Victoria to get ICAC as Premier backflips: will SA follow suit?

I've been on a brief visit to Melbourne. Yesterday morning I was pleasantly surprised to see the story about Premier Brumby's "backflip" on the front page of The Age


Just six months out from the state poll, the Premier has dumped his staunch opposition to a commission and will install an anti-corruption system with sweeping powers to investigate police, members of parliament, public servants and judges.

But the new Victorian Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission will hold most of its hearings in private and the new integrity system will curtail the powers of the Ombudsman.

Mr Brumby has long argued independent corruption commissions were a ''lawyers' picnic'' but yesterday said an integrity review by former senior public servant Elizabeth Proust calling for a commission had changed his mind.

The obvious question for South Australia is: will the Premier follow suit? As the last Rann man standing so it's hard to see him holding out for much longer.

Labor likely to be able to govern in own right after SA election

The ABC reports

South Australian Premier Mike Rann is in a strong position to deliver the Labor Party a third term in government despite a voter backlash. Mr Rann and Liberal leader Isobel Redmond both said the result was too close to call on the night. But Mr Rann is the frontrunner with the ABC's election computer predicting Labor is set to hold 25 seats in the 47-seat House of Assembly. The Liberals are forecast to hold 18, with four Independents.

In a hubristic echo of (or cribbing from) Paul Keating Mr Rann said he hoped to be able to claim the "sweetest victory"

Election eve

I've followed the ups and downs of the state election campaign probably more closely than most voters, though nowhere near as closely as those who post regularly and sometimes argumentatively on blogs and websites such as The Poll Bludger. I have tweeted a few times @Pathfinder79, usually with links to articles and, space permitting, sometimes a comment.

The consensus among the experts (both generally acknowledged and self-appointed) is that Labor will scrape back in, without having to negotiate with independents or other parties (read National) . Here'san example

For a succinct summary of some of the wider issues see this by Peter Van Onselen in The Australian

Along with Tasmania, SA lags behind other states on most national economic indicators. Its share of the national economy has declined from the levels Labor inherited in 2002. Its share of gross domestic product is below the national average. Business investment is relatively sluggish and its population share is declining, with growth rates slower than all other states except Tasmania. On the face of it, this sounds like a recipe for removing a government.

The Liberal Party wants to use these indicators to condemn Labor as having failed South Australians during its eight years in power. As is often the case in politics, the situation isn't that simple.

On each of the above indicators the rate of decline in SA was substantially higher eight years ago than it is now.

In other words, while Rann hasn't managed to transform the state from an economic laggard to a miracle economy, he has made important headway to improving long-term prosperity.

I and, I suspect,.many other voters think that Labor has overdone the spin. As an example consider the matter of Lance Armstrong and the Tour Down Under in 2009. It took the New York Times ,not a local media outlet, which revealed that the fee paid to Armstrong was not donated to charity, as the government had claimed, but pocketed by the great man (I'm not referring to the Premier).

The US Boulder Report explained how something which could have been handled positively backfired and added to the growing public perception that the government was being economical with the truth:

It’s less the donation than the secrecy surrounding it that seems strange and excessive. As Adelaide Now reported, the South Australia Tourism Commission just got a $1.506 million boost to its budget from the state government, even as Rann said that wasn’t related to Armstrong’s appearance fee.

Armstrong has every right to ask for personal appearance fees. And just as he has every right to solicit donations to his foundation, (most) donors have every right to keep those donations private. But ones made with taxpayer dollars, in an ostensibly democratic and open government, fit a different standard of disclosure. And, a governmental partnership of any kind is the thing you’d think they’d be proud to discuss, particularly since the money may end up right back in the Australian public health system. There shouldn’t be anything about this that’s shameful, but the tight-lipped approach creates needless drama.

The Liberal campaign has not been gaffe-free either but Ms Redmond seems to have been able to put most of her messages across. It's a very tall order for the Liberals to make up all the ground they've lost at the last two elections, but the evidence of polls etc suggests they'll make up a lot of it. We shall see.

Can I just try that again, it's a little bit jumbled?

On Friday South Australian ABC TV Stateline viewers were short changed by a sudden (and unexplained) truncation of a debate between Treasurer Foley and Shadow Treasurer Griffiths.What went to air (including presenter Ian Henschke's apparent lack of awareness of what had happened) can be viewed here. .

