A new poll shows only 30% of voters want the new blue, black and silver fern design. Photo: John Borren
New Zealanders will choose whether to ditch the flag in just over a month, but that prospect appears unlikely according to a new poll.
A Newshub/Reid Research poll has revealed that only 30 per cent of voters want the new blue and black silver fern design.
Sixty-one per cent said they did not want a change. The alternative flag design has put off some voters who want change but do not like the chosen design, and 16 per cent will vote for the current flag, despite being broadly supportive of a flag change.
Debate about a flag change is intensifying ahead of the second referendum, which starts on March 3.
Prime Minister John Key is displaying the alternative flag on the gate of his Parnell home, and Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon has flown it outside his home for several months.
Other high-profile Kiwis are not so impressed. Actor Sam Neill has said he is sticking with the old flag, tweeting that he could not vote for “the beach towel” alternative design.
When deposed as prime minister, Tony Abbott pledged: “There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping.” We all knew what he meant: he would be no Kevin Rudd.
His pledge lasted all of a week before the wrecking, undermining and sniping began. It’s continued this weekend. L’esprit de Rudd is back in the air.
In two interviews with News Corp since his demise – the first brief, the next long and considered – Abbott has shown an embarrassing determination to play the sore loser in spite of his promise that he would not.
A post-spill surf: Tony Abbott. Photo: Nick Moir
He first undermined Scott Morrison’s reputation just as he took over as Treasurer by effectively calling him a traitor, telling the Daily Telegraph after the top job was already long lost: “I’m afraid Scott badly misled people. He badly misled people. I was doing all I could to save the government, that’s what I was doing.”
Then on Saturday, in another interview with News Corp, he doubled down, this time wrecking Malcolm Turnbull’s pitch that his is a new administration – new people, new approach. As George Brandis went on to fashion it on Insiders on Sunday: “This is a very different government.”
Except not really, according to the leader of the old one. “In a policy sense there is very little departure,” Abbott said, referring to the differences between the Turnbull administration from his. “Border protection policy the same, national security policy the same, economic policy the same … even same-sex marriage policy the same, and climate-change policy the same.
“The policy hasn’t changed and indeed the rhetoric hasn’t changed. Again, it is not about me but obviously these are questions that people may ponder.”
Yet, in giving those interviews, he has made it all about him. He seeks to salvage his trashed reputation, aiming for a long-term revision of it from a disastrous premiership into faithful service of the Australian people which was not given credit for the far-reaching, future-proofing measures he introduced.
His attempt to fashion himself as hero misunderstood is classic myth-making, glossing over the greatest failure of a prime ministership since, well, the last two.
Anyone so brutally kicked out of a job – even if he was not up to it – is entitled to be bitter and surly for a while, but only if kept to a small circle. You can whinge to your family, and to your mates at the pub, but being bitter in public helps no one but your opposition.
Abbott has now managed to kick his successor, his party’s bid for re-election and only helped Labor in its attack lines.
In doing so, he has confirmed the correctness of the Liberal party room’s decision to dump him, and increased the community’s relief that he has gone.
For his sake, and for the prospects of the Turnbull government, he should finish off the business of his departure. Given an apparent inability to play the elder statesman with more grace than he led the nation, he should leave the Parliament and give his reputation a chance of some small recovery with time, service and silence.
He should read The President’s Club, a 2012 account of how former US presidents have found their feet – or not – after leaving office. No one wins when former leaders carp about new ones or the manner of their demise. Reputations are built not by revisionism as to their time in office, but by later actions for the good of the country. Even Richard Nixon managed to recoup some of his lost reputation through service to subsequent presidents.
Abbott’s inspiration should be more George Bush the elder, not Rudd the underminer.
Bush was a oncer, like Abbott, although he got four years in power rather than two. He was defeated by Bill Clinton in a bruising election.
Yet he wrote his successor a letter, left in the White House to be read after the inauguration, which read: “You will be our President when you read this note. Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.”
Leaving the odd Americanism aside, the sentiment is astonishing, not that it should be. Bush was no longer his nation’s leader; Clinton was. The patriotic duty of a patriotic American was to wish for the team leader to succeed.
