Today's Daily Telegraph declares that the once cozy relationship between Labor and The Shooters Party is over. Robert Brown of The Shooters Party is reported as saying:
"Whatever goodwill there was is now gone."
Labor is unable to govern the state now because it cannot obtain passage for its bills. It has held 19 spots in the Legislative Council out of a total of 42. It has relied on Fred Nile and The Shooters in the past to govern. Now Labor is forced into a bizarre situation of negotiating deals with Gordon Moyes, Fred Nile, The Greens and even The Coalition.
The Daily Telegraph reports that there are 13 Bills already before the Parliament awaiting passage, and many more pieces are meant to be introduced between now and November. While a few bills may squeak through, Labor is essentially paralysed in its efforts to govern the state.
On previous occasions the deadlock in Parliament has been discussed on this blog.
What readers need to be really clear about is the back-room story that the mainstream media has failed to fully tell about how the deadlock arose (e.g. see today's edition of The Australian which completely misses out on what is stated here and curiously says that Labor had to placate the Greens in June but never explains why they had to at all).
The problem is all related back to one little item that was included in last year's mini-budget, an item that Labor expected would pass unnoticed by the public and hence sail through Parliament without much dissent. It was announced in the mini-budget that the Public Trustee NSW and Office of the Protective Commissioner would be merged ostensibly to save $100,000 p.a. and to reduce red tape. The proposed merger met with immediate objections from the disability sector in December 2008, and was soon followed by members of the public writing letters of objection to members of Parliament and to the Attorney General.
The greater majority of clients of both organisations were essentially not informed about the proposed merger. As criticisms developed it became apparent that the merger was a measure designed to take the Protective Commissioner off the state budget and for the Public Trustee to use its surplus funds to pick up the tab. For a few years the Protective Commissioner's community service obligation budget has been rising while NSW Treasury's support declined to a pittance.
The acceleration of criticism continued unabated until June 5 when the NSW Trustee and Guardian bill was introduced into Parliament. When the second reading occurred in the Legislative Assembly the formal business debate was rigged so that none of the Independents were allowed to make speeches setting out their objections to the bill. The debate was confined to about 40 minutes in the evening with only 2 Liberal MPs speaking against the bill. It sailed through the lower house only because Labor had the numbers. Within 48 hours of that vote the heat was on in Parliament as disability advocates stepped up their contact with members of the minor parties and Coalition, and as members of the public handed up written submissions containing criticisms of the policy and the bill. It was by no means clear that the minor parties (including the Shooters) would support the bill.
The Attorney General John Hatzistergos and his director general Laurie Glanfield undertook a series of meetings to persuade the minor parties to back the Bill. The Greens had indicated all along that they were not happy with the merger. Clients of the two organisations had not been consulted or advised that a merger was proposed. A large segment of clients have only finally been advised that the merger happened in June via a new organisational newsletter called Connections that has been distributed this week!
Essentially at the eleventh hour a deal was brokered. The Greens gave their support to the merger while requiring Labor to undermine any support for the Shooters' bill on national parks. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Shooters were now in a state of conflict with Labor. On Tuesday 23 June 2009 the NSW Trustee and Guardian Bill had a second and third reading (including a Fred Nile amendment to protect employees' positions for a period of 5 years with no forced redundancies). It passed through the Legislative Council that day and was the very last Bill of the session to make it through!
Wednesday 24 June became the notorious day of bedlam as The Shooters refused to vote for any item of Government business. The Government had expected to introduce its sale of NSW Lotteries bill in the Legislative Council. Instead, a very long day of debate occurred on non-government motions. Just after midnight the Legislative Council was left frozen as the last Labor minister walked out leaving the Parliament high and dry.
It really seems to boil down to the lobbying of Hatzistergos and Glanfield that tipped the scales against the Shooters. It was all because of their determination to push the merger through with a formidable zeal that was disproportionate to the issue and the size of the two small agencies. It has been posed before: were they trying to somehow deflect attention from the tracks of budget deficits affecting the Protective Commissioner over several years?
