Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Tag: Accountability

05/03/2021

Subsidies for Inequality

5 March 2021

As a child our family moved to Port Kembla, and we lived on Hill 60, just above the rocks where a lot of people have drowned recently.

I went to Port Kembla Infant’s School, which was overcrowded but interesting. Half the kids there came from the migrant hostel in the old WW2 army camp where ‘displaced Persons’ (as WW2 refugee families were called) lived. These kids arrived in kindergarten without a word of English. This was taken as normal by the teachers, who just plugged on. The kids from the hostel were called ‘Hostels’, but it was a descriptor rather than a pejorative. By the time we got to 2^nd class in our 4^th year (Kindergarten, Transition, 1^st Class, 2^nd Class) there was no difference between Aussie borns and Hostels. There were 46 in my 2^nd class and girls filled the top 6 places. There was minimal racism in kids leaving this school.

There was no anti-discrimination legislation or bureaucracy in the 1950s but all the parents had jobs in the steelworks or associated industries and the Housing Commission was building suburbs full of affordable housing as fast as it could. If you had a go, you got a go. The ABC Radio had an awkward segment before the news called ‘Learn English with us’ where some somewhat stilted practical speech exercises lasted about 2 minutes. I used to wonder how the new migrants all tuned in for this little segment if they could not understand the rest. But the intention was there.

In 1966 there was a movement demanding ‘State Aid for Church Schools’ on the basis that they had paid their tax, and now they had left the state system they were paying twice. The government wanted to win the election, and this was seen as critical for the Catholic vote. The Democratic Labor Party, which had split from the ALP were the champions of this and still represented a significant threat to the ALP as they preferenced the Libs. State Aid came in.

Some time later there was a lot of emphasis on ESL (English as a Second Language) classes at TAFE, which were held during school hours. Their target was migrant women and their objective was to encourage English speaking to allow the women both to meet each other and to participate in society more easily. John Howard defunded the programme; ‘user pays’ was the new paradigm.

I now live in Sydney in a relatively central affluent suburb. Each morning 8 private school buses start near my door ferrying students to 8 private schools. No public transport needed- the school takes care of it all. Others students in private school uniforms catch subsidised public transport to the schools of their parents’ choice. But the cost of ‘choice’ is ‘residualisation’. Schools where there are a lot of ethnic students suffer from ‘white flight’, and so have concentrated social disadvantage and a lack of native role models. One school I visited in Western Sydney had had a stabbing in the playground about 25 years ago. The school photos in the foyer had no white face for the last 20 years. That was as far back as the photos went.

When we wonder if the Cabinet have any idea how the poorer folk live, my opinion is that they do not. These social dynamics have now been going for long enough that it is possible to be old enough to be in Cabinet and have no idea how the other half live. Some think that people without jobs have ‘wasted their opportunities’ or have alcohol or gambling problems. Add a little self-ri ghteous religion, ‘the poor are always with us’, a touch of arrogance and a peer group that thinks the same, and you have policies that are increasingly dismantling the fair go and equity that should be at the heart of our culture. It may be that you cannot make all people equal, but you can give all children equality of opportunity, and all adults enough to live on. We have to change direction and do just that.

Here, at the risk of being repetitive, is an article on Christian Porter.

www.themandarin.com.au/150633-christian-porter-the-unshakeable-belief-of-a-white-man-born-to-rule/?fbclid=IwAR2PbktE5jzTIgIjcL4orzdW1TO8ax03VpOBCFDTzDbRUepQnigaB1WG24Q

03/03/2021

Christian Porter’s Rape Explanation

3 March 2021

I just watched Attorney-General Christian Porter out himself as the Cabinet Minister accused of rape. He was live on ABC News Channel 24 at 3pm (but 8 minutes delayed, so they played the newsflash of NSW Sports Minister resigning after his property dealings were referred to ICAC).

I had deduced that Porter was the minister, as there had been a 4 Corners about him in November and his birthday made him the exact age that the alleged victim said her rapist was. We knew what he would say, as the media said that he was not going to resign, so as a debater I was as interested in his rhetoric as its contents.

