Politics,Climate Change and Sundry issues

Politics,Climate Change and Sundry issues
for website listing my blogs : http://winstonclosepolitics.com

Friday 25 April 2014

"Nothing Is Free... except speech, we have free speech."

"Nothing Is Free... except speech, we have free speech."



“Nothing Is Free… except speech, we have free speech.” 

334386_10150294857527416_677082415_7803054_935354_o


‘In a recent speech, he (Mr Hockey) said the PBS, which
cost $9 billion in 2013, was one of the largest contributors to health
spending growth over the past decade, along with Medicare, the private
health insurance rebate and public hospital funding to state
governments.



His comments suggested the government was considering cutting
back on the subsidies of medicines for concession card holders, who he
said accounted for 80 per cent of PBS expenditure.



“Much of the money spent on the PBS is accessed by a small cohort
of people. In 2012-13, 10 per cent of patients accounted for 58 per
cent of PBS expenditure,” he said.’



“The Saturday Paper”



In what a source alleges is a leaked copy of the Audit Committee that
has just been given to me, there are some very interesting notes. I
cannot vouch for the veracity of the copy, but as much of the news these
days consists of printing unsubstantiated rumours and the rest consists
of reporting the opinions of billionaires, talkback hosts and make-up
artists, I figured I’d go ahead and share it with you in spite of the
fact that the word “Audit” was misspelt and the font used was Comic Sans.
When I ran it past a colleague and said that it surely it was a fake,
he reminded me that Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, Christopher Pyne was
Education Minister, Lord Monckton is trotted out as someone who knows
what he’s talking about and that people got very angry about the Mining
Tax potentially taking money from Gina Rinehart, so how could anyone be
sure of what was real?



So from nearly two pages, I found the following conclusions from the Audit Committee of interest:



  1. Most of the Health Budget is spent on sick people. Healthy people
    hardly get to access any of it. Something must be done to redress this
    imbalance.
  2. Women were the responsible for over 99% of gynecological services.
  3. A $6 co-payment for people attending a doctor was only reasonable.
    People who couldn’t afford $6 would not be required to pay as they
    probably can’t the public transport costs to get to the doctor anyhow.
  4. The cost of administering 457 visas is prohibitive, so firms could
    be trusted to bring in foreign workers without any government oversight.
  5. People on a Disability Pension have lower incomes than most workers. Taking them off the Disability Insurance may fix this.
  6. People with a degree expected to be paid more than the minimum wage.
    Making higher education less accessible would drive down wages,
    boosting profits and productivity.
  7. With less need for people to go on to Higher Education, any
    recommendations from the Gonski report about increasing funding to
    public schools could be ignored.
  8. Aboriginal people have the vote now, so it’s time we stopped funding
    them separately, so any organisation or body with the words
    “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal” should have their funding withdrawn.
  9. Legal Aid just keeps people out of jail, and therefore encourages
    crime. As people without a lawyer are likely to go to be convicted
    anyway, they may as well just be given a sentence without a trial,
    saving millions in court costs.
  10. Money spent locking up asylum seeker in detention must be except
    from any audit, and nobody on the Audit Committee has any conflict of
    interest in saying this.
  11. In the area of news, ABC is duplicating many things that the private
    media organisations are doing. We encourage them to keep this up.
    However, we may have to reconsider this if they report things that
    aren’t in Australia’s interests such as reports from the IPCC or any
    statements from Cory Bernardi. Anything, in fact, that makes the
    Government look bad because that’s just un-Australian.
  12. The Direct Action policy on Climate Change where the government
    gives money to polluters to stop will be much more effective than
    collecting money via the Carbon Tax. However, policing the scheme to
    check if they actually do reduce pollution would be expensive, so we can
    save money by just trusting them.

Like I said, I have some doubts about the truth of this, but since when did truth have anything to do with politics?

Tuesday 22 April 2014

Royal ‘non-core’ Abbott’s poll cat struggle

Royal ‘non-core’ Abbott’s poll cat struggle

Royal ‘non-core’ Abbott’s poll cat struggle

Bob Ellis 23 April 2014, 1:00pm 16

Yesterday’s Morgan poll
(Labor 52-48 2PP) shows Abbott has lost some things that, even in the
week of the visit of a future king to his beach and a game-changing deal
with Japan, can’t be got back.








(Source: roymorgan.com)



The 55% of women that now vote Labor — or prefer it. The 51.5% of
West Australians, the 53% of South Australians, the 53% of
Queenslanders, the 55.5% of Victorians that now vote Labor — or prefer
it.




This means, must mean, that the Kevin07 votes are back and the relaxed and comfortable Howardista vote has been smashed, once again, by...?



It’s the ‘non-core promise’ factor, probably.



Gonski, NDIS, Medicare, the ABC and the Old Age Pension they swore would be protected,
are being trashed. The anxiety of the carers of the disabled, and
everyone has a disabled relative, though gone for a while, is now
sadistically restored. And the mistrust women, especially, feel for
Abbott (he abandoned his pregnant bride-to-be and made her give up her
newborn baby) will not now, ever, be allayed.






But there’s also, I think, a ‘cock-up’ factor in play as well.



Murder has occurred on Manus and two killers are still on Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s paid staff.



A sea-search for a crashed plane for six weeks has turned up nothing — not even a floating passport. Money that has been spent on this search could have saved Holden, and a quarter of a million livelihoods.



Amid calls for ‘shared sacrifice’, we learn that Assistant Treasurer Senator Arthur Sinodinos got a quarter of a million dollars for fifty hours work and was promised twenty million more.



Amid boasts that ‘the adults are now in charge’ and ‘leadership stability’ was now the go, the Liberals changed premiers in Victoria, New South Wales and Northern Territory and sacked the Treasurer ‒ a former leader ‒ in Western Australia.



Attorney-General George Brandis has come out for bigotry (88% of Australians think this is crazy) and called climate science ‘medieval’. Cory Bernardi has compared gay men with ‘beasts’ and Education Minister Christopher Pyne wants to write colonial brutality out of our history.



And it’s hard to overturn the perception of a sackful of struggling cats in a river.



Bronwyn Bishop is already most lunatic Speaker in our history.



Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, after former foreign minister Bob Carr’s book, seems a cross-eyed, angry amateur.



Treasurer Joe Hockey’s quest for a surplus seems more and more a tilt at windmills, or the unleashing of a loaded dog.





And so on.



It’s not, though, easy to know what to do with all this.



Manus is tricky. The surplus has eluded better Treasurers. The ‘direct action’ absurdity has been gazumped by Palmer...



What could be done is a ‘save ABC drama’ campaign in a year when ‒ although at its best and selling as never before overseas ‒ it is marked, nonetheless, for Hockey destruction. Roxburgh and Blanchett could address mass meetings, Micallef, Biggins, Amanda Bishop do a sketch on YouTube.



A ‘save Medicare’ campaign, too, would have no enemies. Bill Hayden, Bob Hawke and even Gough could be part of it.



On Anzac Day, it should be noted that dead soldiers’ children are being dudded of their money, and traumatised veterans thieved of their disability pensions, probably, if the droid Erich Abetz has his way.



There are things to do before the Budget sinks Hockey’s credibility
and Abbott’s honesty once and for all. Not least of these is to assert
that the Opposition continues to be ahead, in all the polls,
unchangingly.




And the Coalition is in ‘leadership turmoil’ and fighting ‒ as always ‒ like cats in a sack.







Bob Ellis for a former Labor Party speechwriter.

Monday 21 April 2014

Kevin bloody Andrews

Kevin bloody Andrews

Kevin bloody Andrews

kevinandrews-420x0As a companion piece to rossleigh’s excellent article, I thought it might be useful to have a closer look at our Social Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.


As a backbencher, Andrews authored the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 to
overrule Northern Territory legislation that legalised euthanasia (the
Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995).



