Gemma Jones Political Reporter January 03, 2011 12:00AM
PREMIER Kristina Keneally could be in contempt of parliament over her attempts to stop the power sale inquiry, constitutional and legal experts said.
Barrister Arthur Moses SC and prominent constitutional lawyer Professor Patrick Keyzer have told the Opposition that the inquiry is legal and Ms Keneally may be in serious trouble.
She has already admitted her claim that the inquiry was illegal was based on Crown Solicitor's advice from 1994.
She is now considering calling the Crown Solicitor back from holidays for an update.
Mr Moses and Professor Keyzer said the Government needed to urgently seek a declaration from the Supreme Court.
After shutting parliament more than two months early in a bid to stop the inquiry into the government's botched power sell-off, Ms Keneally was rebuffed by the clerk of the Legislative Council who said that it could go ahead with full parliamentary privilege.
Ms Keneally responded by claiming there was "no legal standing" and witnesses would have no protection.
"The purpose of parliamentary committees, protected by parliamentary privilege, is to ensure freedom of speech and absolute candour in deliberations about matters in the public interest, including concerns about maladministration by a government," Mr Moses and Professor Keyzer said in their advice to the Opposition.
"The comments of the Premier in our view have the tendency to interfere with the purpose of the committee, and may constitute a contempt of the NSW Parliament.
"It is a matter for the NSW Parliament to determine whether the conduct of the Premier constitutes contempt of the NSW Parliament and if so, what sanctions, if any, it determines to impose upon the Premier."
Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell yesterday claimed that Ms Keneally's questioning of the inquiry was simply to prevent witnesses attending.
"Besides the obvious contempt of Parliament issues involved, there's an overriding public interest for Kristina Keneally to stop harassing this inquiry," he said.
"The community's right to know the facts of the power sell-off and whether it will see electricity bills rise even higher."
A spokesman for the Premier claimed the advice from Mr Moses and Professor Keyzer was "politically motivated".
"The Government will rely on the advice of the NSW Crown Solicitor - the authority on government legal matters," he said.
"And the Government will rely on the Auditor-General to conduct a thorough, independent evaluation of the electricity transaction." The Auditor-General will report after the March election.
Should Kristina Keneally step down over trying to block the power inquiry?
• Yes 93.99% (2924 votes)
• No 6.01% (187 votes)
Total votes: 3111
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/advice-backs-state-power-inquiry/story-e6freuy9-1225980587511
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Cast adrift from reality, the slick spruikers of 'our' shame
Paul Sheehan January 3, 2011
The water in Sydney Harbour over the New Year weekend was clear, the sky was bright blue and endless, and the new fashion on the beach was bikini-clad women wearing pork-pie hats. A great look. There can be no city in the world where so many people, millions, have easy access to so much natural beauty and a comfortable life. Nowhere else on this scale.
Millions of people would want to come here if they could. I don't blame them. There are roughly 60 million refugees or displaced people in the world, and we would like to scoop them all up and save them. But in the real world it can take a powerful amount of work to even save one's own children from harm. If Australia decided, by an act of democratic will, to become the most generous nation in history, and open its borders to all who sought a better life here, in time this would have dire consequences for the society that has evolved here, and the environment we have already degraded so much.
In this context, I would like to hand out medals for the most dubious contributions to Australian public life in 2010. I don't question the sincerity or good intentions of those I am about to disabuse, I question their grasp on reality.
The gold medal goes to Graeme Innes, the Human Right Commission's disability discrimination commissioner and race discrimination commissioner, who has spent his entire 33-year career as a human rights lawyer. In August, Innes flew to Geneva, at taxpayers' expense, to address the committee of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
Innes managed to cram his speech with six major points that I regard as self-serving or untrue or both: (1) He said there was ''a strong need for a domestic implementation mechanism for CERD in Australia''. (2) He claimed, ''We have a clear sense of what the Australian community wanted … an enshrined bill of rights …''. (3) He called for changes to the Australian constitution to give greater effect to anti-racism laws. (4) He wants ''a national multicultural policy''. (5) He complained that there was ''no national data on the prevalence of migrants as victims of crime''. (6) He called for a ''federal law to criminalise race hate''.
This is a proscriptive paradise for human rights lawyers, as if Australia were not already excessively regulated and litigious and footing the bill for a human rights industry scrambling for clients and relevance.