He started by saying he was very sorry for the family of the alleged rape victim for their loss. He said that he had heard rumours of the allegation since November but he was unaware what was alleged. He denies the allegation completely, but was concerned about the effect on his colleagues.

He was also concerned that the journalists were trying him by media and were not following due process. He said that they had flowed due process when a previous Opposition Leader was accused of sexual harassment, clearly implying that the media were giving him a worse time. (There was no mention that one was alleged sexual harassment, the other alleged rape and suicide).

He said that he, unlike the media, was following due process.He in his professional life had been a prosecutor and had always tried to stand up for the victims and protect them.

He is now working hard but may now be removed by an accusation. If he were to resign it would mean ‘no rule of law’ and that an unsubstantiated media accusation would be enough to force Ministers to resign, so he will not stand down and set a bad precedent.

(Presumably the alternative is that no one stands down until ‘proper process’ has them convicted, which will very convenient for sports rorts and other current government activities).

He is taking a 2 week break on his doctor’s orders, and his friends are standing by him.

He expanded on the story somewhat during the questioning. There were 4 people in the debating team, 3 men and one woman. They went to her room and she showed him how to iron a shirt as none of them had ever ironed a shirt. He may have told her that ‘she would make a good wife one day’. He may have gone to dinner but he absolutely denied that he demanded oral sex or raped her. It did not happen. He pleaded with the media to ‘imagine for a second that it is not true’. Their faces were not shown on TV, but it seems from their voices that they found this hard to imagine.

He had had no contact with that person since January 1988, for 33 years, so he could not remember details, but she was a ‘bright, happy person’.

He cannot explain the story and he cannot test the evidence, so he does not favour an inquiry as he will be ‘asked to disprove something that did not happen’. Others may decide to have an inquiry. He wonders at ‘conspiracy theories everywhere’.

He spoke to the Prime Minister on Wednesday, presumably 8 days ago, not yesterday, and believes that he has the Prime Minister’s support.

My bet is that there will be a delay, then an inquiry, and then he will resign to save the government from embarrassment, but not be charged with anything. I could be wrong. Certainly the ‘Me Too’ movement has changed the paradigm in the entertainment industry and now even in Australian politics. But we are still nowhere near the old standard when Barry O’Farrell resigned as NSW Premier when he did not remember receiving a bottle of wine from a dodgy donor, or the Dutch Cabinet all resigned recently over a situation like Robodebt.

If Porter limps along, he will be lead in the Liberals’ saddlebag for a while. The election is a year away, so many will forget, but some will not, and a negative impression of the government grows stronger. These impressions eventually coalesce onto a ’gut feeling’ that the government has to go and the government becomes doomed. Usually the Canberra bubble of both politicians and their journalists are the last to realise.

28/02/2021

Federal Police to Investigate Crown Casino

27 February 2021

Former Supreme Court judge Patricia Bergin has made a referral to the Australian Federal Police following her inquiry into Crown Casino.

Bergin, whose inquiry found Crown Resorts unfit to hold a casino licence in New South Wales, made the referral at least three weeks ago.

While the AFP has declined to name the subject of its inquiry, a spokesperson said: “The AFP has received a report from Commissioner Bergin resulting from the Inquiry under the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW). That report relates to potential telecommunications offences. While this report is investigated, it would not be appropriate to comment any further.”

Justice Bergin, who ran the 18-month independent inquiry that spectacularly halted the opening of the centrepiece high-roller floors in James Packer’s $2.2 billion Barangaroo development in Sydney, declined to comment.

The Saturday Paper can also reveal that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is actively looking at current and former board appointees of Crown Resorts in relation to potential breaches of “care and diligence” requirements.

It is understood the corporate watchdog is aware of a number of “serious matters” raised in the Bergin report, which cut into the commission’s federal jurisdiction.

Crown Resorts and its current and former directors are now under scrutiny from inquiries and investigations in every Australian jurisdiction in which the company operates.

On Monday, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews announced a royal commission into the suitability of Crown Melbourne Limited to hold its casino licence in that state. With more than 16,000 staff, Crown Melbourne is the largest private employer in Victoria.