Andrews also called for an end to trials of the RU-486 drug and voted
against a bill that took away the Health Minister’s power to veto
applications to allow the drug to be used.



In taking a stance against stem cell research in 2002, he stated
that it was the “first time” that “human beings can be treated as a
commodity”. He also took a stance against stem cell research during a
debate in 2006, which resulted in the overturning of a previous ban on
the research.



As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, he was
responsible for introducing the Howard Government’s major changes to
industrial relations law in 2005, commonly known as WorkChoices.



Andrews is a member of the Lyons Forum, a socially conservative
Christian faction within the Coalition. He has served as the Forum
Secretary and is credited with suggesting the name for the faction.



As Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Andrews attracted
controversy after he revoked on character grounds the visa of Dr Mohamed
Haneef, who had been granted bail on charges of aiding terrorists.
After the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped all charges against
Haneef, Andrews refused calls to reinstate Haneef’s visa, stating that
his personal evidence was still valid. Andrews’ justification of his
decision, on the basis that he had a reasonable suspicion that Haneef
had associated with suspected terrorists and therefore failed the test
of good character that a person must pass to keep a visa, was rejected
in the Federal Court, and the revocation of Haneef’s visa was
overturned. However in November, e-mails released under the Freedom of
Information act appeared to indicate that Andrews’ office had a plan to
revoke the visa before the case went to court, in the case that bail was
granted.



Following Andrews’ criticism of irregularities discovered in the CV
of an Indian doctor working on the Gold Coast, various media
organisations carried reports disputing Andrews’ claim on parliamentary
and ministerial websites to have co-authored three books, having
contributed only a chapter to each. Andrews argued in his own defence that:



“In common, everyday parlance, as one of the authors (of a
chapter) I presumed you called yourself a co-author – that’s all I’ve
simply done. I wasn’t aware, to be frank, of some publishing convention
that someone’s referred to (that suggests otherwise). If that offends
people’s sensibilities well so be it, basically.”

Andrews’ 2007 decision to cut Australia’s refugee intake from African
nations was branded by some critics as “racist”, and pulling out the
race card before the 2007 Australian Federal election. Andrews defended
the decision, saying:
“Some groups don’t seem to be settling and adjusting into the
Australian way of life as quickly as we would hope.” Andrews accused
Sudanese refugees of fighting in bars and congregating in parks to drink
alcoholic beverages, but did not provide statistics to back up his
claims.



In 2009, Kevin Andrews declared his candidacy against Malcolm
Turnbull in a vote for a leadership spill, in opposition to Turnbull’s
support for the government’s emissions trading scheme. He had declared
himself a climate change sceptic, saying that ‘the jury is still out’ on
human contributions to global warming. The party room however voted
down having a leadership spill 41 votes to 35 and the Andrews challenge
did not eventuate. After continued leadership speculation, a second
Party Room meeting was held, at which point the leadership was declared
vacant. Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull all stood for the
leadership, and Tony Abbott was ultimately successful. Following his
election as Leader, Abbott promoted Andrews to the Shadow Cabinet as
Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services.



A member of the Catholic Pontifical Council for the Laity, Andrews is
an Adjunct Lecturer in Politics and in Marriage Education in the John
Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne.



Andrews is an advisor to the Board of Life Decisions International
(LDI), a (non-denominational) religious pro-life group that is primarily
concerned with opposing the pro-choice Planned Parenthood organisation.
LDI campaigns for chastity, boycotts corporations and names individual
celebrities who support abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell
experimentation or who, in their opinion, support sexual promiscuity.
These include GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Time Warner and
Disney.



Andrews made a speech to the Endeavour Forum on 9 April 2003, a group
focusing on women’s issues, opposing abortion, equal opportunity and
affirmative action.



He has also spoken at the Family Council of Victoria, an organisation
which regards homosexuality as the manifestation of a psychiatric
disorder. The Family Council of Victoria also opposes sex-education and
anti-homophobia policies in public schools, which it claims is
“pro-homosexual indoctrination” of students.



In 2011, as a Liberal Shadow Cabinet frontbencher Andrews published a
critique of the Greens policy agenda for Quadrant Magazine in which he wrote that the Australian Greens’ “objective
involves a radical transformation of the culture that underpins Western
civilisation” and that their agenda would threaten the
“Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual” as
well as “the economic system that has resulted in the creation of
wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.”



In December 2013, as Social Services Minister, Andrews introduced to
the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the gambling
harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in
November 2012.



“This is a straight capitulation to the power of the pokies lobby,” says Tim Costello, chair of the Australian Churches’ Gambling Taskforce.


When Australia is recognised as having perhaps the worst gambling
problem in the world, with 41 per cent of poker machine revenue coming
from problem gamblers, one must wonder about Andrew’s motivation. Could
it have something to do with the sudden upsurge in gambling-industry
donations to Australia’s major parties, which coincided with a deal
between independent MP Andrew Wilkie and then-Prime Minister Julia
Gillard?



Fittingly, Andrews’ amendment will also change the name of the law
passed in 2012 — from the National Gambling Reform Act, to the National
Gambling Measures Act. For now, meaningful gambling reform is quite
literally off parliament’s books.



Andrews is a member of the Credlin-led decision-making Star Chamber
which includes federal Liberal Party director Brian Loughnane – Ms
Credlin’s husband – along with John Howard’s former chief of staff, Tony
Nutt, and minister Michael Ronaldson.



He also has his gun sights set on the ABC. Speaking at Canberra
airport on his way to a cabinet meeting, the Social Services Minister
said that in a robust democracy, the media should be scrutinised as much
as anybody else. ”I think the ABC should be open to constructive
criticism about its performance as it would be about the performance of
other people and other institutions in Australia,” he said. ”What goes around comes around.”



We then hear from our Social Services minister that the nation’s
welfare system is “unsustainable” and large, urgent changes must be made
to the disability pension and the general unemployment benefit.



He said the government was reviewing all welfare rules to see what
could be done to decrease the number of unemployed on the dole,
including the possibility of eliminating the ability of those on welfare
to refuse to take a job if it was more than 90 minutes from their home
and keep their income support payments.



Mr Andrews has already revealed the government is looking at changes
that would see more people under the age of 40 on the DSP checked to see
whether they could work and temporary payments for potentially
impermanent conditions to prevent the number of those in the system from
ballooning to one million.



Under Mr Andrews’ mooted change, disability pensioners who were
assessed by their family doctors – before Labor tightened the system in
2011 – would be re-examined by medical experts at the Department of
Human Services.



The minister is also considering giving a fixed higher payment for
the most disabled pensioners, with lower payments for people with less
restrictive disabilities, who might be able to work part time.



Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes said the Abbott government was “punishing some of the most vulnerable people in society” by tightening checks on the disability pension.


Regarding the minister’s idea to reassess recipients, Mr Innes said:
“To effectively move the test back a few years, it just seems a cruel
way of penalising people who’ve been in receipt of a benefit.
Introducing a quarterly or six-monthly check is just adding more
complexity both for the Centrelink system and for people with
disabilities,” he said.



Andrews is pushing the idea that pensioners suffering “episodic”
illnesses such as depression should be given monthly or quarterly
medical certificates rather than getting two-year “set and forget”
pensions. This idea, he said, was particularly important given there
were now more disability pensioners suffering from psychological
conditions than suffering musculoskeletal problems.



Australian Council of Social Service chief executive Cassandra Goldie
said she would support any measures by the government to “invest” in
disability pensioners to help them return to the workforce.



But she was concerned that subjecting disability pensioners to more
regular assessments could end up “exacerbating their mental health
condition”.



“We don’t have a welfare crisis in this area, we have a jobs crisis,” Dr Goldie said. “We all want to work on decent reforms which will improve people’s pathways back to being well and getting paid work.”


