Another black eye for arrogant regulators

I don't blame the TGA for disliking alternative therapies (though some of the things they have approved -- such as statins -- are arguably no better) but that does not excuse ruinous Gestapo-type attacks on a law-abiding businessman and the destruction of his business. And the two devious feminazis at the heart of the TGA action -- Fiona Cumming and Rita Maclachlan -- are apparently still in their jobs! Since their hatreds have already cost the taxpayers huge sums, they should be relegated immediately to clerk-typist duties only. Their involvement in the destruction of records should in fact lead to criminal charges being laid against them

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has dropped four criminal charges against former alternative medicine tycoon Jim Selim. Mr Selim, the founder of Pan Pharmaceuticals, had been charged with failing to disclose material information relating to four separate board meetings. Last month, Mr Selim won a $55 million compensation payment from the Federal Government over the collapse of his company.

Pan Pharmaceuticals went into liquidation in 2005 after a decision in 2003 by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to suspend its licence and withdraw 219 of its products.

Outside the court, Mr Selim said he felt vindicated by today's decision and he would push ahead with preparations for a $200 million class action against the TGA over the collapse of the company in 2003. "It's good because here everything's over, nothing's left, there's no deal or anything," Mr Selim said. "That's the end of it."

He said an apology from the Federal Government would mean a lot to him, following his "persecution" over the past five years. "I think so," he said, when asked whether an apology should be forthcoming. "I was disappointed with the TGA from the start."

His solicitor, Andrew Thorpe, said there was a "high degree of interest" from former customers and creditors of Pan Pharmaceuticals in pursuing a class action. "We believe that the sort of value of the class action will be in the order of $200 million and perhaps greater than that," Mr Thorpe said. There would most probably be hundreds of parties involved and a claim would be made on behalf of companies which lost money as a direct result of the TGA's handling of the Pan matter, he said.

Mr Selim said it had been a "hard five years", with today's case the latest in a long series of court actions involving Mr Selim and Pan Pharmaceuticals. "We hope justice will be done and we hope people who were damaged and hurt by the TGA action will get compensation, will get justice," he said.

Source

Note: The firm was convicted of offences to do with disregard for government paperwork requirements but those offences were some years before the matters referred to above. And in the paperwork case the judge found no individual culpable but rather a firm-wide indifference to government paperwork. That attitude may have contributed to the TGA animus against the firm but does not excuse their reckless shutting down of the firm. The paperwork matters should have been and were dealt with by a court





Arrogant government auctioneer rejects the highest price

It will probably be challenged in court but government agencies have no hesitation in spending other people's money on lawsuits. Government workers think that no-one can touch them so they can do what they like -- and they're mostly right

Two prominent Brisbane identities are at loggerheads after a Queensland Government auctioneer refused to accept the highest bid for a million-dollar riverfront property. In a bizarre case which has prompted an official complaint and left real estate experts dumbfounded, the Queensland Public Trustee refused to accept a bid $5000 higher than the winning $1.54 million offer for a deceased estate at West End.

The auction last week has left outraged losing bidder David Waller - the nephew of billionaire property tycoon and former Super A-Mart owner John van Lieshout - threatening legal action unless another sale is held. Mr Waller had offered $1.545 million as the bidding petered out but the bid was rejected because auctioneer Wayne Johnson wanted $10,000 increments. The sale was awarded to a preceding offer by a mystery female friend of Brisbane doctor and one-time aspiring Liberal politician Ingrid Tall.

Mr Waller yesterday was backed by several witnesses. "No person would refuse $5000 or more, particularly when they are in a process designed to get the highest price," Mr Waller said. "It raises questions about the transparency of the process."

The Public Trustee was acting as an administrator of the two-bedroom home, built in 1915, which has river views. Dr Tall initially refused to discuss the bid process but yesterday said Mr Waller was "too obnoxious making his bids". "If he was nice, he probably would have got his way," Dr Tall said.

Attorney-General Kerry Shine defended the Trustee, saying the auctioneer had told bidders of the increment limit. "The beneficiary to the estate was present and was aware of the conduct of the auctioneer," he said.