That inquiry, led by Raymond Finkelstein, QC, will also examine the appropriateness of the parent company, Crown Resorts, and has been asked to report with recommendations by August 1.

That announcement came after the Gaming and Wagering Commission of

Western Australia announced on February 17 an independent inquiry at the direction of the state’s minister for Racing, Gaming and Liquor, Paul Papalia. It will have the same powers as a royal commission.

Crown only operates two casinos in Australia – at Melbourne’s Southbank and Perth’s Burwood – and had hoped to open a third in Sydney before Bergin’s inquiry. It is now up to the independent regulator in NSW to make a final decision about the fate of the company’s licence in that state.

There is nothing in the state legislation that insists the second casino licence in Sydney has to go to Crown.

In theory, at least, any suitable operator can be awarded permission to launch or run another casino in the city.

While the AFP did not name the specific telecommunications offence it is investigating under Commonwealth law, most of these relate to using a carriage service such as phone or internet connection to make threats, harass or menace others.

In her 800-page public inquiry report, Bergin uncovered a culture of cavalier decision-making at Crown Resorts, with company failures that resulted in the arrest of its own employees in China. She pointed to systems that should have identified money laundering involving criminal elements attached to junkets, but did not.

Junkets, in the gambling world, are third-party outfits that specialise in bringing high-net-worth individuals to casinos.

The junket owners typically take fees from casinos on a commission basis and also share the risk of losses made by their clients. Often, they also provide lines of credit to their clients.

As such, they are responsible for collecting their own debts and in some markets have turned to organised crime to achieve these ends. It was these close associations that spelled trouble for Crown.

Although Covid-19 has largely rendered junkets moot in Australia – their clients are mostly non-residents who have flown in for leisure and big bets – the WA regulator on Wednesday issued directions to Crown banning them from hosting junkets in Perth.

The mandate also stops Crown Perth from participating in “table games activity with patrons who are non-residents of Australia with whom Crown Perth has an arrangement to pay the patron a commission, or provide transport, accommodation, food, drink or entertainment, based on the patron’s turnover or otherwise calculated by reference to such play”.

Justice Bergin’s public report raised serious questions about the conduct of billionaire tycoon James Packer, whose private investment vehicle CPH remains the largest shareholder in Crown.

Packer resigned as chair of the publicly traded Crown in August 2015 but remained a director until December that year. Even after he left the company, however, his influence was repeatedly demonstrated in discussions he had with serving Crown directors who remained loyal to him, according to Bergin’s report.

At times, confidential information relating to business strategy and accounts was not only shared with Packer but also developed at his instruction.

Bergin also noted that confidential information was provided to Packer by John Alexander, who was Crown’s executive chairman; Ken Barton, chief financial officer; Barry Felstead, then chief executive of Australian Resorts; and Todd Nisbet, in his capacity as Crown’s executive vice-president of strategy and development.

Barton provided financial reports to Packer “on an almost daily basis”, Bergin noted, from the time the magnate executed a secret controlling shareholder protocol.

In late November 2018, Packer emailed Barton with curt instructions: “I know Mike has spoken to you about preparing a downside plan for me. I don’t believe your FYF [financial year forecast] and am sick of always missing budgets and being unlucky in VIP.”

Of that exchange, Bergin said in her report: “Mr Packer was issuing an instruction to Mr Barton to not only specially prepare that information, but also to do so in accordance with the conservative parameters he had specifically identified.”

These conversations occasionally became terse. On March 1, 2019, Packer again emailed Barton.

“Ken I think all of you have had your heads in the sand this year. We never meet our plans and I’m sick of it,” he wrote. “Make sure for your own sake that we achieve the FY 20 plan.”

The inquiry found the “language employed by Mr Packer reflects aggressive expectation and entitlement and properly characterises Mr Packer’s communications as instructions, not mere requests for information or the giving of ‘advice’ ”.

A far more serious exchange, which occurred in late 2015 as the billionaire contemplated privatising Crown Resorts, was partly suppressed by the Bergin inquiry, but nevertheless received special attention in the final public report.

Packer, attempting to raise capital from private equity firms for the buyback of Crown, had discussions with one such company in particular but, when it came time to commit, a businessman attached to the investment firm told Packer he could summon only $400 million.