Despite the financial crisis that apparently makes it necessary for
us to send people suffering from depression ‘down pit’, Mr Andrews was
able to find $20 million for marriage guidance counselling vouchers.
This of course has nothing to do with the fact that he and his wife
are/were involved in the marriage counselling business.



I have tried to remain factual in this snapshot biography of our
Social Services Minister but hells, bells and cockle shells, it would be
hard to find someone less suitable for the job.


Business as usual in NSW — one liar for another

Business as usual in NSW — one liar for another



Business as usual in NSW — one liar for another

Lachlan Barker 21 April 2014, 2:30pm 11
0
Delicious Add


NSW Premier Mike Baird (Image via biblesociety.org.au)


Watch out for flying pigs, the new NSW premier says electricity prices will go down after privatisation. Lachlan Barker does the sums.



The new premier of NSW, Mike Baird, has not wasted any time.



He wants to start making money as fast as possible.



And the biggest fat pay cheque of them all is selling the NSW power grid, netting him and his cronies a cool thirty billion.



On Saturday, the 19th of April Baird said this to the Daily Telegraph:



"I'd say look at the facts. The facts show very clearly that
electricity costs in Victoria since privatisation have been lower ...




"They have been lower, you can't dispute that and yes there would be a big scare campaign about this."




Well Mr Baird, I've got an issue with all three sentences you have uttered above.



First:



"I'd say look at the facts."




I have, and you're gonna see the results of my researches in word and picture.



Second:



"The facts show very clearly that electricity costs in Victoria since privatisation have been lower."




They are not.





Third: 



"They have been lower, you can't dispute that and yes there would be a big scare campaign about this."




They’re not lower, I do dispute that and if anyone is running a scare campaign, it's you, Mike.



A pre-emptive scare campaign.



The Premier's thrust seems to be: I've got to create a massive
fear in the voters' minds that if the power industry in NSW remains
regulated, then their bills are going to be sky high.




So, let us – as Mr Baird urges us to – look at the facts.



I went to the website of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). This organisation was established in 2009 to manage the national energy and gas markets.



In the data section, I found a history of power prices by state.



So I took the figures across to a spreadsheet and made this graph.







(Source: AEMO)



The yellow trendline on the graph represents the average price of electricity in Victoria. It's recorded on the website as RRP (Regional Reference Price).



This is the standard used across the country to compare power prices.



I didn't just make the trendline up — I used the spreadsheet analysis tools to display the trend.



So as we can see, power prices in Victoria have been steadily
increasing since 1999. Privatisation has not made the price lower, quite
the reverse.




So I contacted the Premier's office, attached my the graph to my email, and asked him this:



Dear Premier,



The attached graph shows that the statements you made on Saturday
to the Daily Telegraph, printed on Saturday, April 19, are wrong.




So do you admit you were wrong?



Or are you a liar?




Needless to say, I have had no reply.





Of course, the conservatives will say: it's the carbon tax that is making the trendline go up.



Well, no actually, the carbon tax was brought in 2012, the trendline shows a steady increase from 1999.



So what is Mike Baird up to with the sale of NSW's power infrastructure?



Well it's an obvious money grab.



The sale will net $30 billion, and this will show NSW's finances in a healthier condition.



If, as the Premier suggests, the power prices in NSW will go down, then how will this happen?



It would seem that what the Premier is suggesting is that with a
fully free-market power supply grid in NSW, the power companies will choose to put their prices down.




Excuse me while I clean my binoculars, as I have to go out and watch for airborne pigs.



Recently, Origin Energy announced a profit of close on half a billion for 2013. Transgrid, another big player, announced $349.9 million profit.



These guys really like making money and most of that came from price rises.



Power bills for NSW householders have gone up 100 per cent over the last six years.



At the same time, the price of coal fell from a peak of US$140 a tonne to around US$60 a tonne.







(Source: InfoMine)



More than a hundred per cent decrease in price.



Seventy five per cent of all Australia's power comes from coal.



This shows power companies putting prices up even as their main raw material is getting cheaper.



It therefore beggars belief that they are suddenly going to put their prices down when the market has been privatised.



So life in NSW continues as usual, the Premier is a liar, or he can't
add up — either way, it doesn't auger well for the future of our state.




Finally, I hope that all those sinners have taken a woolly jacket,
because they'll be holding the Winter Olympics on the south slopes of
hell before power prices in NSW go down.




Read more by Lachlan Barker at cyclonecharlie88.blogspot.com.au.

Sunday 20 April 2014

It's Time For the Disabled To Stand On Their Own Two Feet!

It's Time For the Disabled To Stand On Their Own Two Feet!

It’s Time For the Disabled To Stand On Their Own Two Feet!

IMG_0931


Antisocial Services Minister, Mr Kevin
Undress announced today that he had no announcement on changes to the
Disability Pension but that he had several things under consideration
including spending money on doctors to check up on the work of other
doctors. When asked if he was trying to reduce the number of people on
the Disability Pension, he denied this, saying,  “This is not about
targets … it’s about a better system that will actually help people
because we think work is the best form of welfare.” He went on to say
that this was entirely consistent with the government’s position on the
Age Pension. “We promised that we wouldn’t be changing the Age Pension,
and we’re not. We’re just changing the age at which people can access
it. But we intend to keep it the same amount as it is now by abolishing
future increases. This is what we promised. No changes to the Age
Pension. And because it’s welfare, and work is the best form of welfare,
the longer people work the better. In fact, I believe that Joe is
considering a work for the pension scheme. Nothing too strenuous. And
only for those pensioners who are able to. But as most of them just
potter round the garden, so there’s really no reason for a large number
not join the Green Army.”




In response to a suggestion that it was rather un-Christian to
announce these changes on Easter Sunday, he insisted that it was
entirely consistent with the teaching of the Church. “After all, Jesus
did tell the lame to take up their beds and walk? He didn’t tell them to
go on the Disability Pension, did he? No,  he told them to stop lying
around. If anything, it’s welfare that’s un-Christian.”



After Mr Undress suggested that this wasn’t about reducing benefits
from those incapable of working, but allowing people to stand on their
own two feet providing they had that many, a journalist asked where all
the jobs would come from, given that fully, fit people able to work full
time were finding it hard to gain employment, he suggested that this
was just a hangover from Labor’s poor management of the economy. “After
the next budget, there’ll be plenty of work for people when we reduce
the public service, because business will be booming. After all we’ve
stopped the boats and pretty soon we’ll abolish the Carbon Tax. This
will solve all our problems.”



In other government news, there are suggestions that the National
Water Commission may be abolished in a bid to save money. A spokesman
for the Minister’s Office, Mr Spinner said that it was unnecessary, as
it was only an advisory body and the Minister never listened to any
advice anyway. “Its functions could be much better served by using
private consultants, because they are so much more efficient. We only
pay for the advice we want. And secondly, bodies like this are subject
to enormous amounts of red tape where they have to justify their
spending, whereas private consultants don’t have the same restrictions.”
The press conference ended abruptly when he was asked if there was a
concern that this could drive up the price of Grange.



Mr Spinner later issued a statement clarifying that by saying “We
only pay for the advice that we want”, he actually meant to say “We only
pay for advice when we need it” and that while private consultants
didn’t have to justify their spending, this didn’t mean that they didn’t
spend their money wisely. He followed this by a further statement
clarifying that by “wisely”, he meant “appropriately and prudently”. He
followed this by issuing a statement saying that there’d be no further
statements from him on anything as he was going on leave, something
which he’d been planning for ages, and that any further questions should
be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office.


Saturday 19 April 2014

Tony Abbott speaks - usually before his brain has engaged.



