Funny how the Federal labor Government is raising the eligibility for the aged pension to 67 years of age. Funny how older people are being asked to take the pressure off the social security system by having superannuation. Funny how the Federal Government wants older people to stay in the workforce.
So what should we think of the NSW Labor Government's discriminatory and hypocritical attitude concerning people employed at the NSW Law Reform Commission? Geesche Jacobsen's article in the Brisbane Times drew attention to this issue. Jacobsen stated:
"Only 14 per cent of the staff at the Law Reform Commission are under 40 years of age, and the vast majority of them have been in their job for more than 10 years. No-one has left for several years."
Interesting attitude! So on that basis then Mr Laurie Glanfield should be asked to resign as Director General of the Department of Justice and Attorney General. Why? He is in his 50s and he has held the same job of Director General since 1991. Nobody else has had an opportunity to bring fresh perspectives, fresh experiences, and greater wisdom and skills to that job. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the "oldies" at the Law Reform Commission have to go, then so should Mr Glanfield.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Mr Hatzistergos vs Law Society vs Merger
Michael Pelly's piece in today's The Australian "Island Sojourn: Nice Work if you can get it" is well worth perusing. Pelly's article consists of two parts. One centres on the secondment of Justice Spigelman to head a corruption inquiry in Antigua, while the second half draws attention to the unfolding story about the merger of the Office of Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee.
The article stands as another illustration of the ludicrous political and bureaucratic masquerade that affects the entire Attorney General's Department, the courts, and the smaller agencies that have been absorbed into the department.
Pelly notes there appears to have been a remarkable about-face on the part of the NSW Law Society in its stance on the merger of the Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner. He states:
"The NSW opposition was all fired up last month based on a letter from the Law Society president Joe Catanzariti who described the merger as 'regrettable', while drawiing attention to the different client bases and the negligible cost saving of $100,000 a year ... No sooner had opposition legal affairs spokesman Greg Smith finished flaying the merger - while brandishing the Law Society letter - than some new correspondence landed on Hatz's desk. And wasn't the AG happy to read the new position of the Law Society onto the record. "
Between the lines of Pelly's discussion lies the untold story about the lobbying undertaken by the Attorney General, his Director General Mr Glanfield, and other officials.
One lot of lobbying occurred behind the scenes with the Law Society and which players were involved is something that no-one is willing to talk about. While nobody seems willing to talk speculation is rife that officials at the Law Society were treated brusquely. The impression one can form on the basis of the back-flip is that considerable pressure was probably exerted to extract a pro-merger letter of support from the Law Society. What unpleasant words were exchanged is not known. The uncanny feeling one gets is that the letter of support that Pelly mentions was probably obtained begrudgingly.
The other fascinating aspect concerns the lobbying at Macquarie Street to woo cross-bench support for the merger. From last December a grass roots campaign of opposition to the merger began with advocacy groups in the disability sector and clients of the Public Trustee generating letters of alarm and protest. It is understood that senior bureaucrats in the Attorney General's Department went into a furious mental meltdown with accusations that employees were disloyal and leaking information. The bureaucratic suspicion was part of an apparent culture of secrecy cultivated to keep the merger out of the public eye, and certainly clients of both organisations were not officially advised of the proposed merger.
Sources in the grass roots networks have pooh-poohed the claim that information was leaked to them. These sources point out that all information presented in letters was based on a thorough investigation of publicly available annual reports. The campaign of opposition involved direct lobbying, correspondence, and a neat pile of submissions from concerned citizens one of which was over 70,000 words in length.
The Greens had from the beginning of 2009 expressed reservations and reluctance to support the merger in correspondence to advocates in the disability sector and to clients of the Public Trustee.
Why did The Greens do a somersault from being anti-merger to pro-merger? Speculation is rife that a deal was done. Merger legislation to create the NSW Trustee and Guardian (amalgamating Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner) was due for debate in the Legislative Council before the end of June. The week leading up to the scheduled debate the Shooters Party was trying to galvanize support for its proposed bill concerning shooting of animals in National Parks. Sources in the Labor Government made it known to the press that it was having second thoughts about supporting the Shooters' bill. The Labor Government immediately lost the support of the Shooters Party that it so routinely relies on in the Legislative Council. The only way the merger bill could succeed was by this trade-off: Greens support for merger in exchange for Labor squashing the Shooter's bill.
And so it was that the last piece of Government legislation to pass on Tuesday 23 June 2009 was the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act. The following day the Legislative Council was in uproar as all bets were off for government business and the sale of NSW Lotteries was set aside because the numbers were against the Government. The climax was the staged walk-out of most Labor members in the Council on the evening of 24 June. After midnight proceedings ground to a halt. The Council doors were closed with proceedings left hanging in the air -- so that when Parliament resumes in September the Council will still be technically meeting according to hansard on 24 June.
The collapse of the Council's proceedings appears to be directly related to the lobbying by the Minister and Mr Glanfield to get the merger through at all costs.
The article stands as another illustration of the ludicrous political and bureaucratic masquerade that affects the entire Attorney General's Department, the courts, and the smaller agencies that have been absorbed into the department.
Pelly notes there appears to have been a remarkable about-face on the part of the NSW Law Society in its stance on the merger of the Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner. He states:
"The NSW opposition was all fired up last month based on a letter from the Law Society president Joe Catanzariti who described the merger as 'regrettable', while drawiing attention to the different client bases and the negligible cost saving of $100,000 a year ... No sooner had opposition legal affairs spokesman Greg Smith finished flaying the merger - while brandishing the Law Society letter - than some new correspondence landed on Hatz's desk. And wasn't the AG happy to read the new position of the Law Society onto the record. "
Between the lines of Pelly's discussion lies the untold story about the lobbying undertaken by the Attorney General, his Director General Mr Glanfield, and other officials.
One lot of lobbying occurred behind the scenes with the Law Society and which players were involved is something that no-one is willing to talk about. While nobody seems willing to talk speculation is rife that officials at the Law Society were treated brusquely. The impression one can form on the basis of the back-flip is that considerable pressure was probably exerted to extract a pro-merger letter of support from the Law Society. What unpleasant words were exchanged is not known. The uncanny feeling one gets is that the letter of support that Pelly mentions was probably obtained begrudgingly.
The other fascinating aspect concerns the lobbying at Macquarie Street to woo cross-bench support for the merger. From last December a grass roots campaign of opposition to the merger began with advocacy groups in the disability sector and clients of the Public Trustee generating letters of alarm and protest. It is understood that senior bureaucrats in the Attorney General's Department went into a furious mental meltdown with accusations that employees were disloyal and leaking information. The bureaucratic suspicion was part of an apparent culture of secrecy cultivated to keep the merger out of the public eye, and certainly clients of both organisations were not officially advised of the proposed merger.
Sources in the grass roots networks have pooh-poohed the claim that information was leaked to them. These sources point out that all information presented in letters was based on a thorough investigation of publicly available annual reports. The campaign of opposition involved direct lobbying, correspondence, and a neat pile of submissions from concerned citizens one of which was over 70,000 words in length.
The Greens had from the beginning of 2009 expressed reservations and reluctance to support the merger in correspondence to advocates in the disability sector and to clients of the Public Trustee.
Why did The Greens do a somersault from being anti-merger to pro-merger? Speculation is rife that a deal was done. Merger legislation to create the NSW Trustee and Guardian (amalgamating Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner) was due for debate in the Legislative Council before the end of June. The week leading up to the scheduled debate the Shooters Party was trying to galvanize support for its proposed bill concerning shooting of animals in National Parks. Sources in the Labor Government made it known to the press that it was having second thoughts about supporting the Shooters' bill. The Labor Government immediately lost the support of the Shooters Party that it so routinely relies on in the Legislative Council. The only way the merger bill could succeed was by this trade-off: Greens support for merger in exchange for Labor squashing the Shooter's bill.
And so it was that the last piece of Government legislation to pass on Tuesday 23 June 2009 was the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act. The following day the Legislative Council was in uproar as all bets were off for government business and the sale of NSW Lotteries was set aside because the numbers were against the Government. The climax was the staged walk-out of most Labor members in the Council on the evening of 24 June. After midnight proceedings ground to a halt. The Council doors were closed with proceedings left hanging in the air -- so that when Parliament resumes in September the Council will still be technically meeting according to hansard on 24 June.
The collapse of the Council's proceedings appears to be directly related to the lobbying by the Minister and Mr Glanfield to get the merger through at all costs.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Director of Public Prosecutions (Again)
Yesterday I drew attention to the problem the Director of Public Prosecutions faces with a shortage of funds and hence of staff.
Today the Sydney Morning Herald has run with the story (click here). The Herald quotes Nicholas Cowdery (DPP) as stating bluntly:
"The Government commonly responds to these crises by shooting the messenger, in this case, me ... Anything to take attention away from the truth: which is that it has not accorded high enough priority in its spendingto this essential function of government ... This is not a Newcastle or Hunter problem, it is statewide."
The Herald article gives space for the usual obfuscating spin from a departmental spokesperson defending the Minister and typecasting the DPP in a bad light. The article states:
"The Government expected the DPP to manage its budget efficiently to maintain services around the state 'at all times.'"
The spin also trots out the rubbish details of how the mini budget provided cash so as to employ 14 solicitors. Yesterday I already pointed out the idiocy of the mini-budget as a band-aid solution to a gaping wound.
The rest of this spin is so pathetic it is brimming with weasel words. Of course the DPP manages its budget and does so on the smell of an empty ledger. That of course is precisely the problem highlighted by Nicholas Cowdery. The word "efficiency" simply acts as an in-house cipher that is really referring to dire circumstances: more and more work devolves onto the shoulders of fewer employees. The entire network for the DPP, and thence the whole Attorney General's Department, is so fragile because every specific part that makes up the whole is stretched to the extreme limit. This means that everyone works in crisis conditions, works longer hours than they are actually remunerated for, and they are expected to maintain optimum services. The problem is not so much the structures or work-flow processes at the DPP. The problem does not arise from the staff.
The problem is the idiotic corporate culture that comes from the top-down that spews out meaningless jargon as if it conveys profound meaning. The problem is the public sector is in crisis because of the unrealistic expectations the Government has. The problem reflects on the incompetent mismanagement of NSW over many years. The extravagant and wasteful spending of the public purse by the Government. As the debt is large and the coffers are empty, these calls for "efficiency" are just a bureaucrat's mascara designed to deflect attention away from the real problem.
Today the Sydney Morning Herald has run with the story (click here). The Herald quotes Nicholas Cowdery (DPP) as stating bluntly:
"The Government commonly responds to these crises by shooting the messenger, in this case, me ... Anything to take attention away from the truth: which is that it has not accorded high enough priority in its spendingto this essential function of government ... This is not a Newcastle or Hunter problem, it is statewide."
The Herald article gives space for the usual obfuscating spin from a departmental spokesperson defending the Minister and typecasting the DPP in a bad light. The article states:
"The Government expected the DPP to manage its budget efficiently to maintain services around the state 'at all times.'"
The spin also trots out the rubbish details of how the mini budget provided cash so as to employ 14 solicitors. Yesterday I already pointed out the idiocy of the mini-budget as a band-aid solution to a gaping wound.
The rest of this spin is so pathetic it is brimming with weasel words. Of course the DPP manages its budget and does so on the smell of an empty ledger. That of course is precisely the problem highlighted by Nicholas Cowdery. The word "efficiency" simply acts as an in-house cipher that is really referring to dire circumstances: more and more work devolves onto the shoulders of fewer employees. The entire network for the DPP, and thence the whole Attorney General's Department, is so fragile because every specific part that makes up the whole is stretched to the extreme limit. This means that everyone works in crisis conditions, works longer hours than they are actually remunerated for, and they are expected to maintain optimum services. The problem is not so much the structures or work-flow processes at the DPP. The problem does not arise from the staff.
The problem is the idiotic corporate culture that comes from the top-down that spews out meaningless jargon as if it conveys profound meaning. The problem is the public sector is in crisis because of the unrealistic expectations the Government has. The problem reflects on the incompetent mismanagement of NSW over many years. The extravagant and wasteful spending of the public purse by the Government. As the debt is large and the coffers are empty, these calls for "efficiency" are just a bureaucrat's mascara designed to deflect attention away from the real problem.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Mr Hatzistergos and the DPP
See my latest post on the shortage of Crown Prosecutors in the Director of Public Prosecutions (here). The bureaucracy that controls the Attorney General's Department seems to be riddled with wood-rot that is held together by a slick coat of paint. When is action going to be taken against those who call the shots in that Department?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Multiple Spouses Recognized by NSW Law
In June 2009 the NSW Parliament updated the law on intestacies (when someone dies not having made a Will). Read the new Bill here. For years the law of intestacy has provided a way for relatives to benefit from a deceased person's estate.
Recently The Australian newspaper drew attention to the new laws (see the article here).
In the updated law the horizon has widened over the definition of relationships that potentially can qualify to benefit from a deceased estate. Among the new relationships recognized in intestate matters are:
* defacto partners
* the broader "next-of-kin" relationships among the Aboriginal communities
AND
* multiple spouses.
Its funny but nobody has so much as uttered a squawk about the implications of "multiple spouses"!
What is meant by "multiple spouses"? Is this referring to people who have sequential marriages or sequential defacto relationships? This seems to be the understanding of some politicians. So the Rev Gordon Moyes said in Parliament:
"multiple spouses create issues. Multiple spouses may be complicated. Sequential spouses are generally being referred to here rather than multiple spouses. The bill provides for property to be shared between those surviving spouses in accordance with a written agreement—a distribution agreement—or in accordance with a court order—a distribution order. The multiple spouse provisions are contained in new sections 122 to 126. "
However Rev Moyes's speech suggests that he has not quite grasped the matter. That section of the Bill is not referring to sequential relationships.
The Act in Section 122 simply and repeatedly says: "if an intestate leaves more than one spouse ..."
The Act is actually covering households where someone has relationships involving multiple partners/spouses at the same time (not chronologically). That means, for example, a man who has two, three or more women living with him as wives/defacto partners; it also covers gay relationships where several partners co-habit or where many men are involved simultaneously in a relationship with the person who has died.
Lest anyone think that the lay-reader is misunderstanding Section 122 of the new Act, let me draw attention to the clear and unambiguous language of the NSW Law Reform Commission's Report 116 (2007) on the matter. Chapter 6 of this Report is entitled "Multiple Partners" and specifically refers to the following sub-categories:
* Intestate leaves a spouse and a defacto partner
* Intestate leaves more than one partner
* Bigamous Unions
And note also the earlier paper, The NSW Law Reform Commission's Issues Paper 26 (2005) Uniform Succession Laws (Intestacy). Points 3.5 - 3.7 refer to "bigamous unions", and has the sub-title heading in the plural form "Spouses to be treated as separate persons".
These two Law Reform Commission papers show that the move to recognize multiple spouses has carried on quietly in every state of Australia over the past ten years where the Succession laws are being gradually updated. NSW is the last of the states to come into line (the Northern Territory is the last jurisdiction waiting in the wings to update its law). So welcome to the new and curious society where it is illegal to marry many spouses while you are alive but if you have happened to have many wives (think the Islamic communities; think the fundamentalist Mormons; think the gay communities) and you die without a Will, then retrospectively those relationships will have had some legal status!
How did the religiously conservative Rev Nile and Rev Moyes miss that fact when they reviewed the legislation last month? Time to start posing explicit unambiguous questions to Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General and to Mr Laurie Glanfield the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. Oh and don't worry if your letter isn't answered immediately. These guys are good at having letters drafted, that take a while to be date-stamped and then usually take another 7 - 9 days before they are put in an envelope and posted.
Recently The Australian newspaper drew attention to the new laws (see the article here).
In the updated law the horizon has widened over the definition of relationships that potentially can qualify to benefit from a deceased estate. Among the new relationships recognized in intestate matters are:
* defacto partners
* the broader "next-of-kin" relationships among the Aboriginal communities
AND
* multiple spouses.