The silver medal goes to another lawyer, a District Court judge, Stephen Norrish, who believes Aboriginal criminals should have prison terms of less than 12 months automatically suspended or converted to community service. He wants culture and disadvantage to be considered in mitigation during sentencing. He wants special ''Koori courts''. ''Unless acts of affirmative action are formally recognised,'' he said, ''not only will the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system continue, but it will increase, to this nation's greater shame.''
What about some collective remorse and self-criticism from the Aboriginal community? What about the gangs of young Aboriginal men who roam the streets of Sydney and country towns stealing and belting white kids, a problem my extended family has experienced first-hand multiple times? What about an apology from the Aboriginal people (a concept which itself is a white fiction) for the endemic child abuse inside Aboriginal families and communities?
I don't believe most Australians feel ''shame'' that Aborigines are 15-times over-represented in the criminal justice system. I believe they feel anger, as the victims of crime. Australians are sick of the chasm between rhetoric and reality, and the idea that the only acceptable public narratives for Aboriginal people are that of victim or artist or noble custodian. The percentage of incarcerated Aboriginals would be even higher if so many were not given a free pass by the justice system, which in turn has led to a self-perpetuating culture of violence.
The human rights industry, and lawyers from the High Court down, have created a system of moral and legal apartheid in this country in which Aboriginal communities are guaranteed to fail. And they want more of the same failed policies.
Judge Norrish does not treat Aborigines as human beings. Instead they are to be treated as something outside Australian law and culture, as victims, mendicants, piccaninnies, avatars of white guilt, incapable of knowing right from wrong. His comments are profoundly insulting to the majority of Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal people who function well within the norms of society.
At least he does not extend his ''shame'', like Commissioner Innes, who returned to Australia and complained about the ''race to the bottom'' by the major political parties in their policies for the handling of illegal boat arrivals. This is a deeply contemptuous phrase. It strips all principle from the debate for those who support strong border protection. It supports the false premise that the relatively small number of people who arrive by illegal boats makes this a minor matter than can be dealt with by compassion, not hysteria, exaggeration or xenophobia.
But this argument is about principle. Not numbers. The principle applies whether there are two boats or two hundred. The heart of the current debacle is a failure of law, an absence of legal certainty. If an election were to be fought today over whether those who arrive by illegal means, or without proper papers, should be guaranteed of failure, Julia Gillard and her government would be gone.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cast-adrift-from-reality-the-slick-spruikers-of-our-shame-20110102-19cz9.html
The water in Sydney Harbour over the New Year weekend was clear, the sky was bright blue and endless, and the new fashion on the beach was bikini-clad women wearing pork-pie hats. A great look. There can be no city in the world where so many people, millions, have easy access to so much natural beauty and a comfortable life. Nowhere else on this scale.
Millions of people would want to come here if they could. I don't blame them. There are roughly 60 million refugees or displaced people in the world, and we would like to scoop them all up and save them. But in the real world it can take a powerful amount of work to even save one's own children from harm. If Australia decided, by an act of democratic will, to become the most generous nation in history, and open its borders to all who sought a better life here, in time this would have dire consequences for the society that has evolved here, and the environment we have already degraded so much.
In this context, I would like to hand out medals for the most dubious contributions to Australian public life in 2010. I don't question the sincerity or good intentions of those I am about to disabuse, I question their grasp on reality.
The gold medal goes to Graeme Innes, the Human Right Commission's disability discrimination commissioner and race discrimination commissioner, who has spent his entire 33-year career as a human rights lawyer. In August, Innes flew to Geneva, at taxpayers' expense, to address the committee of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
Innes managed to cram his speech with six major points that I regard as self-serving or untrue or both: (1) He said there was ''a strong need for a domestic implementation mechanism for CERD in Australia''. (2) He claimed, ''We have a clear sense of what the Australian community wanted … an enshrined bill of rights …''. (3) He called for changes to the Australian constitution to give greater effect to anti-racism laws. (4) He wants ''a national multicultural policy''. (5) He complained that there was ''no national data on the prevalence of migrants as victims of crime''. (6) He called for a ''federal law to criminalise race hate''.
This is a proscriptive paradise for human rights lawyers, as if Australia were not already excessively regulated and litigious and footing the bill for a human rights industry scrambling for clients and relevance.
The silver medal goes to another lawyer, a District Court judge, Stephen Norrish, who believes Aboriginal criminals should have prison terms of less than 12 months automatically suspended or converted to community service. He wants culture and disadvantage to be considered in mitigation during sentencing. He wants special ''Koori courts''. ''Unless acts of affirmative action are formally recognised,'' he said, ''not only will the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system continue, but it will increase, to this nation's greater shame.''
What about some collective remorse and self-criticism from the Aboriginal community? What about the gangs of young Aboriginal men who roam the streets of Sydney and country towns stealing and belting white kids, a problem my extended family has experienced first-hand multiple times? What about an apology from the Aboriginal people (a concept which itself is a white fiction) for the endemic child abuse inside Aboriginal families and communities?
I don't believe most Australians feel ''shame'' that Aborigines are 15-times over-represented in the criminal justice system. I believe they feel anger, as the victims of crime. Australians are sick of the chasm between rhetoric and reality, and the idea that the only acceptable public narratives for Aboriginal people are that of victim or artist or noble custodian. The percentage of incarcerated Aboriginals would be even higher if so many were not given a free pass by the justice system, which in turn has led to a self-perpetuating culture of violence.
The human rights industry, and lawyers from the High Court down, have created a system of moral and legal apartheid in this country in which Aboriginal communities are guaranteed to fail. And they want more of the same failed policies.
Judge Norrish does not treat Aborigines as human beings. Instead they are to be treated as something outside Australian law and culture, as victims, mendicants, piccaninnies, avatars of white guilt, incapable of knowing right from wrong. His comments are profoundly insulting to the majority of Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal people who function well within the norms of society.
At least he does not extend his ''shame'', like Commissioner Innes, who returned to Australia and complained about the ''race to the bottom'' by the major political parties in their policies for the handling of illegal boat arrivals. This is a deeply contemptuous phrase. It strips all principle from the debate for those who support strong border protection. It supports the false premise that the relatively small number of people who arrive by illegal boats makes this a minor matter than can be dealt with by compassion, not hysteria, exaggeration or xenophobia.
But this argument is about principle. Not numbers. The principle applies whether there are two boats or two hundred. The heart of the current debacle is a failure of law, an absence of legal certainty. If an election were to be fought today over whether those who arrive by illegal means, or without proper papers, should be guaranteed of failure, Julia Gillard and her government would be gone.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cast-adrift-from-reality-the-slick-spruikers-of-our-shame-20110102-19cz9.html
Friday, December 31, 2010
The mineral scramble that led to some rare alliances
Ian MacKinnon December 30, 2010
SOUTH KOREA has struck a deal with Burma to develop its natural resources in the latest bid by industrialised nations to secure new sources of rare earth metals to beat China's near-monopoly.
The minerals are vital for numerous high-tech products, including smartphones, hybrid car batteries, computer discs and guided missiles.
Most countries have had supplies squeezed as China, the producer of 97 per cent of the world's rare earth elements, restricted exports this year.
China said this week it would cut exports by a further 11 per cent in the first few months of next year.
That South Korea should be doing business with a pariah state such as Burma is a measure of the panic export restrictions have created among big producers of electronic goods. In September Beijing halted supplies to Japan, which takes 60 per cent of its rare earth exports, after a diplomatic spat over the arrest of a fishing boat captain in disputed Japanese waters.
Concern that stockpiles of rare earth minerals could run out by March prompted Tokyo to explore a deal with Vietnam to mine the metals. Beijing denied any official ban on exports to Japan, but figures show it cut export quotas by 72 per cent in the second half of the year. Prices increased sharply.
This spurred the US to reopen rare earth mines. A Californian mine, closed in 2002 due to environmental concerns and low prices, has recently reopened but will take two years to reach full production.
Chen Jiazuo, a metals research analyst at Beijing Antaike Information Development Company, said the export cuts were ''in line with government officials' comments that we need to protect the environment and resources. Controlling domestic production capacity, output and exports will continue to be the theme.''
Curbing exports may further exacerbate tensions with the US, which last week said it may file a complaint at the World Trade Organisation over restraints on supplies of the minerals.
Rare earth minerals are 17 chemically similar elements, including neodymium, cerium and lanthanum. Neodymium oxide, used in BlackBerrys, costs $US88.50 a kilogram - more than four times its price in 2009. Telegraph, London
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-mineral-scramble-that-led-to-some-rare-alliances-20101229-19a8k.html
SOUTH KOREA has struck a deal with Burma to develop its natural resources in the latest bid by industrialised nations to secure new sources of rare earth metals to beat China's near-monopoly.
The minerals are vital for numerous high-tech products, including smartphones, hybrid car batteries, computer discs and guided missiles.
Most countries have had supplies squeezed as China, the producer of 97 per cent of the world's rare earth elements, restricted exports this year.
China said this week it would cut exports by a further 11 per cent in the first few months of next year.
That South Korea should be doing business with a pariah state such as Burma is a measure of the panic export restrictions have created among big producers of electronic goods. In September Beijing halted supplies to Japan, which takes 60 per cent of its rare earth exports, after a diplomatic spat over the arrest of a fishing boat captain in disputed Japanese waters.
Concern that stockpiles of rare earth minerals could run out by March prompted Tokyo to explore a deal with Vietnam to mine the metals. Beijing denied any official ban on exports to Japan, but figures show it cut export quotas by 72 per cent in the second half of the year. Prices increased sharply.
This spurred the US to reopen rare earth mines. A Californian mine, closed in 2002 due to environmental concerns and low prices, has recently reopened but will take two years to reach full production.
Chen Jiazuo, a metals research analyst at Beijing Antaike Information Development Company, said the export cuts were ''in line with government officials' comments that we need to protect the environment and resources. Controlling domestic production capacity, output and exports will continue to be the theme.''
Curbing exports may further exacerbate tensions with the US, which last week said it may file a complaint at the World Trade Organisation over restraints on supplies of the minerals.
Rare earth minerals are 17 chemically similar elements, including neodymium, cerium and lanthanum. Neodymium oxide, used in BlackBerrys, costs $US88.50 a kilogram - more than four times its price in 2009. Telegraph, London
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-mineral-scramble-that-led-to-some-rare-alliances-20101229-19a8k.html
Fury in China over online death photo
Xiyun Yang and Edward Wong December 30, 2010
BEIJING: The photograph is so graphic that it appears cartoonish at first glance. A man lies on a road with his eyes closed, blood streaming from his half-open mouth, his torso completely crushed under the large tyre of a red truck. One arm reaches out from beneath the tyre. His shoulder is a bloody pile of flesh. His head is no longer attached to the flattened spinal cord.
The man in the photograph, Qian Yunhui, 53, has become the latest internet sensation in China, as thousands of people viewing the image online since the weekend have accused government officials of killing Mr Qian to silence his six-year campaign to protect fellow villagers in a land dispute. Illegal land seizures by officials are common in China, but the horrific photographs of Mr Qian's death on Saturday ignited widespread fury.
It is the latest in a string of cases in which anger against the government has been fanned by the lightning-fast spread of information online. Officials in the city of Yueqing, which supervises Mr Qian's home village, insist that the photographs show an unfortunate traffic accident. Mr Qian's family, some Chinese reporters and residents of Zhaiqiao Village cite the photographs as proof of foul play and a sloppy cover-up.
It is unclear who took the photographs, but they first appeared on Sunday afternoon on Tianya, a popular online forum.
Chinese internet users were drawn to the fact that the land dispute involving Mr Qian is a common narrative in China.
In 2004 the city government approved the construction of a power plant in Zhaiqiao Village. The company building the plant got virtually all the arable land in the village, and the villagers received no compensation, according to a blog post that was written four months ago under Mr Qian's name.
Mr Qian travelled to Beijing to file a petition with the central authorities. City officials said Mr Qian had been arrested, found guilty of criminal conduct and imprisoned at least twice. Mr Qian continued his crusade after being released from prison. The New York Times
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fury-in-china-over-online-death-photo-20101229-19a95.html
BEIJING: The photograph is so graphic that it appears cartoonish at first glance. A man lies on a road with his eyes closed, blood streaming from his half-open mouth, his torso completely crushed under the large tyre of a red truck. One arm reaches out from beneath the tyre. His shoulder is a bloody pile of flesh. His head is no longer attached to the flattened spinal cord.
The man in the photograph, Qian Yunhui, 53, has become the latest internet sensation in China, as thousands of people viewing the image online since the weekend have accused government officials of killing Mr Qian to silence his six-year campaign to protect fellow villagers in a land dispute. Illegal land seizures by officials are common in China, but the horrific photographs of Mr Qian's death on Saturday ignited widespread fury.
It is the latest in a string of cases in which anger against the government has been fanned by the lightning-fast spread of information online. Officials in the city of Yueqing, which supervises Mr Qian's home village, insist that the photographs show an unfortunate traffic accident. Mr Qian's family, some Chinese reporters and residents of Zhaiqiao Village cite the photographs as proof of foul play and a sloppy cover-up.
It is unclear who took the photographs, but they first appeared on Sunday afternoon on Tianya, a popular online forum.
Chinese internet users were drawn to the fact that the land dispute involving Mr Qian is a common narrative in China.
In 2004 the city government approved the construction of a power plant in Zhaiqiao Village. The company building the plant got virtually all the arable land in the village, and the villagers received no compensation, according to a blog post that was written four months ago under Mr Qian's name.
Mr Qian travelled to Beijing to file a petition with the central authorities. City officials said Mr Qian had been arrested, found guilty of criminal conduct and imprisoned at least twice. Mr Qian continued his crusade after being released from prison. The New York Times
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fury-in-china-over-online-death-photo-20101229-19a95.html
More on NSW Energy
Keneally retreats on power inquiry
Sean Nicholls STATE POLITICAL EDITOR January 1, 2011
KRISTINA KENEALLY has bowed to criticism of her repeated claim that an inquiry into the controversial $5.3 billion power sale is illegal and will try to expedite the legal advice her department is seeking from the Crown Solicitor.
Two days after declaring she ''cannot direct the Crown Solicitor [Ian Knight] as to when he will be providing the advice,'' the Premier suddenly reversed her position.
''I understand the Crown Solicitor is on leave until the 10th of January. However, we're seeking to see if we can get his advice any earlier than that,'' she told a news conference.
Ms Keneally had previously insisted she would have to wait for Mr Knight to return from leave, meaning his advice would be delivered within a week of the inquiry's starting date of January 17.
Since she prorogued, or shut, Parliament on December 22, the Premier has relied on advice that Mr Knight provided in 1994 to claim the inquiry was illegal because it was set up after the closure.
But the Herald revealed yesterday that on the day Ms Keneally first called the inquiry illegal, December 23, her department was so unsure of the claim that it wrote to Mr Knight seeking ''urgent advice''. Despite not having received that advice, Ms Keneally has continued to claim the inquiry is illegal.
She has said it cannot call witnesses and that they would not be covered by parliamentary privilege, potentially exposing them to legal action if they were to disclose information that is commercial-in-confidence.
But these are the matters about which the Department of Premier and Cabinet is seeking Mr Knight's advice.
The Premier's claim has prompted the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, to accuse her of trying to intimidate witnesses, who would include the eight directors of state-owned power companies who resigned in protest on the night of the sale. At the news conference yesterday, Ms Keneally said the department had asked for the updated advice on December 23 ''because journalists had further questions'' about her claim.
The parliamentary inquiry is set down for January 17 and 18 and to report by January 31, less than two months before the election on March 26.
Ms Keneally is under growing pressure, including from within her party, over the government's handling of the power sale, which the Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, rushed through just before midnight on December 14.
At the last minute Mr Roozendaal was forced to appoint members of his own sales team to the boards of the state-owned power companies involved in the sale, Delta Electricity and Eraring Energy, after the directors resigned.
Ms Keneally is accused of proroguing Parliament two months early to try to dodge the inquiry, an accusation she strongly denies.
Mr O'Farrell said yesterday that Ms Keneally was ''running out of excuses'' for blocking the inquiry.
''Ms Keneally has an opportunity to stop trying to hide the truth, and she should finally admit today that the only alternative she now has is to allow the parliamentary power inquiry to do its job,'' he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keneally-retreats-on-power-inquiry-20101231-19bzp.html
Sean Nicholls STATE POLITICAL EDITOR January 1, 2011
KRISTINA KENEALLY has bowed to criticism of her repeated claim that an inquiry into the controversial $5.3 billion power sale is illegal and will try to expedite the legal advice her department is seeking from the Crown Solicitor.
Two days after declaring she ''cannot direct the Crown Solicitor [Ian Knight] as to when he will be providing the advice,'' the Premier suddenly reversed her position.
''I understand the Crown Solicitor is on leave until the 10th of January. However, we're seeking to see if we can get his advice any earlier than that,'' she told a news conference.
Ms Keneally had previously insisted she would have to wait for Mr Knight to return from leave, meaning his advice would be delivered within a week of the inquiry's starting date of January 17.
Since she prorogued, or shut, Parliament on December 22, the Premier has relied on advice that Mr Knight provided in 1994 to claim the inquiry was illegal because it was set up after the closure.
But the Herald revealed yesterday that on the day Ms Keneally first called the inquiry illegal, December 23, her department was so unsure of the claim that it wrote to Mr Knight seeking ''urgent advice''. Despite not having received that advice, Ms Keneally has continued to claim the inquiry is illegal.
She has said it cannot call witnesses and that they would not be covered by parliamentary privilege, potentially exposing them to legal action if they were to disclose information that is commercial-in-confidence.
But these are the matters about which the Department of Premier and Cabinet is seeking Mr Knight's advice.
The Premier's claim has prompted the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, to accuse her of trying to intimidate witnesses, who would include the eight directors of state-owned power companies who resigned in protest on the night of the sale. At the news conference yesterday, Ms Keneally said the department had asked for the updated advice on December 23 ''because journalists had further questions'' about her claim.
The parliamentary inquiry is set down for January 17 and 18 and to report by January 31, less than two months before the election on March 26.
Ms Keneally is under growing pressure, including from within her party, over the government's handling of the power sale, which the Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, rushed through just before midnight on December 14.
At the last minute Mr Roozendaal was forced to appoint members of his own sales team to the boards of the state-owned power companies involved in the sale, Delta Electricity and Eraring Energy, after the directors resigned.
Ms Keneally is accused of proroguing Parliament two months early to try to dodge the inquiry, an accusation she strongly denies.
Mr O'Farrell said yesterday that Ms Keneally was ''running out of excuses'' for blocking the inquiry.
''Ms Keneally has an opportunity to stop trying to hide the truth, and she should finally admit today that the only alternative she now has is to allow the parliamentary power inquiry to do its job,'' he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keneally-retreats-on-power-inquiry-20101231-19bzp.html
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Public kept in dark as banker joins power board at last minute
Public kept in dark as banker joins power board at last minute
Sean Nicholls December 30, 2010
THE Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, quietly appointed a former senior executive at Macquarie Bank, Michael Lilley, to the board of the state-owned power company Delta Electricity within hours of the infamous ''midnight sale'' of NSW power assets.
But Mr Roozendaal has made no mention of appointing Mr Lilley, despite announcing the names of two other directors he was forced to hurriedly appoint late at night to the Delta board after four directors quit in protest at the sale.
Mr Lilley, whose expertise is in public private partnerships, worked for Macquarie as its head of government business. This involved persuading governments to include Macquarie in deals such as the privatisation of public assets. It is understood he left about six months ago.
A spokesman for Mr Roozendaal confirmed that Mr Lilley was appointed on the afternoon of December 15, the day after the $5.3 billion sale was forced through just before midnight. But it was not mentioned, the spokesman said, because ''the appointment process was not complete'' by the time the Treasurer held his 9.30am press conference at which he announced the new directors.
He said Mr Lilley had no role in the sale and the appointment was ''part of the normal process of filling board vacancies''. However, two board vacancies on the other state-owned power company involved in the sale, Eraring Energy, remain unfilled after the resignation of four of its directors on the same evening the Delta directors did so.
The Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, said Mr Lilley's ''sec- ret appointment'' illustrated the need for greater scrutiny of the power sale. ''The fact [the Premier] Kristina Keneally and Eric Roozendaal have kept this secret appointment from the public for nearly a fortnight only adds to the public's concerns that this sell-off is bad for NSW,'' he said.
''The failure of the Keneally Labor government to declare this appointment only increases the need for the parliamentary power inquiry to proceed and report back to the people of NSW before the election.'' Ms Keneally argued that advice from the Crown Solicitor from 1994 showed an inquiry into the power sale, planned for January 17 and 18, would be illegal because it was established after she prorogued Parliament last week.
Following criticism by the Greens MP David Shoebridge that the advice was outdated, Ms Keneally yesterday revealed her department has written to the Crown Solicitor, Ian Knight, seeking confirmation that it remained his view.
Mr Knight is on leave until January 10, but the Department of Premier and Cabinet had requested he report ''as soon as practically possible'', she said. She could not say if that would be before the inquiry began. The Premier also revealed that the NSW Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, had begun ''inquiries to Treasury'' into the power sale. But she could not say if the inquiries were for a special report on the sale.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/public-kept-in-dark-as-banker-joins-power-board-at-last-minute-20101229-19a9n.html
Sean Nicholls December 30, 2010
THE Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, quietly appointed a former senior executive at Macquarie Bank, Michael Lilley, to the board of the state-owned power company Delta Electricity within hours of the infamous ''midnight sale'' of NSW power assets.
But Mr Roozendaal has made no mention of appointing Mr Lilley, despite announcing the names of two other directors he was forced to hurriedly appoint late at night to the Delta board after four directors quit in protest at the sale.
Mr Lilley, whose expertise is in public private partnerships, worked for Macquarie as its head of government business. This involved persuading governments to include Macquarie in deals such as the privatisation of public assets. It is understood he left about six months ago.
A spokesman for Mr Roozendaal confirmed that Mr Lilley was appointed on the afternoon of December 15, the day after the $5.3 billion sale was forced through just before midnight. But it was not mentioned, the spokesman said, because ''the appointment process was not complete'' by the time the Treasurer held his 9.30am press conference at which he announced the new directors.
He said Mr Lilley had no role in the sale and the appointment was ''part of the normal process of filling board vacancies''. However, two board vacancies on the other state-owned power company involved in the sale, Eraring Energy, remain unfilled after the resignation of four of its directors on the same evening the Delta directors did so.
The Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, said Mr Lilley's ''sec- ret appointment'' illustrated the need for greater scrutiny of the power sale. ''The fact [the Premier] Kristina Keneally and Eric Roozendaal have kept this secret appointment from the public for nearly a fortnight only adds to the public's concerns that this sell-off is bad for NSW,'' he said.
''The failure of the Keneally Labor government to declare this appointment only increases the need for the parliamentary power inquiry to proceed and report back to the people of NSW before the election.'' Ms Keneally argued that advice from the Crown Solicitor from 1994 showed an inquiry into the power sale, planned for January 17 and 18, would be illegal because it was established after she prorogued Parliament last week.
Following criticism by the Greens MP David Shoebridge that the advice was outdated, Ms Keneally yesterday revealed her department has written to the Crown Solicitor, Ian Knight, seeking confirmation that it remained his view.
Mr Knight is on leave until January 10, but the Department of Premier and Cabinet had requested he report ''as soon as practically possible'', she said. She could not say if that would be before the inquiry began. The Premier also revealed that the NSW Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, had begun ''inquiries to Treasury'' into the power sale. But she could not say if the inquiries were for a special report on the sale.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/public-kept-in-dark-as-banker-joins-power-board-at-last-minute-20101229-19a9n.html
Monday, October 4, 2010
The ‘Anti-Fascists’ Of ‘Antifa Australia’ Fail To Stop The Sydney Forum:
It Is A Serious Political Defeat For Those Who Deny Free Speech
The ‘Antifa Australia’ group has failed to stop the Ninth Sydney Forum held on September 18-19. After threatening to demonstrate against the Forum’s Sunday session and to generally expose and oppose ‘fascism’ (sic) – they simply failed to show.
Or rather, three ‘spies’ did. One was arrested by some police for an offence (weapon? drugs?). Another slunk away with a few snapshots of a small group of police detailed to ‘watch’ the event and the last one took a few photos at a safe distance from the Forum across the busy Princes Highway at Tempe. What startling intelligence did he get? Simply a few pikkies of the Australia First building where the Sunday session was held!
For Antifa, it was a bad knock, a serious miscalculation, a political defeat. Not to make good on their promise to demonstrate even when sympathetic journalists at the ABC or SBS could have given them a camera opportunity, has shown even a lack of enterprise.
On Sunday, when they should have been demonstrating against the Forum to prove whatever anti free speech credentials they have, Antifa opted to hold a ‘rally’ at the Hub Theatre in Newtown, with some forty or fifty persons in attendance. They later tried to occupy Newtown Square with banners and bongos and they threw a few insults at duty police.
There was still the opportunity to march from Newtown to Tempe, but there was no attempt to encourage others to join them, nothing at all. After adjourning from their rally, the Antifa wandered off to a few hotels and others perhaps - to some private homes to enjoy their recreational drugs.
Acting as the ‘fascists’ they would proclaim the Forum to be, they still failed to stifle freedom of speech.
In recent months, Australia First has noted increasingly strident rhetoric from Antifa to deny freedom of speech and assembly to those who they deem to be ‘fascists’. In the past they have damaged property and tried to assault people. They did not confront the Forum. Why?
Last year Antifa demonstrated (with property damage) in inner city Chippendale, protesting against a group they called ‘extreme right’ or ‘fascist’. In July, they joined with others to protest a small group of persons in Newtown who objected to Islamic migration. However, Australia First and Sydney Forum have been reserved for special abuse and occasional violent rhetoric.
Antifa is a group fuelled by anarchists and inner city ‘lifestyle’ dregs (same sex marriage couples, perverts of various sorts, drug abusers, refugee ‘advocates’ and what not). They do not represent the Australian people although they might be considered ‘chic’ in parts of inner-suburbs Sydney. They proclaim themselves arbiters of freedom. Yet, this group does not see (if it cares at all) that its slogans (No borders! ; No nations! Refugee rights!) are the very slogans of the corrupt, globalist, Australian political establishment. Australia First has often decried the ‘rabble above and the rabble below’, that funny working coalition of the rich in expensive suits and the greenhairs in dirty drag, who together share a common globalist perspective - and via the media can mobilise against patriotic Australians. At best, this curious Antifa street gang serves in practise those very elites they criticise elsewhere as the uncaring rich. The irony is absolute and the deception complete. Ultimately, it may be that the Antifa have simply recognized the fact that we cannot be deterred and that it is easier to abuse the long suffering average cop.
The Sydney Forum was a success and reports that have reached us say that the 2011 Forum will be the largest. Next year marks the tenth anniversary of the Forum’s foundation and in fact – its tenth presentation. Freedom of speech and genuine democracy is not dead in Australia. Australia First Party will continue to proudly support the Sydney Forum and we look forward to reading its full report for 2010.
It Is A Serious Political Defeat For Those Who Deny Free Speech
The ‘Antifa Australia’ group has failed to stop the Ninth Sydney Forum held on September 18-19. After threatening to demonstrate against the Forum’s Sunday session and to generally expose and oppose ‘fascism’ (sic) – they simply failed to show.
Or rather, three ‘spies’ did. One was arrested by some police for an offence (weapon? drugs?). Another slunk away with a few snapshots of a small group of police detailed to ‘watch’ the event and the last one took a few photos at a safe distance from the Forum across the busy Princes Highway at Tempe. What startling intelligence did he get? Simply a few pikkies of the Australia First building where the Sunday session was held!
For Antifa, it was a bad knock, a serious miscalculation, a political defeat. Not to make good on their promise to demonstrate even when sympathetic journalists at the ABC or SBS could have given them a camera opportunity, has shown even a lack of enterprise.
On Sunday, when they should have been demonstrating against the Forum to prove whatever anti free speech credentials they have, Antifa opted to hold a ‘rally’ at the Hub Theatre in Newtown, with some forty or fifty persons in attendance. They later tried to occupy Newtown Square with banners and bongos and they threw a few insults at duty police.
There was still the opportunity to march from Newtown to Tempe, but there was no attempt to encourage others to join them, nothing at all. After adjourning from their rally, the Antifa wandered off to a few hotels and others perhaps - to some private homes to enjoy their recreational drugs.
Acting as the ‘fascists’ they would proclaim the Forum to be, they still failed to stifle freedom of speech.
In recent months, Australia First has noted increasingly strident rhetoric from Antifa to deny freedom of speech and assembly to those who they deem to be ‘fascists’. In the past they have damaged property and tried to assault people. They did not confront the Forum. Why?
Last year Antifa demonstrated (with property damage) in inner city Chippendale, protesting against a group they called ‘extreme right’ or ‘fascist’. In July, they joined with others to protest a small group of persons in Newtown who objected to Islamic migration. However, Australia First and Sydney Forum have been reserved for special abuse and occasional violent rhetoric.
Antifa is a group fuelled by anarchists and inner city ‘lifestyle’ dregs (same sex marriage couples, perverts of various sorts, drug abusers, refugee ‘advocates’ and what not). They do not represent the Australian people although they might be considered ‘chic’ in parts of inner-suburbs Sydney. They proclaim themselves arbiters of freedom. Yet, this group does not see (if it cares at all) that its slogans (No borders! ; No nations! Refugee rights!) are the very slogans of the corrupt, globalist, Australian political establishment. Australia First has often decried the ‘rabble above and the rabble below’, that funny working coalition of the rich in expensive suits and the greenhairs in dirty drag, who together share a common globalist perspective - and via the media can mobilise against patriotic Australians. At best, this curious Antifa street gang serves in practise those very elites they criticise elsewhere as the uncaring rich. The irony is absolute and the deception complete. Ultimately, it may be that the Antifa have simply recognized the fact that we cannot be deterred and that it is easier to abuse the long suffering average cop.
The Sydney Forum was a success and reports that have reached us say that the 2011 Forum will be the largest. Next year marks the tenth anniversary of the Forum’s foundation and in fact – its tenth presentation. Freedom of speech and genuine democracy is not dead in Australia. Australia First Party will continue to proudly support the Sydney Forum and we look forward to reading its full report for 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