“On 25 November 2015 in response to the advice that he had received from the firm, Mr Packer wrote an email containing a serious threat to one of the businessmen in the firm,” the Bergin report says.

“Mr Packer accepted that his conduct in making the threat was ‘shameful’ and ‘disgraceful’. He also accepted that the communications were ‘totally unsuitable for a director of a public company as a close associate of a licensee of a casino’.

“Mr Packer accepted that he understood that at the time of this conduct, he had obligations to Crown to act ethically and with the highest standards of integrity. He said that at the time that he wrote the email he had ‘clearly forgotten’ he had an obligation to Crown not to engage in conduct likely to bring discredit upon Crown.”

Packer made it clear during public testimony before the inquiry that he was experiencing a medical episode at the time relating to subsequently diagnosed bipolar disorder, for which he is now receiving treatment.

The Saturday Paper is not suggesting these emails are involved in the report referred by Justice Bergin to the AFP.

Former Howard government minister Helen Coonan is one of the few remaining directors at Crown, taking on the role of executive chairman on February 15 with an annual salary package worth $2.5 million.

One-time AFL boss Andrew Demetriou, Crown’s former chief executive Ken Barton and Packer right-hand man Michael Johnston have all resigned from the company. So, too, has Guy Jalland and advertising heavyweight Harold Mitchell. Company secretary and general counsel Mary Manos has also stepped down. Non-executive director John Poynton terminated a consultancy with Packer’s company CPH in the wake of the report’s findings, in a bid to sever the last link between Packer and Crown.

In a statement to the market last Monday, Coonan said she “welcomes the announcement from the Victorian Government” to hold a royal commission.

“It provides an opportunity to detail the reforms and changes to our business to deliver the highest standards of governance and compliance, and an organisational culture that meets community expectations,” she said.

With more than 16,000 staff, Crown Melbourne is the largest private employer in Victoria.

The outcome of the AFP investigation could determine whether its subject is banned from being a company director for acting in a manner that affects the reputation of a company or adversely affects shareholders. Given some of the Commonwealth telecommunications offences carry maximum penalties with jail time up to three years, this would also factor into ASIC’s decision-making about the appropriateness of a person being a company director in the future.

More broadly, ASIC can ban directors who fail their duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act, although such cases are notoriously difficult to stack up because a court must be persuaded such behaviour was detrimental to shareholders.

On February 18, Crown Resorts Limited released its half-year results, which were severely affected by Covid-19 restrictions and a “number of regulatory investigations”.

Statutory revenue was down 62 per cent to $581 million, while earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation fell almost 100 per cent to just $4.4 million.

But, as ever in gambling, Crown is still hoping for a big win.

“Crown will work cooperatively with regulators as it seeks to restore public and regulatory confidence in its operations,” it said in the investor presentation.

“The [Bergin] Inquiry Report outlines a pathway towards suitability to allow Crown to give effect to the Restricted Gaming Licence.

“All gaming areas [at Barangaroo] are complete and ready for opening, subject to the receipt of all regulatory approvals.”

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Feb 27, 2021 as “Exclusive: Crown report referred to the Federal Police”.

21/02/2021

Privatisation of Quarantine = Government Collecting Money for Corporations- Permanently??

21 February 2021

There are two quarantine stories extant, one short-term, one long-term:

The Sun Herald front page story is ‘State Debt Collectors eye hotel millions’. It is about how 5264 invoices covering 7214 travellers who stayed at quarantine hotels have not paid and thus have to be chased for the money. The fact that they had to stay at these very expensive hotels for 2 weeks to be allowed to come home seems irrelevant. The fact that they may have had to stay in hotels for 9 months overseas in lockdown situations, had to come home on very expensive flights and may have no money and no job is also not mentioned. What might have been thought of as repatriating citizens caught in a situation that was not of their making is now a routine debt like a speeding fine, to be chased by the NSW government’s privately contracted debt collectors.

