A taxing tale of two peak bodies

A taxing tale of two peak bodies

HOW THE LIBERALS ROB THE BLIND

A taxing tale of two peak bodies

Date

January 2, 2015 - 12:15AM

• 298 reading now
• 
  

Michael West

Business columnist

View more articles from Michael West

Follow Michael on Twitter
Email Michael

New Social Services Minister Scott Morrison has taken the axe to community grants. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Four days out from Christmas, Blind Citizens Australia (BCA),
Deaf Australia, Homelessness Australia and Down Syndrome Australia
learned they were to be subject to federal government funding cuts.



New Social Services Minister Scott Morrison assured concerned
parties that frontline services to the disabled would not be cut, just
grants to these and other organisations advocating for the homeless and
the disabled.




While one BCA – Blind Citizens Australia – did not fare so
well this yuletide, another BCA – the Business Council of Australia –
did quite nicely.



Only a week earlier, the government had back-flipped on a
proposed tax avoidance reform (Section 25-90) entailing some $600
million in tax deductions that multinational companies could claim on
interest on their debts in offshore subsidiaries.




As it turned out, the "stakeholders" with whom the government
had "consulted" before it made its decision were the big audit firms
(whose best clients are the multinationals) and assorted peak bodies
such as the Minerals Council of Australia.



Clearly the voice of assorted business lobbies is being heard more loudly and more clearly in Canberra than the likes of Autism
Aspergers Advocacy Australia or the National Council on Intellectual
Disability and Physical Disability Australia – two more subjects of the
Christmas cuts to social welfare.



In the investment world, the typical product disclaimer runs
like this: "Past performance is no indication of future returns." The
same might be said of government but if last year's performance is any
indication, social welfare will be under siege this year while corporate
welfare will proceed apace.



While the government has held firm against advances from the
likes of Qantas and SPC Ardmona, who were chasing cash handouts (the
former suddenly bounced back as oil prices dropped, and the latter
received help from Victoria), it has not managed to bring a single
meaningful reform to stem the flood of Australian company profits being
transferred offshore via aggressive tax avoidance schemes.



The talk has been hot and heavy, the action measly.



Of its two major tax reforms, the abolition of the carbon tax
and the abolition of the mining tax, the greatest beneficiaries are
multinational mining companies, the great majority of whose shareholders
reside overseas.



The decision not to remove the 25-90 deductions is the next
most meaningful fillip for multinationals. The others – not proceeding
with reforms to the offshore banking unit regime, tax compliance
measures, and dumping changes to multiple entry consolidated groups –
add up to a further $500 million on Labor's estimates.



This reporter is no expert on not-for-profits. These advocacy
groups for the homeless and disabled are funded by the taxpayer and
there may be some fat to cut. We don't know. What is certain is that
organisations representing the most disadvantaged in our society do not
give political donations, nor, as demonstrated above, do they hold even a
fraction of the sway in Canberra enjoyed by those representing the most powerful.



The corporate tax rate in Australia is 30 per cent yet a
host of multinationals – with income of billions of dollars a year –
pay nothing near the statutory rate, and that is after transferring
collectively billions of dollars in profit offshore with the likes of
interest on loans to their foreign associates.



Their peak bodies and their advisers, the big accounting firms, are the very ones who command the government's ear.



Originally, the back-flip on 25-90 was buried with
little explanation on page 117 of the MYEFO statement. Later, upon
inquiry by Fairfax reporters, the Treasurer's office revealed the
decision was made after "consultation with stakeholders".



Upon further inquiry still, these mystery "stakeholders" were unveiled:



"Advisory firms (read the Big Four audit firms),



"Mining, energy and resources industry representatives (read Minerals Council of Australia),



"Finance, property and manufacturing industry
representatives" (read other vested interests keen to keep their share
of the $600 million tax break)



"Various industry peak bodies" (read other rent-seekers with
their arms outstretched for corporate welfare at the expense of ordinary
citizens and small business people).



In the lead-up to last year's federal election, the Coalition
promised to kick off the "next wave of comprehensive" tax reform with
the delivery of a white paper in its first term in government. This is
expected to drop in the next couple of months, and it may surprise. Yet
the government's track record on caving in to vested interests does not
augur well.

Taxing take on definitions

Also shortly before Christmas, the Minerals Council of
Australia was up to its old tricks as it sallied forth with yet another
report despairing of all the tax and royalties its members were forced
to pay.



It is a good thing the Minerals Council does not represent
the forestry sector as well as foreign-controlled multinational mining
companies or they would be lobbying to chop down the trees for free.



Having just had a win when the government abandoned the 25-90
anti-avoidance provisions, the big miners' peak body was again busy
conflating tax with royalties.



"Conducted jointly by the Minerals Council of Australia and
Deloitte Access Economics, the survey finds the tax take ratio in that
year was 47.1 per cent. This is the highest recorded level since the tax
survey was inaugurated ... No longer can this industry be seen as a
honey-pot for short-term revenue raids."



What is this mysterious "tax take ratio"? If you delve into
the report you will find it is a ratio concocted by dividing royalties
and tax by taxable income (before royalties).