If Abbott was serious about his team Australia rhetoric, he would see that the country would be better served by him leaving politics. He doesn’t need to be Pope Benedict and disappear, but there’s nothing as damaging to the country than the presence of a bitter ex who’s outstayed his welcome.
The Government is in turmoil as the both camps count the numbers to see whether Mr Turnbull has enough support to topple Tony Abbott.
Mr Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop met with the Prime Minister to request the leadership ballot earlier today.
Mr Turnbull resigned from Cabinet and then called a snap 4pm media conference to confirm his decision.
“A little while ago I met with the Prime Minister and advised him that I would be challenging him for the leadership of the Liberal Party,” Mr Turnbull said.
“Now this is not a decision that anyone could take lightly. I have consulted with many, many colleagues, many Australians, many of our supporters in every walk of life.”
Mr Turnbull said he had been under sustained pressure to put his name forward.
“This course of action has been urged on me by many people over a long period of time.
“It is clear enough that the Government is not successful in providing the economic leadership that we need. It is not the fault of individual ministers.
“Ultimately, the Prime Minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs. He has not been capable of providing the economic confidence that business needs.
“Now we are living as Australians in the most exciting time. The big economic changes that we’re living through here and around the world offer enormous challenges and enormous opportunities.”
‘We need advocacy, not slogans’
Mr Turnbull identified the Prime Minister’s approach to the job as a main concern.
“We need a different style of leadership,” he said.
“We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities, explains the challenges and how to seize the opportunities.
“A style of leadership that respects the people’s intelligence, that explains these complex issues and then sets out the course of action we believe we should take and makes a case for it.
“We need advocacy, not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people.
“The only way we can ensure that we remain a high wage, generous social welfare net, first world society is if we have outstanding economic leadership, if we have strong business confidence.
“That is what we in the Liberal Party are bound to deliver and it’s what I am committed to deliver if the partyroom gives me their support as leader of the party.”
Just hours earlier, Mr Abbott dismissed leadership speculation during a media event in South Australia.
“I just am not going to get caught up in Canberra gossip, I’m not going to play Canberra games,” he said.
“I know that sometimes the media particularly like to play the Canberra game, but I’m not going to get involved with it.
“I’m just not going to chase all of these rabbits down all of the burrows that you are inviting me to go down, I’m just not going to play the Canberra games.”
A number of senior ministers had foreshadowed the likelihood of leadership challenge before the end of the year.
“And this time I think they will get him,” one minister said.
Mr Turnbull was opposition leader before he was unseated by Mr Abbott.
Turnbull admits timing not ideal
Mr Turnbull has acknowledged the timing of his announcement is “far from ideal”.
The Canning by-election will be held this Saturday, after the death of popular Liberal MP Don Randall.
“But regrettably, there are few occasions that are entirely ideal for tough calls and tough decisions like this,” Mr Turnbull said.
“The alternative if we were to wait and this issue, these problems were to roll on and on and on is we will get no clear air.
“We have to make a change for our country’s sake, for the Government’s sake, for the party’s sake.
“From a practical point of view a change of leadership would improve our prospects in Canning, although I’m very confident with the outstanding candidate we have that we will be successful.”
Roy throws support behind Turnbull
Queensland MP Wyatt Roy is one of the first Government MPs to show his hand, confirming he will support Mr Turnbull in a leadership challenge.
“I will be backing Malcolm Turnbull,” he told 612 ABC Brisbane.
“These are not decisions that people come to lightly but as Malcolm pointed out in his press conference, modern politics is very different to how it has been practised in the past.
“The reason I came into politics was because I wanted to change the country for the better.
Mr Roy said he wanted his Government to create meaningful reforms and the Coalition needed to communicate its message differently.
He said he would back Ms Bishop to remain as deputy but did not believe there would be a ballot for that position.
Let’s be honest this frenzy of “compassion” for Syrians can make Australia even less safe.
The Abbott Government said yesterday it would take in an extra 12,000 Syrian refugees.
Know two things about this response to the invasion of Europe by these “refugees” from the Third World — there are now more than 4,000 people every day and half of them claiming to be Syrians.
First, Australia’s intake will not stop this invasion. No, the word has spread to as far as Nigeria and Bangladesh that Europe’s fences are down. It has been suggested that Iraqi airlines have even had to put on an extra three flights a day to Istanbul to deposit more Iraqis on the edge of Europe and its riches.