A REMINDER OF TONY ABBOTT CHARACTER

TRUST TONY ABBOTT



LNP   ( LIARS NATIONAL PARTY ) CONTINUE ON THEIR MERRY LYING PATH

Liberals, in denial over O’Farrell’s error, should learn from this –

Liberals, in denial over O’Farrell’s error, should learn from this –

Liberals, in denial over O’Farrell’s error, should learn from this


As NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell heads for the exit, shooting the
messenger won’t help the Liberals. Incestuous links with business will
continue to inflict damage on the party, especially in a party branch as
inept as NSW.




Based on the reaction to Barry O’Farrell’s resignation by
unnamed federal Liberals and their media supporters, denial runs deep
in the Liberal Party —   about the role of the Independent Commission
Against Corruption, about the entrenched problems of the New South Wales
branch of the party, of how the incestuous links between business,
unions and both sides of politics are a cancer on democracy.



Peter Hartcher’s Fairfax piece
shows some federal Liberals in outright denial. Maybe it’s just a stage
of grief, but it’s remarkable. ICAC had pulled down O’Farrell like it
pulled down former premier Nick Greiner, one claimed. Another called it a
“kangaroo court”. It was a day for laboured metaphors: former Liberal
staffer Peter Van Onselen invoked both the star chamber and witch trials
in one paragraph in a furious screed against ICAC in The Australian. The paper itself editorialised
that O’Farrell had been “led into political entrapment” and was a
victim of a deliberate plot by ICAC, a body that “traduces reputations”
and “leads to political car crashes over minor matters”. You almost
feared a torch-wielding mob was going to form at Holt Street and march
up the road to burn down the commission.



Strange, but those complaints weren’t being heard when Labor
crooks were being exposed by ICAC or when a Who’s Who of former Labor
leaders appeared there to explain their response to the intrigues of the
corrupt. And entrapment? It wasn’t ICAC that forced Barry O’Farrell to
insist that he’d have remembered if he’d received the bottle of wine,
just like it wasn’t ICAC that forced Nick Greiner to make his profoundly
stupid offer to Terry Metherell. This sort of stuff is verging on
conspiracy theory.



Such denial isn’t surprising from politicians and
commentators who have been operating on the assumption that ICAC
primarily existed to humiliate the Labor Party. But it misses the point
that this is yet another instance of the deep problems of the NSW
Liberal Party affecting its federal counterpart — and the damage isn’t
limited to ruining Tony Abbott’s high-profile Badgerys Creek
announcement yesterday. A former O’Farrell minister, Chris Hartcher,
will be before ICAC the week after next to face his own investigation.
And stood-aside Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos is at the very
centre of the Australian Water Holdings scandal as a bizarrely incurious
company chairman with a memory like Swiss cheese.



Don’t forget, the NSW branch had lost Tony Abbott the 2010
election through factional disputes and ineptitude in its preselection
processes — which were well-flagged before the election.
It had lost the 2007 state election after the Right knifed John
Brogden. That loss, at least, led to a power-sharing arrangement between
Left and Right in 2008, only for intra-factional warfare to break out
within the Right that saw threats of “World War 3” ahead of the 2011
election.



Luckily the party managed to hold together to achieve a
landslide win under O’Farrell, and Sinodinos was supposed to be the
bloke that would keep the peace when he came in as state president after
O’Farrell’s victory. Instead, there were complaints that Sinodinos, who
also entered the Senate late in 2011, allowed the Left under Michael
Photios to wield too much power. The branch also allowed duds like
Jaymes Diaz to cruel their hopes of picking up more western Sydney seats
in last year’s federal election. And this is the Prime Minister’s own
branch, one in which as opposition leader he had to repeatedly intervene
to demand that key players keep the factional peace, rarely
successfully.



Baird should go further in curbing the interactions between lobbyists, business figures and his ministers …”
Whether likely new premier Mike Baird, and the prospect of a
more difficult 2015 NSW election, is enough to stifle another round of
factional warfare, remains to be seen. And the party is still looking
for a state director less than a year out from the election after Scott
Briggs, the Nine Network’s chief lobbyist and a former deputy director
of the party, bailed out of the position at the last minute earlier this
month.



Baird of course has his own problems with Nick Di Girolamo,
whom he appointed to the State Water Corporation in 2012. That’s the
problem with the Australian Water Holdings matter: its slimy tentacles
extend everywhere, including to Joe Hockey’s fundraising arm, which
returned AWH donations, and to former state vice-president, O’Farrell
confidante and lobbyist Michael Photios, who continues to be a Left
powerbroker within the party.



If federal Liberals and their media cheerleaders think these
sorts of links between party officials, donors, former ministers,
former staffers, lobbyists and business mates and serving ministers are
OK, then they’ll continue to see colleagues, even good, ethical
colleagues like O’Farrell, tripped up. Maybe being in the federal
sphere, where there are fewer direct opportunities to influence business
outcomes compared to state government, has dulled their capacity to see
the problems of such deeply incestuous relationships. Or maybe they’re
so convinced that business interests and the public interest are
indistinguishable that they don’t see the risks of such relationships.
This is the crowd who attack Labor’s close links with trade unions but
think it’s fine for Sinodinos, a former NAB executive, to try to sneak
through Parliament amendments that would gut financial advice consumer
protections because the big banks (via an industry association led by
Brogden) want it.



O’Farrell made a start in trying to curb those relationships
by overhauling the NSW political donation laws. Abbott also did the
right thing in banning party officials from being lobbyists. Baird
should go further in curbing the interactions between lobbyists,
business figures and his ministers, and shedding more light on the
interactions that can occur. The voters of NSW will benefit, and so will
his government.



They won’t from shooting the messenger, like some federal Liberals appear to want.







Friday 18 April 2014

The seedy side of the NSW Liberal Party

The seedy side of the NSW Liberal Party



The seedy side of the NSW Liberal Party

Kevin Lee 9 August 2013, 7:02pm 0
How do lacklustre candidates like Jaymes Diaz so
consistently get pre-selected by the NSW branch of the Liberal Party?
Former Party insider Father Kevin Lee
answers this question by showing us the seedy underbelly of the NSW
Libs, including the parts played by Bill Heffernan, Tony Abbott, the
faceless men and women and the influential Catholic cult — Opus Dei.




by Father Kevin Lee
by Father Kevin Lee
AS
A PRIEST, I get asked a lot of questions from ‘What’s a good saint’s
name for my Confirmation’ to ‘Should I have a burial or cremation for my
father?’ or more recently ‘Do you know someone in the Philippines I
could marry?’




The latest of a series of serious questions I received since leaving
priesthood to embark on a career in politics was from a Twitter follower
asking:




"Who should I vote for?”


You would think my answer would be a spontaneous one, but I have to be honest and admit — I don’t know.



I used to think with absolute certainty that the Liberal Party were
going to walk it in on September 7. That was why I joined them. I wanted
to be part of that winning team. But now I am not so sure.




Since joining the Party and being involved in party politics, I can
tell you it’s not what you see in the glossy covered brochures. Let me
tell you my story from the beginning.








TONY ABBOTT, RAY KING AND A POLITICAL BEGINNING



While anticipating my days as a Catholic priest were coming to a natural conclusion, I was encouraged by my close friend, Superintendent Ray King, to venture into politics.



I met Ray in 2007 in my role as regional police chaplain when he was
Commander at Fairfield. At that time, he was going through some of his
own personal difficulties which I was helping him to cope with. Although
we emptied quite a few bottles of wine together, I managed to get Ray
to lift his head and look up to God as a way of finding direction in his
life.




abbott8
(All caricatures by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)
After
welcoming me to his office, Tony sat back in his desk chair and put his
hands behind his head, confidently exposing his perspiring underarms.
While we were in the seminary, we studied the same Allan Pease body language videos in which he taught prospective leaders:




“Confident people will always expose themselves and open
up when they are seated, while nervous, shy or introverted people tend
to hunch forward, cross their arms or hold their hands in their laps.”


I wondered if Tony was displaying this false bravado as part of what
he had learnt about leadership while preparing for priesthood? Whatever
the case, at that point I was in awe of him, since we had walked a
similar path — albeit he with far greater personal success.




The next thing that struck me about Tony was, for a potential future
Prime Minister and leader of the nation, he stammered quite a bit. There
were very few sentences that he didn’t started with “Ah…” He perhaps
picked up this linguistic impediment from John Howard, who also
vocalised his responses with similar hesitation.




Anyway, we had a fairly casual conversation in which, for people who
had only really spoken once before, I was astonished at the amount of
trust he quickly bestowed on me. We discussed many personal topics,
particularly relating to people we both remembered from our seminary
days at Manly.




We naturally discussed celibacy and he expressed candid openness that
the expectation of a life without sex was a factor in his decision not
to pursue priesthood, but “it certainly wasn’t the deal breaker”.




The assertive Rhodes scholar and former boxer was not considered
suitable pastoral material, despite being a student who achieved high
distinctions in his assignments. Perhaps this was because he thought for
himself rather than saying ‘Amen’ to the establishment, which we both
agreed was full of imposters — “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”




One of his Philosophy lecturers, Father Gerry Gleeson (son of the Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson Q.C.) who was also my spiritual director, remarked to me once:



“Tony Abbott is one of a very few people I awarded high
distinctions to then had to write the comment: ‘Next time read the
prescribed texts!’”


Tony marvelled at the longevity of my virginity, that I had managed
to protect for forty six years. “I don’t know how you do it! I couldn’t
do it,” he said with a laugh.




Our originally timetabled thirty minute meeting was extended as he
personally called his other appointments on his mobile to cancel. I was
flattered that he wanted to prolong our conversation and talk further
about my political possibilities and he expressed an eager desire of
utilising me in the upcoming election.




He told me:



“If you had come forward earlier, we might have been
sitting in Canberra right now. You could have beaten Bradbury yourself.
We really needed that seat.”


I assured him “we will win it next time” and reiterated my request to represent the area in which I had actually been born.



“Ah, I don’t think that can happen, Kev. They’ve already
completed the pre-selection process. You might think that the leader of
the party would have the power to choose who represents us in
government, but I don’t. It’s all up to branches and the pre-selectors
and, in the case of Fiona Scott, I think they’ve got it wrong. But we
can’t change that. Well, I’d be reluctant to intervene.”


abbot7



He didn’t say he wouldn’t intervene, or that he couldn’t, so ‒ ever
the optimist ‒ I kind of hoped he still would see the logic of choosing a
community leader with proven commitment to represent the constituents,
rather than a woman with very little public profile.




When asked what attracted me to politics, I told Tony the main reason
was because I had already decided to leave ministry (due to an
inability to embrace the Church’s hypocritical attitude to contemporary
morality).




I told Tony I had decided to look for a partner in marriage.



“No!” he said adamantly.



“Don’t leave the priesthood. You have to campaign as an active,
currently serving priest. It would have a better impact than a former,
disaffected or ousted priest. Your current credibility would be critical
to a successful campaign.”




So, despite already having met my future wife, and really having her
in mind when I mentioned ‘looking for a wife’, I decided to hold that
part of my plan close to my chest.




We concluded our conversation with Tony saying:



“The procedure from here on is, I will need to speak with a few
people and if you get a phone call from Bill Heffernan, you’re in.”




“And if I don’t?” I asked.



“You can go on with your normal life,” he said smiling.



“My life has never been normal,” I thought to myself.



*****


Being just five days before Christmas when we met, I was not surprised when there was still no phone call from Senator Heffernan
by New Year. People easily forget things like “make a phone call to
Father Kevin Lee,” I told myself, still optimistic rather than accepting
the Party may not be interested in sanctioning a priest as a
politician.




In the meantime, Ray King suggested that I start writing some letters
in the Penrith Press, a local newspaper distributed freely twice a week
to all homes in our electorate. Mr King wrote some ideas to me each
couple of days and I reworded them and sent them to the newspaper’s
editor. Every letter I wrote was pro-Liberal or critical of the Gillard
government. I spoke about the need to focus on local job creation
schemes such as hotels, restaurants and cafes along the banks of the
picturesque Nepean River. I also promoted the achievements of local
identities and congratulated them, things Liberal candidate Fiona Scott
was reticent or unable to do. In fact, I had been told by some within
the local Liberal branch that she had been told to stay away from the
media in case she said something that Labor could use against her. Still
believing that Tony Abbott might suggest replacing Fiona Scott, my letters were designed to galvanise some local support for the idea that I would be a worthy opponent for David Bradbury.




A month later, I still had not heard from the country Senator so I
assumed the powers-that-be had collectively decided against using me and
I moved on with my own plans.




Bill Heffernan (Image via www.billheffernan.com.au)
He
told me he knew about my book exposing paedophilia in the Catholic
Church. “You have no idea how deeply the problem has penetrated not just
the Church, but the police and the judiciary” he said.




“During the Wood Royal Commission
into Police Corruption, the topic of organised crime protected by
police led into the topic of organised paedophilia rings in Australia.
Suddenly Justice James Wood himself called a halt to proceedings and
ordered a break for lunch. After lunch, the topic was never returned to,
or raised again. The issue would touch too many important people who
have secrets they don’t want to be known. You will never get to the
bottom of pedophilia in the clergy because too many people in high
places are involved…”


“What about if there was a Royal Commission into the Catholic
Church?” I suggested, as that was what I and many others had been
agitating for, for years.




“It’ll never happen” he said. “Labor don’t have the political will
and when we return to power we’ll never initiate one. So what are you
thinking about doing with your book?” Heffernan asked.




“Well, if I am selected as a candidate, I won’t publish it,” I assured him.



“Good idea. That’s better at the end of your political career, as part of your memoirs,” he said.



I indicated that my phone battery might die at any time in order to
prompt his memory about what he was ringing me to say. I assumed his
protracted questioning was something like a job interview.




“Well the reason I am ringing is because you indicated to Tony that
you wanted to be a politician. Have you any idea where you would like to
run?”




I explained the reasons why Lindsay would be the best place for me.



“Well, that’s not going to happen. Fiona Scott has been given the nod
for a second crack at it. I am informing you that nominations for
pre-selection for McMahon close tomorrow.” He then ordered me to put in
my application for pre-selection for candidacy in that seat — the seat
currently held by then Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen.




“But I have heard that Frank Oliveri is running for that seat and is the branches’ local favourite,” I said, reiterating things my friend Ray King had confided.



“Oliveri is going to withdraw. I can’t understand why he hasn’t done
it already. He was ordered by the Party Executive to drop out, but he
appealed and it was upheld. But he is yet to discover the amount of crap
he is going to encounter if he intends to go forward. That’s why I’m
ringing you and asking you to put in your application. Don’t worry about
Oliveri, he is going to pull out.”




As soon as I finished my call with Heffernan, I rang Ray King ‒ who
was, by this stage, commander of Liverpool police ‒ and informed him of
my phone conversation. Ray had also developed political ambition and had
nominated for pre-selection for the seat of Fowler.




Frank Oliveri (left) with Joe Tripodi (right). (Photo: Alice Boshell via Sydney Morning Herald.)
“Well
I was speaking with Frank today and he isn’t withdrawing. I’m not
saying that’s not what Bill told you. I’m just saying that Frank reckons
he isn’t going to step aside just because Heffernan or someone else
from the Exec tells him he has to,” Mark said angrily.




Early the following day, I rang Bill Heffernan and explained the predicament.



“I have a form but only one signature,” I said apologetically.



“Alright. Just bring your forms down here to headquarters by midday
and I will get you some signatures,” he assured me, seemingly cognizant
with my difficulties.




Used to following instructions, I immediately went to William Street
and found Bill Heffernan sitting cross-legged in the conference room,
waiting for me, pen in hand.




I explained the difficulty with getting the Liberal Party members’
signatures. He used some descriptive expletives about the attitude of
those who were determined to keep Oliveri in the running.




“The man is a crook. There’s plenty of reasons for him to be charged
in the future over the deals he did in Liverpool and it will become an
embarrassment to the Liberal Party. His mates don’t think about that, do
they? Show me your form I will sign it for you.”




When I handed him the nomination form, he exclaimed, “It’s blank. You haven’t even filled it in yet!”



“Well I got a bit disillusioned by the contradictions I was hearing
here. You tell me to apply because Oliveri is pulling out and all his
friends maintain that he isn’t. I don’t want to pay $1000 to nominate
for a position I can’t win.”




“Listen, if Bill Heffernan rings someone and tells them to put in an
application, they bloody well do what I tell them,” he said angrily.




I knew he was angry at the people who refused to cooperate with my
request for signatures on my application. After recalling some
meandering, irrelevant anecdotes from his Catholic youth, Bill signed my
form. He then found another in the office to sign and dictated to me
what I needed to put on the application form.




I could hardly wait to tell Ray about my encounter with Bill Heffernan.







Ray then dropped a bombshell, telling me he had withdrawn his
application for the seat of Fowler and put in his nomination for
McMahon! He had done so without discussing it with me. I felt betrayed
and could not comprehend his actions. To this day, I still don’t.


I was naturally angry with what he had done but at the time accepted
Ray’s innocent sounding explanation. He said that there was a certain
nominee for Fowler called Andrew Nguyen,
a seventy year old Vietnamese man. Apparently Nguyen had re-mortgaged
his house to get $300,000 as a campaign contribution and was quite
likely to be pre-selected




“...because what they are looking for is, who has the
money to fund a campaign and the ability to communicate with many of the
electorate. Apparently Fowler has a predominantly Vietnamese
community."


Now, in retrospect I don’t believe Ray’s justification, because
people in the party have told me that they were backing Ray to be
pre-selected because Andrew Nguyen had such poor communication skills
and was rather old.




The fact that Nguyen has been preselected speaks volumes for
Liberal’s failures. They do not care about selecting the best person to
represent the community but whoever can come up with enough campaign
money or supporters to promote the Liberal brand.

 




THE BLIND BATTLE FOR MCMAHON



Ray was deceptive in his comments from then on. I was a bit
ambivalent about the role of politician by this stage, with more focus
on developing a life for myself and my new wife as well as trying to get
a job. I was unemployed and dependent on welfare payments for a number
of months and definitely sure that running a political campaign would be
costly beyond my means.




The only thing I had in my favour was the fact that one former
parishioner, who is loyal to the Liberal agenda, generously offered to
give me $100,000 to run my campaign if I was pre-selected. I never
mentioned this to anyone, except Ray King, who admitted that he had no
one offering to fund his campaign.




Without revealing his real ambition, Ray continued to feed me
encouragement, telling me I was a better candidate than him. He
continued to say he was only in the race “to knock off the competition”
for me.




He said:



“With me in the race, I will take the votes away from Jamal Elishe
(who represented Liberal at the previous election, and was the only
other contender) and you will win the prize. I can’t afford to lose
$1000 so I will be pulling out in the week before the pre-selection so
you can do a Steven Bradbury and win!”


But Ray was leading me on all the way. His actions have proven to me
how politics and ambition can destroy a man’s sense of perspective and
allow him to throw away everything he has. In my mind, Ray was a close
confidant and friend. He has done so many things for me in the past that
assisted me move forward at times when I could quite easily have given
up.




While I was unemployed for nearly six months, Ray King organised for one of his friends, a Liberal loyalist, Brian Zammit
to allow me to live rent free in his granny flat in West Hoxton, close
to the area I was hoping to campaign for. Brian also gave me a job in
his family construction business as his customer liaison officer.




One day, while in Brian’s office, he was discussing the nominations
for pre-selection with his accountant Joe Malluso, who was also one of
the pre-selectors. I had seen Joe sitting in the office earlier in the
day doing the accounts and I made him a cup of coffee.




When I walked in, Brian asked Joe: “What do you think are the chances of Kevin Lee getting nominated?”



“The priest? He’s got no hope. He hasn’t got any support,” Joe said dismissively.



“Tell him that now,” Brian said, to a perplexed looking Joe. “He’s right in front of you” Brian said smiling in my direction.



Joe was shocked. I was wearing my blue collared shirt and looked nothing like the priest that Joe had visualised.



“You’re kidding,” Joe said.



“I kid you not. Joe meet Father Kevin Lee,” Brian said smiling at the irony.



Joe’s Italian Catholic background brought out the indoctrinated
respect and he stood up to shake my hand. “Well, I’m sorry Father Kevin.
I didn’t know you are the priest everyone has been talking about. I
expected this Father Lee was an Asian,” he said.




“Yes that’s a common racial generalisation I get with an Asian sounding surname, but my father’s actually Irish” I informed him.



We sat down and discussed the election and I switched into campaigner
mode and began to impress on both Brian and Joe why I would be a better
candidate to support than Ray King.




Ray later interpreted the conversation which followed as an attempt
to white-ant him, but I maintain that they deserved to know the history
of the candidate they were intent on supporting. It seems now that no
one in the Liberal camp really wanted to know about the skeletons of
their representatives. They are content to wait and see if the media or
Labor discover them.




As our conversation continued, I was led to believe, or maybe I
wanted to believe, they were swinging their support from Ray to me. One
of the reasons I stated which I thought was already known to both of
them was Ray’s appearance at the Wood Royal Commission. Ray claimed
later that I told them he was arrested and forced to stand trial at the
Commission but I maintain I merely indicated my concerns that if his
involvement in a defending role at an Inquiry into Police Corruption was
brought up, he may have some explaining to do. They agreed to turn
their support over to me as well as promising to convince the branch
members to support my nomination.




Brian then rang Ray to tell him of their decision.



I don’t know what Ray King said to them but I could hear Brian Zammit
saying, “Ray you have my complete support and also that of Joe. We are
100% behind you Ray” he repeated a number of times.




I then knew I had only one option, I rang Bill Heffernan and asked
him to request Ray to withdraw. Heffernan sounded angry when I called
and he said, “Kevin forget about Ray King. It’s the pre-selectors you
have to focus on now. Call all of them. Don’t bother with emails. That’s
horseshit. You just f***ing call them all and convince them why you are
the best candidate for the Liberal Party.”




For some unknown reason each of the pre-selection candidates is sent
an Excel spreadsheet with the names, home addresses, home, business and
mobile phone numbers as well as personal email addresses of all the
pre-selectors. I was wondering whether this was, in fact, so we could
offer them all a bribe for their vote, but since the election was going
to be by secret ballot no one would ever know if anyone did vote for
you.




None of the pre-selectors I spoke to said they wouldn’t vote for me,
but some did say they would, while the majority were noncommittal. I was
aware that one of the candidates had invited all fifty two of the
pre-selectors to his home for a dinner. Did he win any support by that
gesture? I will never know, but to me it reeked of impropriety to even
give all that contact information prior to delivering what could be a
life-changing speech to them.






“But Bill” I protested to Mr Heffernan, “if you just call Ray and tell him to withdraw, he will do it.”



“No, I’m not going to do that Kevin. That would be very wrong if I
were to interfere in the process. You just go and do what you have to do
to get selected. Call Marise Payne and make sure you meet with her.
There’s also a few other people you should call …” and he gave me a few
names of people whose support I needed.




When I did meet with Senator Marise Payne she bought me a coffee at
the café opposite her campaign office in Penrith. She convinced me that
she hadn’t made up her mind yet and was waiting to hear the speeches.
She said:




“Don’t believe what people tell you if they say that
they support you. The only people you know are telling you the truth are
the ones who say that they are not going to vote for you!”


I visited, rang or emailed everyone on the list, with few replies.
One who did sound positive, but then disappeared and never replied to my
emails, was a Doctor Clive O’Connor. He was a conservative Catholic,
whom I assumed had Opus Dei connections, because his main question to me
was: “What’s your position on abortion?” I told him I had written
something on the topic and included it in my parish newsletter and he
asked me to send him a copy. I did, but he never responded.




There was another couple Frank Zappia and his wife, who seemed very
interested in supporting me particularly because they didn’t want fellow
Italian and outside dark horse, Joe Romeo
as their local member. They assured me that they could swing all their
branch members into voting for me after losing their preferred
representative, Frank Oliveri.




When it came closer to the day of pre-selection and Ray had not yet
withdrawn, I was still working for his friend Brian Zammit. I was asked
by our general manager to go to Liverpool police station and measure up
the area that Brian’s company had been asked to make desks for Ray’s
police station conference room.




When I turned up, Ray King was sitting at his desk reading the paper
and eating his lunch. He had an accusatory look on his face as he said:
“What are you doing here?”




“I’m working,” I said with a smile.



He didn’t believe me when I informed him that I had been told to do the measurements.



He said, “Have you come to apologise? I know what you told Joe and Brian was an attempt to undermine me”.



“Ray, you promised to withdraw from pre-selection. You said, on your
honour, you would withdraw. I need you to do that now,” I almost pleaded
with him.




“Well I have to now, don’t I? I got a call last night from the
Liberal Party asking about what happened in the Royal Commission. They
told me I now have to withdraw my nomination." He glared at me in a way I
had seen him look at junior officers he had berated for some infraction
of police protocols.




“I have done you a favour Ray. If you had have gone into the
election, Labor would have brought it up and whether you are innocent or
not of the allegations, you are always going to come out of it looking
corrupt. And what about people from your past? Anyone of them can come
forward and embarrass you?”




“Mate, I wanted to knock your head off when you walked through the
door. I can’t believe you would try to undermine me like that after all
we have been through together,” he said.




“Ray, you are the one who undermined me. You swore you were only
there to help me. You never said you wanted the position for yourself.
After all, it was me who was rung by head office and told to apply. Not
you!” I retorted assertively.




“Righto” Ray said a bit more calmly.



He glared at me for a moment, while all I could do was smile.



“Anyway, just go. See ya later. You and I are finished as mates."



A few days later, another of the contenders, Joe Romeo, realising he didn’t have the support he needed, withdrew.



On the day of pre-selection I was contacted by pre-selector and
Liberal candidate for Fowler, Andrew Nguyen. He said he was impressed
with the fact that I was dedicated to my faith and done some volunteer
work in Vietnamese refugee camps. He assured me that I could get sixteen
of the votes who were Vietnamese if I included some of their language
in my speech and told them about my voluntary work with St Vincent de
Paul, which I did.




In the end, Ray didn’t keep his word. He went into the pre-selection,
which ended up being between him and I and Jamal Elishe, an Iraqi
refugee who had only been in the country for seven years. Although he
apparently had a lot of Arab backers (with money) he had very little
English, so in my mind it did really boil down to just Ray and I.




I did what Bill Heffernan advised and forgot about Ray King and put
all my energy into attempting to sway the minds of the pre-selectors.




I prepared a speech which started with an introduction in five
languages to emphasise that this election was best contested by someone
who had an ability to communicate across a number of cultures in an area
that boasted over 130 different nationalities. My speech also had
humour: “A little girl asked her father, “Daddy, do all fairy tales
begin with ‘Once upon a time’?” He answered, “No, sweetheart, some of
them begin with ‘If I am elected…’”




As well as emotive phrases designed to elicit a positive response, I
gave many logical reasons why I could represent the community
energetically due to my interest in people and willingness to visit
homes, schools and the workplaces of the constituents. I had canvassed
opinions from people in the community about what issues most affected
them and translated those comments into a proposal that I believed would
be well received by the pre-selectors, some of whom gave me pointers on
what I should say.




As we sat in the room waiting to deliver our speeches to the
pre-selectors on the presentation night, Ray offered his hand, “I
forgive you for trying to undermine me and when I win, I will still keep
my promise and give you a job as my media officer. And if you win, I
hope you would extend to me the same courtesy”.




“Sure Ray, but I never did undermine you. I only wanted to save you
the embarrassment which is going to come your way, should you win.”




“Whatever happens, let’s have a beer afterwards,” he offered.



“Yeah that would be nice” I said.



I had rehearsed my speech each day for at least an hour as I did my
six kilometre walk for twelve days. I had managed to memorise my speech
word for word and presented it flawlessly without much reference to my
notes.




I knew in my mind Ray King looked very confident he was going to be
chosen, but I had no idea how assured he was until I heard the vote
tally. Out of fifty two possible votes Ray King got thirty seven. I got
one and Jamal, the Iraqi refugee got the rest. Some in the audience
expressed their incredulity at the outcome and the moderator was
questioned as to why there were no independent auditors at the counting
of the votes. He was convinced not to destroy the ballots in case any
questioning happened later. I would have liked to but I could not see
the point.








Now, I am not naïve enough to believe I was able to sway the decision
of all the voters in the room by my presentation but I am sure some
must possess a conscience and have realised that my presentation was
better than Ray’s or Jamal Elishe.




After Ray King won the pre-selection by a landslide, we shook hands
and I have not seen or heard from him since. I waited for a call or text
to have that promised drink, but it has never come.




It is quite upsetting what Ray King has done to our friendship, but I
can forgive him for what happened because I believe that the pursuit of
position and power also blinded me to what was happening around me.




As I went home to lick my wounds, I received a call that night from Bernard Bratusa:



“I just spoke with Marise Payne and she used one word to
describe your performance tonight, ‘Awesome’. You impressed some
important decision makers in that room tonight, Kevin. I wouldn’t be too
disappointed by how you went. You have a long career ahead of you in
politics. You’re only forty eight. Ray is sixty one or two, so your turn
will come. Just play the game for a while and show some loyalty to the
Party by supporting Ray during the campaign process. Ray tells me he has
plans to offer you a job in his office when he gets elected.”


I was not in the mood for conversation with anyone but I didn’t want
to fob Bernard off as he is such a good man. I got to know him better in
recent years, since he started attending our church and, with his wife
Katheryne, they had helped out in our fundraising committee.




But I was not impressed when he let slip that he and Senator Marise
Payne had helped write Ray King’s speech for the pre-selection. I had
introduced Ray to Bernard and at no time had he told me he had been
getting public speaking lessons from my friend.




I had already made up my mind that the Liberal Party was filled with
two-faced pretenders – very much like the Church I had previously
ministered in – but on this day, I had promised myself never to have
anything to do with party politics again.




After my unsuccessful pre-selection campaign, I received no response
to my emails and texts to either Tony Abbott or Bill Heffernan.








THE END OF THE AFFAIR



On 16th June 2013, I found an unread message on my Facebook account (March 14 10:22pm):



'Great speach tonight at the preselection. Very engaging, you had my vote don’t give up mate.'


I replied to the person:



'Hi [NAME DELETED], I don’t know why I only found this
message today. It’s amazing that so many people told me they had voted
for me at the pre-selection but I only got one vote. So you must be the
one who told the truth… So what did you think of Ray King’s speech? What
did he say that so convinced the majority that he is the best man for
the job?'


And this was his reply:



Hi Kevin. I was baffled why Ray King received the
winning number of votes. Your speech was without a doubt much better
than Ray’s. Furthermore the other candidates speech (Jamal) was so
painful to watch I couldn’t bare (sic) it. He couldn’t even comprehend
the questions that were asked of him. For example, one pre selector
asked him about the proposed changes to superannuation laws, and his
response to the question (after asking to have the question repeated)
was quote “superannuation is for people to put money into for their
retirement”. Completely did not understand the question. Following that
response there was a muffled chatting among people in the room. Yet
Jamal was closely behind Ray. The meeting was stacked with Assyrian pre
selectors and they would of (sic) voted for Jamal no matter what he
said. Earlier than day an SMS circulated to me from an unknown number
that “we all must support Jamal”.