Royalties are not taxes. They are a payment a company is
required to make for the pleasure of extracting minerals from the ground
– gold, copper, coal and the like – things that belong to somebody
else, namely, the people of this country.



If this peak body was representing foreign agribusiness
rather than foreign miners they'd be in a state of high indignation
about having to pay for their cattle and their wheat. They would be
bewailing it as a tax.



Nowhere in the Minerals Council's report was an actual tax
figure mentioned. Conveniently, it was all about ratios. Had they
deigned to include the actual numbers these would have shown the amount
of tax paid by mining companies was dropping sharply. Commodity prices
are down, profits are down, therefore tax is down too, sharply.



Needless to say, nowhere in this report could be found the
tax contribution of mining companies to government revenue, which is
around the 3.4 per cent mark.  Nor is there any mention of the $4.5
billion per year in taxpayer subsidies to the mining industry such as
the diesel fuel rebate and assorted tax breaks for exploration and so
forth. That is the real honey-pot.

Plundering to continue

Finally, in light of vigorous denials by Treasurer Joe Hockey
to Fairfax Media reports that the removal of the Section 25-90
provisions amounted to a back-flip, it is worth noting that the central
rationale for the decision was that "compliance costs" would be too
high. This defies all logic because if you remove something, you longer
have to comply with it or even have a compliance regime. It is gone.



Further to the denials, this from former tax office expert on withholding tax, Martin Lock:   



"The Treasurer fails to mention that the so-called Australian
company 'penalised' if s.25-90 were repealed may be an Australian
resident subsidiary company of a foreign-based corporate group. Section
25-90 does not discriminate according to the residency of the ultimate
shareholders of the so-called 'Australian company': any
company incorporated in Australia (done simply) can access the concession that the section offers. 



"The failure to repeal s.25-90 will continue to allow a
foreign-owned Australian resident company to claim tax deductions for
interest paid on debt borrowed from related offshore entities and used
to earn s.23AJ tax-free dividends. These are dividends arising from
holding 10 per cent or more of the voting interest in shares that the
resident company has in offshore companies. The deductions are claimable
against any assessable derived from the company's Australian
operations, reducing its overall Australian taxable income, even down
to nil if the debt-loading is big enough.



"This practice is 'profit-shifting', and the failure to
repeal s.25-90 will continue to allow at least some foreign-based
companies to go on plundering Australia's tax base in this way, claiming
all the while to bring to this country the benefits of foreign
investment."



Happy New Year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-taxing-tale-of-two-peak-bodies-20150101-12gcty.html#ixzz3NcBmSWpp

2015 The End of Australian Democracy? - The AIM Network

2015 The End of Australian Democracy? - The AIM Network

2015 The End of Australian Democracy?

• 
  
  December 30, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  John Lord
  
• 
  8 Replies

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  John Lord
  
  
  
  

Part one. What is it.





In the recipe of what a democracy is there are many ingredients but
simply explained it is a political system where like-minded people come
together to form ideas that become a philosophy. They then become the
foundation of political parties. These ideologies pull in different
directions in a quest for majority approval by the people. It is a far
from perfect system that has variations all around the world. It is
elastically flexible, (we even have democratic dictatorships),
unpredictable and at its worst, violent and extremely combative.


At its best it is noble, constructive and generally serves society
well. It is very much better than the next best thing and accommodates
diagonally opposed ideas, extreme or otherwise. All in all it’s an
imperfect beast that has served us well. Yes it’s government for the
people by the people.


Common to most Western Democracies (and in the absence of anything better) it has a capitalistic economic system.


In Australia the right to vote is the gift that democracy gives and
people are free to vote for whichever party (or individual) they support
but overriding this is the fact that people cannot possibly believe in
democracy, if at the same time they think their party is the only one
that should ever win.


A clear indication of an Australian Democracy in decline is the fact
that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying:

“A pox on both your houses”.

Three million did so at the last election by not voting.

Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations fail to speak with any clarity on issues that concern people.


Moreover, an enlightened democracy should provide the people with a
sense of purposeful participation. It should forever be open to regular
improvement in its methodology and its implementation. Its
constitutional framework should be exposed to periodical revision and
renewal, compromise and bi-partisanship when the common good cries out
for it.


But above all its function should be, that regardless of ideology the
common good should be served first and foremost. A common good healthy
democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top
down democracy that exists to serve secular interests. One that is
enforced by an elite of business leaders, politicians and media
interests who have the power to enforce their version. That is
fundamentally anti-democratic.


Every facet of society including the democratic process needs
constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise we become so
trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of
doing things.Unfortunately, Australia’s particular version of the
democratic process has none of these things inherent in it and is
currently sinking in a quagmire of American Tea Party Republicanism.





I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I
write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen because it seems to me
that the Australian democracy I grew up with no longer exists. The
demise of Australian Democracy has its origins in a monumental shift by
both major parties to the right with the result that neither seem to
know exactly what it is they stand for. They are now tainted with
sameness.


The Liberal Party has been replaced by neo Conservatism actively
asserting individual identity against a collective one and old style
Liberalism no longer has a voice. There is little or no difference
between the Liberals and the National Party who seem irrelevant as a
political force.


Conservatives have gone down the path of inequality with a born to rule mentality that favors the rich.