Despite the ABC's ineptitude, what it did screen was interesting for a number of reasons, not least that Mr Foley sounded more like a Liberal than a Labor politician. Mr Rann hardly got a mention, though the Premier did appear in some introductory material (at 1:35). What was more surprising was that Foley praised Mr Howard and Mr Costello (eg at 6:30), and said that he was happy to engage some of their former staffers for the $2.5m budget review body which he plans to set up after the election. To cap it all, when the mild mannered Mr Griffiths took issue with one of his points, the Treasurer accused him (at 8:17) of acting like an old style Labor treasurer!

While Mr Foley had none of the makeup malfunction which may have lessened the Premier's impact during the Leaders' debate earlier in the week, he wasn't always on top of his material. At one point, when trying to explain the effects of the GFC on the state's finances he recognised that he'd lost it and asked (at 4:59) "Can I just try that again, it's a little bit jumbled?". A little later (at 7:23) he had a Mrs Malaprop moment: "We haven't prescripted [sic]anything".

And Mr Griffiths? He may not have scored many points but in my opinion he didn't do himself or his party too much harm. Check out the video and decide for yourself.

Update 8 March

A longer version of the debate, presumably the one which was intended to go to air on Friday, is now available here . It has cut out some of the preliminary material and appears to include the full original debate. It also makes my timings above inaccurate. It shows Mr Foley in full attack mode and Mr Griffiths, who stumbled over the names of taxes, more defensive.

I can't find any reference on the ABC website to the fact that this was not the version shown on Friday. This is inexcusable (and Orwellian). I'm not saying that the first version should stand but that the ABC, whose fault it was, should point out that what viewers saw on Friday night is not what internet users can see now. If it means two versions so be it.

Update 9 March

This is now on the SA Stateline website:

This debate failed to air on the program due to technical difficulties. The version here was screened in Stateline's Saturday repeat timeslot.

It is wrong to claim that the debate "failed to air on the program". Also the "version here" implies that there are other versions. I know of at least one other version, but how many are there?

There is still (6.00pm CST) no transcript. Wonder why.

Further update 10 March

In today's Crikey (scroll down until you reach the item) Alan Sunderland, Head of National Programs ABC News replied. He conceded that Friday's Stateline was "interrupted by technical difficulties" but claimed that the ABC "fixed the problem and the full show aired the following day in the normal repeat timeslot".

He then added "Although it is indeed standard practice to add an Editor’s Note explaining any changes from the program that went to air, we would not routinely note that a technical glitch had occurred. However, to remove any confusion or uncertainty during an election campaign, an explanatory note is being added to the program website."

The explanatory note is now on the program website:

Foley v Griffiths on SA economics

Source: Stateline South Australia

Published: Friday, March 5, 2010 8:58 AEDT

Expires: Thursday, June 3, 2010 8:58 AEDT

Treasurer Kevin Foley and shadow treasurer Steven Griffiths debate economic policy for the March 20 poll in SA. This debate failed to air on the program due to technical difficulties. The version here was screened in Stateline's Saturday repeat timeslot.

This incorrectly states that the program “failed to air” – only some of it did -and shows that the boundary between the technical and editorial matters can easily become blurred, especially during an election campaign.

Other ABC News Sites state when stories are updated: why can’t Stateline’s?

Oh, and there's still no transcript online. Due to "technical difficulties", Mr Sutherland?

A-G backs down ... but not out

Attorney General Atkinson has backed down but won't resign report the ABC and Adelaide Now

For me and probably many South Australians the question now is how can we have confidence in Mr Atkinson as chief law officer of the state when he appears to be thumbing his nose at the basic principles of Westminster democracy and even Premier Rann. That he could falsely claim that that one of his online critics doesn't exist beggars belief.

Update 4/2/2010

At least we now know that at next month's election a vote for the ALP is a vote for Michael Atkinson as Attorney-General (probably) for the next four years, even though as The Advertiser/ Adelaide Now said in an editorial yesterday "Lawyers and Left faction luminaries Patrick Conlon and Jay Weatherill could walk seamlessly into the job tomorrow."

And today "Singapore on the Torrens", an editorial in The Australian , makes some good points

A little more civility on the internet would be no bad thing, but that's no reason for the nanny state approach adopted by the South Australian government. The decision by Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to introduce laws to censor free speech in the blogosphere was ill-conceived at every level. That Mr Atkinson was forced to back down and promise to repeal the laws says much about the value users put on an open web: outraged consumers had flooded sites to complain.