Meanwhile down in Victoria in today’s Age there is talk of building a quarantine hotel at Avalon Airport. Avalon airport was ex-RAAF and is about 3 hours from Melbourne (as I discovered to my cost when taking a Jetstar fight to Melbourne without looking where it landed). It is now owned by Linfox Transport group, and the Wagner Corporation of Townsville was keen to build the quarantine facility. When asked by an interviewer what accommodation would cost, Mr Wagner replied that this was ‘commercial in confidence’. There was none of this nonsense about giving arriving travellers a ‘fair go’; presumably such assurances are not necessary to get the contracts these days.

The colonial-era Manly Quarantine Station, which was saved from developers some years ago and remains in the dangerous situation of being a historic site in NSW used to have 3 levels of accommodation, for the rich, middle class and poor. At least the financial reality was recognised then.

Presumably backpackers who needed to come home would be happy to stay in backpacker accommodation, whereas some business folk really cannot manage less than the Ritz. But the government ought to make provision for Australians who want to come home and returning travellers needing to be quarantined should have the right to return without having to pay whatever a privatised accommodation facility chooses to charge them, without the government’s contribution being to unleash the debt collectors.

www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/it-s-not-optional-debt-collectors-sent-in-for-overdue-quarantine-hotel-bills-20210219-p5747y.html

www.theage.com.au/business/companies/bold-brash-and-benevolent-wagners-wheels-turn-to-quarantine-facility-20210219-p5744b.html

20/02/2021

Federal Auditor-General Defunded- Government cuts teeth of watchdog

20 February 2021

What else would a PR driven government do to lessen criticism of its rorts?

Here is an SMH article today by Katina Curtis entitled:

‘Cuts Mean Government Agencies will avoid scrutiny’.

The watchdog in charge of keeping the government accountable for its use of taxpayer money says his budget has fallen so much, some agencies might only face scrutiny once every 20 years and auditors are tolerating ‘‘uncomfortable’’ risks in financial statements.Auditor-General Grant Hehir says over the next four years he has to cut the number of performance audits his office does, which in the past year has uncovered the sports rorts scandal and the $30 million paid for the Leppington Triangle land valued within a year at just $3 million.The cut will reduce the number of audits by a quarter, from a historical average of 48 a year to 36, the lowest number this century, bar 2016 when the double dissolution of Parliament meant fewer sitting weeks to deliver his reports.‘‘In effect, I am unable to provide the Parliament to the same extent with the evidence it has used to hold executive government to account, thereby reducing accountability and transparency,’’ Mr Hehir yesterday told a parliamentary committee reviewing the Australian National Audit Office.Over the past two years, the performance audit section has lost 20 staff, equivalent to the capacity for eight audits. ANAO funding as a proportion of government spending is now half what it was 10 years ago.‘‘Should it be going up proportionately? I’m not arguing that, but I think it shouldn’t be going down,’’ Mr Hehir said.Since 2013, the Australian National Audit Office’s budget has been cut by nearly $6.3 million – or more than 22 per cent in real terms – although Mr Hehir told the committee ‘‘we probably wouldn’t use the word cut, it’s fallen’’.While the budget has shrunk, the number and complexity of financial statement audits the office must do has grown. Mr Hehir said the budget squeeze meant he’d had to increase the risk tolerance of these audits to a point where he was ‘‘uncomfortable’’.As well as a reduced number of audits, their scope will be narrower, and they will focus on higher-risk activities in large entities such as the Tax Office and the Defence Department.‘‘Many smaller agencies may not be audited for extended periods of time, potentially over 20 years,’’ Mr Hehir told the committee.

14/02/2021

Trump Acquitted. Significance?

14 February 2021

President Trump was not impeached because it needs a two thirds majority of US Senators and the Democrats and Republicans have 50 each, with the Vice President having a casting vote. So 13 Republicans would have had to vote for the impeachment, and only 7 did so. 57 to 43 was not two-thirds.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said that Trump could not be impeached as he was no longer President, but this was because the Senate delayed the debate while he was, so it looked like a convenient cop-out. Whether it was ‘loyalty to the Republican party’ is a moot question. In practical terms, Trump has a lot of support at the grass roots of the Republican party, and if he directs his supporters to oppose a Senator’s pre-selection next time it will be likely to cost them their seat. So they were willing to toe the line that the election was rigged, and now vote that Trump did not incite supporters to storm the Capitol. It is remarkable that they were in the Chamber when the Capital building was stormed, and the Senators were in physical danger, but now they decline to condemn Trump.

It is worth looking at the Republicans who did have the courage to cross the floor:

Mitt Romney of Utah was an Independent until 1993, and a Mormon. He stood as the Republican Presidential Candidate against Barack Obama in 2012, and was elected to the Senate in 2019. He is 73 now, but has probably a very strong base.

Bill Cassidy MD, aged 64 was a Democrat who changed to the Republicans in 2001. He was the only Republican Senator who did not challenge the result of the 2020 Presidential election and was condemned by his Louisiana Republican party for this stance, even prior to his voting for Trump’s impeachment. He was elected in 2020, so will face the voters again in 2024.

Susan Collins of Maine aged 68 was elected in 1996, and is the longest-serving Republican woman Senator, most recently re-elected in 2020. She declined to support the bill to repeal Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ and also declined to support the nomination of conservative judge Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Lisa Murkowsi of Alaska aged 63 has been in the Senate since 1998, having followed her father into her seat but via a write-in vote, having been defeated in the pre-selection. A survey showed her to be the second most liberal Republican Senator after Susan Collins. She intends to run for a 4^th term in 2022, but it has been tipped in Newsweek that Sarah Palin will stand against her in the next preselection.

Ben Sasse of Nebraska aged 48 has taken a strong stand against Trump and effectively bet his political career on what is currently not a popular stand in his State, though he paints himself as a strong conservative.

Richard Burr of North Carolina aged 65 surprised colleagues by voting against Trump. He was elected in 2005, but he had announced in 2016 that he would not seek a 4^th term, so preselection is irrelevant for him.

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania aged 59 was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, then the Senate in 2011 and 2016, but has said that he would not stand again.

So it looks as if there are very few Senate Republicans who will put the national interest ahead of their own pre-selections and party loyalties.

This is why we need the power returned to the people both in the USA and here. The interests of the political parties are not the same as the interests of the people.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-donald-trump-acquitted/story?id=75853994

12/02/2021

Governments are Simply Bought

3 February 2021

As we observe a seemingly endless litany of government decisions that are not just bad, but are totally against the public interest and wants, we might wonder why. Are politicians less principled than formerly? Are they of lower calibre? Is it just all about marketing?

Some long-term trends have to be looked at. At Bretton Woods in 1944 world leaders considered how to lessen the chance of future wars. The two world war had been because emerging powers needed markets that were closed to them. So ‘Free Trade’ was the cry that would allow the world to benefit from the free movement of goods from the places that produced them most efficiently to where they were wanted. Governments would not be able to get in the way. This trend has increased, helped by technologies in transport that have lowered freight costs. Countries that have done well have risen, countries that cannot get a premium on their products have gone down. But multinational companies have been able to evade taxes and develop oligopolies that allow super-normal prof its. Multinational companies are now richer than many countries, so governments’ power has hugely lessened in relation to these companies. So the companies often tell the governments what to do rather than vice-versa. Really good people used to go into government with a vision for their country’s future. Now these people often go into business, raising the question whether our politicians are second tier. Marketing is also much more sophisticated, and targeting is very important. Once it is recognised that what determines an election is a few percent in a few seats, the question is how to change those few minds. So research and election donations become critical. I have spoken to Ministers who seriously believe that they cannot oppose the industries that are the key players in their portfolio area. And if they believe that, that will certainly be the outcome.

Decisions like the inability of Australia to oppose the coal industry in the Climate ‘debate’, to avoid fracking when the gas industry sold gas on the assumption that it could frack for more, cal mining under dams, property development that sells iconic museums or demands higher dam walls are examples of governments doing what monied donors want. But the pork-barrelling to ‘look after our own’ is a new low in political behaviour. It has been coming for a while.

