Tuesday, October 10, 2017

'We don't have that luxury': Victoria's left-wing premier says Australia's political leaders should stop debating civil liberties following Melbourne terrorist attack and foiled death plots

Victoria's left-wing Labor premier has declared Australia's political leaders should stop debating civil liberties following a series of foiled Islamic terror plots in Melbourne.

Daniel Andrews made the call, after a National Security Summit in Canberra last week agreed to give national intelligence agencies the power to access driver's licences.

The premier, who hails from Victoria's Socialist Left faction, said civil liberties were a boutique issue following a series of foiled terror plots and a June terrorist attack in Melbourne.

'There is not the luxury of effective political leaders to have an esoteric debate,' he told the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday.

'That debate may be important but it is not something we, as leaders of this country can use as an excuse not to act.'

Mr Andrews singled out the terrorist attack in bayside Brighton in June and a 2015 plot to behead a police officer on Anzac Day as reasons why police needed more resources.

'Each of those plots and the ultimate tragedy of Brighton, they chip away too,' he said.

'They chip away at our safety, our sense of security and when you are confronted with clear evidence we have a probable threat level, a probable threat level.'

Last week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, state premiers and territory chief ministers unanimously agreed to give the Australian Federal Police and national intelligence agencies more power to access drivers' licence photographs to help them prevent terrorist attacks.

This was part of the Council of Australian Government's first National Security Summit at Parliament House in Canberra where new security fences are being installed. 

Mr Andrews has made the strongest call to crack down on civil liberties following the June terrorist attack at Brighton, in bayside Melbourne, where 29-year-old Somali-born gunman Yacqub Khayre shot dead a reception at a serviced apartment during a siege.

In September last year,  Sevdet Besim, 19, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for planning to behead a police officer on Anzac Day in 2015, after declaring allegiance to Islamic State.

Meanwhile,  Dimitrious 'Jimmy' Gargasoulas, 26, has been charged with six counts of murder for allegedly driving his neighbour's 1990s Holden Commodore into crowds in Melbourne's busy Bourke Street Mall in January.  Three-month-old Zachary Bryant was among those killed.


When making a sandwich is a crime against feminism

Miranda Devine reports on some horrible feminists who clearly don't love their husbands and can't imagine doing so.  They must be in some sort of trading relationship only

WHEN young Sydney mother Maddie asked her closed Facebook group of 26,186 mothers for some tasty alternatives to sandwiches for her husband’s lunches, she wasn’t expecting the backlash.

“I would love to hear what other mums make their hubbies for lunch and snacks throughout the work day,” she posted on Tuesday. “We are getting over sandwiches.”

You would think she’d asked for a hemlock recipe, judging by the torrent of scolding which erupted.

She was nothing but a “slave” and a “1950s housewife”.

She was “weird” and no one in their right mind or a “pink fit” would do something so demeaning as make their husband lunch. Let alone snacks.

“Your husband is a grown up and you’re not his mother”, wrote one member of the North Shore Mums Facebook group.

“My husband can make his own damn lunch.”

“I make my husband the same thing he makes me. Nothing!!”

“Stuff that, hubby is a grown man. I already do his laundry and keep his children alive.”

“Our advice is to stop making his lunches.”

“My role is childcare during working hours and that’s it.”

“He’s lucky if I decide to make dinner some nights”.

“I was married for twenty years and my favourite packed lunch for my husband was called a Get it Yourself with a side order of I’m not your mother.”

“Nope, I didn’t sign up for that at the altar. But in the spirit of being helpful… pickled onion stuffed in mandarins.”

Leader of the attack pack was Polly Dunning, daughter of professional feminist Jane Caro, and mother of a toddler about whom she infamously wrote last year, recounting her horror at finding out she was pregnant with a boy: “I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.”
Polly Dunning was not impressed when a woman requested ideas of things to pack her husband for lunch. (Pic: News Corp)

Dunning told Maddie: “You should pack him nothing for lunch. And you didn’t really ask for advice, you asked what other ‘mums’ pack their ‘hubbies’ (which, to me, is slightly weird phrasing, but whatever).”

Game on.

Amid the cute pics of babies and birthday cakes, a toxic wave of man-hating feminism is seeping into the world of mothers online.

Where unhappy wives used to confine their bitching about husbands to a handful of girlfriends at Mosman cafes, a new generation of women is oversharing with vast networks of strangers.

On Wednesday, Maddie, 22, switched off comments, but not before page administrators deleted the nastiest.

“I’m actually so devastated about some of these comments,” wrote Maddie.

She and her husband are saving up to buy their first home and, “he works in an extremely physically demanding job, he does housework, he cooks dinner every second night... He gets up in the middle of the night with our Bub. He is a champion.

“The least I can do is make him a bloody sandwich. I love my man, he deserves to eat lunch and we can’t afford to eat out.”