“The whole logic of the “lifters” and “leaners” rhetoric
so favoured by the current Government is a distillation of the idea of
that there is no such thing as society, that we and only we are
responsible for our own circumstances”.

Tim Dunlop.

The Labor Party needs to rid itself of an out-dated socialist
objective and invest in a social philosophical common good instead. And
recognise that the elimination of growing inequality is a worthwhile
pursuit.


The major parties have become fragmented with Labor losing a large
segment of its supporters to the Greens whilst the LNP is being
undermined by rich populist Clive Palmer in the style of Berlusconi.


In terms of talent both parties are represented by party hacks of
dubious intellectual talent without enough female representation and
worldly work life experience. Both parties have pre-selection processes
rooted in factional power struggles that often see the best candidates
miss out. Both need to select people with broader life experience. Not
just people who have come out of the Union Movement or in the case of
the LNP, staffers who have come up through the party.


Our Parliament, its institutions and conventions have been so trashed
by Tony Abbott in particular that people have lost faith in the
political process and their representatives. Ministerial responsibility
has become a thing of the past.





Question time is just an excuse for mediocre minds who are unable to
win an argument with factual intellect, charm or debating skills, to act
deplorably toward each other. The public might be forgiven for thinking
that the chamber has descended into a chamber of hate where respect for
the others view is seen as a weakness. Where light frivolity and wit
has been replaced with smut and sarcasm. And in doing so they debase the
parliament and themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals.


Question time is the showcase of the Parliament and is badly in need
of an overhaul and an independent Speaker. Our democracy suffers because
no one has the guts to give away the slightest political advantage.


Recent times have demonstrated just how corrupt our democracy has
become. We have witnessed a plethora of inquiries all focusing on
illegal sickening behavior. There is no reason to doubt that the stench
of NSW doesn’t waffle its way through the corridors of the National
Parliament and into the highest offices.


And our democracy lacks leadership because our current leaders and
their followers have so debased the Parliament that there is no
compelling reason to be a politician. Well at least for people with
decency, integrity and compassion.


I cannot remember a time when my country has been so devoid of
political leadership. In recent times we have had potential but it was
lost in power struggles, undignified self-interest and narcissistic
personality.


The pursuit of power for power’s sake and the retention of it has so
engulfed political thinking that the people have become secondary and
the common good dwells somewhere in the recesses of small minds lacking
the capacity for good public policy that achieves social equity.


Our voting system is badly in need of an overhaul. When one party,
The Greens attracts near enough to the same primary votes as The
Nationals but can only win one seat in the House of Representatives, as
opposed to eight there is something wrong with the system. Added to that
is the ludicrous Senate situation where people are elected on virtually
no primary votes, just preferences. It is also a system that allows the
election of people with vested business interests with no public
disclosure.








One cannot begin to discuss the decline of Australian democracy
without at the same time aligning it to the collapse in journalistic
standards and its conversion from reporting to opinion. Murdoch and his
majority owned newspapers with blatant support for right wing politics
have done nothing to advance Australia as a modern enlightened
democratic society. On the contrary it has damaged it, perhaps
irreparably.


The advent of social media has sent the mainstream media into free
fall. Declining newspaper sales have resulted in lost revenue and
profits. It is losing its authority, real or imagined to bloggers who
more reflect a grass roots society. Writers with who they can agree or
differ but have the luxury of doing so. As a result newspapers in
particular have degenerated into gutter political trash in the hope that
they might survive. Shock jocks shout the most outrageous lies and
vilify people’s character with impunity and in the process do nothing to
promote decent democratic illumination. They even promote free speech
as if they are the sole custodian of it.


There are three final things that have contributed to the decline in our democracy.

Firstly, the Abbott factor and the death of truth as a principle of
democratic necessity. I am convinced Tony Abbott believes that the
effect of lying diminishes over time and therefore is a legitimate
political tool. So much so that his words and actions bring into
question the very worthiness of the word truth. Or he has at least
devalued it to the point of obsolesce.


The budget will be remembered for one thing. That it has given
approval for and overwhelmingly legitimised lying as a political and
election contrivance.

Mr Abbott has long set a high standard when it comes to keeping promises. On August 22, 2011 he said:

“It is an absolute principle of democracy that
governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and
do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring
our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia
from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent
that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite
afterwards.”

On the eve of the last election, after crucifying Prime Minister
Julia Gillard daily for three years, Abbott made this solemn promise:

“There will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health,
no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or
SBS”.

This is an unambiguous statement that cannot be interpreted any
differently than what the words mean. To do so is telling one lie in
defense of another.

In the budget he broke them all. As a result, a rising stench of
hypocrisy and dishonesty has engulfed the Abbott prime minister-ship.
When you throw mud in politics some of it inevitably sticks but there is
a residue that adheres to the chucker. That is now Abbott’s dilemma but
the real loser is our democracy. In Australian political history
Abbott’s legacy will be that he empowered a period emblematic of a nasty
and ugly period in our politics.


Our democracy is nothing more or nothing less than what the people
make of it. The power is with the people and it is incumbent on the
people to voice with unmistakable anger the decline in our democracy.

