abbott begged cross bench MPs to make him prime minister, joking that ''the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse - but I'd have to give serious thought to it'' (Source: Abbott failed to sway with a bum rap Misha Schubert, The, August 28, 2011.). Tony Abbott denies such a discussion took place in this vein. Who do you believe? I believe Tony Windsor. In any event I have the actual video of the final stages, between Tony and Tony, where Tony tells Tony that he is not forming government with him. Tony Windsor tells Tony that he has carefully considered the sandwich on offer and the ingredients that make it up. Mr Windsor has eaten Tony's political lunch and given the rest to the cat... does he mean Julia? In the video of the discussions between the independent Tony Windsor and Tony Abbott's stand in, Tony expresses his profound disappointment many times.

Imagine: Tony Windsor tormenting Tony Abbott
Click here

With relation to Australia's governments and politicians, trust no one. Trust only observations and data. Then test those observations, and data, to the point of destruction.

Sad Clowns

Source of the above image

Click here to get Images &
Sad Clowns Pictures

Click to hear the Gillard government theme song

Julia working all of her life towards this
click image

Shame Julia
Don't play your carbon tax no more..

click image

There is no correlation between CO2 and Climate Change

click here to get the truth

The once great Australian Labor Party is diminished greatly, in the hands of self interested people who believe they own the labor party and who will pretty much do anything to maintain their personal power?

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 is a NSW Labor government Minister like Mr 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.

Kevin R Beck, Australia's Lack of Life Long learning Vision, (Master of Education (University of Melbourne, 2004), Graduate Diploma of Education and Training (Melbourne, 1999), Graduate Certificate Education and Training, (Melbourne, 1997), Diploma of Teaching, (Mitchell CAE, 1980), Teacher Training (Mitchell CAE, 1970)


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. Tony Abbott is busting a gut to become Prime Minister throwing all caution, as a servant of the public to the wind. (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 mongrel 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

... (PLAY ME)

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.

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. Yet Abbott, and Morrison, rewrite history to suit.


The whole issue of boats, and refugees, and the mixture of lies, and rantings, has become more than irksome and irritating. Tony Windsor was correct in not choosing to work with Tony Abbott though Mr Windsor probably was not considering the poor capabilities of certain labor Ministers when he chose to do a deal with Julia. Abbott, and Gillard, should reach agreement in the national interest. And this agreement should not be the tripe that Tony Abbott offers. It should be a minimum cost, humanitarian solution free of the gutter tactics, and ignorant ravings, of people who are turning out to be nothing more than career parasites on the public purse, continually offering up the same hack policies that they think will deliver a different result. It is unlikely that this will occur because Mr Abbott does not act in the national interest. He has one goal, to be PM - "whatever it takes". He can never bend and admit that
it's over. Tony Abbott will not do the nation a service and find a new career. (Kevin Beck, "Career Parasites on the Public Purse", Melbourne 2011)




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.


Lacking in integrity and ethics Australia's federal leaders have eschewed humanity and truth in favour of political interest and ego. They are detached from the national good.

The ongoing saga of boat people eats into our souls, and our psyche, and tears at the fabric of Australian egalitarianism. Iy destroys our bureaucracy by requiring civil servants to act beyond their nature and beliefs. They are corroded by the labor and liberal political parties.
Julia Gillard is just another career politician rising through the ranks to high office without the necessary prerequisites for leadership, talent, and qualities that might strive to achieve greatness. The labor party, like other political parties, surround themselves with party apparatchiks, sycophantic types rather than people who might appear antogonistic challenging and questioning. There is no interaction by Minister's staff with the latter types. In the case of the Gillard government this had lead to a cocooning. It is only a matter of time. Yet we will face another set of poor choices. Australian politics is such a small gene pool.


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)?

"Hello Alan... Wazza here ... (click the Dodo to hear my version)

The most dynamically stupid, and vacuous, member of the parliament is often the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. If he had a policy idea he would probably shock many including some in his party. (Kevin Beck, The Federal Parliament - Jones Fan Club, Melbourne 2011)


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 but it work out and we will all be better off.

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.
When will the Prime Minister say to Senator Bob, and the likes of Tasmanian representative Wilkie...


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. (Kevin Beck, The Price of Prime Ministerial Office in Australia, 2011)

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 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. Roxon, and 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

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. This is perhaps no different to the myriad of Green parliamentary members' 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.

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 Kevin R Beck Melbourne, Australia 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)

JULIA'S 2000 MW Pipe Dream

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)

Bob Brown
Mumbo Jumbo

"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.