However, several witnesses have confirmed the property was deemed "on the market" when the bid was rejected. Ray White South Brisbane auctioneer Neal Young yesterday said he had never felt so disgusted in his 20-year career. "There was utter disbelief," Mr Young said. "I said: 'You've got to take the bid'. He didn't know if bids would go even higher."

Source






Teacher overhaul report stresses standards for pay rises

TEACHERS would qualify for pay rises only after meeting performance standards under an overhaul of the profession's salary system recommended in a federal government report. The report, obtained by The Australian, recommends a comprehensive restructure of the way teachers are paid that would end the system of awarding pay rises based on length of service.

It outlines a model of performance pay that restructures the pay scale into bands reached by performance thresholds, with a level for accomplished teachers at the top. At present, teachers are paid according to an incremental scale that rises with years of service and reaches the maximum wage in about eight years, after which they must enter administrative or leadership positions to gain any further salary increase. The report will be considered as part of deliberations by the Rudd Government, and state and territory governments, over ways to improve teacher quality and reward good teachers.

The productivity working group of the Council of Australian Governments, chaired by federal Education Minister Julia Gillard, is developing a national partnership with the states on ways to improve teacher quality, including performance pay. The report -- Rewarding Quality Teaching, by Perth-based international management consultants Gerard Daniels -- was commissioned by the former federal minister Julie Bishop. In July 2006, Ms Bishop, now federal Deputy Opposition Leader, first floated the idea of paying teachers more based on their performance but the idea was universally rejected the following year by state Labor education ministers. The states have since agreed to work with the Rudd Government to investigate ways to reward quality teaching. A ministerial meeting in May agreed to research ways of rewarding teachers for performance and skills.

The Business Council of Australia and the Australian Education Union have since released models for paying teachers based on their performance. Western Australia has a limited scheme paying bonuses to teachers reaching a high standard, and the NSW Institute of Teachers launched earlier this year its system of accrediting teachers against standards of accomplishment and leadership. But the NSW Government, which is embroiled in a pay dispute with the NSW Teachers Federation, is yet to allocate any extra pay to teachers accredited as accomplished, which the federal report argues is crucial.

The report's recommendations are based on an examination of other merit-pay schemes for teachers worldwide and in analogous professions. It says the most effective systems exist within a national framework but aim to improve performance locally by linking pay to specific outcomes set at an individual, group or institutional level. The report says that, ideally, the performance-pay system should: use an evidence-based approach to demonstrate teacher performance; make the reward or recognition meaningful to teachers; and provide a clear career structure.

It also recommends a performance-management system be developed to support the pay model, focusing on regular reflection and feedback about teaching practices assessed against standards. It cautions about linking standards to pay. "The process of assessing teachers is most fraught," the report says. "Some independent schools reject any external assessment of their employed teachers. However, most stakeholders expect that for critical performance-based assessment -- between performance bands or for accomplished teacher programs -- there will be a mix of internal and external assessment."

Source








The admirable Philip Ruddock

He was once Minister for Immigration and Minister for Aborigines at the same time -- two of the most difficult and thankless portfolios there are

By Janet Albrechtsen

There are 97,573 voters in the electorate, and on November 24, faced with a contest between John Howard and Maxine McKew, they made the right choice. Living through this has given me a new respect for democracy, although I still don't know how we ended up with Philip Ruddock. No system is perfect.
- Margot Saville, in The Battle for Bennelong

The clueless author won't be there on Friday evening when Philip Ruddock celebrates 35 years in federal parliament. That's a shame. She, and the now notorious band of frenzied Ruddock critics, could do with at least some passing acquaintance with the whole Ruddock story. Facts, of course, will never suffice for some. But for those not hard-wired to hysteria, the facts tell a story about an honourable politician whose 35th anniversary is an opportune time to review his role in some of the most contentious areas during the past decade in Australia.

Few politicians in living memory, apart from John Howard, have been criticised, hounded and lampooned more than Ruddock. He's been accused of being a war criminal, of committing crimes against humanity, of being the minister for racism. Crowds have shouted at him. Audiences have walked out on him. Security details have followed him. Never fazed or flummoxed, Ruddock always responded with indisputable facts, not uncontrolled feelings. Even his demeanor infuriated the critics. Grey and cadaver-like, they said, befitting a man who killed compassion in the country. None of it mattered. Or if it did, Ruddock never let on publicly. He knew his contribution would outlive the criticism of a loud, emotive few.

And so it has. Much more than longevity defines time in parliament though more than three decades is an innings no other politician has matched, rightly earning him the status of father of the house. In that time, Ruddock has had a clear narrative, long before that word became fashionable. He steered Australia towards greater appreciation for, rather than suspicion of, immigration. Even for a country steeped in a migrant history, there is a need for Australians to feel comfortable about immigration.

Rigid leftist orthodoxy once mandated vicious condemnation of anyone who questioned immigration. Progressive minds treated such questioning as a sure sign of racism, ignoring the natural discomfort with strangers that is part of the human condition. As minister for immigration from 1996 until 2003, Ruddock recognised the need to take people with him, not scare them off, when advocating increased immigration. His policies dealt with the progressive dilemma well before British writer David Goodhart made the phrase famous back in 2004. That dilemma-a clash between values of diversity and solidarity-recognises that extracting tax from people to fund welfare works best when people think the recipients are like themselves, behaving the way they would.

Ruddock helped to allay the discomfort with strangers factor. He encouraged community acceptance of immigration where new arrivals would be seen as contributors, not freeloaders. By cracking down on family reunion fraud, cutting immediate welfare for new arrivals and putting a greater focus on the skills stream to address the needs of the country, Ruddock's carefully planned migration policy altered the image of the migrant sponging off Australia society. Rather than seen as stealing jobs from Australians, migrants came to be seen as the saviours for small towns looking to employ people in their abattoirs, on their farms and in their small businesses.

And when, in November 1999, boats of illegal immigrants started arriving on Australian shores just about every second day, border protection became integral to building long term confidence in an organised immigration program. Vocal critics cried cruelty and lack of compassion in response to the Howard government's immigration detention policies for illegal arrivals.

Ruddock knew better than to be swayed by hysterical emoting. His ministerial eye remained fixed on the long-term objective of securing mainstream community acceptance for increased immigration. Ruddock's place in Australian political history will record that immigration grew every year after 1996, rising from 67,100 in 1997 to more than 142,000 in 2006. The fair-minded will call that a genuinely compassionate outcome.

Ruddock was the perfect choice to manoeuvre the Howard government through the complex politics of immigration after Howard attracted criticism in 1988 for suggesting that Asian immigration needed to be slowed down. The appointment of Ruddock-one of four Liberal MPs to cross the floor of parliament to vote in favour of prime minister Bob Hawke's motion against discriminatory immigration policies-signalled a commitment to non-discriminatory immigration policies. Under Ruddock, more than 80 per cent of Afghans and Iraqis were granted protection visas at the primary decision-making stage and the local Islamic community is more than 40 per cent higher than it was in 1996. Under Ruddock, Australia had one of the largest per capita refugee and humanitarian resettlement programs in the world. More compassionate outcomes accepted and supported by the community because they knew that Australia, not people smugglers, determined them.

As attorney-general from 2003 until 2007, Ruddock was again thrown into the thick of the most contentious issues that emerged during the Howard years over national security and anti-terrorism laws. Despite the foaming wrath of vocal elites, Ruddock once again steered a course to ensure community acceptance of laws needed to protect Australia. By securing bipartisan support for security laws, Ruddock neutralised the issue. The significance of those laws unfolded on Monday when a Melbourne jury found six men guilty of terrorism charges, concluding what Attorney-General Robert McClelland described as the most successful terrorist prosecution this country has seen. Ruddock is that rarest of political beasts. In a profession famous for its factions, he was neither a Howard man nor a Costello man. He was a party man, who rigorously debated issues behind closed doors and then, once Liberal Party policy was settled, he would guard and sell the team's message without fail.

When the Howard government lost office last year, he did the honourable team thing. Insisting on the need for party renewal, the father of the house went to the back bench. It was a shame the party allowed him to do that. Ruddock's careful carriage of his portfolios should have seen him back on the front bench replacing some of the deadwood that remains. No matter. Ruddock's place in the history books as a politician with a clear moral compass is secure. The hysteria of his opponents confirms it.

Source