Its funny but nobody has so much as uttered a squawk about the implications of "multiple spouses"!
What is meant by "multiple spouses"? Is this referring to people who have sequential marriages or sequential defacto relationships? This seems to be the understanding of some politicians. So the Rev Gordon Moyes said in Parliament:
"multiple spouses create issues. Multiple spouses may be complicated. Sequential spouses are generally being referred to here rather than multiple spouses. The bill provides for property to be shared between those surviving spouses in accordance with a written agreement—a distribution agreement—or in accordance with a court order—a distribution order. The multiple spouse provisions are contained in new sections 122 to 126. "
However Rev Moyes's speech suggests that he has not quite grasped the matter. That section of the Bill is not referring to sequential relationships.
The Act in Section 122 simply and repeatedly says: "if an intestate leaves more than one spouse ..."
The Act is actually covering households where someone has relationships involving multiple partners/spouses at the same time (not chronologically). That means, for example, a man who has two, three or more women living with him as wives/defacto partners; it also covers gay relationships where several partners co-habit or where many men are involved simultaneously in a relationship with the person who has died.
Lest anyone think that the lay-reader is misunderstanding Section 122 of the new Act, let me draw attention to the clear and unambiguous language of the NSW Law Reform Commission's Report 116 (2007) on the matter. Chapter 6 of this Report is entitled "Multiple Partners" and specifically refers to the following sub-categories:
* Intestate leaves a spouse and a defacto partner
* Intestate leaves more than one partner
* Bigamous Unions
And note also the earlier paper, The NSW Law Reform Commission's Issues Paper 26 (2005) Uniform Succession Laws (Intestacy). Points 3.5 - 3.7 refer to "bigamous unions", and has the sub-title heading in the plural form "Spouses to be treated as separate persons".
These two Law Reform Commission papers show that the move to recognize multiple spouses has carried on quietly in every state of Australia over the past ten years where the Succession laws are being gradually updated. NSW is the last of the states to come into line (the Northern Territory is the last jurisdiction waiting in the wings to update its law). So welcome to the new and curious society where it is illegal to marry many spouses while you are alive but if you have happened to have many wives (think the Islamic communities; think the fundamentalist Mormons; think the gay communities) and you die without a Will, then retrospectively those relationships will have had some legal status!
How did the religiously conservative Rev Nile and Rev Moyes miss that fact when they reviewed the legislation last month? Time to start posing explicit unambiguous questions to Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General and to Mr Laurie Glanfield the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. Oh and don't worry if your letter isn't answered immediately. These guys are good at having letters drafted, that take a while to be date-stamped and then usually take another 7 - 9 days before they are put in an envelope and posted.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mr Hatzistergos' New Trustee and Guardian Outfit
Tony Boyd, a columnist for The Business Spectator, has dished up a commentary on the recent merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Public Trustee NSW. The article "Would You Trust NSW?" is definitely worth a careful read.
Boyd questions both the politics and the apparent lack of any long-term planning by the NSW Attorney General Mr Hatzistergos surrounding the merger:
"The forced marriage of the Office of the Protective Commissioner with the NSW Public Trustee has echoes of a hostile takeover by a cash strapped company desperate to its hands on the target company's surplus investment assets. The deal looks headed down the same path as many failed corporate mergers that put short-term financial objectives ahead of long-term planning."
Read the whole article here.
Funny how this story didn't seem to have any press coverage before the merger occurred.
Boyd questions both the politics and the apparent lack of any long-term planning by the NSW Attorney General Mr Hatzistergos surrounding the merger:
"The forced marriage of the Office of the Protective Commissioner with the NSW Public Trustee has echoes of a hostile takeover by a cash strapped company desperate to its hands on the target company's surplus investment assets. The deal looks headed down the same path as many failed corporate mergers that put short-term financial objectives ahead of long-term planning."
Read the whole article here.
Funny how this story didn't seem to have any press coverage before the merger occurred.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
NSW Attorney General on Human Rights
Mr John Hatzistergos is at the moment the NSW Attorney General. He is in the conservative wing of the Australian Labor Party and is an opponent of moves for the introduction of a charter of rights in Australia. He launched a broadside against a charter of rights in 2008. In April 2009 the Australian newspaper published an exchange of letters between Catherine Branson and Mr Hatzistergos.
Mr Hatzistergos uses a straw man argument. He says "whoa" we cannot bring about a culture of rights via legislation. The point is irrelevant and represents very sloppy reasoning. For a vibrant and stable democracy to flourish it cannot be created by legislation either. The secret to success for both democracy and for human rights to be promoted is shared values.
He sets up straw man examples and false stereotypes about the European system of human rights. He creates a bogeyman by using isolated examples out of context. It is a piece of propaganda, not a fair balanced presentation.
His argument to protect human rights simply echoes the hide-bound political philosophy of A V. Dicey (1835-1922). Dicey upheld the supremacy of parliament. Well what a wonderful recipe that is for the promotion of democracy and human rights! In an era where politics is dominated by barons trying to manipulate public opinion, smoke-and-mirrors spin doctors, and pragmatism trumps everything else, we need something more substantial than the self-serving interests of political parties in power.
The European system arose in the wake of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mr Hatzistergos must first show that he has read the European Convention on Human Rights . He must then show he understand the procedures, jurisprudence and case decisions associated with the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. This must be mastered before one can even begin evaluating the European system.
Does he ever discuss any of the positive advances made in the protection of human rights in Europe since World War Two?
His curriculum vitae does not show that he has attended any of the annual summer programmes of the International Institute of Human Rights that Rene Cassin established in 1969 with the Nobel Peace Prize.
What we learn from his speeches is very little about the subject of human rights law and much more about the mindset of the Attorney General himself. Arthur Henry Robertson, one of the founding fathers of the European system, rightly said:
"It is simply not possible in this imperfect world to devise any system which will be perfect and complete ... [nevertheless] the European system is the best yet established by any international organization." (Human Rights in Europe, 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977, p. 278).
With "friends" like Mr Hatzistergos resisting the entire field of human rights law (in what appears to be hopeless and woeful ignorance of the subject), who in NSW needs any "enemies"?
Mr Hatzistergos uses a straw man argument. He says "whoa" we cannot bring about a culture of rights via legislation. The point is irrelevant and represents very sloppy reasoning. For a vibrant and stable democracy to flourish it cannot be created by legislation either. The secret to success for both democracy and for human rights to be promoted is shared values.
He sets up straw man examples and false stereotypes about the European system of human rights. He creates a bogeyman by using isolated examples out of context. It is a piece of propaganda, not a fair balanced presentation.
His argument to protect human rights simply echoes the hide-bound political philosophy of A V. Dicey (1835-1922). Dicey upheld the supremacy of parliament. Well what a wonderful recipe that is for the promotion of democracy and human rights! In an era where politics is dominated by barons trying to manipulate public opinion, smoke-and-mirrors spin doctors, and pragmatism trumps everything else, we need something more substantial than the self-serving interests of political parties in power.
The European system arose in the wake of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mr Hatzistergos must first show that he has read the European Convention on Human Rights . He must then show he understand the procedures, jurisprudence and case decisions associated with the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. This must be mastered before one can even begin evaluating the European system.
Does he ever discuss any of the positive advances made in the protection of human rights in Europe since World War Two?
His curriculum vitae does not show that he has attended any of the annual summer programmes of the International Institute of Human Rights that Rene Cassin established in 1969 with the Nobel Peace Prize.
What we learn from his speeches is very little about the subject of human rights law and much more about the mindset of the Attorney General himself. Arthur Henry Robertson, one of the founding fathers of the European system, rightly said:
"It is simply not possible in this imperfect world to devise any system which will be perfect and complete ... [nevertheless] the European system is the best yet established by any international organization." (Human Rights in Europe, 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977, p. 278).
With "friends" like Mr Hatzistergos resisting the entire field of human rights law (in what appears to be hopeless and woeful ignorance of the subject), who in NSW needs any "enemies"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
