Oz Politics.

[skuthorp]

Maybe he's talking about Ms Jackson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22egcUFTJo

I understand she'll be in court soon.

[PeterSibley]

Fun reading, both sides look crook to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

[Larks]

Fun reading, ALL sides look crook to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

'fixed that for you Peter

[PeterSibley]

Well, the list is Liberal and Labor with a bit of Nat thrown in. The Greens don't get a mention that I noticed.

[Larks]

Well, the list is Liberal and Labor with a bit of Nat thrown in. The Greens don't get a mention that I noticed.

I didn't look too hard, but I saw Hanson in there at least, don't forget Palmer and anyone else who just hasn't been found out yet......that list doesn't look particularly long when it comes to dodgy dealings, lies and corruption - I'd expect something more like the length of a phone book

[PeterSibley]

Hanson and Palmer ? Hardly worth mentioning !

[Mitziel]

On Dastyari -- yes, he should go. It's a pity Shorten didn't dump him immediately.

That he didn't shows he felt he couldn't, that he doesn't feel that secure in his job. And everyone knows that you put the NSW Right offside at your peril. Their numbers matter. On Dastyari, Tony Wright in the Age bells the cat when he says, more or less, that what else would you expect from someone whose predecessors in Sussex Street included Graham "Richo" Richardson, Stephen Loosley, John Della Bosca, Eric Roozendal, Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar.

[PeterSibley]

Perhaps but watching Barnaby this evening wriggling about the fairly equal distribution of Chinese "donations" put Dastyari's gig in perspective. It was a courtesy to him, no one is selling state secrets for $1700.

[skuthorp]

Dastiari has come from the NSW ALP office where dodgy dealings to raise funds are what his job was all about, and if the Chinese are throwing money it was his job to catch as much as he could. To that end all his contacts were, um, dodgy. So now he's in Parliament, a peoples representative (derisive laughter here) but all his contacts and instincts are the same. Which basically makes him and his ilk amongst the least suitable candidates one could find. But they have been on the ladder into parliament since university, that's why they are in the company office. Their loyalties are to the Party, no mind that 'the Party' has no constitutional standing. The party did not elect them.
It's a problem.

[Mitziel]

Re Peter's comment: Yes it's a trivial sum, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened. Seems there's no explaining it, other than the stratosphere does funny things to folks sometimes. But a year in the sin bin, way back at the beginning, would have been the best way to deal with it. Too late for that now though, just have to hang tough.

[PeterSibley]

Bernardi and the Greens are on the same page on this one.Uncomfortable bedfellows.

[Mitziel]

Wake in fright

[PeterSibley]

A very good if scary movie !

[WX]

You have a short memory , what about the Labor crew that took out millions.
But they are in jail now , aren't they ?.
Rob J

Just trying to point out that both sides have their fingers in the pie Rob.

[skuthorp]

Seems the NSW branches of the majors are all in the poo.

"The Liberal Party faces "oblivion" unless its reforms its biggest state branch by taking power out of the hands of factional leaders, Government frontbencher Angus Taylor says.In a speech to the Sydney Institute last night, Mr Taylor, the Assistant Minister for Cities, warned the recent election result showed the Liberal Party is being outmuscled by Labor's ability to organise grassroots supporters. He blamed "powerbrokers" in the New South Wales branch who use arcane rules to amass voting blocks they can control, while excluding rank-and-file supporters from meaningful involvement in the party."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-0...taylor/7821238

And the Labour NSW right is hardly a group you'd want to encourage.

[PeterSibley]

Nick Greiner is suggesting banning ALL donations by businesses and unions to political parties, donation by individuals only. It will be interesting to see how that flies.

[skuthorp]

On another matter, the Chinese donations affair is in danger of becoming China Bashing in general off the back of the Dastiari matter. Careful what you wish for. Any involvement with China means involvement within their Communist Party and the well documented corruption in that body.

Evidently if the political donations policies are 'reformed' the parties could suffer up to a 90% drop in finances.
I think the figures come from Nick Greiner. It feeds into the continuing disillusion with the majors and the frgmentation of Aussie politics.

[PeterSibley]

I'll differ from Warren Mundine, government money well placed and well organised programs can make a big and lasting difference, they can even increase employment.