.....

South Australian politicians are increasingly taking Singapore rather than Westminster as their model by resorting to legal action where political redress would be more appropriate. ..Surely the ballot box, not the courts, is where an opposition should be brought to account.

......

The internet is a robust and immediate forum - a modern-day version of the town square meeting at its best. It relies on the freedom of ordinary people to join a public conversation without fear their details will be collected by a central bureaucracy. Australian users are well equipped to filter the web: they do not need the state to do it for them.

Attorney-General's hamfisted attempt to censor internet make SA look foolish

At the behest of Attorney-General Mr Michael Atkinson the South Australian Parliament has amended s116 of the Electoral Act to require that all comments made on the internet during state elections are accompanied by the maker's name and address(not post office box). Even though both major (and perhaps most minor parties) supported the move it has many of the trademarks of Mr Atkinson's hamfistedness.

The Advertiser's website Adelaide Now has led the chorus of protest , quite properly highlighting the appalling insensitivity of Mr Atkinson's comment that the Adelaide Now website was "not just a sewer of criminal defamation" but also "a sewer of identity theft and fraud". For video of his media conference see here .

Of other media comment Hendrik Gout on the InDaily website makes the point that while the Attorney has the power to pursue those who fall foul of his amendments the Labor Party is still able to accept anonymous donations.

The comparisons with China have already been made and no doubt will continue to be. How embarrassing to be a South Australian.

Update 3 February

AG Atkinson has backed down.

South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet.

Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode.

Opponents had branded the law an attack on freedom of speech, and Mr Atkinson says he listened to community concerns in his decision to overturn it.

Better late - and where freedom of expression is at issue a day is too late - than never.
.

Rannzibar

Today South Australia followed followed Zanzibar's lead and banned most types of plastic shopping bags .

There's been a lot of media comment about the change, much of it reiterating the Rann government line that this is a worthwhile (and worthy) exercise . A more sceptical and to my mind more accurate assessment was provided a week or so ago by Christian Kerr in The Spectator Australia.

There is nothing quite like fatuous gesture politics, particularly when one side of politics thinks that the other’s fatuous gesture deserves to be trumped with a fatuous gesture of their own. That is exactly what has happened in the state once labelled a ‘paradise of dissent’, South Australia. A ban on most kinds of plastic shopping bags has been gradually phased in from the beginning of this year. By May, a week away, retailers will be prohibited from supplying them.

South Australia is the first state to legislate for such a ban, so its environment minister Jay Weatherill has decreed that there must be an education campaign for shoppers, businesses and retail workers. ‘If they supply them it is an offence and so it’s an offence punishable by fine,’ he said. Instead of getting plastic bags to carry their shopping in, we get to carry the cost of promoting and enforcing this gimmicky new law. The local Liberal party opposed the legislation. Instead, they offered a gimmick of their own. They argued that a levy on plastic bags would be better. In other words, they wanted to tax the state’s citizenry for the privilege of carrying their shopping home.

Throughout the debate, South Australians were encouraged to believe these measures would be good for the environment. That is what Weatherill suggested when the bill passed into law last November. ‘We see millions of tonnes of these plastic bags being dumped every year across this nation,’ he said. But it is all just spin. The whole issue of plastic bags was examined in detail three years ago by an inquiry by the federal government’s main microeconomic policy review group, the Productivity Commission.

Its report, the catchily titled ‘Waste Generation and Resource Efficiency’, found fewer than one per cent of plastic bags become litter. The extent to which these bags harm wildlife, it suggested, is uncertain. The report found ‘no waste’ policies are unobtainable and lack credibility. Unsurprisingly, it also discovered that 75 per cent of households reuse their shopping bags rather than throw them away. The Productivity Commission has been accused of providing refuge for free-market fundamentalists, but it was politically savvy enough to throw a sop to the nanny-staters. The plastic bags we take home, the commission declared, also play an important role in food safety.

Ministerial irresponsibility?

It first broke more than a week ago, but the story of former Minister for Road Safety yet still Minister for Correctional Services, Youth and Volunteers Tom Koutsantonis' progressive disclosure of his driving record still has legs, as the part-ex Minister continues to shoot himself in the foot and the media eg the ABC , The Advertiser/Adelaide Now and today's Australian (print ed p7) to report.