No matter. The basic point is Labor is in the mess now because of the weird activity in lobbying all the way up to Tuesday 23 June to save the merger. Thanks to that lobbying The Shooters have had their big dummy spit and Labor is all at sea. So "thank you" Mr Hatzistergos and Mr Glanfield for your fanatical devotion to that merger. That helped to marginalise The Shooters and has further led to the unprecedented paralysis of the Legislative Council on 24 June, and which remains unresolved as of today 4 September. No doubt the Labor Cabinet is doing cartwheels for joy over this paralysis in governance.
How can this government be expected to complete a full-term of office? An election is needed to change the Government and to smash the deadlock associated with a single-issue party.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Whoopee for female senior counsel in NSW
It is comforting to know that the Attorney General's Department is committed to "equitable briefing" of matters from its agencies over to female members of the senior bar. The statistics published yesterday for the first 3 months of 2009 in NSW are so breath-taking! Wow! Isn't it a thrill to know that 14.7% of briefs were referred to female senior counsel, while 25.5% were referred to junior female counsel. Gee that truly represents balance, fairness and an equal share of the briefs! What a meaningless press release!
Upper House Stalemate - Who Caused It?
Members of Parliament resume formal business today in Macquarie Street after the winter recess. The Premier wants his lot "on track". The Legislative Council will re-open for business with the calendar stuck in the final week of June because it ground to a halt.
The fate of Labor rests with figuring out deals either for The Greens or Shooters to come on-side. The Shooters were approached by Graeme Wedderburn about possible trial runs of hunting in national parks. Has everyone forgotten why this predicament came about? The Shooters were dudded because Labor was desperate to pass another bill last June. The Greens agreed to support John Hatzistergos' and Laurie Glanfield's bill as long as Labor dumped on the national parks bill of The Shooters.
As Della Bosca fades into obscurity, one wonders how long will it be before history catches up on Mr Hatzistergos' time as Minister for Health, and in his current run as Attorney General. The problems at the NSW DPP will not vanish overnight no matter how many press releases are issued. Cosmetic make-overs to the surface appearance of the Attorney General's Department will not contain the negative facts about the mess it is in. If only an election could be called!
The fate of Labor rests with figuring out deals either for The Greens or Shooters to come on-side. The Shooters were approached by Graeme Wedderburn about possible trial runs of hunting in national parks. Has everyone forgotten why this predicament came about? The Shooters were dudded because Labor was desperate to pass another bill last June. The Greens agreed to support John Hatzistergos' and Laurie Glanfield's bill as long as Labor dumped on the national parks bill of The Shooters.
As Della Bosca fades into obscurity, one wonders how long will it be before history catches up on Mr Hatzistergos' time as Minister for Health, and in his current run as Attorney General. The problems at the NSW DPP will not vanish overnight no matter how many press releases are issued. Cosmetic make-overs to the surface appearance of the Attorney General's Department will not contain the negative facts about the mess it is in. If only an election could be called!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Richard Ackland on Hatzistergos
Although part of this has appeared on my blog I have added in some things here.
As the saga over John Hatzistergos' war of words with Nicholas Cowdery ensues ... I want to say:
A million thank-yous to Richard Ackland! He has had the guts to tell it like it is about John Hatzistergos' war against Nicholas Cowdery and the DPP. Ackland spells out the truth about the alleged wasted funds by the prosecutors who attended a conference in Brisbane. He points out how the numbers of prosecutors are down, how junior solicitors are carrying grunt work (when they should not), and that the District Courts are in a mess because of fewer employees.
All of these gaps in human and financial resources reflects on John Hatzistergos and his director general Laurie Glanfield. It is not too difficult to infer that they are failing to provide good policy and good administration. The NSW Attorney General's Department is in a mess and these two men are in charge.
Ackland describes Hatzistergos and his media effort to discredit Cowdery as the thorn-in-the-flesh:"Hatzistergos represents a haunted, closed, suspicious, micro-managing sort of politics. And to leak against your public servants is, frankly, the pits."
The extract from Beverley Kingston's essay that is in today's SMH just cements the point about the problems of public administration in NSW generally.
I feel that the efforts of Mr Hatzistergos and Mr Glanfield are way past it in terms of usefulness to the people of NSW. I think it is high time that both Hatzistergos and Glanfield resigned.
As the saga over John Hatzistergos' war of words with Nicholas Cowdery ensues ... I want to say:
A million thank-yous to Richard Ackland! He has had the guts to tell it like it is about John Hatzistergos' war against Nicholas Cowdery and the DPP. Ackland spells out the truth about the alleged wasted funds by the prosecutors who attended a conference in Brisbane. He points out how the numbers of prosecutors are down, how junior solicitors are carrying grunt work (when they should not), and that the District Courts are in a mess because of fewer employees.
All of these gaps in human and financial resources reflects on John Hatzistergos and his director general Laurie Glanfield. It is not too difficult to infer that they are failing to provide good policy and good administration. The NSW Attorney General's Department is in a mess and these two men are in charge.
Ackland describes Hatzistergos and his media effort to discredit Cowdery as the thorn-in-the-flesh:"Hatzistergos represents a haunted, closed, suspicious, micro-managing sort of politics. And to leak against your public servants is, frankly, the pits."
The extract from Beverley Kingston's essay that is in today's SMH just cements the point about the problems of public administration in NSW generally.
I feel that the efforts of Mr Hatzistergos and Mr Glanfield are way past it in terms of usefulness to the people of NSW. I think it is high time that both Hatzistergos and Glanfield resigned.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Do the Maths Minister
The saga for the DPP continues as Mr Cowdery advises that his Office's budget is already $3 million in deficit. Cowdery quite correctly points to cuts in staff at the DPP but also in the regional courts (and one might add across the entire NSW court system). The Daily Telegraph states that Mr Hatzistergos doesn't like the fact that Mr Cowdery has a life-tenure rather than being on a contract. I've heard quite a few legal practitioners echo that point.
We need not be surprised by that poor state of affairs one bit. The Attorney General's Department is "forbidden" to make a profit, yet it has until recently insisted that its agencies be self-described as business centres. So using rubbery semantics cuts are made all over the place while cloaking it under jargon about efficiency, reducing red tape etc. Nobody believes the Government's claims on that score!
At the same time, the Office of the Public Guardian had a deficit of $68,000 in 2007-2008, and its estimated deficit for 2008-2009 was $125,000. Seems small but it is an office with some 70+ employees that is supposed to be providing life-style decision-making for people unable to do so for themselves. We must wait on the 2008/09 Annual Report being published, as well as the Auditor General's report later this year to see if things have improved there.
The Office of the Protective Commissioner was carrying a $4.4 million deficit in 2008-2009.
No doubt the same problem has beset other agencies controlled by the Attorney General.
Funny that nobody is asking "why" the Minister Mr Haztistergos and his departmental Director General Mr Glanfield seem to be happy to approve budget deficits sometimes year after year. Not sure how one can reconcile a deficit with being capable of delivering better value, better service and being efficient.
We need not be surprised by that poor state of affairs one bit. The Attorney General's Department is "forbidden" to make a profit, yet it has until recently insisted that its agencies be self-described as business centres. So using rubbery semantics cuts are made all over the place while cloaking it under jargon about efficiency, reducing red tape etc. Nobody believes the Government's claims on that score!
At the same time, the Office of the Public Guardian had a deficit of $68,000 in 2007-2008, and its estimated deficit for 2008-2009 was $125,000. Seems small but it is an office with some 70+ employees that is supposed to be providing life-style decision-making for people unable to do so for themselves. We must wait on the 2008/09 Annual Report being published, as well as the Auditor General's report later this year to see if things have improved there.