[Mitziel]

To Skuthorp, as an aside...in NZ we are Labour, in England and Fiji too, but in Israel and in Oz the ALP is Labor, so I've wondered the reason for your ongoing use of Labour for the ALP. Doesn't matter, just curious...

[Mitziel]

Nick Greiner is suggesting banning ALL donations by businesses and unions to political parties, donation by individuals only. It will be interesting to see how that flies.

I understand the High Court ruled against that very proposal in 2013, a judgement following upon a NSW attempt to do just that. Strange that Greiner wouldn't be aware of that ruling. I don't know the court's reasons but in any case reckon such a restriction would be open to so much rorting as to unsustainable.

[PeterSibley]

Ruling out unions, banks and miners would generate a few angry people.

[Mitziel]

Yes it would and that's why they took it to the High Court. Anyhow, I see an article on the ABC site today (link below) provides the Court's reasons for that judgement: "The High Court held that corporations and unions and other bodies that are subject to laws do also have a role in political communication and influencing that through donations."

And in light of this judgement, constitutional lawyers quoted in that article suggest it follows that an outright ban on every company with a link to a foreign country or government would not be sustainable because it was possible for such a company to have a legitimate interest in Australia.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-0...blocks/7820990

[PeterSibley]

It seems we have laid our selves open to "influence".

Banning foreign donations could be "tricky" and the Government would have to be very careful if it wants to avoid a High Court challenge, according to two constitutional law experts.
Labor is calling for a ban on foreign political donations as it tries to deal with the fallout from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, who allowed a Chinese-linked company to pay off a travel debt on his behalf.
The Opposition proposed the policy before the election but has ramped up calls since Senator Dastyari's donations have been in the spotlight.

However, the Dean of the University of New South Wales' law school, Professor George Williams, warned any ban would have to be "very carefully drafted" to avoid a trip to the High Court.
He said a ban should be limited to companies or people that were entirely foreign.

"Even if it is an entity or corporation that has its head office overseas or a strong connection to a foreign government … it's possible to argue that if you have an Australian link, that you do have an entitlement to take part in the Australian process," he said.

Professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, Anne Twomey, agreed there should not be an outright ban on every company with a link to a foreign country or government because it was possible for such a company to have a legitimate interest in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/political-donation-law-changes-face-constitutional-roadblocks/7820990

[Mitziel]

It's worth keeping in mind that seeking to influence government policies and decisions is a legitimate activity in parliamentary democracies. It's not only corporations, foreigners, unions and miners but also a range of other organisations representing various interests which do it, both through donations and through the services of professional lobbyists. Political parties of all stripes are subject to this lobbying, or influence-seeking, on an ongoing, daily basis. This lobbying and donations usually come from both sides of issues, like miners and environmentalists, or banks and consumer advocates etc.

This state of affairs is not in itself dodgy or perverting. But it is thus when decisions can be linked directly so as to constitute a deal, as such. And only well-funded Icacs are positioned to undertake investigations of this nature, and that's why campaigning for these in every state and federally is so important.

[Larks]

Hmm - haven't I seen this somewhere else? Never mind, I'll play along:



Originally Posted by PeterSibley
It seems we have laid our selves open to "influence".

Banning foreign donations could be "tricky" and the Government would have to be very careful if it wants to avoid a High Court challenge, according to two constitutional law experts.
Labor is calling for a ban on foreign political donations as it tries to deal with the fallout from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, who allowed a Chinese-linked company to pay off a travel debt on his behalf.
The Opposition proposed the policy before the election but has ramped up calls since Senator Dastyari's donations have been in the spotlight.

However, the Dean of the University of New South Wales' law school, Professor George Williams, warned any ban would have to be "very carefully drafted" to avoid a trip to the High Court.
He said a ban should be limited to companies or people that were entirely foreign.

"Even if it is an entity or corporation that has its head office overseas or a strong connection to a foreign government … it's possible to argue that if you have an Australian link, that you do have an entitlement to take part in the Australian process," he said.

Professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, Anne Twomey, agreed there should not be an outright ban on every company with a link to a foreign country or government because it was possible for such a company to have a legitimate interest in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/political-donation-law-changes-face-constitutional-roadblocks/7820990



well that's a bit odd - it would seem the whole reason that Dasher's in this trouble in the first place is because he accepted funds from someone who indeed has a legitimate interest in Australia.

After all, why on earth would anyone seek favour with an Australian Government official if they didn't have some form of legitimate interest in Australia? They certainly wouldn't do it if they had no interest in Australia.

The issue is not banning companies, the issue is the wankers who accept the offers knowing full well that it is not appropriate.

[PeterSibley]

True, but as he and everyone one else admits it's inside the rules. But if the rules are the constitution we seem to have a problem.

[Mitziel]

The issue with Dastyari is that it was a personal debt that was paid out, rather than a legitimate donation to the party or his own campaign fund.

[PeterSibley]

I'd say that came under "courtesy " , hardly sufficient to worry about. A bit like a pile of Rolexs given to the Libs a while ago.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/au...16-2?r=US&IR=T

[Mitziel]

Yes, gifts are commonly thrust upon parliamentarians and there are rules that pertain to this, though wiser heads will pass them all on to the party office or their own campaign fund, and get all written receipts! - that's the belt and braces approach for the ambitious ones.

But again, gifts are a different issue from settling a personal debt; the latter is not allowed and clearly opens the recipient up to undue influence, or compromise in the vernacular of spooks. The fact is that neither a member's own party office, nor even the member's own campaign fund, is allowed to pay out the personal debt of a member. And that's Sam's problem.

[PeterSibley]

Yep, it's very strange though. $1700 is almost small change. Hardly a significant bribe !

[Mitziel]

Yes and it wouldn't have been intended or viewed as a bribe by either party. But the rules are there to stop real bribes, and the whiff of a gas leak rings the alarm as loudly as a rupture. I'm sure neither party understood the consequences or the rules that pertain; or maybe they thought it too trivial to matter. It's a pity, but Dastyari has talent and will shake it off in time.

[Wooden Boat Fittings]

Meanwhile, Turnbull and his leadership.

'Jury still out' on whether Malcolm Turnbull can unite Liberal Party, Peter van Onselen says

Emma Alberici interviewing van Onselen on Lateline --

What has been Mr Turnbull's biggest achievement as PM?
"His biggest achievement was actually getting the job"

Are there still people conspiring against Mr Turnbull within the Liberal Party?
"There's not as many of them in parliamentary party, we argue, as there are in the commentariat."

Has Mr Turnbull changed enough to unite the party?
"I'm not sure. The jury is out. Certainly he is evolved to some extent … even getting the leadership back is a sign he has evolved. There are bad signs, though, or there are some signs that 'bad Malcolm' is back."

What policy guarantees did Mr Turnbull make to secure the job?
"He had to make a whole bunch … he had to give in on climate change … that immediately set him up for failure in terms of expectation management with a lot of Australians who I would argue were swinging voters, or even not traditional Liberal voters, but liked Malcolm Turnbull. The other one was same-sex marriage."

Was a July election the right decision?
"...it left open all sorts of questions — a long election campaign, a party down on money — and ultimately they got caught I think between two options, both of which we argue in the book, would have been better than the one that they settled on, which was going in July."

More here

[Larks]

Meanwhile, Turnbull and his leadership.

'Jury still out' on whether Malcolm Turnbull can unite Liberal Party, Peter van Onselen says

Emma Alberici interviewing van Onselen on Lateline --

What has been Mr Turnbull's biggest achievement as PM?
"His biggest achievement was actually getting the job"

Are there still people conspiring against Mr Turnbull within the Liberal Party?
"There's not as many of them in parliamentary party, we argue, as there are in the commentariat."

Has Mr Turnbull changed enough to unite the party?
"I'm not sure. The jury is out. Certainly he is evolved to some extent … even getting the leadership back is a sign he has evolved. There are bad signs, though, or there are some signs that 'bad Malcolm' is back."

What policy guarantees did Mr Turnbull make to secure the job?
"He had to make a whole bunch … he had to give in on climate change … that immediately set him up for failure in terms of expectation management with a lot of Australians who I would argue were swinging voters, or even not traditional Liberal voters, but liked Malcolm Turnbull. The other one was same-sex marriage."

Was a July election the right decision?
"...it left open all sorts of questions — a long election campaign, a party down on money — and ultimately they got caught I think between two options, both of which we argue in the book, would have been better than the one that they settled on, which was going in July."

More here

I suppose we can be thankful that the jury is still out - that at least means that there's some hope of having a government that can keep it together until the next election

[skuthorp]

Dastyari has resigned from the Labour front bench

[PeterSibley]

A good idea.