South Australia's former road safety minister Tom Koutsantonis has conceded he has been off the road three times due to traffic offences.Mr Koutsantonis has told Parliament he has incurred a total of 59 traffic infringements over 14 years.He currently has nine demerit points.

He says his licence was disqualified for three months between March and June 1999 and that he has also been suspended from driving twice.

"I have twice been temporarily suspended from driving due to the late payment of traffic fines, I was suspended from 15 December 2004 to 4 February 2005 and from 26 March 2006 to 15 May 2006," he said.

"I did not drive during these periods. My licence was returned to me upon paying the outstanding fines.

"The two instances where my licence was temporarily suspended due to late payment of fines did not come to mind when I was relating my driving record to the Premier, because the suspensions were not imposed due to my driving behaviour, but for the non-payment of fines arising from my driving."

His full Ministerial statement is here .

Premier Rann has also been embarassed by the developing situation. After first standing by his man he had to backflip as further details became known.

The Advertiser/Adelaide Now recently asked all ministers and shadow ministers to disclose their traffic records. The responses make interesting reading, not least for some disingenuous statements, notably Transport, Energy and Infrastructure Minister Conlon's coyness about a drink driving conviction some years ago.

This particular virus seems to have spead interstate, if this is any guide.

Given the disclosures of the Ministers and shadow Ministers about their own road traffic lapses perhaps Minister Koutsantinos has been punished enough by being exposed to ridicule and being removed from one of his positions. I reckon this one could remain in the public mind for a long time.

Disclosure: In the last decade I have expiated three traffic light offences, and still have (I think) three demerit points which are due to expire in June.

[Photo above taken in Wakefield St Adelaide today]

Update 30 April

The Adelaide Now website now has a graphic poll online "You be the judge: What should happen to Kouts' car?"

Options range from start at pimp it and ascend through crush it ,green it, infect it, graffiti it, detonate it !

Ministerial accountability?

Today Michael Owen in The Advertiser/Adelaide Now reports on some discrepancies between a state government minister's statements and official records:

Families Minister Jennifer Rankine, under fire for using a consultant to help with her new portfolio, had 19 full-time personal staff to assist her, a government document shows

This is despite official 2008-09 Budget papers for Ministerial Office Resources stating Ms Rankine had 10 full-time equivalent staff, with a budget of $1.26 million.

A confidential government document obtained by the Opposition under Freedom of Information laws reveals Ms Rankine actually had 19 full-time personal staff. Among those listed as working in her office are a chief of staff, three ministerial officers, a media adviser, five ministerial liaison officers, and seven administrative staff.

Consultant Margaret Wagstaff completed a four-month contract, worth $80,000, in the minister's office on December 11.

Liberal Upper House MP Rob Lucas yesterday said Ms Rankine was either "extraordinarily wasteful of taxpayers' money or needs a lot of help".

"Minister Rankine should now explain why she has claimed to have only 10 FTE staff when in reality she has almost double that number," Mr Lucas, who obtained the FoI document, said.

"It is incomprehensible that a minister with so many personal staff to help her to be a minister should then have to spend $80,000 of taxpayers' money on a consultant to help her."

Ms Wagstaff is the partner of Philip Bentley, a long-time friend of Premier Mike Rann. Together they receive about $100,000 a year of taxpayers' money for government board and committee appointments. Ms Wagstaff last week was appointed to yet another committee position by the Premier, as chair of the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel, for two years. She will be paid $190 a meeting.

A spokesman for Ms Rankine yesterday said she has 17 staff, including a trainee, for five portfolios, including the new Northern Suburbs portfolio.

Ms Wagstaff could not be contacted for comment.

The consultant story was first reported earlier this month .

All above board? These kind of matters often appear to be swept under the carpet here. Raising the issue again on Christmas Eve will restrict public discussion.

Public transport makeover promised for Adelaide

In his budget South Australia's Treasurer Kevin Foley has promised a radical overhaul of Adelaide's rail/ tram/ light rail transport system .

The Advertiser/ Adelaide Now reports:

The state's ailing public transport system has received a $2 billion injection described as the "single biggest commitment to public transport in the state's history" by Treasurer Kevin Foley. The centrepiece of the massive announcement is an extension of the Glenelg-city tramline to West Lakes, Port Adelaide and Semaphore at a cost of $162 million.

Over the next four years, $648.4 million will be spent on the first leg of the extension, the purchase of new light rail vehicles and buses, electrification of the rail network and a new ticketing system.