The Office of the Protective Commissioner was carrying a $4.4 million deficit in 2008-2009.
No doubt the same problem has beset other agencies controlled by the Attorney General.
Funny that nobody is asking "why" the Minister Mr Haztistergos and his departmental Director General Mr Glanfield seem to be happy to approve budget deficits sometimes year after year. Not sure how one can reconcile a deficit with being capable of delivering better value, better service and being efficient.
Distracted Cabinet - Eyes off the ball of NSW
What a bad state of affairs. The Police minister is busy politicking and cannot resolve the pay claim for the state's police force. Maybe the Attorney General should talk to the Police minister: after all he is worried that the DPP is not prosecuting enough rich crooks. Badly paid police and under-resourced operations -- no wonder the state's coffers under the Crimes Confiscation Act are not robust!
Then again with the stalemate in the Legislative Council it probably doesn't matter much. Labor is impotent to govern!
Then again with the stalemate in the Legislative Council it probably doesn't matter much. Labor is impotent to govern!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Mr Cowdery vs Mr Hatzistergos: DPP Sock it to the AG
On four occasions over recent weeks I have drawn attention to the yawning chasm that exists between Mr Nicholas Cowdery the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General (one, two, three, four).
Today's article by Lisa Carty in the Sunday Herald shows that things have deteriorated. By anyone's reckoning the strong inference from this article is that Mr Hatzistergos dislikes negative publicity. Well, sir, that's too bad! Here the public has every right to stand beside Mr Cowdery in calling a spade a spade. Your department is in a state of perpetual crisis because:
1. Employees are under-resourced and over-worked and many positions remain vacant
2. Budgetary cuts
3. Extravagant expenditure on corporate consultants ($10,933,326.33 spent from 2000-2008), the blow-out in costs on building the Parramatta Justice Precinct, the blow-out in implementing the JusticeLink computer system, and so on.
4. The administrative policies and decisions to outsource work that ends up increasing costs and impeding services.
5. Both the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Office of the Public Guardian were running in deficits in 2006/07, 2007/08 and in 2008/09.
6. Lawlink is not an efficiently organised website.
Need we go on because the woeful list gets longer?
How much money was spent by the NSW Attorney General's Department in hiring the 200-seat Metcalf Auditorium at the NSW State Library on 1 April 2009 and 5 June 2009 so that Mr Laurie Glanfield and his merger implementation team could speak to less than 30 "stakeholders" in the disability sector?
Mr Hatzistergos is quoted:
''The DPP has always argued it should be independent … I think it is fundamental to that independence that they are able to manage their resources. I haven't had this problem with any other agency I have had to deal with where there are these constant demands for additional resources because 'We can't cope'.''
I beg your pardon sir! All of the agencies controlled by your department are in crisis and have not been given the employees and funds they need to serve the public. The man who wields the decision-making power about employee levels is the Director General Mr Glanfield. In various instances he also has the authority to approve the budgets of some agencies inside the Attorney General's Department. One might infer that it would be far more interesting for the public to have detailed explanations from Mr Glanfield justifying the decisions he has made concerning restrictions on staff, outsourcing, deficiencies in the shared corporate services, and so on.
So before Mr Hatzistergos begins accusing Nick Cowdery of not being competent to run the DPP's budget, he ought to recall that "people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks".
The article incredibly includes this ridiculous bit of mud-slinging:
"Ironically, his [i.e. Cowdery's] performance in relation to proceeds-of-crime cases has been a sore point with Mr Hatzistergos, who says the value of property and cash seized from criminals has fallen despite Mr Cowdery being given a bigger budget."