Look at the “refugees” you see crashing through Europe’s weak borders, or check the statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Is it normal for 72 per cent of “refugees” from war to be men — and predominantly young, fit men you might expect to defend their country rather than flee it? And consider: how many relatives will they later send for? So, no, Europe’s crisis will continue until it, too, turns back the boats. What checks are being carried out to ensure these refugees are actually from Syria?
But, second: in making this gesture, we risk making Australia even less safe.
Amazingly, even the people loudly demanding we take in more Syrian Muslims implicitly concede that danger. Sydney Islamic leader Ahmed Kilani warned that favouring Christian refugees over Muslim risked more terrorism here. Is that a threat?
“The Government keeps saying it is worried about people being radicalised. What do you think young Muslims are going to think when they see who can come in and who can’t?”
Maher Mughrabi, foreign editor of The Age, said the ominous same.
“Arab communities of this country are already bitterly divided by this (Syrian) conflict and the Government’s response to it.”
“If Muslims here feel that the blood of their brothers and sisters in Syria does not cry out as loudly as that of other communities, I worry about the long-term consequences.” Is that a warning or a threat?
Or take Australia’s Anglican Primate, Archbishop Philip Freier. He wants 10,000 more Syrian refugees, but advises against bombing the Islamic State for fear that Muslims here could launch an “asymmetrical response” — a terrorist attack. Once such people assured us there were too few jihadists to worry about. Now they warn there are too many to offend.
Oh, and Australia should import potentially more?
True, Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday winked that he will take only Syrian refugees from “very persecuted minorities” — code for Christians. Yet even Abbott dared not say so openly. In fact, he flinched at the first hostile question at his press conference, saying he was also thinking of “Muslim minorities”.
The bottom line is that a country should be able to pick and choose who they want to enter their borders and who they don’t. How well are these refugees going to assimilate into the lifestyle of their adoptive country? The vocal minority (of any viewpoint) or the media should not dictate immigration policy to elected governments. The UK prevents the entry of “refugees” from France and yet this passes almost without comment, yet Hungary and Macedonia are subject to media wrath for doing exactly the same thing.
But if the polls are right, Labor will next year form government and take over this immigration program and its foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, insists the “basis of our policy should not discriminate on religion or ethnicity or gender”.
Has Labor learned nothing from the Fraser government’s blunder in responding with “compassion” to Lebanon’s civil war in the 1970s?
Then, too, government ministers privately urged prime minister Malcolm Fraser to accept only Christian refugees, given how Lebanese Christians had thrived here. Fraser ignored them and nearly 20,000 Lebanese Muslims, many from poor and tribal areas, soon came instead.
The consequences are with us today. True, most are good citizens, but gun crime today is rife in Sydney suburbs with large Lebanese populations. Crime rates are high.
More seriously, of the 21 Australians jailed for terrorism offences, at least four were born in Lebanon and seven were born to Lebanese families.
Let’s not make the same mistakes all over again.
Australia’s political class has for years been too dishonest to admit that when you import people, you import their culture. People importing their culture is fine, but all too often their hatreds come with them.
But our politicians must ask pragmatic questions when deciding which of the millions of the world’s refugees to help.
Who will make best use of our help by fitting in? And who will best repay our charity by enriching Australia, not hurting it? You can’t make such guesses without considering culture and religion — factors that influence the behaviour of the refugees’ future children, too. A study in the UK has suggested that immigrant’s children are more likely to radicalised. They feel that they neither fit the lifestyle of their home or adopted country and are easily swayed by persuasive and radical argument. However, you cannot refuse to offer assistance to people for fear of what their children “might” do!
I know, this makes a politician seem mean and “racist”, but what is their highest duty? To merely seem good, or to protect Australia’s best interests?
Sgt Alexander Blackman was filmed by a colleague carrying out the killing in Helmand. MoD/PA
Sergeant Alexander Blackman, formerly of the Royal Marines, is launching a new appeal against his sentence for murdering an unarmed Afghan “insurgent” in 2011. He carried out the killing while inadvertently being recorded by a comrade’s helmet-mounted camera. He quoted Hamlet as he did it.
The campaign on his behalf has gathered considerable steam over the years. It is, in my opinion, based on a number of terrible arguments and hijacks public angst over the very real hardships faced by soldiers and veterans throughout recent British history.
“There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you c*nt. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us,” he quipped in the grainy video around which his trial hinged.
The recording of the murder, even in the limited form in which it has been made available to the public, is shocking. Because of its inhuman content, but also because of the apparently casual manner in which the wounded man was dispatched. On its own merit Blackman’s conviction is uncontroversial, an open and shut case.
Marine A, as he was known during the trial, was a highly trained, highly experienced senior NCO in one of the world’s foremost infantry units. The fact is he simply cannot have been unaware of the laws of war when he pulled the trigger with a Shakespearean flourish.
The arguments put for his release or pardon have, from the off, been so utterly ridiculous that I resent having to destroy them over and over again.
For example, the wretched idea that he is a hero, that his heroism should absolve him, or that all soldiers, sailors and airmen are somehow heroes and therefore should all be exempt from the law is so flaccid that I should not need to bring it up. Simply put, it is the kind of arguments that one would only expect to hear from child.
Similarly, while I agree with his supporters that Blackman had been under pressure, that he had endured a brutal tour and that he was likely afflicted by post-traumatic stress, it is space cadet territory to suggest any of these factors could feasibly clear him of murder.
Even Blackman’s new argument that this was a “split second decision” gone wrong is dubious. Stressed, he clearly was, but he was obviously capable of reason and logic enough to urge his underlings to keep quiet because he had just broken the Geneva Convention.
Likewise the argument that he is a scapegoat of the establishment (which seems to love nothing more than a spot of extrajudicial killing, if recent drone strikes are taken into account) cannot be taken seriously given that various members of said establishment appear to be fully behind him.
In fact, his chief celebrity backer Frederick Forsythe boasted only recently of his Cold War work for MI6. Forsythe is many things, including a writer of decent thrillers, but he is hardly anti-establishment.
Likewise, Blackman has enjoyed the support of renowned establishment yes-man former colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded of British forces in Afghanistan in the early stages of the occupation, before it all got hairy.
I agree with parts of his latest statements from jail. “I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight for my country in an unpopular war,” he says. All true, in my opinion. A pointless, failed, imperial war driven by hubris and arrogance, and conducted to the detriment of the Afghan people, I’d add.
But there is something more at play here, and there is a hint of truth in his complaint, a truth which is being badly abused in an attempt to get the 41-year old soldier released.
They are playing on the idea of the British soldier as a victim, and while Blackman does not qualify in this case, he and many other veterans do in any number of ways.
The idea has weight. British soldiers have always been, and continue to be, stitched up by those who manage them.
The briefest glance through the history books will tell you that the many of the ‘heroes’ of battles as diverse as Waterloo, Rorke’s Drift and the Somme came home to poverty, hardship, mental breakdown and destitution.
This betrayal is expressed today through the thousands of homeless veterans on our streets and a recent spike of veteran suicides. That military men and women are betrayed by their masters is not in question, but as far as Alexander Blackman’s murder conviction goes he is no victim. He is a perpetrator.
Image copyright PA Image caption Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of murder at a court martial in 2013
A campaign has been launched to review the case of a Royal Marine jailed for life for killing a Taliban insurgent.
Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of murdering the injured captive in Afghanistan but his supporters say it was manslaughter.
Author and campaigner Frederick Forsyth said the court martial that convicted Blackman “stank from top to bottom”.
Joshua Rozenberg, who presents Radio 4’s Law in Action, said it would be “an uphill struggle” to reopen the case.
A new legal team – led by Jonathan Goldberg QC – is seeking a review, arguing that he should have been convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Blackman, of Taunton, Somerset, was convicted in 2013 and lost an appeal in May last year, but his 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years.
‘Battle fatigue’
Blackman’s wife Claire told the Daily Mail: “The fact that he is now serving a life sentence for killing a dying Taliban insurgent is just wrong, this was war.
“Had the roles been reversed that man would have tortured my husband before killing him.
“We will not give up the fight to bring Al home.”
Mr Forsyth, who is leading the campaign, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the evidence that Blackman was “nearly feral with exhaustion” was not produced at court.
“There is a very, very clear case that you can get a fighting man so tired, so consumed by battle fatigue and combat stress that he is hardly even thinking straight and there is provision in British law for that,” he said.
He claimed that at the end of Blackman’s trial, all seven members of the jury “put their caps on and saluted him.”
“Honourable men do not salute a perjurer and a murderer”, he said.
Mr Forsyth said the verdict had been a five to two majority, but Mr Rozenberg said the argument that it was unfair to have a majority verdict was dismissed so “it would be hard to overturn that”.
Campaigners hope the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates suspected miscarriages of justice, will look at Blackman’s case.
Commission spokeswoman Sally Berlin said the organisation has yet to receive an application from the campaigners or legal team, but if one is submitted it will consider the case.
Mr Goldberg said there are three routes to a manslaughter verdict including loss of control, unlawful act manslaughter and diminished responsibility and he said all could be argued.
Mr Goldberg said Blackman suffered from battlefield stress syndrome and this was not presented to “any of the previous courts” as grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter “as we think it should have been”.
He said if Blackman had been convicted of manslaughter he may not have been jailed.
‘A scapegoat’
The killing, on 15 September 2011, took place after a patrol base in Helmand province came under fire from two insurgents.
One of the attackers was seriously injured by gunfire from an Apache helicopter sent to provide air support and the marines found him in a field.
Footage from another marine’s helmet-mounted camera showed Blackman shooting the Afghan prisoner in the chest with a 9mm pistol.
Blackman told him: “There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil.”
The court martial board in Bulford, Wiltshire, found Blackman guilty of murdering the insurgent. Two other marines were acquitted.
It was the first time a member of the British armed forces had faced a murder charge in relation to the conflict in Afghanistan, which began in 2001.
Blackman was also “dismissed with disgrace” from the Royal Marines. He had served with distinction for 15 years, including tours of Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.
Blackman had denied murder, claiming he believed the victim was already dead and that he was taking his anger out on the corpse.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We respect the authority and decision of the court.”
Copyright Julia Quenzler Image caption Blackman’s 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years on appeal
Image copyrightJulia QuenzlerImage caption Blackman’s 10-year minimum term was reduced to eight years on appeal
The Mail claims crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from the original court martial and says it will reveal “extraordinary and compelling new evidence” in the “coming days”.
The paper reports that it has seen confidential papers which claim panel members who convicted Blackman were “deliberately kept in the dark”.
The paper claims the court martial was never given evidence of alleged operational failings by Blackman’s commanders, which meant his troop was “isolated, under-manned, under-resourced and under daily Taliban assault”.
All of this was “directly affecting his state of mind at the time of the shooting”, which led to Blackman not receiving a fair trial, it is claimed.
Blackman, 41, told the Mail: “I made a split-second mistake, but I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight a war for my country.
“At the end of my trial, the establishment lined up to portray me as evil, because it suited them… to show the world how politically correct we are.
“I have been made a scapegoat.”
Blackman’s case is due to be discussed in the House of Commons on 16 September.
Economy class is how “the people” travel, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said recently. But not for Prime Ministers and Ministers, that will be certain.
Bronwyn Bishop in economy. Is she wiping the seat? Photo: SMH
It appears Bronwyn Bishop is now one of the commoners after being snapped slumming it in economy on a Qantas flight from Canberra to Sydney on Thursday.
It’s a far cry from the $5227 chopper charter flight that ultimately brought an end to Ms Bishop’s reign as Speaker of the House in July.But at least she got an aisle seat – a cherished luxury in cattle class.
A fellow passenger appears to have taken the photograph of the Federal member for McKellar as she bent over an economy seat, wearing a red blazer that could be mistaken for a Qantas cabin crew uniform.
The flight comes after a pretty lousy week for the speaker.
Ms Bishop, who lost $150,000 from her annual pay packet after vacating the Speaker’s chair, watched from the backbench as Tony Smith took up the post on Monday.
Then a flicker of good luck was snuffed out Monday night when the Avalon Beach RSL Club in Ms Bishop’s electorate announced she had won the weekly members’ badge draw.
She had won a $2,500 cash prize, or she would have it she had been there to collect it.
The prize money could have bought roughly eight evening flights from Canberra to Sydney.
Or half a helicopter charter flight from Melbourne to Geelong.
In the wake of the “entitlements” scandal now involving more coalition MPs than just the Speaker, this is how some of Australia’s best cartoonists recorded the proceedings.
What MPs have to realise is that they are not “entitled” to anything. Their job is to serve their constituents. Remember them? They are the ones that elected you! Most seem to have forgotten this, until re-election time. There should be no automatic entitlement. Family holidays at the taxpayer’s expense? I’d would like to see if I can get onto that sort of junket? I think not! Politicians should pay their expenses out of their own pocket and then claim reimbursement. If they don’t pass the community expectation test, they don’t get reimbursed. There should also be limits on expenses commensurate with the politician’s position in the parliament.
In real terms politicians will only review this issue in a half-hearted manner, as they all stand to lose as a result of any review carried out. They just want this matter to go away so they can get their snouts back into the public purse.
The Trough – Cartoon by Golding SMH 9/08/2015
Now we have an action before the High Court, with a number of retired politicians wanting to increase their entitlements! Even when they are separated from public office or politics, their snouts are still in the trough! Heaven forbid!
United – Cartoon by Alan Moir
Both sides of parliament are likely to be affected by any change in entitlements. This is one of the only things that both sides of the House would be “united” on.
Cartoon by Andrew Fyfe
Just when you thought Bronwyn had finished with outrageous travel. Cartoon by Warren
My friend and colleague Fr. Andrew Doohanhad this to say regarding the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives today. I fully support his comments.
So today the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives from her Office.
Good, I say.
Such a shame, however, that it took weeks for the question to be resolved and, realistically, the revelation of the serial nature of the Speaker’s profligate spending of public monies for the Speaker to do ‘the right thing’.
It leaves unresolved, however, the next step which, if the current Federal Government was consistent on these matters, would see an investigation by the Australian Federal Police, the potential launching of criminal proceedings for any potential charges of defrauding the Commonwealth through her actions, and the associated public hounding that seems to be nature of the behaviour of the current Federal Government towards Speakers who get it wrong.
What is also interesting is that in announcing the resignation of the Speaker, the Prime Minister doesn’t appear to have conceded that she had done anything wrong, blaming instead the system by saying:
What has become apparent is the problem is not any one particular person, the problem is the rules. So the problem is not with the people that make excessive expenses claims; the problem is that expenses claims can be made.
and:
Clearly we have a situation where spending is arguably inside the rules but plainly outside of community expectations.
It is the system of parliamentary entitlements that will now be reviewed rather than the behaviour of the now former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I disagree Mr Prime Minister.
What we have here is someone who, despite knowing better, was focussed on using the entitlements system in such a way as to benefit herself. Not only was the behaviour outside community expectations it also appears to have been playing fast and loose with those rules for personal benefit. While it is arguable that the parliamentary entitlements should be reviewed, the behaviour of the Member of Mackellar can not be allowed to go unreviewed regardless of what might happen as a result.
After all, if a recipient of welfare benefits via Centrelink were caught in similar situations the outcome would result in investigation and potential prosecution.
Repayment of the expenses claimed is not the end of the matter. That’s like saying if I return the money I stole from a bank, there is no crime. Defrauding the Commonwealth is a crime and the matter should be referred to the AFP and dealt with accordingly. For as long as the Member for McKellar remains cosy with Prime Minister, this is not likely to happen. He states that the Speaker’s action are arguably within the rules, but in my opinion that means that the actions are also arguably outside the rules. Nothing will happen from the PM unless public and media pressure make the issue too hot to ignore. He has a demonstrated track record in this regard. But then again, the PM can’t see that she has done anything wrong. This is just another example of the PM demonstrating that he is out of touch with realistic community expectations. A full review of parliamentary entitlements is long overdue, starting with the Life Gold Pass issued to long serving politicians who continue to dip into the public purse long after leaving political life!
All that is needed now is for her to resign as the Member for McKellar.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.
Discussion on the law that applies to or affects Australia's emergency services and emergency management, by Michael Eburn, PhD, Australian Lawyer. Email: meburn@australianemergencylaw.com
Oh, let's see...distinguished Gen-X'er, frustrated writer and mom living in the confines of a small town that thinks it's a big deal. And have I mentioned Walmart yet?
Words, By George! 