Speculation has been rife the Government would extend the tramline following the recently announced upgrade of AAMI Stadium.

Work will begin "immediately" on the first leg of the extension, to the Entertainment Centre, and trams are expected to be running on the new line by 2010.

A park-and-ride facility will be set up at the centre where western suburbs commuters can park their cars for a fee and commute by tram to the city.


To address capacity issues on the already overcrowded tram service, the Government has committed to buying or leasing six new or second-hand trams "immediately".

A further 15 hybrid tram-trains and 50 new electric trains will be bought and 58 diesel trains will be refurbished and converted to electric over the same period.

Mr Foley described the transport budget as a "blueprint for redeveloping our transport network that will help provide a framework for the future development of our city and state".

In the northern and southern suburbs, rail was the focus.

Electrification of the Noarlunga and Outer Harbour lines will begin at a total cost of $292 million and the start of concrete re-sleepering of the Gawler line will cost $116 million.

On the roads, an extra 80 buses will be added to the fleet over the next four years at a cost of $64.4 million.

This is in addition to the 133 replacement buses to be purchased under and $102.2 million program.

A long-awaited replacement for the more than 20-year-old Crouzet ticketing system has been promised with a commitment of $29 million to begin purchasing new machines.

For a map of the proposed changes see here.

Notwithstanding a question or two about details (eg how will standard gauge trams run on the broad gauge Port Adelaide rail track?) I'm obviously in favour of the proposals and look forward to seeing them implemented within Mr Foley's timeframe.

More allegations of corruption and intimidation

"Standover" is the page one headline on Miles Kemp's report in today's Advertiser

ADELAIDE'S crime gangs are using personal information leaked from the public service to harass people involved in court trials and their families.Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police Tony Harrison said it had been difficult to prosecute gang members because victims, witnesses or their family members had been the subject of intimidation or threats of violence.
Mr Harrison, who recently briefed MPs on the issue, said the gangs avoided prosecution by using tactics that included:
A CODE of silence among members;
INTIMIDATION and violence;
INSULATION of principal players in a crime;
CORRUPTION of the justicesystem;
EXPLOITATION of the operations of the justice system.
Notes from the briefing have been obtained by The Advertiser.
Mr Harrison said the corruption referred to were instances where department records had been accessed.
He said gangs in the past had gained access to personal records of people kept by government department databases through an intermediary person who may have been a friend or relative.

.....

Mr Harrison said police needed measures contained in the anti-gang Bill passed last night by the Upper House of Parliament, which would provide greater protection for people prosecuting serious organised crime, for example, "avoiding the stalking or intimidating of judicial officers or witnesses involved in prosecuting serious organised crime".
Mr Harrison said it was now "very, very difficult" to take gang extortion matters to trial because of intimidation.
"Invariably, somebody receives a threat . . . and invariably they decide not to proceed," he said.
Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond said the Opposition was strongly supportive of the Bill, which she said would make threats or reprisals against those involved in criminal investigations and proceedings punishable by up to seven years' jail.
But she said Mr Harrison's comments also showed the need for an independent commission against corruption in South Australia.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the issues raised by Mr Harrison were being dealt with by legislation that had passed through parliament, was going through parliament, or being developed as part of the Government's criminal justice reforms.

For more on the legislation which has just been passed see here and here.

The shootings in the city at the weekend and other events indicate that matters are getting out of hand so I intend to refrain from comment for the time being to give the laws a chance to take effect, though IMO there are some interesting comments on the ABC News story (the second of the two links above).

Clyde Cameron

Clyde Cameron has died aged 95. He was at one time a shearer, then became a union official, then an MP and subsequently a minister in the Whitlam government.

His obituary in The Australian, written by Mungo McCallum, is worth reading.

I recall seeing him only once, one night many years ago, at a sparsely attended street campaign meeting (perhaps the closest thing to this nowadays would be the well orchestrated walk through a shopping mall). I don't remember him speaking, just that he, a federal politician, took the trouble to campaign for a Labor candidate in a safe Liberal seat.

By today's standards an old style Labor man (there were few women active in the party for much of his career) yet one who apparently made friends across the political divide. Today on TV I saw Alexander Downer and Brendan Nelson speak positively about him in parliament during a discussion (there was no debate) on a condolence motion. Downer's tribute was especially fulsome: it doesn't seem to have been reported online, though the ABC report mentions both the PM and Leader of the Opposition's contributions. It will be published in Hansard in due course.

Update 19 March

I was wrong about street corner political meetings being a thing of the past. Today I received a letter from my federal MP Ms Kate Ellis (who is also Minister for Sport) inviting me to a street meeting in a week or so. I now recall that she's done this before.

Yesterday's Age had a detailed obituary of Cameron.

News from South Australia

A few items which have caught my eye in the last day or so:

# Mr Foley's blast

Treasurer Kevin Foley has blasted South Australians as "a bunch of bloody whingers".

"This state has an exciting future and it's not, in my view, because of timid governments," he said at a Committee for Economic Development of Australia lunch.

"What laments me and laments me quite often is that here in Adelaide we are a bunch of bloody whingers, a bunch of bloody whingers."

"We might not be the sexiest and exciting Government that some people may want. But we have delivered the almost impossible – stable government."

Mr Foley said his comments were made in response to tenured academics who hung their cardigans on the back of their seats and then sat down and wondered "who can we critique today?"

Mr F's vision (read the whole piece) sounds like a number cruncher's one, which is all very well but there is more to life than a balanced budget, important though that is. Perhaps South Australians would just like to see more tangible evidence of the prosperity which the Rann-Foley government is supposed to be delivering. It's interesting that Mr F mentions prisons as an important part of his vision, but there's no indication that he's thought about why new ones might be needed.

# Bolkus denies conflict of interest

The ABC reports:

Former Labor Senator Nick Bolkus says there has been no conflict of interest in his chairmanship of the South Australian Stormwater Authority and lobbying for the Jockey Club.

Mr Bolkus has resigned from the Stormwater Authority to take up a new business opportunity.

The South Australian Jockey Club wants to sell Cheltenham Racecourse to a housing developer but some opponents believe it should be used to capture stormwater run-off.

Mr Bolkus says that has not caused a conflict of interest on his part.

"In respect of Cheltenham, for the first 20 or so months on either committee the issue didn't come up," he said.

"When it did came (sic) up in accordance with the practice we adopted, I wasn't alerted to the fact it was going to come up and in fact left the room and let the committee deliberate in accordance with the rules."

Hmm.

# No more cane toads but foxes abundant

No further cane toads have been found in suburban Mawson Lakes despite a detailed search, according to the ABC.

The Department of Land and Biodiversity has been searching for cane toads after one was found in a backyard last week.

The department's director Bill Davies says the night trapping will be called off shortly, and searches will only be conducted randomly.

"We're reasonably certain there's nothing there, so what we might do is actually pick occasions when we think the conditions might be very good for trapping and just try that," he said.

"The odd evening that's more warm and balmy are more conducive for the animals coming out."

On the other hand the Mount Barker Courier reports on an increase in fox numbers in the Adelaide Hills:

A rise in fox numbers has alarmed the region's peak environment group with 900 foxes killed on one 10ha Norton Summit property in the past six years.

Adelaide and Mt Lofty Natural Resources Management Board officer David Hughes said the fox problem in the area was "getting worse" with the animals thriving in the Hills, particularly on the urban fringe. The number of foxes in the region is impossible to accurately estimate but experts believe for every bait taken there could be as many as four foxes within a square kilometre.

Property owners are being urged to act to halt the rising menace and implement strategies to limit their numbers. Landholders Sue and Sean Delaney have had two to three baits taken every week from their property which backs onto the Morialta Conservation Park.

Unlike cane toads, foxes aren't recent arrivals here but there have been other reports of them occupying areas even closer to the city eg the Botanic Park. On walks and drives through the Adelaide Hills over the years I've occasionally seen a fox, or more often when walking, scats (droppings). Nobody seems to have much idea of what to do about them.

Innocents abroad or junketers?

Today's Crikey "Tips and rumours" section quotes an email purportedly written by someone who attended the recent G'Day USA Australia Day Ball in New York. Extract:

The Victorian and South Australian state government contingent were on a massive junket and I can't believe they had the audacity to even fly over for the event and stay at the Waldorf all at taxpayers' expense. Disgraceful.

Was this part of the high powered delegation about which I posted last month?

If so, when might SA (and Victorian) taxpayers expect to see a statement of the costs and an estimate of the benefits of the exercise?

I also hope that everyone behaved themselves, and especially that that there was no unseemly provincial backbiting about backwaters between the Victorian and South Australian delegations.

Sir Les Patterson redux as Foley off to Hollywood for blow job?

SA Deputy Premier and Treasurer Foley, one of the most philistine South Australian government ministers, has elbowed his notional boss Mr Rann, and other ministers with some knowledge of the arts (eg Dr Lomax-Smith) , aside by somehow getting the numbers to lead a delegation to the USA to, as The Advertiser/ Adelaide Now reports, " blow SA film trumpet" :

Deputy Premier Kevin Foley will knock on Hollywood's door and drum up business for our ailing film industry this month when he leads a South Australian invasion of the U.S.

The Treasurer, who leaves tomorrow, will join hundreds of high-profile Australians, including Kylie Minogue, Terri and Bindi Irwin and Olivia Newton John, for G'Day USA - Australia Week 2008.

He has meetings scheduled with Warner Bros and Walt Disney film executives to promote interest in film production in SA, which has slumped. "In particular on this trip, we have a large contingent of business people and people from the South Australian Film Corporation," Mr Foley said.

"Our niche as a film state is clearly in areas such as post-production and some of the more specialised services to the film sector."

.....

South Australian film, music, food and wine will be promoted to millions of Americans.

The trip is expected to expose SA services and products to more than 100 million people.

Mr Foley will have meetings with economists to be briefed about the state of the U.S. economy. He also will discuss South Australian innovations in energy.

Australian culture will be on show at events in Los Angeles and New York. Representatives from South Australian companies and artists including Rising Sun Pictures, Etype Jazz, Beerenberg, Burra Creek Wines, Orgo Products, Nardone Wines and Pendleton Estate Olive Oil will accompany Mr Foley. Maggie Beer and Coopers products will be on display.

If Mr Rann can't swing a trip like this for himself, does this mean he's on the way out?

Mr Foley's public persona suggests that he is no cinephile or gastronome, yet his reputation suggests that he can at least make some claim to possessing a first hand knowledge of beer, which should give some credibility to his promotion of Coopers products, provided that they weren't what he had in mind when he spoke on the record of "poofter beer".

Perhaps while he's in Hollywood Mr Foley will be auditioning for the Sir Les Patterson part in a movie designed to revive the moribund SA film industry. His hair's not quite grey enough and his teeth insufficiently snaggled, but in most other respects he fits the part admirably.

Premier described as "artful dodger" in film by his own speech writer

The Advertiser/Adelaide Now reports that the SA government has paid Bob Ellis $150,000 over the last five years to write (or help write ) speeches for Premier Rann.

Documents obtained from the Premier's office under Freedom of Information laws reveal the payments from the taxpayer to Mr Ellis, for 137 speeches and 53 "messages" written for Mr Rann over five years, from March 2002 until June 2007.

Author Bob Ellis is maker of the documentary Run Rabbit Run, a look at how Mr Rann won his landslide 2006 election victory.

Sydney-based Mr Ellis, a long-time friend and stalwart of Mr Rann's, read a poem at the Premier's wedding last year.

Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the payments made to Mr Ellis were on top of the salaries and expenses for a full-time speechwriter in the Premier's ministerial office and the cost of speech drafts prepared by public servants in government departments.

"The Premier has paid $150,000 to a Labor mate, who doesn't even live here," Mr Hamilton-Smith said."How does that fit with Government guidelines for the proper expenditure of taxpayers' money? This is a classic case of mate's rates – except it's South Australian taxpayers who are losers."

Mr Hamilton-Smith said MPs who had attended some of the community functions where the speeches written by Bob Ellis were given by Mr Rann, said some lasted "barely a few minutes".

.....

Mr Rann's principal media adviser Jill Bottrall, in an emailed statement, did not answer specific questions put by The Advertiser.Rather, Ms Bottrall provided a lengthy summary of Mr Ellis' literary and cinematic highlights.

She also said he had "a long and close involvement with politics". "For a person of this depth of experience and reputation for outstanding political writing and commentary, the Opposition is absolutely correct in suggesting that at $30,000 a year, he is on `mates rates'," she said.

"Bob Ellis collaborates on many of the Premier's speeches with the Premier's full-time speechwriter."

Mr Rann's full-time speechwriter, Mark Batistich, left his $90,600 job earlier this month.

Ms Bottrall said he had been replaced, but declined to say by whom or on what salary package.