When I was in Parliament I followed up the award of a contract for disability services in the Hunter region, which had not gone to the incumbents who had been considered to be doing quite a good job. Investigations showed that there had been an exemplary selection process done in the public service, with the incumbent narrowly winning from another provider in the area, both with scores in the high nineties . The contract went to another tenderer with a score in the 50s. Scrawled across the file was a minder’s note, ‘This one more innovative- support them’. The Minister did. The minder went off to be CEO of the winning tenderer. The unsuccessful tenderers withdrew in disgust. Sadly, this did not come out for some time, so the successful tenderer was then established and the unsuccessful downsized so the decision could not be reversed. Someone in the office was temporarily stood down. It was an example of Ministers over-riding neutral selection processes, which is now so commonplace that Gladys Berejeklian assures us it is normal and the Federal government also acts as if this is so. Perhaps soon there will no public service process at all; why bother making potential trouble?

So with government believing that they cannot act against vested interests and also able to buy power with marketing money, it is hardly surprising that industries donate, especially when there is nothing stopping them. Ministers who are not particularly clever, but have good party connections can also leave politics for lobbying positions in the industries that they formerly were responsible for, having contacts in both the government and the responsible Departments.

As the power and the image of politicians fall, so do party numbers allowing more branch-stacking and nepotism. Some years ago, Christians, noting their numbers falling in the census made a huge effort to get into the political system to maintain their privileged tax deductible status and school system, so now they are represented in Cabinet way more than in society in general. So there is yet another strong lobby within the system- the religion industry.

These problems are part of long-term trends with technological and economic drivers. My own view is history is driven by these forces more than by anything governments want to do. Politicians now have a career structure where their interests are different from the public interest and this will never be reconciled. So we need a new conceptual framework. The power must be taken from the politicians and given back to the people. The government of Switzerland acts similarly to ours except that there are more political parties sharing power, so there is never an absolute majority with governments able to do whatever they like. More importantly, the people have plebiscites quarterly at Federal, Canton (State equivalent) and local levels. If there is enough signatures, an issue is put to plebiscite and the result is binding on governments. Legislation can be overturned if the petitions get enough signatures within a statutory time. So governments govern, but remain aware that they cannot do what they like. Politicians are all part-time and keep their jobs, which are also their post-parliament continuing careers. They are also limited to 2 terms, so that they do not have a political career structure that they can put ahead of the public interest.

It is time to change the constitution to lessen the power of the governments. Restricting political donations should be tried, but I watched as people tried to stop the tobacco industry buying influence. When TV ads were banned, they had ‘sponsorships’ around the grounds and it took 26 years to get rid of these as sponsored sport sang for its supper. Ethnic clubs, Sports Foundations, Rescue boats, Charities, disabled groups; all manner of potential lobbyists were gifted and sang for their supper or donated in kind. If someone has money and wants to help you, and you want to be helped there are a million ways to get around impediments. Those who think a donation limit will stop the problem are frankly naïve, though I am not saying it should not be done. It establishes a principle at least, so that we can chase the avoidances. But more substantial change is needed, a new constitution to lessen the power of Parliaments on the Swiss model.

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/hidden-donations-highlight-grave-weakness-of-australian-democracy-20210131-p56y70.html

07/02/2021

COVID Problems Caused by Lack of Respect for Knowledge

7 February 2021

Prof Raina McIntyre argues that the COVID19 problems in the developed world, particularly the Anglo world are the result of an understanding of and a lack of respect for public health. She charts this as within the medical profession, which has its own hierarchies, but also in the political arena. The overwhelming influence of the corporate sector and the profit motive, and the managerial approach which assumes that if you are not an expert, you can quickly find one, bone up and take over has been found sadly wanting. For a manager or politician, selecting an expert is not as easy as it sounds as there are many people who want to tart up their CVs and market themselves with dubious claims to expertise.

This has resulted in a very suboptimal preparation for and response to the pandemic. The failure in the managerial decision-making process has been laid bare in the COVID situation, but this is not an isolated example. The lack of respect for expertise, the replacement of knowledge with marketing spin, and public good with corporate profits will lead to more bad decisions, which often take a crisis to become evident. It happened in the bushfires, and is happening with climate change. Examples in foreign policy, education, health and defence all come to mind.

Here is Raina’s paper about COVID19

https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/hijacking-public-health-and-price-paid-during-covid-19-pandemic

06/02/2021

Welfare Repayment for Some- Nick Scali Optional?

6 February 2021

We all saw the callous and incompetent saga of Robodebt, where the tax database and the welfare database were imperfectly matched, the welfare recipients were accused of understating their incomes and put in the unenviable position of having to prove that they system was wrong, as their support payments were cut to below survival level.

Now we see some companies who are doing very well getting Jobkeeper and being asked politely if they would mind paying it back.

Nick Scali, the furniture retailer has done very well out of the lockdown as people still at home and working, with forced saving on their out of home recreations have upgraded their furnishings. His profit has risen 99% to $40 million, and the share price from $3 to $10.51 in the last 12 months. The dividends are up 60%. Nick Scali as the major shareholder with 13% of the company will make $4.4 million personally. The company has received $3.5 million in Jobkeeper payments, so Labor MP Andrew Leigh has asked that it be repaid. Of course, Scali has done nothing illegal and has taken money that companies were entitled to. But the Government which is so careful and niggardly when it comes to poorer people getting money is totally silent on this situation. They are very thorough when it comes to giving out Jobseeker or any type of pension, yet seem unable to restrict much more generous handouts to business, let alone having a mechanism to get it back. The stockmarket profit reporting season is just starting so we are likely to see many more examples of this.

The only explanation I can find is ‘For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.’ — in Matthew 25:29, Revised Standard Version.

www.smh.com.au/business/companies/nick-scali-s-profits-double-in-covid-boom-triggering-dividend-bonanza-20210204-p56zfl.html

03/02/2021

Are Google Algorithms Reinforcing Anti-Science positions? 3 Feb. 2021

As the anti-science movement seems to gain strength and undermines the campaign for COVID vaccination, there has been increased interest in the origin, strength and tactics of this.

It is blamed on the Russians, who presumably are trying to weaken and divide the West, and on civil libertarians, who want to politicise medical common sense. But when it helped by people like Trump in the White House and Kelly in Australia the conspiracy theories are put into perspective, as the anti-science views are given legitimacy.

But in the fuss about Google withdrawing from Australia, or not covering Australian politics, I wondered what effect this might have and tried a different search engine, duckduckgo. The difference is that google gives me a personalised feed, but duckduckgo gives everyone the same information for the same key words.

Search engines at a basic level give a ‘top pops’ of popularity of a topic in that those with the greatest number of clicks go to the top. This may be fine if you are looking for a movie review, but if you want older material it will be a long way down. Scientific articles are a lot further down than mainstream ones, and the algorithm is influenced by the viewer’s previous viewing habits. If a person has viewed a lot of conspiracy articles, it is presumably then likely that these are more likely to come up again and reinforce the existing views of the viewer. If the feed is continually biased to a point of view, the viewer is likely to come into contact with more of this view and people who share t, so that they are eventually in a bubble or subculture of people with this belief, and are unaware that their reality has been changed.

As an example my son went to school with a boy in NZ whose father controlled feral pests for a living, which meant shooting rabbits, ferrets, deer, pigs, cats and possums which are predators on various farms in NZ. He kept in touch with his friend and they played video games online. But his friend went shooting quite a lot with his father, joined a gun club and started to receive the literature of this subculture. His previously non-political, mainstream views are now hugely influenced by the American gun lobby and rabidly right wing. This is quite unusual in rural NZ. My son commented, ‘In the end, you think what you get in your feed’.

The algorithms exist to make you happy and to keep you clicking in order to get you to buy things. But the result might be quite different- a creation of a bubble environment where everyone’s opinion tends to be magnified, sometimes going in a bad direction.

How this can be controlled is a question- if we all got the same feeds, would the sensible people make sensible articles come up first? Presumably; if most people were well educated. We had better go there also. Which Big Brother will tell google how to do its algorithms?

(The longer version of this attached article is available via a link at its end).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/peter-hotez-anti-science-movement-killing-hundreds-of-thousands_n_6014b39ac5b622df90f382ee?ri18n=true&fbclid=IwAR19_qqWuNe9t8ySSTdNU5OjL6jKkxPCT3cDbAP0EhAKXoXrLPod_xVfdKM