Anyway, after your
speech there was a brief pause before questioning commenced, and your
speech was much less scrutinized than Ray’s or Jamal’s. I thought that
was an indication you were a clear winner. I was shocked when the
chairperson of the meeting announced you only received one vote (my
vote). Ray mainly discussed his time in the police and he emphasised
integrity over and over. There was no smoking gun which made him the
winner or better than your speech. He was reading a pre-prepared speech
also. And almost lost his cool with the questions. Whereas you were very
calm and composed throughout the speech and questions. It was very well
delivered, clear and precise Kevin. Even the guy sitting next to me
said “you smashed it”, referring to the high calibre of your speech. Yet
he voted for Jamal because he had to. I say keep trying, maybe even at a
state level?


In later correspondence, my informant told me his disappointment with the process in subsequent weeks:



I was having a discussion with one of the Smithfield
branch members a few days after who was unable to establish why Jamal
did not win as they were confident in the numbers prior to the pre
selection that he would win. I politely said he lacked the ability to
speak English for starters that's probably to a large extent why he
didn't win, and the reason why I didn’t vote for him.


And
this person said in disbelief, something to the effect of "What? You
didn’t support Jamal? We have to support him, he is OUR candidate, he is
the Smithfield branch's candidate".


I responded "No, I
voted for who I believed was the best possible candidate worthy of
supporting, that had the best ability to represent the seat of McMahon, I
voted for Kevin the priest".


And this person said
"Man, it does not work like that, you've got so much to learn, you have
no idea. Anyway what’s done is done. It was a waste of a potential vote
that should of gone to Jamal".


I said "What do you
mean? Candidates stand up and present themselves via a speech and the
preselectors choose a winner based on his or her merits" , and this
person said "Nah, like I said doesn't work like that, what they say
doesn’t make a difference, its already decided, we work out the numbers
beforehand who will win, Jamal should of won".


And that
was the end of the conversation. The accuracy of our discussion is
about 90% in terms of words I used in the quotes, but that was the basis
of the conversation I had with this person. The other instance on the
night, a person next to me questioned me "Oh I wonder who voted for the
priest", I said "me". This person said "Yeah he was good, what do you
expect, he has lots of experience as a priest etc." I asked him "who did
you vote for?" and he said "Ahh I had to vote for Jamal man, need to do
what we can".


This person’s disclosure of ‘what goes on’ has validated my decision
to distance myself from a party that has no principles. The most recent
proof of the failure of the pre-selection process to select the best
possible candidate was exhibited today by Jaymes Diaz, representing the
Liberal Party for Greenaway.




Jaymes Diaz and his father Jess were parishioners when I was priest
in Blacktown, and were pre-selectors for McMahon who had assured me of
their support and yet they refused to cast their secret vote for me.






What you saw of Jaymes Diaz in front of the Channel Ten cameras is
symptomatic of the state of the Liberal Party across the board. I was
surprised when this junior immigration lawyer (exclusively representing
fellow Filipinos) got pre-selected over some much better qualified
candidates. He and his fellow Filos have stacked the branches that he
was pre-selected from and there was never a doubt that, regardless of
who was the better candidate for Greenaway, Jaymes was always going to
be selected.








TONY ABBOTT AND THE OPUS DEI EFFECT



abbott7



Since the pre-selection process for McMahon concluded, I have had
plenty of time to reflect on the process as well as outcome. I have
reviewed some of my opinions about Tony Abbott and his supporters, as
well as the individuals whom I was convinced were supportive of my
political aspirations with the Liberal Party.




Prior to my experience with the Liberal Party, I was a staunch
defender of all that Tony Abbott stood for. I even defended his decision
in 1997 to support
a fellow seminary student Father John Nestor who had been accused of
paedophilia whilst a priest in the Wollongong Diocese. The criticism levelled at Mr Abbott
regarding his decision to support John Nestor without any personal
knowledge of the allegations was an area that I needed to do some
examination of my conscience.




Paul Osborne wrote a story published on 8 February 2013 questioning the motives of Liberal Leader Tony Abbott when he gave a character reference to the accused priest.



I know John Nestor from my time in the seminary and can vouch that he
was a man of exceptional character. But there is one quality of his
that must have motivated the future Prime Minister to put his reputation
on the line to defend an alleged paedophile.




John Nestor was a priestly member of Opus Dei.



So it doesn’t surprise me that the then Parliamentary secretary to the Employment Minister described John Nestor as:



“An extremely upright and virtuous man. I guess one of
the things that I like very much about John when I first met him was his
maturity — intellectual, social, emotional. And he was, to that extent I
guess, a beacon of humanity at the seminary.”


I knew that there were a number of complaints by people within the
local school and parish of the Wollongong Diocese that were opposed to
Father John Nestor’s Opus Dei associations.




Anyway, innocent or guilty, he is in Opus Dei and I believe this is
the only reason that Abbott stuck his neck out to support him. Because
he is an Opus Dei priest, I am sure there are people in the Liberal
Party who emphasised the need for John Nestor to be cleared.




I am writing this not to be malicious, but to respond to the constant
criticisms of Opus Dei interference in politics of which I am now
convinced. My experiences prove that they exert significant influence
over who is acceptable and who is not.




Even Ray King, who now is running for Liberal in the seat of McMahon told me during the lead up to pre-selection:



“You will lose support from the Libs because of your
attacks on Cardinal George Pell. Your attacks on Pell, as much as I
personally agree with them, were the reason you burnt all your support
base. Opus Dei does have power in Federal politics.”


The proof is in the fact that none of my endorsers have contacted me
since my pre-selection speech — even to ask how I went or to comment on
what happened.




Opus Dei, which is Latin for ‘The Work of God', is a personal
prelature or association of priests and lay people that was formed in
1928, by the actions of a certain Spanish priest, Father Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer y Albás.
To the devotees of Opus Dei, he is referred to simply as “The Founder”.
His spiritual movement had found its way into Australia in 1963,
through the efforts of a humble and holy Springwood identity and father
of ten, Professor Ron Woodhead. Convinced of its merit, he welcomed the
movement and all it stood for into NSW University in 1971. I became
involved in Opus Dei while still a University student and was soon
overcome with the zeal of its adherents. I tell of my involvement in my
book.





Opus Dei’s influence spread through Warrane College, a residential
college of NSW Uni that provided a home predominantly for country
students and the members worked tirelessly to ensure that other young
and energetic Catholic students would be introduced to their founder’s
teachings. Its agenda is to indoctrinate educated people of the validity
of its aims and infiltrate the legal profession, medicine and politics
to influence them to enforce the extremely restrictive interpretation of
Catholic social teaching that its founder inculcated. Pope John Paul
II, who favoured the spirituality of the cult that emphasised personal
sanctity and obedience to the Pope, canonised the Founder in record time
and declared the cult a valid separate category of associations in
Canon Law.




Its influence continues today through its schools and institutes,
which never bear any identifiers that associate them to this secretive
organisation. Its attempts to place members in positions of influence in
Australia (and in fact throughout the world) are extremely successful.




The current Rector of the Sydney seminary (the one responsible for
determining who becomes a priest in Sydney) Father Anthony Percy is an
Opus Dei priest. Father Percy was directly appointed by Cardinal George
Pell and is a personal friend of Tony Abbott.




If Opus Dei and extreme right wing conservatives are setting the
agenda for the Liberal Party, then the Australian people need to know
who the Liberal Party is made up of before they elect them into
government.




This story was originally published, in a different form, at francesjones.wordpress.com. To read Father Kevin's book, please click here.