Dunning responded a few hours later: “We are not, any of us, just mums. Mum is one of the many roles we have as women and a role that certainly does not include doing anything for our partners because we’re not his (or her) mother. Just struck me as weird to put making a husband’s lunch with the role of Mum.”
Why can’t it just be considered nice that a woman wants to make her partner a meal?

How did making a sandwich become a crime against women? Thankfully, for everything bad about social media there is an antidote, and an army of mums sprang to Maddie’s defence.

“Is it really a massive issue if Maddie wants to make her husband lunch?!?”

“Wow, so much hostility here... Surely nice actions like these get reciprocated in happy marriages.”

“Good on you! My husband is a builder, and his job is so physical, and he is so hands on at home! It’s the least I can do.”

“I never know why these posts always turn into a husband bashing.”

“I think it’s pretty crappy to assume someone is a slave or 1950s housewife for making lunch. Feminism is about choice.”

“All I can say is some women really must resent their husbands by their responses. Looking after your partner is the way to a happy marriage.”

“I’m so confused by the negativity on this post. I love making my hubby lunch… He does so much for us as a family and for my girls I see nothing wrong with wanting to look after your husband!!”

“If I can help in some small part to make his day easier, I will. His hours are ridiculous and if me doing this means he gets to hang out with our son more I am all for it!”

“He does so much for me and the kids. Making two sandwiches a day doesn’t put us in the dark ages.”

“Marriage is a partnership. If only more think like that there will be a lot less divorces in this world.”

This is the truth Baby Boomer feminists refuse to admit.

Consideration and give and take is the secret to a happy marriage, not treating the father of your children like an agent of the enemy patriarchy.

It’s time to end the war of the sexes, even if it means making the odd sandwich.


Communications Minister hits back at ABC chair Michelle Guthrie’s speech

Reactions to plans to make the ABC more transparent range from “hysterical” to “slightly unhinged”, according to Communications Min­ister Mitch Fifield in a riposte to ABC managing director ­Mich­elle ­Guthrie’s defence of the broadcaster.

“Rather than being pilloried, crossbench colleagues deserve credit for engaging constructively with the government on media ­reform, listening to the arguments and negotiating in good faith,” Mr Fifield said two days after Ms ­Guthrie gave a speech claiming the government media reforms furthered a “political vendetta”.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson also responded to Ms ­Guthrie’s speech, saying taxpayers had a right to know how much the ABC paid its presenters.

“Ms Guthrie has been drinking the ABC Kool-Aid for too long,” Senator Hanson told The Australian, adding that scrutiny was needed to prevent taxpayer dollars from being “squandered on dud talent”. “Some of the television and radio personalities wouldn’t cut it in the real world of media and would likely end up throwing pots in Nimbin without the ABC providing a safe haven for their ­pathetic talent.”

Ten chief executive Paul ­Anderson, another Guthrie target, said her comments “should be taken with a grain of salt” given the ABC enjoyed “a guaranteed $1 billion in annual funding” and did not “have to concern itself with making one cent in revenue”.

During a speech to the ABC Friends group on Friday, Ms ­Guthrie alluded to a Four Corners investigation into One Nation as motivating the push for transparency, saying legislation “by one party uncomfortable with being scrutinised” was not good policymaking.

In an opinion piece in The Australian today, Mr Fifield defends the need to make public the salaries of the broadcaster’s highest-paid staff. The decision to reveal the salaries of ABC stars earning more than $200,000 — part of a deal the government struck with One ­Nation to push the reforms through the Senate — was ­inspired by similar action taken by the BBC. Mr Fifield says the move is consistent with the public disclosure of salaries paid to MPs, judges and senior civil servants.

Ms Guthrie took aim at her commercial rivals, saying children should not be denied the right to watch Peppa Pig on an iPad ­because local media companies were “finding life tough”.

She said there was “ no pressing need” to change the ABC charter, “no matter how much commercial chief executives and their compliant media outlets argue otherwise”, while assertions the ABC abuses the charter were hurled at the broadcaster by executives “who are simply looking for scapegoats for their own woes in a disrupted landscape”, she said.

But Mr Anderson said no one was suggesting that Peppa Pig be ­removed from iView. “We do think there is a genuine conversation to be had around where the national broadcasters fit into the new media landscape, particularly in areas that are already well served by commercial media,” Mr Anderson said. “Unfortunately the ­national broadcasters don’t seem willing to even contemplate that discussion, preferring instead to characterise legitimate questions as whingeing.”

Mr Fifield defends the need to enshrine the obligation to serve rural and regional Australia in the ABC charter, despite Ms Guthrie saying it would add to red tape. And he stood by the proposal to add the words “fair” and “balanced” alongside requirements to be “accurate” and “impartial”.

Ms Hanson said the ABC’s ­objection to their inclusion in the charter proved the public broadcaster had lost its way and needed to be “put back on track by regulation”.