Misrepresenting carbon dioxide as a vilian

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 (Victoria Australia) 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

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.


Tony Abbott has made himself a small target by never engaging in anything beyond slogans and smart one liners - big new tax. When he is asked to explain how he will pay for the direct action plan for his environmental policies he says that he will achieve budget savings. Mr. Abbott has engaged in this hoary old redirection for years. Mr Abbott continues the myth that the coalition are better economic managers than labor. Mr Abbott continues to resort to the nebulous statement and is very short on detail position. I think that he does not have too much in his arsenal of capabilities. He also is a hypocrite in the same vein as the Prime Minister choosing what suits his distorted perspectives and vapour ware policies. He is continuing to try and force the labor government to an election by taunting them. There is an old saying about fools who repeat the same thing expectig a different result. Even if there was a national election Mr Abbott is oblivious to the proposition that the electorate will not be likely to elect the coalition in its won right making Tony Abbott Prime Minister. He would be a very average if even that Prime Minister in my personal view.

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 pity isn'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?

As 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

June 2011: Here they come.

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 entry 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. So click here you political party hacks and thievess 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.

These people are not team players.

June 2011: So what if the Kevin Rudd anniversary wake has been called off! While the media continues its feckless speculation, and manufactured reporting, of the leadership tension between Julia Gillard and the former PM, Kevin Rudd Prime Minister Gillard says that once the detail of the carbon tax is out all will be different. She will win us over. She will thrill us with the truth, vision, the price, the brazen audacity of it all. A change is gonna come. The fortunes and popularity of the Prime Minister. and the government will rocket upwards. We will all follow the pied piper of Australia enthralled in the science of the rhythm divine. Labor's solution to climate change - the carbon tax silver bullet

She further opines that business will turn on Tony Abbott if he, and the coalition, try to unwind the tax should labor lose government at some future date. The reason is, she claims, they want certainty. Certainty of what? Isn't a promise to stop the tax certainty for business as much as labor's own offer of certainty?

The central tenet of the federal labor party's policy framework is about
unfettered rule Australian electorates are only allowed to vote on issues once every three years or at the invitation of the Prime Minister or (in the case of constitutional crisis) the Governor General. That's it. We have to suck it and see, no matter the cost or impact.


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.

One question to pose to the electorate stupid do people appear to politicians and their advisers? What will happen if the labor party changes leaders? Well the labor party will not. Other questions I would like to ask are: (a) why is it that the labor party does not value its leaders as much as it did in the past? (b) how did the labor party end up like this? and (c) why don't Australians value their democracy, ang governments, not caring enough to participate? and (d) does Australia, really want Kevin Rudd back?


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, within its own vein world. (Kevin Beck, The vanity of the Australian Labor Party, June 2011)


"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)

The carbon tax

Jenny Macklin's indigenous dreaming.

The Kevin Rudd theme.

The Chris Bowen offer.

The Wayne Swan melody

Peter Garrett walk in the sunshine

Bob Katter and the Australia Party theme song

Tony Abbott and the shifty themes band

Malcolm Turnbull - memories of an earlier time.

Senator Barnaby Joyce's anthem

Christopher Pyne, Tony never actually said that he supported anything

Julia sorry but it is just too late.

Penny Wong on policy formulations.

Julie Bishop what would you say?

Tanya Plibersek just say anything.

Tony Abbott burn this house down

To the whole of the federal parliament political life is tenuous

Sophie Mirabella who sees the devil in parliament.

Bob Brown. Kerry Nettle, Adam Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young's ride

Joe Hockey suspicions

Malcolm Turnbull give me another go.

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 is abandoned to the lions by the very people who should be standing guard around her. Abandoned by Kevin Rudd who gets no accolades for his performance and lack of support and assistance to Julia.

Rudd masks it behind a facade of falsehoods.

Political commentators say that she is politically dead. It is a
disgrace that one of the oldest, and proudest, parties in Australian politics should allow this to occur. She is literally alone, her singular strident defence really is the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, whose street fightig ability is questionable. Conroy is quite capable of dealing with the back room labor party machine that chooses to either put in a half hearted exercise cloaking itself from scrutiny. The Prime Minister hoped that her budget would let some sun into her gruelling political life. What I find incongruous is that Tony Abbott is not a tactician politician when measured against the likes of labor patrician members. He is a great pretender, longing for John Howard, getting a free run to use his slogans. All that labor can put up against him is a whimpy, whining wet rag response. Where is the machine and its, behind the scenes, hard men and women? Tony Abbott has only one arrow in his bow and that is he has managed to stay on song, "life could be a dream" if there was to be an election, and the people chose him. A boring repetitive and shallow song, cutting off Julia's agenda at every turn. Mr Abbott is assisted by a low grade media (see below) that has an unethical heart and little measurable talent for public interest policy analysis. If we are charitable it is lazy reporting, if we are contemptuous of the quality of journalism it is untruthful reporting and talk back. His weaknesses are many, and varied, and offer unlimited ammunition to the behavioural scientist and skilled political strategist. They do not have to like her or say they love her but they should at the very least protect her.

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.


The Hot Air Balloon Party

click here

Meanwhile Prime Minister Julia brings out her big gun, the smile, personal charisma, the laugh, all the while chiding the recalcitrant child who defies the authority and dares to question why?

All the while the labor machine moves inexorably onward towards the dream, brooking no contradictions or interference. They are however at risk of the Black Box, Game and Other Theories.


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


click here... whilst you read the article

the different coloured words are live ... you can wait for each song to finish before you click the next word...

Sometime back I seem to remember that Greg Combet and the other labor climate change lights, smoke and mirrors proponents said all the proceeds from a carbon tax would go to social equity. Now he says that more than 50% will go to low and middle income earners to offset the cost of the carbon tax. So which story is it Minister? click here... whilst you read

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.

Again we see that the senior Ministers of labor at the federal level who are engaged in the
. shifty business of their government, churn it out making it up as they go.



Are labor politicians naturally disposed to being bullies and thugs? If not then they are in trouble image wise, they are getting a reputation for being just that. They are thugs to their own party members and to their parliamentary members. 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.

East Timor decided that they did not want to establish a class system of the haves and have nots with refugees living better than their own citizens, so they politely refused. Despite this Gillard persists sending her bureaucrats in to massage their attitudes and recalcitrant response to her perfectly good idea (that is in her own mind). Ms Gillard is a lawyer by trade and this may be the basis of her thinking, style and demeanour.

East Timor, unlike the labor pary thugs, and the Prime Minister, continue to show good grace. On, and on, Julia Gillard prattles on about her shallow awareness, her world of pet obsessions, ideas and interests. All the while
dressing it up as good policy in the national interest. Now you better hide .... click

We (those who have been or are being shunted out of the party by thugs) will keep at it, not giving up, beavering away in the background. Well beyond your horizons implementing strategies designed to consign those targeted to the rubbish bin of history. Tony Abbott should not assume that this is a good thing for his future political career either. A new paradigm, set of values and other candidates are needed to replenish our democracy 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 synthese 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.


I rate Wayne Swan as the best stand up comedian in Australia for his impersonation of a Treasurer and economic manager. As we approach May 2011, federal budget time here in labor la la land, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard is also vying for the best comedian accolade but her delivery is awful. Wayne on the other hand has the look and feel. Meanwhile Ross Garnaut, the government's guru of economic forecasting, whilst seeming to be a climate change specialist, is a member of the government's travelling climate circus and labor comedy festival Hollywood production crew. We are on the verge of catastrophe man made (and I do not mean the independent members abandoning Julia later in 2011), that will be the end of us. Other members of the comedy crew are Greg Combet, the slowly disappearing Penny Wong and the junior Minister from NSW, Senator Mark Abib. Comedy and warts.

"Senator Arbib, are you part of the disease infecting NSW Labor? MARK ARBIB, FEDERAL SPORTS MINISTER: Well we just heard Morris Iemma's comments. And can I say, look, I think there's been a fair bit of re-writing of history in terms of NSW and the NSW Government. Probably what Morris should do is spend some time self-analysing what happened over the period. LEIGH SALES: He not the only person that says the party's diseased. Anna Bligh has said that in the past as well." (Source: 7.30, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 28/03/2011, Reporter: Leigh Sales)

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)

Climate Change, Carbon and Warming
Minister Wong (again) It's Not Absolutely True

"One of the enduring pillars of the climate change issue is that the temperature of the Earth is increasing at an unprecedented rate … we’ve heard it a million times over the past few decades. However, it is well known that the temperature of the Earth has not increased over the past decade, and the lack of recent warming is now receiving serious consideration in the leading scientific journals." (Source: World Climate Report, February 1, 2010) What is to come of you, will you handle the Finance portfolio Minister, Penny Wong?

Greg Combet The fixer who has moved on without fixing the solar panel disaster. He has now taken over climate and carbon. And for him the message is the same as it was for Penny Wong - "Minister it is not true".

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

7.30 Report, ABC Australia...Government is not believed ... click



Are we, as a nation, so detached and stupid, indolent and uncaring, uneducated and immature, as to the value of our democracy and government, that we would allow this to happen? We need to rid the nation of the incumbents in our governments, the political career class of politician. But how do we do that? The quality of candidate not the best the nation has. The manipulation, corrosion and the corruption of our governance is entrenched. Australia is in the grip of parasites, at every level of government, local, territory, state and federal, who are career party politicians. They have no employment experience outside of the party and/or union machine. Those who are good and competent are slaves to the thugs, and craven leaders of their respective political machines. The time has come to end their control, and the March state election in NSW will demonstrate the loathing the people have for the modern Australian labor party. Let 2011 be a lesson for all political parties.

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.

In one moment of time, on the floor of the federal parliament, Julia became A TRULY ADMIRED Prime Minister of Australia.

Julia the Prime Minister of Australia image..



On Wednesday 23 March 2011, What is the calibre of Tony Abbott's political staff? Do they do tyheir job or do they let him down?

Tony Abbott attended a rally outside parliament house. The rally was against
Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan. Unfortunately the protesters, lacking decorum, and intellectual power, chose to use insults, denigration and engage in blatant stupidity. They carried placards with term such as 'witch" and "Bob Brown's bitch". Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, is a politician who has a public record of giving rather than taking. Unlike others, including Tony Abbott, he is not seen as a parasite on the public purse. Bob Brown puts his money and his assets behind his beliefs, in environment and the wellbeing of society. He has entered into a relationship with Julia Gillard, whihc placard holders described in unflattering terms. The relationship is bizarre, naive and in almost every way fantastic in the light of labor's decline in the pantheon of Australian politics. He is the epitomy of decorum and a gentleman. He could give lessons to the clowns and louts of the Australian liberal, national and labor parties, that infest our parliaments handing out abuse and degrading the system. Barnaby Joyce also loves a crowd and he got up screaming, frothing at the mouth, spitting vitriole. He too appears to have a limited capability in policy debating. Tony Abbott got up, with the offensive placards providing a back drop, and pandered to the fools and ignorant participants. The rally has a air of unreality. Some might offer that it 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.

2010: Australia's Proposed Emission Trading Scheme (Rudd labor government 2007 - 2010)

The Campaign To Stop The ETS

Climate Change, Carbon and Warming
Minister Wong (again) It's Not Absolutely True

"One of the enduring pillars of the climate change issue is that the temperature of the Earth is increasing at an unprecedented rate … we’ve heard it a million times over the past few decades. However, it is well known that the temperature of the Earth has not increased over the past decade, and the lack of recent warming is now receiving serious consideration in the leading scientific journals." (Source: World Climate Report, February 1, 2010)

What is to come of you, will you handle the Finance portfolio Minister Penny Wong?

Greg Combet The fixer (who made a botch of fixing the solar panel disaster has now taken over climate. And for him the message is the same - Minister it is not true.

Thus 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)

click here

Oppose their vandalism .... your toolbox is here


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 AEDT 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: ABC Australia News Stories)

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, should not allow this to continue.

Go to Mr Swan's speech

"Thought for today. What is my thought for today?"
"Musings, Julia Gillard, Reflections In a One Way Smokey Mirror", Kevin R Beck, The Nature of Politicians in Australia, 2010

Image courtesy of Kitty Roach

Questioning Ms Gillard's Competency to Be 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: ABC Radio Australia News)

Click for: More torture by Indonesian military videos

Click for: Paedophile Paradise


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 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, Melbourne Australia)


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 the first half of 2011. Mark my words. (Another article compiled by Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia)

Australian Securities and Investment Commission Incompetent

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.

Your governments and you

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.

The numerous political web sites within the Mosaic Portal network are not all encompassing critiques, and commentary, on Australia's governance. The Australian Political web sites cover selected issues that the owner of the Mosaic Portal network, Kevin Beck, deems to be of such import as to shape opinion, action and outcome. For the more observant, and lateral thinking, the articles also point to motivations and the activities of the owner that will impact government objectives. The numerous articles, and commentary, look at the credibility, ethical vacuums and the pending fates, of Australia's state, federal and territory political parties and the flight of the voters from them.

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