Since when does the DPP have control over which criminals are successfully arrested by the NSW Police? Are the NSW Police somehow derelict for failing to bust "rich criminals"? The confiscation of assets gained by criminal activity is a matter that the DPP prosecutes and the proceeds upon conviction are placed in the hands of the NSW Trustee and Guardian (formerly Public Trustee NSW). However the facts of life are these: It is usually the small-time crooks who are busted and successfully prosecuted. That's why the level of value in property and assets seized is usually small. In the cases where rich criminals are under investigation those dudes often have hidden assets overseas and the resources do not exist for either the NSW Police or DPP to pursue. Who do you think you are trying to fool, Mr Hatzistergos?
Mr Hatzistergos has set Mr Laurie Glanfield the task of reporting on the DPP. Good grief!
One can imagine more disinformation about the DPP being distributed in future press releases.
Today's article by Lisa Carty in the Sunday Herald shows that things have deteriorated. By anyone's reckoning the strong inference from this article is that Mr Hatzistergos dislikes negative publicity. Well, sir, that's too bad! Here the public has every right to stand beside Mr Cowdery in calling a spade a spade. Your department is in a state of perpetual crisis because:
1. Employees are under-resourced and over-worked and many positions remain vacant
2. Budgetary cuts
3. Extravagant expenditure on corporate consultants ($10,933,326.33 spent from 2000-2008), the blow-out in costs on building the Parramatta Justice Precinct, the blow-out in implementing the JusticeLink computer system, and so on.
4. The administrative policies and decisions to outsource work that ends up increasing costs and impeding services.
5. Both the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Office of the Public Guardian were running in deficits in 2006/07, 2007/08 and in 2008/09.
6. Lawlink is not an efficiently organised website.
Need we go on because the woeful list gets longer?
How much money was spent by the NSW Attorney General's Department in hiring the 200-seat Metcalf Auditorium at the NSW State Library on 1 April 2009 and 5 June 2009 so that Mr Laurie Glanfield and his merger implementation team could speak to less than 30 "stakeholders" in the disability sector?
Mr Hatzistergos is quoted:
''The DPP has always argued it should be independent … I think it is fundamental to that independence that they are able to manage their resources. I haven't had this problem with any other agency I have had to deal with where there are these constant demands for additional resources because 'We can't cope'.''
I beg your pardon sir! All of the agencies controlled by your department are in crisis and have not been given the employees and funds they need to serve the public. The man who wields the decision-making power about employee levels is the Director General Mr Glanfield. In various instances he also has the authority to approve the budgets of some agencies inside the Attorney General's Department. One might infer that it would be far more interesting for the public to have detailed explanations from Mr Glanfield justifying the decisions he has made concerning restrictions on staff, outsourcing, deficiencies in the shared corporate services, and so on.
So before Mr Hatzistergos begins accusing Nick Cowdery of not being competent to run the DPP's budget, he ought to recall that "people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks".
The article incredibly includes this ridiculous bit of mud-slinging:
"Ironically, his [i.e. Cowdery's] performance in relation to proceeds-of-crime cases has been a sore point with Mr Hatzistergos, who says the value of property and cash seized from criminals has fallen despite Mr Cowdery being given a bigger budget."
Since when does the DPP have control over which criminals are successfully arrested by the NSW Police? Are the NSW Police somehow derelict for failing to bust "rich criminals"? The confiscation of assets gained by criminal activity is a matter that the DPP prosecutes and the proceeds upon conviction are placed in the hands of the NSW Trustee and Guardian (formerly Public Trustee NSW). However the facts of life are these: It is usually the small-time crooks who are busted and successfully prosecuted. That's why the level of value in property and assets seized is usually small. In the cases where rich criminals are under investigation those dudes often have hidden assets overseas and the resources do not exist for either the NSW Police or DPP to pursue. Who do you think you are trying to fool, Mr Hatzistergos?
Mr Hatzistergos has set Mr Laurie Glanfield the task of reporting on the DPP. Good grief!
One can imagine more disinformation about the DPP being distributed in future press releases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