Unfair tax office a dangerous threat to innovation

When Malcolm Turnbull goes to Brisbane and talks about one of his favourite topics, innovation, he should be prepared for a slow hand clap.

One of Brisbane’s most innovative projects, backed by the Queensland government, Arthur Sinodinos’s research grant incentives and financially supported by ordinary but influential Queenslanders, has been deliberately, savagely and falsely destroyed by the ATO. The entrepreneur has been forced to sell her house to pay the debts. We know she did nothing wrong because the Australian Taxation Office, after long delays, sent her an abject and complete written apology for their actions. And of course as we know these sorts of actions are rife in the power corrupted Australian Taxation Office.

But when she sought damages from the ATO for their actions in financially destroying Queensland innovation and a Queensland female entrepreneur, they set up one of their notorious kangaroo courts where people in or linked to the ATO are the appeal judges. Not surprisingly, the kangaroo court told her to “cop it sweet” and awarded her a token $30,000 damages for the dastardly acts of their colleagues.

But the good people of Brisbane have decided to fight and do the right thing by the nation to stop this deliberate and unfair action by the ATO to prevent Australian innovation. Until the Prime Minister fixes the problem — and it’s not hard to do — all Australians, not just Queenslanders, should slow hand clap him when he talks innovation.

Earlier this year I first exposed the incredible dangers honest Australians were facing when they accepted export incentives from the AusIndustry research grants supervised by the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Arthur Sinodinos. I urged Sinodinos to put a warning sign on the promotion of the government research incentives because the ATO might at any time move to bankrupt those honestly and properly using these grants. Sinodinos did not do it and now we have a new example of the hazards with more to come.

The Helen Petaia story is therefore important for the Prime Minister and Arthur Sinodinos and his people, as well as for all Australians. The good news is that while significant sections of the ATO are power corrupted there are still honest and reputable people in the organisation and they shine.

Back in 2007 the idea of putting chips on cards to help in emergency medical situations, monitoring children including treating sports injuries was new.

Helen Petaia believed she had a breakthrough. After funding the early stages herself Helen Petaia needed extra help and a group of influential Queenslanders contributed $600,000 to what was a second company, which took over the work of the first. The Queensland Rugby League embraced the use of the cards and the AFL also began discussions. The Queensland government had earlier chipped in. None if this would have been possible but for the AusIndustry research grants in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Helen was meticulous in making sure her claims were in accordance with the act. There was great excitement and everything was put in place in late 2012 for the Toro group to raise $3 million to take the venture to the next stage. It was now called “Safe Family Cards Australia”.

Then in December 2012 Helen Petaia was told she would be tax audited. This of course delayed the $3 million capital raising. But in February 2013 Richard Brown became her case officer. He was an honest ATO official and told her to go ahead because nothing was wrong. But then there was absolute silence. Richard Brown seemed to vaporise. Later Helen Petaia was advised the audit was still going so she could not raise the capital. Funds were running low and soon it would be time to sell the family home.

Then late in 2013 came the bombshell. An ATO official phoned the secretary of the company in which the Queenslanders were invested and alleged fraud and recklessness in both the first and second companies. Understandably, at that point the Queensland investors believed that Helen Petaia had defrauded them. And then came the ATO stunt of going back four years with penalties and interest. They claimed $400,000. The project was over. But if there was “fraud and recklessness”, it was in the ATO not Helen Petaia and she kept fighting. Finally an honest ATO official, Daryl Richardson, wrote this letter of apology.

“As a consequence of a number of procedural errors during the audit this claim was adjusted without a full examination of source documents supporting the claim. A recent review of the audit has confirmed the majority of the claim for the Research and Development concession was correct.

“As I stated during the 20 November 2014 telephone call, the audit result should not be taken to be an indication of incompetence or dishonesty on your part. In contrast, the results of the review confirm the legitimacy of making the claim for the Research and Development concession.

“I apologise for the stress the audit result has caused you.”

Then it went to the kangaroo court which awarded the token $30,000 in damages.

The Queensland investors now knew that the fraudsters were the ATO not their Queensland entrepreneur. They funded the giant global accounting firm Deloitte to asses the damages. Here I give tremendous praise to Deloitte because they acted in the national interest even though they obviously do work for the ATO. The Petaia investigation was kept totally separate.

Deloitte said the damages to the venture were between $13 million and $40 million. The Queenslanders have lodged writs to try and recover that money.

All Australians will have to hope they win — although it’s up to the courts. I would like any damages the court does award to be paid by the power corrupted tax officials. But that will not happen.

If Malcolm Turnbull and Arthur Sinodinos want to fix the problem they first need an independent body or system — not a kangaroo court — to assess small business claims in a low cost way. However I fear the power corruption in the ATO is so deep that further action may now be required. The two ministers involved and the taxation commissioner are like the three wise monkeys who “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

No comments: