The Premier has announced that new high powered lasers will soon come under the classification of prohibited weapons, and that anyone using a laser will have to justify their use to the police, in an attempt to stop laser attacks on approaching aircraft. The punishment for breaking the new laws could be two years jail or a $5000 fine. The new bans have caused much division, with critics calling the new bans impractical, or accusing the government of heavy-handedness. The Opposition police spokesman, Mike Gallacher, called the statement a media stunt, and that outlawing a legal object would be difficult.
However, Mike Glynn, the acting president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said the laws had to be put into place to deal with a serious threat.
It is difficult to discern what the new government’s intention is in implementing these new laws. The government has had a history of heavy handed behaviour regarding the police and law enforcement. Labour has previously given police new laws to search and arrest individuals without cause, in a move that many people have called draconian. Morris Iemma has called for the parents of truanting children to be jailed. This does not lend itself to the view that the government has reviewed all the options available in combating the use of lasers, but rather made a knee-jerk reaction
But it is fair to say that interfering with landing aircraft is dangerous, and a serious cause for concern. While it might not actually bring down a plane, it is incredibly foolish and a constant irritant to pilots, many of whom are flying with hundreds of people on board, or with medical cases. For the time being, the public must support the new laws by giving the government the benefit of the doubt.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Ombudsman to review FoI laws
A dangerous culture of withholding information from the public has grown up in NSW over the years of the state Labor governments. It is a pernicious spreading disease in this state, which affects the government itself, the universities, and the police.
The NSW government has repeatedly failed to examine the state’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Not only that, but the government has made numerous changes to the laws to make it harder to access information. Any information released could both potentially damage the government’s image. With approval ratings as low as this government’s, and with the media so openly hostile, they would not dare to hold a review of the laws, much less overhaul them.
The FoI laws are stagnant, and so they favour those who wish to withold information, rather than those members of the public who wish to release it. As a result , other institutions, such as the universities, are taking advantage.
In an article in the SMH on April 26, Gerard Noonan wrote that in 2007, one out of every two requests to universities for information was ignored. Noonan then said that there are 23 different agencies that are exempt from FoI requests and 25 categories of reports that do not have to be released to the public.
Now the state Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, who will review the FoI laws in lieu of the government’s refusal to take action over them, has made his irritation with the government widely known. In a statement, Barbour said “For almost 14 years, each NSW Ombudsman, including myself, has called for an independent and comprehensive review of the FoI Act. In the absence of the NSW government initiating a review of the act, I have decided to conduct my own independent review”.
Although a spokesman for the Premier said he would support the review, their complete disinterest in reviewing the laws does not bode well for their continued support in the coming months. By Barbour choosing to bypass the government’s opinion with his decision, Labor may well decide to kill the review before it makes a reccomendation.
The NSW government has repeatedly failed to examine the state’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Not only that, but the government has made numerous changes to the laws to make it harder to access information. Any information released could both potentially damage the government’s image. With approval ratings as low as this government’s, and with the media so openly hostile, they would not dare to hold a review of the laws, much less overhaul them.
The FoI laws are stagnant, and so they favour those who wish to withold information, rather than those members of the public who wish to release it. As a result , other institutions, such as the universities, are taking advantage.
In an article in the SMH on April 26, Gerard Noonan wrote that in 2007, one out of every two requests to universities for information was ignored. Noonan then said that there are 23 different agencies that are exempt from FoI requests and 25 categories of reports that do not have to be released to the public.
Now the state Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, who will review the FoI laws in lieu of the government’s refusal to take action over them, has made his irritation with the government widely known. In a statement, Barbour said “For almost 14 years, each NSW Ombudsman, including myself, has called for an independent and comprehensive review of the FoI Act. In the absence of the NSW government initiating a review of the act, I have decided to conduct my own independent review”.
Although a spokesman for the Premier said he would support the review, their complete disinterest in reviewing the laws does not bode well for their continued support in the coming months. By Barbour choosing to bypass the government’s opinion with his decision, Labor may well decide to kill the review before it makes a reccomendation.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Iemma attacks his own ministers
Premier Morris Iemma has lambasted several ministers of his government, criticising them for arrogance and telling them to work harder in their positions, following the continuing fiasco over political donations.
The attack was supported by Karl Bitar, the ALP general secretary, who told ministers they would be annihilated in the polls unless they put more effort into their game.
The dressing - down will not impress ministers in the government, several of whom think the 2011 election is unwinnable and are planning to retire at that time.
Iemma also delivered an attack on journalists, saying he would not “cop any more attacks from journalists and would be hitting back.”
An MP at the meeting said Iemma was frustrated that “everything he is trying to do gets slammed.”
MPs were not impressed at being brought in during the weekend to be criticised. “It was wrong to have the general secretary and the staff there,” said an MP. “Bitar and Murray (Iemma’s Chief of Staff) were just patronising.”
Iemma’s attack on his ministers is an indication that the debacle over political donations to NSW government is starting to hurt the Premier. While his demand that his ministers work harder is well-placed, his criticism of the media is not.
The unfriendliness of the media towards Iemma and the Labor government is brought on by years of ineptitude by the Iemma government. If a Labor minster display an unwillingness to govern in the interests of the people, it is the right, and the obligation, of the media to shine a light on their practices. It ensures the government will continue to govern to the best of its ability. The media isn’t attacking Iemma because they hold a grudge. They are attacking Iemma because he isn’t doing his job.
The attack was supported by Karl Bitar, the ALP general secretary, who told ministers they would be annihilated in the polls unless they put more effort into their game.
The dressing - down will not impress ministers in the government, several of whom think the 2011 election is unwinnable and are planning to retire at that time.
Iemma also delivered an attack on journalists, saying he would not “cop any more attacks from journalists and would be hitting back.”
An MP at the meeting said Iemma was frustrated that “everything he is trying to do gets slammed.”
MPs were not impressed at being brought in during the weekend to be criticised. “It was wrong to have the general secretary and the staff there,” said an MP. “Bitar and Murray (Iemma’s Chief of Staff) were just patronising.”
Iemma’s attack on his ministers is an indication that the debacle over political donations to NSW government is starting to hurt the Premier. While his demand that his ministers work harder is well-placed, his criticism of the media is not.
The unfriendliness of the media towards Iemma and the Labor government is brought on by years of ineptitude by the Iemma government. If a Labor minster display an unwillingness to govern in the interests of the people, it is the right, and the obligation, of the media to shine a light on their practices. It ensures the government will continue to govern to the best of its ability. The media isn’t attacking Iemma because they hold a grudge. They are attacking Iemma because he isn’t doing his job.
Political donations cause headaches for Labor
There is more evidence emerging that the NSW Government has been compromised by political donations, this time with the Transport Workers Union (TWU) in the mix. Not only that, but the donations run both ways, with the NSW government donating more than $700, 000 to the TWU at the same time that the TWU donated more than $746, 000 in suspected taxpayer grants back to the Labour party.
The NSW government has been funding the TWU and its associated organisations over the past six years. The TWU received $660, 000 from the government, while $73, 000 went to Concerned Families of Australian Truckies, an organisation devoted to truck drivers’ safety. The government has denied that the funding was used inappropriately, saying they were used for safety programs.
Political donations to any current government will always compromise that government’s ability to run the state fairly and impartially. Once the government has received any donation, they may no longer be able to make a decision that might impact on the people who donated the money for fear of halting other potential donations.
Such is the modus operandi of the NSW Government. They have received donations from so many people that they will never make a decision that might hurt those people who gave the donations. Simply put, they can no longer be trusted to make impartial decisions on the running of the state, whether it concerns land development, transport, or the unions.
The announcement from Premier Morris Iemma last month that he would ban all political donations is now a mute point. With the opposition stating they would ask the NSW Auditor- General to investigate the links between the funding to the TWU and the donations to the Labor party, and the Greens calling for a royal commission into political donations, the pressure on the government will continue.
The NSW government has been funding the TWU and its associated organisations over the past six years. The TWU received $660, 000 from the government, while $73, 000 went to Concerned Families of Australian Truckies, an organisation devoted to truck drivers’ safety. The government has denied that the funding was used inappropriately, saying they were used for safety programs.
Political donations to any current government will always compromise that government’s ability to run the state fairly and impartially. Once the government has received any donation, they may no longer be able to make a decision that might impact on the people who donated the money for fear of halting other potential donations.
Such is the modus operandi of the NSW Government. They have received donations from so many people that they will never make a decision that might hurt those people who gave the donations. Simply put, they can no longer be trusted to make impartial decisions on the running of the state, whether it concerns land development, transport, or the unions.
The announcement from Premier Morris Iemma last month that he would ban all political donations is now a mute point. With the opposition stating they would ask the NSW Auditor- General to investigate the links between the funding to the TWU and the donations to the Labor party, and the Greens calling for a royal commission into political donations, the pressure on the government will continue.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Labor criticised for political donations
The news that property developers have donated more than $4 million to the Labor Party since Frank Sartor took control of large development applications provides damning evidence that the NSW government is too influenced by political donations, rather than governing in the best interests of the people.
Research by the Greens party found the biggest property developers paid more than $1 million to the Labor party while Sartor considered approving their developments across NSW. They are calling for a royal commission into the Government's approval process and donations.
Last week Greens MP Sylvia Hale introduced a bill making it illegal for political parties to accept donations from developers. It would make it illegal for any donor to put in a development application for a year after donating to a political party.
The Liberal party have called the property donations and subsequent approvals an “appalling” conflict of interest.
This comes after Premier Morris Iemma promised last month to ban all political donations, following the ICAC’s inquiry into bribes for development applications in Wollongong City Council. Iemma said the consultations on the donation reforms would take at least six months.
The Labor party has come under increasing criticism from other NSW political parties as well as from the NSW electorate for the political donations the Labor government receives from influential organisations such as the Australian Hotels Association (AHA). The AHA has donated enormously to the NSWS Labor government, creating a conflict of interest when the government recently ruled out extended trading hours for bars and hotels.
The Wollongong against Corruption group, formed in the wake of the Wollongong Council scandal, protested outside NSW Parliament House last week, calling for an end to donations to political parties.
Research by the Greens party found the biggest property developers paid more than $1 million to the Labor party while Sartor considered approving their developments across NSW. They are calling for a royal commission into the Government's approval process and donations.
Last week Greens MP Sylvia Hale introduced a bill making it illegal for political parties to accept donations from developers. It would make it illegal for any donor to put in a development application for a year after donating to a political party.
The Liberal party have called the property donations and subsequent approvals an “appalling” conflict of interest.
This comes after Premier Morris Iemma promised last month to ban all political donations, following the ICAC’s inquiry into bribes for development applications in Wollongong City Council. Iemma said the consultations on the donation reforms would take at least six months.
The Labor party has come under increasing criticism from other NSW political parties as well as from the NSW electorate for the political donations the Labor government receives from influential organisations such as the Australian Hotels Association (AHA). The AHA has donated enormously to the NSWS Labor government, creating a conflict of interest when the government recently ruled out extended trading hours for bars and hotels.
The Wollongong against Corruption group, formed in the wake of the Wollongong Council scandal, protested outside NSW Parliament House last week, calling for an end to donations to political parties.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Liberal party must reform
Barry O’Farrell is a formidable leader of the NSW Opposition. In the past year of his leadership, the Opposition have released a comprehensive transport strategy, and have begun ramping up its criticisms of the Government’s policies.
But it takes a unified party, as well a competent leader, to convince voters that the Liberals can lead the state. The antics of the Liberal Right in the electorate of Cook– in which Scott Morrison’s application to join a right wing branch was rejected by the right wing faction - have done much to damage the image O’Farrell has been building of a united Liberal party.
The right wing branch stacking taking place in the Liberal branch of Beecroft, with NSW shadow attorney general Greg Smith believed to be behind the actions, was also under the media spotlight, highlighting just how divided the Liberals are.
The factional brawling in the Liberal party is even making marks in the Student Liberal organisations, with one letter writer to the SMH condemning the right wing rhetoric of the Sydney University Liberal Club. This behaviour can only damage the Liberal party in the eyes of tertiary students, many of whom are young, first time voters.
O’Farrell has even hinted that the right wing factions control the party, saying last week that it will be difficult for the Coalition to be elected in 2011 without organisational reform.
This is a solution touted in an editorial in the SMH on April 4. The editor stated that one of the reasons the public refuses to vote for the Liberals is because it presents an image of a party at war with itself. For O’Farrell to win the election, he must reform the party to expel its disruptive influence. But he cannot do this without the help of Brendan Nelson and the federal and state directors.
The constant internecine brawling in the NSW party, constantly under the microscope of the national media, demonstrates how far the NSW Liberal party must progress before providing the people of NSW with a real alternative government.
But it takes a unified party, as well a competent leader, to convince voters that the Liberals can lead the state. The antics of the Liberal Right in the electorate of Cook– in which Scott Morrison’s application to join a right wing branch was rejected by the right wing faction - have done much to damage the image O’Farrell has been building of a united Liberal party.
The right wing branch stacking taking place in the Liberal branch of Beecroft, with NSW shadow attorney general Greg Smith believed to be behind the actions, was also under the media spotlight, highlighting just how divided the Liberals are.
The factional brawling in the Liberal party is even making marks in the Student Liberal organisations, with one letter writer to the SMH condemning the right wing rhetoric of the Sydney University Liberal Club. This behaviour can only damage the Liberal party in the eyes of tertiary students, many of whom are young, first time voters.
O’Farrell has even hinted that the right wing factions control the party, saying last week that it will be difficult for the Coalition to be elected in 2011 without organisational reform.
This is a solution touted in an editorial in the SMH on April 4. The editor stated that one of the reasons the public refuses to vote for the Liberals is because it presents an image of a party at war with itself. For O’Farrell to win the election, he must reform the party to expel its disruptive influence. But he cannot do this without the help of Brendan Nelson and the federal and state directors.
The constant internecine brawling in the NSW party, constantly under the microscope of the national media, demonstrates how far the NSW Liberal party must progress before providing the people of NSW with a real alternative government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)