People need to wake up to the fact that government effects every part of
their life (other than what they do in bed) and should be more
concerned. But there is a political malaise that is deep seated.
Politicians of all persuasions must be made to pay for their willful
destruction of our democracy.

Good democracies can deliver good governments and outcomes only if the electorate demands it.


You get what you vote for rings true.


Lastly but importantly we need to educate our final year school
leavers (the voters of tomorrow) with an indebtedness and fundamental
appreciation of democracy. A focus group I held recently at a nearby
college revealed two things. One was that our young people are
conversant with societal issues and have strong opinions grounded in
clear observation. They cannot however place them into a logical
political framework because (two) they are not adequately informed about
political dogma and its place in the workings of a democracy.


We deserve better than what we have at the moment. However, if we are
not prepared to raise our voices then our democracy will continue to
decline and the nation and its people will suffer the consequences.


Part two. Opinions


Three books have recently been published that address the state of our democracy. The first ‘’Triumph and Demise’’
is by The Australian’s editor-at-large, Paul Kelly. In the final
chapter Kelly suggests that our political system is in trouble and that,
if that is the case, then by definition so are we. The Prime Minister
launched the book and in doing so fundamentally disagreed with the
authors assertions.

“Paul suggests that the relentless negativity of our contemporary
conversation, the culture of entitlement that he thinks has sprung up
over the last decade or so, means that good government has become
difficult, perhaps impossible’’


“It’s not the system which is the problem, it is the people who from
time-to-time inhabit it. Our challenge at every level is to be our best
selves.”

In the first quote two words, negativity and entitlement
jump out at you. Not necessarily in the context of the difficulty of
governance, he was alluding to, but rather as self-descriptive character
analysis. He could not have chosen two better words to describe his own
footprint on the path to our democratic demise.


The second is a disingenuous, even sarcastic swipe at his opponents
that leaves no room for self-examination or blame for his own period as
opposition leader and later as Prime Minister in particular. And in
another indignant self-righteous swipe he said that Labor was “much
better at politics than government.”


These are quotes by Kelly at the launch.


Kelly said he increasingly felt there were “real problems” with the mechanics of the political system as he worked on his book.

“I have always believed in the quality of leadership. I
have always felt that leadership was fundamental … to the success of the
country,” Kelly said.


“I do think the system today makes governing, and in particular
serious reform, more difficult, and I think the record does show that.”

I have not read the book but I agree entirely with his diagnosis. In
the first quote I believe he is referring to a breakdown in the
conventions and institutional arrangements of our democracy.


The second is a general commentary on the dearth of leadership over
the past decade or so. Although he was a Howard supporter and he has
recently said this of Abbott.

“Abbott is governing yet he is not persuading. So far. As
Prime Minister he seems unable to replicate his success as Opposition
leader: mobilising opinion behind his causes. The forces arrayed against
Abbott, on issue after issue, seem more formidable than the weight the
prime minister can muster.”

The third quote is a direct reference to the 24/7 News cycle and negativity as a means of obtaining power.


The second book ‘’The Political Bubble’’ by Mark Latham also addresses the state of our democracy.

‘’Australians once trusted the democratic process. While
we got on with our lives, we assumed our politicians had our best
interests at heart’’

He suggests that trust has collapsed. In this book, he freely
explores and travels up and down every road of our democratic map. On
the journey he talks about how democracy has lost touch with the people
it’s supposed to represent. Like a fast talking cab driver he gives view
on how politics has become more tribal with left and right wing
politics being dominated by fanatical extremists.


An entire chapter is devoted to how Tony Abbott promised to restore
trust in Australian politics and how he failed to keep his promises.
Another chapter is devoted to what can be done about fixing the
democratic deficit as he calls it.

‘’Can our parliamentary system realign itself with community expectations or has politics become one long race to the bottom?’’

The third, and more recent book, by Nick Bryant (BBC correspondent and author) aptly titled The Rise and Fall of Australia ‘’How a great Nation lost its way’
’takes a forensic look at the lucky country from inside and out. The
most impressive thing about this book, besides the directness of his
observations and astuteness of his writing, is that what is being said
is an outsider’s point of view. He is not constrained by the provincial
restrictions of self-analysis. Instead he offers his take on what he
calls

‘’the great paradox of modern-day Australian life: of how
the country has got richer at a time when its politics have become more
impoverished.’’

Another important contribution to the democracy debate is this piece by Joseph Camilleri ‘’Democracy in crisis’’ I highly recommend this thoughtful article for a comprehensive outline of what ails our democracy.


I have alluded to these works, not as a review of each, but rather to
highlight a growing concern over the state of our democracy.


There is no doubt in my mind if one looks at all the ingredients that
go into forming a strong democracy, and you make a list of ingredients,
the traditional recipe is no longer working. Or it has been corrupted
by inferior ingredients.


At the risk of repeating myself, take for example the seemingly
uncontrollable bias and market share of Murdoch. A desire for
unaccountable free speech that is weighted toward, extremism. The attack
on the conventions and institutions of parliament by the Prime
Minister. The precedent of invoking Royal Commissions into anything as a
means of retribution. The rise of fanatical right wing partisan
politics and media. The decline in parliamentary respect and behavior.
Add to that the right wings dismissive contempt for feminism.


Corporate sway and the pressure of the lobbyist can also be added to
the mix, together with the voice of the rich that shouts the voice of
inequality. The idea that with political servitude comes entitlement via
financial benefit and privilege. And you can throw in the power of
personalities over policy within the mainstream parties. Then there is
the uninhibited corruption from both major parties. Then there is the
acceptance by both sides that negativity is the only means of obtaining
power.


But at the top of the list is the malaise of the population. Although
we have compulsory voting 3million people at the last election felt so
disgusted with our democracy that they felt more inclined to have a beer
at the pub, or mow the lawn than cast a vote for Australian democracy.


If we are to save our democracy we might begin by asking that at the very least our politicians should tell the truth.


Others have also written on the subject. Democracy and diversity: media ownership in Australia


Budget Crisis or Crisis in Democracy

Another by me.


Democracy Usurped

ByJohn Kelly


Can our democracy be saved?


By Kaye Lee
Capitalism isn’t democracy

Share this:

• Facebook85
• Twitter5
• Reddit
• Google
• Email
• Print
• 
  

Like this:

Related

A Crisis in Our Democracy

In "Politics"

A Crisis in Democracy "Revisited"

In "Politics"

Budget Crisis or Crisis in Democracy

In "Politics"

Commissioner Dyson Heydon's curiously incomplete TURC report

Commissioner Dyson Heydon's curiously incomplete TURC report

Peter Wicks 23 December 2014, 12:00pm 9

CrimeLawPolitics

Share on facebook38
Share on twitter46
Share on linkedin0
Share on reddit0
Share on google_plusone_share
Share on email
More Sharing Services

Commissioner Dyson Heydon (Image via @BenSchneiders)

Trade Union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon has given several people an early Christmas present with his Interim Report, writes Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks.



Last Friday there must have been a lot of thankful people dishing out a lot of thank you messages.



Last Friday Commissioner John Dyson Heydon handed over his Interim Report regarding the Trade Union Royal Commission.



The report was originally due later in January, but was released
earlier for reasons that may only be speculated upon. But it is fair to
say it was released on a day that shows that the government thought this
Royal Commission had been a failed exercise, why else dump it out there without the prime minister on the Friday before Christmas?



The most thankful of all would be Kathy Jackson, whose appearance and
testimony at the Royal Commission caused more headlines and front page
news stories than any other witness, what with charity shags and claims of ambush. In fact, the only witness that received more attention on the day they appeared was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the day she was shown at long last to be completely clean, even in the eyes of a right-wing witch hunt like this Commission.



Jackson would be thankful she has been completely ignored by the Commissioner's report. Not even the $250K she took from cancer workers and
threw in a personal bank account to go on a wild spending spree. The
account that was disguised to look legitimate in the HSU books and then,
when discovered, an attempt was made for it to be passed off as a slush
fund.



Not only did Jackson go on a wild spending spree, but she shared the
love and the loot around with accomplices, giving huge sums of money to
her ex-husband Jeff, as well as a big chunk in an envelope to her factional ally and standover man Marco Bolano — apparently so Marco could use the money to illegally fund his own union election campaign.



Still, Commissioner Heydon must have been asleep at the wheel on
those days, as it didn’t rate a mention, apart from one passing
reference.





He must have also missed the section of his counsel assisting’s report that recommended Jackson be referred to the Department Of Public Prosecutions for criminal charges.



Also thankful would be Attorney General George Brandis and Senator
Eric Abetz, for saving them the embarrassment of their Royal Commission
pointing out their star witness as the most corrupt person appearing
before the Commission if the allegations are proven true. Even based on
those allegations she has admitted to under oath during the parts the
Commissioner seems to have slept through, there has been no other
witness appear that has personally acquired such vast sums of money from
their union without the members knowledge, let alone blessing.



In fact, there must be a truckload of Coalition MP’s, including
Abbott himself, going “phew” and silently giving thanks that
Commissioner Heydon was happy to put his own reputation at risk to save
them the embarrassment of pointing out their unwavering support of an
alleged criminal.



However it is the union movement that should be thankful,
particularly the CFMEU who seem to have been the most targeted in this
whole taxpayer-funded charade.



The union movement should be overjoyed that this report cannot be
taken in any way seriously, if its 1,817 pages have blatantly missed
possibly the most corrupt official to have appeared before the
Commission. This highlights the fact the whole commission has been
nothing but a very expensive witch hunt done for political purposes.





But perhaps the most thankful of all should be the public; after all,
as the legal fraternity involved rack up hundreds of thousands of
billable hours, it is the public that are footing the bill.



You may think that’s nothing to be thankful for, but at least we now know exactly what it is we are paying for.



Any doubt that this Commission was actually about protecting member’s
interests rather than a witch hunt for political purposes has now been
shown as wishful thinking.



There is only one certainty in all of this and that is one of the
items on the Royal Commission's agenda was the protection of the
Coalition's golden girl Kathy Jackson.



Perhaps a hint for the media was the departure of the Royal
Commission’s media director Adrian Kerr immediately after the report was
released. This meant that after Commission dropped its bombshell, they
could not face media scrutiny about it.



Kerr had been visibly uncomfortable in his role on some of the
sitting days and was particularly touchy on matters involving the
Commissions integrity. In his email to the press regarding the release
of the Commissioners report, Kerr finished off by saying this

'This is my final day with the Commission. Thank you all for a
great professional year on the job. I’ll keep your contact details for
future reference.'

A strange way of announcing your departure to the country's media — or perhaps strange timing is better phrase.



A Royal Commission is considered the most powerful legal inquiry this
country has in its arsenal and is considered by many to be beyond
reproach.





An inquiry of this magnitude, set up to expose corruption in the
union movement so offenders can be criminally prosecuted, that is found
to have as part of its agenda the protection of possibly the most
corrupt union official this country has ever seen, is an inquiry that
is, in itself, corrupted to its core.



We should be thankful that, at long last, that the Royal Commission has shown its true colours.



A corruption inquiry that seeks to smear the union movement and
selectively ignores allegations of corruption on a grand scale? The only
thing that could be more corrupt than that is the Government that set
it up.



You can follow Peter Wicks on Twitter @madwixxy. Catch up on the full Jacksonville saga here.

Release of ministerial travel costs could damage our international standing, government claims

Release of ministerial travel costs could damage our international standing, government claims

The Coalition has ignored
pre-election promises to improve transparency and refused to release
ministers' travel expense details.

The Abbott government is refusing the
release documents revealing the cost of Coalition ministers' travel
overseas. Photo: Andrew Meares

The
Abbott government is refusing to release documents detailing the cost
and purpose of overseas travel by Coalition ministers, claiming they
could "cause damage to Australia's international relations" if made
public.

The government-wide clampdown comes
after embarrassing details of Education Minister Christopher Pyne's
lavish trip to London and Rome with his wife were revealed by Fairfax
Media in September.

In a letter, the government
leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, refused a request to table
correspondence between Prime Minister Tony Abbott's office and ministers
concerning approval of international travel by members of the
executive.

Advertisement

The blanket refusal has been made despite freedom
of information officers in the Education Department seeing no impediment
to the release of expense details of Mr Pyne's $30,000 trip to London
and Rome in April.

Mr Pyne came under fire after
taxpayers were billed $1352 to "day let" a room at a swish London hotel
before the minister and his wife, Carolyn, flew back to Australia on
the same day. More than $2000 was spent on VIP services at Heathrow
Airport for the Pynes.

The documents revealed Mr
Pyne had got around guidelines that prevent spouses being funded on
overseas trips unless in certain circumstances with a special letter of
approval by Mr Abbott's chief-of-staff, Peta Credlin.

The
request for documents was made in the Senate after the government
refused freedom of information requests by the Transport Workers Union
to nine different departments, including Health, Defence, Industry,
Treasury and Attorney-General.

The Gillard
government routinely released travel cost documents, including six
separate requests under FOI laws in relation to the travel expenses of
then foreign minister Kevin Rudd.

Labor was hit with headlines including the "huge travel splurge of globe-trotting federal MPs".

In the Coalition's pre-election policy blueprint, Real Solutions,
the then Opposition promised that in government: "We will restore
accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable
to you."

In his letter of November 24 to Senate
President Stephen Parry, refusing Labor's request to produce documents,
Senator Abetz said fulfilling the request would "substantially divert
the resources … from its other operations" of the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet.

"The Department also
advises that any correspondence that may be identified could include
information, which if released publicly would, or could reasonably be
expected to cause damage to Australia's international relations," Mr
Abetz wrote.

Labor Senator Joe Ludwig said Mr Abbott's claim to greater transparency in Real Solutions could be chalked up as "another lie".

"This
once again demonstrates a government that's shrouded in secrecy and
afraid of the truth. The previous Labor government released this type of
information to the public, what does the Abbott government have to
hide?" he said.

Mr Abbott was forced to tighten
rules around travel entitlements for all members of Parliament last year
after revelations by Fairfax Media.

They
included Attorney-General George Brandis and Agriculture Minister
Barnaby Joyce claiming $1700 and $650 respectively to attend the 2011
wedding of Sydney radio presenter Michael Smith.

Mr
Joyce, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Liberal MP Teresa
Gambaro claimed $12,000 in overseas study allowance for flights back
from an Indian society wedding in 2011 at the invitation of mining
magnate Gina Rinehart.

Mr Abbott paid back
money he had billed taxpayers to attend two weddings in 2006, including
that of former speaker of the House and Liberal Party defector Peter
Slipper.

The Abbott Gov’t and Aspen Medical (Part 2): Aspen, Sandline and the CIA

The Abbott Gov’t and Aspen Medical (Part 2): Aspen, Sandline and the CIA

Tess Lawrence 4 December 2014, 6:00pm 13

CrimeHealthInternationalInvestigationsPolitics

Share on facebook71
Share on twitter31
Share on linkedin0
Share on reddit0
Share on google_plusone_share
Share on email
More Sharing Services

Aspen Medical
recruitment posters for Australia's Ebola response spotted outside
Epworth Hospital, Melbourne (Image via @AsherWolf)

The Abbott Government's outsourced Ebola response agency
Aspen Medical has deep and profound links to U.S. intelligence and
notorious, bloodthirsty mercenaries. Contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence reports.



EXCLUSIVE IA INVESTIGATION

ABBOTT GOV'T & ASPEN

EBOLA NOT THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN

PART TWO

[Read Part One]

ASPEN MEDICAL — CIA FRONT?

SHARES BED WITH U.S. SPIES

US INTELLIGENCE AND ASPEN MEDICAL share a bed whose pillows are made
from body bags filled with softest flesh of military down and whose
satin sheets are soiled with bodily fluids of corporatised rough
political sex and the congealed blood of innocent civilians.



If ever a bed was a warzone, it is within this stinking boudoir.



Like the Tardis, it appears small from the outside but its corporate bullet-proof doors open wide unto the conflict zones of the universe. 



Question: why in our name is the Australian Government paying Aspen Medical,
thought to be a front for the CIA and other vested interests, to set up
an hospital to treat Ebola victims in West Africa's beleaguered Sierra
Leone?





The glamorous managing director and chief executive officer of Aspen
Medical Liberia is none other than former mercenary queen, Iraq War
advisor and George Dubya Bush acolyte, American Kristi M. Rogers.



A Sarah Palin lookalike,
except this warrior babe is even scarier and wears a different shade of
lipstick, the 'M' is important to note, because when she's not
signaturing Aspen business, she otherwise goes by the name of Kristi Clemens Rogers
if and when she uses a middle name, or plain 'ol Ms Rogers, when
testifying before the U.S. independent bi-partisan legislative Commission into Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Then again, maybe the 'M' stands for Money. Or perhaps she's an Ian Fleming fan and it's an insider Bond joke.



But be warned. She ain't no joke and she's not just a pretty face. No ma'am. She's dangerous, whether shaken or stirred.

KRISTI CLEMENS ROGERS CEO OF SANDLINE INTERNATIONAL'S

TIM SPICER'S NOTORIOUS AEGIS DEFENCE SERVICES

Of course, like her political bedfellows Dubya, Donald (Rumsfeld) and
Dick (Cheney), to name just a few, she is a stalwart of the Grand Old
Party's elephantine Republican Praetorian Guard.



Kristi is a gun for hire, who commanded one of the world's larger private armies of mercenaries. 



A tough negotiator, charm is just one of the weapons in her
impressive arsenal. To the envy and annoyance of her male competitors,
she has won accumulative contracts worth billions of dollars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere for her corporate masters. Who might they have
been ?



Well, Aspen Medical Australia and the Abbott Gvernment would prefer
Australians remain  ignorant of the fact that Kristi Clemens Rogers was
CEO and chairwoman of the notorious Aegis Defence Services, founded by
the equally notorious former Scots Guard Lieutenant Colonel, Tim Spicer, of Papua New Guinea's Bougainville Sandline International infamy.

SANDLINE'S TIM SPICER INFILTRATES AUSAID

AND SLIPS INTO PNG UNDER COVER

The handsome Sandhurst-trained Mr Spicer was able to first inveigle
his way into PNG through his inclusion in a visiting Australian AusAID team, either through the ignorance of Australia's intelligence agencies, or with their tacit co-operation.



Either way, who signed the paper for Spicer's inclusion in AusAid's team? And why ?



Was Spicer (and his mates
from Executive Outcomes, employed by Australia) a UK/Australian spy
deliberately implanted in AusAID? Disregarding any revisionist writings
and reports, quite possibly.



Does that mean PNG's sovereignty was impinged ? Yes, Of course. But
hey, they're a former colony of ours and Spicer and Australia know
what's right for these black savages. It's all about the money. Even
though Spicer had to take the natives to Court.



Spicer's name is synonymous with controversy. A clever and
manipulative self-publicist, Houdini himself would envy his escapes and
escapades.



It is clear he has friends in both high and much lower places. Time
and again, he has eluded conviction of serious offences — and
mysteriously secured the same for his men and/or employees, whether
found guilty through the judicial courts or deemed so in the court of
public opinion.

SCOTSGUARD CO TIM SPICER AND THE

EXECUTION OF TEENAGER PETER MCBRIDE IN BELFAST

Before the 1997 Sandline scandal
inflamed international headlines, Spicer was the commanding officer in
Belfast when Mark Wright and James Fisher, two of the Scots Guards in
his battalion, shot and mortally wounded the teenage father of two little girls, 18 year-old Peter McBride.



McBride had been stopped by the Guardsmen, questioned and searched.



In an act of seemingly deliberate execution and military cowardice,
the Catholic McBride was shot twice in the back whilst walking away from
the foot patrol on Northern Belfast's New Lodge Road, during 'The Troubles', on September 4, 1992.



One of McBride's killers, Wright, was merely a year older than his unarmed victim. Fisher was 24 years old at the time.







In the same year of McBride's murder, for his mastery of his own '
troubles' in Northern Ireland, Spicer was awarded the Order of the
British Empire. Job well done.



Despite the fact that the two Guardsmen were convicted of murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment, Spicer's intervention, campaigning and
political influence – that reaches up to and within Buckingham Palace
– greatly assisted the two being eventually freed much to the dismay of McBride's still grieving family, on 2 September 1998, two days before the 6^th anniversary of his murder, Spicer making good use of the Good Friday Agreement.



Both soldiers were welcomed back into the British Army and went on to serve in the Iraq War and be promoted.







Peter McBride's murderers: Scots Guards Mark Wright (left) and James Fisher (Image via bbc.co.uk)



It should be noted that the murder conviction against them has not been overturned.



None of these outcomes could have taken place without the tacit
approval of British Intelligence agencies MI6, MI5 and Whitehall.

AEGIS PERSONNEL TROPHY VIDEOS

— SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS IN CARS

Spicer's insinuating influence was to come into play again in 2005,
three years after he founded Aegis Defence Services, after the release of a trophy video
containing footage implicating a couple of 'The Spicer Boys' cruelly
firing at random on innocent Iraqi civilians in cars, for sport, causing
several to crash and brought to a halt.



Actually, several videos had appeared on a website AegisIraq.co.uk but when IA tried to access the site, up came this message 'Error 404 - Not Found'.





The 'AegisIraq' website seems to have been subsumed into the Aegis World website, the organisation now chaired by Winston Churchill's portly grandson, Nicholas Soames.

AEGIS CHAIRMAN RECEIVES KNIGHTHOOD

AS PRINCE CHARLES' MOUTHPIECE TRASHES PRINCESS DIANA

A former Defence Minister in the John Major Government, Soames received a knighthood this year, for little reason other than he was once a loyal equerry and Prince Charles' mouthpiece.



Sir Nicholas too, is notorious for saying that Diana, Princess of Wales, was in the advanced stages of paranoia. 



As well as being a royal courtier at the time, he was also Minister
of State for the Armed Forces.  The remark did not go down well with
either the British public or his parliamentary colleagues and certainly
not with Diana and he was forced to apologise to Prime Minister John
Major.

ROGERS AND SPICERS' SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SIERRA LEONE

— SPICER CAUGHT SMUGGLING ARMS

Conveniently for Kristi M. Rogers and Aspen Medical, Mr Spicer also
has a special relationship with Sierra Leone and not just because it is a
former British colony.



He was 'caught' smuggling tonnes of Bulgarian-sourced weapons into Sierra Leone,
technically violating both United Kingdom and United Nations embargos.
Ministers of the Crown were implicated, as was the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office. Spicer gave evidence and the scandal eventuated
into little more than a group hug.





Not only will Ms Rogers be able to compare notes about Sierra Leone
with Mr Spicer, but they will also be able to get misty-eyed about their
respective times in Iraq.



Kristi M Rogers knows Iraq very well — as well as she knows Aegis and
the innards of the U.S. Government, its industrial strength
surveillance  division, the National Security Agency (NSA) the Defense
Department and Capitol Hill.



In latter years, Ms Rogers has been accused of sleeping her way into
securing lucrative contracts for her companies. Justifiably so.

KRISTI ROGERS HUBBY IS REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE ROGERS

OF NOXIOUS NSA SURVEILLANCE CISPA BILL FAME

Kristi Clemens Rogers is the second wife of Mr Rogers, a former (if
there is such thing) special agent for the FBI based in President Barack
Obama's hometown of Chicago, and, yes, he's a Republican Senator for
Michigan's 8^th District, whose first name is Michael and, for those who care, his middle initial is 'J.'



Senator Rogers is chairman of the scandal-ridden Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as such serves as an ex officio member on all the sub-committees,so has access to everything, including classified information on Australia, its politicians and citizens.



Now that is a mighty handy intel source for Missus Rogers. They are an uber
power couple suffering from a particular sexually transmitted disease
that is rife in incestuous Washington — conflict of interest, COI. No
Coitus interruptus tolerated here.



Three years ago, Senator Rogers introduced the insidious and noxious Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Bill (CISPA) in Congress.



Whilst it was passed by the House it was rejected by the Senate.



Effectively, it allows for two-way traffic of personal and private
information between Government and private companies, including the
likes of Aspen, Aegis, Blackwater, G4S, Serco, regardless of their
various noms de guerre, to whom the United States, Australia
and the rest of the lazy world of international political and corporate
governance, outsources its dirty deeds. And they are not done dirt
cheap.



The non-government Govtrack US  website defines it thus:

'To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence
and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and
cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.'

For 'other purposes' read 'anything we like'.

SENATOR ROGERS HAS CHEEK TO POINT

ACCUSATORY SPY FINGER AT CHINA

In April 2012, Senator Mike Rogers ludicrously attempted to allay
fears that CISPA was not about spying on ordinary Americans, but that it
was about spying on the Chinese. Good one!



Keeping a straight face at a Washington business breakfast, he blustered:

"I've never seen something grow more exponentially serious than
China's capabilities in cyber espionage .... It is so prolific — it's
breathtaking.



"In the last year, China has stolen so much intellectual property
that it would be considered 50 times the print collection of the United
States Library of Congress."

It's a wonder no-one in the audience choked on their hashfries at the
audacity of this disingenuous statement. The U.S. Government is a
serial offender in wholesale global spying.



If there's one government that has grown "more exponentially" than China in global cyber warfare on citizens, it is the United States.



Ms Rogers is in bed with Mr Rogers and as a result, Australia is in bed with both of them.





Part Three coming soon. Watch this space.





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License