Ms Bottrall is disingenuous to describe Mr Ellis's remuneration as "mates rates" since Mr E, as is widely known here, supplements his speechwriting activities with other, presumably paid, positions on boards (eg the Adelaide Film Festival) . He also receives in kind benefits such as free tickets to and VIP hospitality at a number of events such as Womadelaide, where I've seen him accompanying the Premier, and the Norwood Food and Wine Festival, where I've also seen him in the VIP marquee.

It's also interesting to note that Run, Rabbit, Run the documentary about Mr Rann's 2006 election victory mentioned in the Adelaide Now report does not appear in Mr Ellis's IMDb entry. The entry for the film itself is pretty sketchy.

In July The Australian reported that the film was critical of the Premier:

Ellis's dry, eloquent voiceover includes observations that would sound highly critical if expressed more forcefully and in a different context.

Mr Rann is "the artful dodger", has "the ideological fluidity of a Bugs Bunny" and his gift for friendship, Ellis suspects, can be "turned on and off like a tap".

One voter quoted in the film says Rann is "all feathers and no stuffing".

"I am not a flatterer, I am a friend," Ellis said. Because of the Vera Lynn songs in the soundtrack, he described the film as Singing in the Rain meets Rats in the Ranks, a film about the 1994 mayoral election in Sydney's Leichhardt.

Have Mr Ellis and his mates yielded to pressure from Mr Rann and consigned all the film to the cutting room floor? Perhaps only this picture, which I believe is a still from the film, is all that remains? If so, what does it tell us about Mr Rann's (1) judgment in commissioning the film and (2) his ability to accept criticism?

A-G pooh-poohs call for SA anti-corruption commission

In this week's Independent Weekly Hendrik Gout reports that SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has brushed aside the call made by Peter Beattie (about which I posted recently) for an independent anti-corruption body in SA.

"There is no need to set up a separate body," Mr Atkinson's spokesman said. "There's no suggestion that there's any corruption in South Australia. No corruption has been uncovered."

He said SA had sufficient existing bodies to investigate allegations of corruption, including police, the police complaints authority, and the auditor-general.

"The public interest is better served by the anti-corruption functions not being monopolised," Mr Atkinson said. "If a local complainant is not satisfied with one agency's response, he can hawk it to another."

If this is so, can the Attorney say why the recently retired SA Auditor - General and a now retired federal MHR from his own Labor party have both supported the establishment of an anti-corruption body?

The Attorney also couldn't say when (or even if) SA would have a register of lobbyists along the lines proposed by Prime Minister Rudd:

Mr Atkinson could not say when SA would have a register of lobbyists. "Earlier in the year I asked the legislation and legal policy section of the Attorney-General's department to study regulation of lobbyists in other States and countries," Mr Atkinson told The Independent Weekly. "(This) section is nearing completion of that investigation.

"It is not possible to definitively place a time-frame on the measures until we have seen the implementation of these proposals at a federal level and see how they work in practice."

Better late than never: News Ltd media support calls for anti-corruption commission in SA

Today's Advertiser/ Adelaide Now editorial supports my call (and that of federal ALP MP Rod Sawford) for an anti-corruption commission in South Australia.

The case for establishing a commission to investigate public service corruption and organised crime in South Australia is becoming more compelling by the day. Several issues which have emerged in the past 48 hours could arguably be referred to an anti-corruption commission.

All that is lacking is the will of the State Government to legislate to set up a watchdog similar to those operating in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. Clearly, as demonstrated by quite separate issues in those states, an anti-corruption commission has the capacity to generate political embarrassment.

But a government with nothing to hide has nothing to fear. A government which says the current safeguards of the Auditor-General and the police are sufficient, risks - perhaps unfairly - being accused of having something to hide.

No serious whiff of corruption has tainted the present Government. But only yesterday it was revealed that two parliamentary select committees looking at the issue involving the operation of government have held no meetings this year. There is the potential conflict of interest involving Members of Parliament who have outside employment and the alarming case of documents stolen from a police car which have fallen into the hands of a bikie gang.No impropriety may necessarily be associated with any of these incidents.

But where can they be referred for assessment? Who is investigating them?

And where can people who suspect illegal or fraudulent activity within the broad performance of government go to complain?

The State Opposition - whatever its political colour - and the media have a responsibility to pursue issues which may involve inappropriate government behaviour. Under Freedom of Information provisions they are often denied access to relevant documents or other information on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

A permanent anti-corruption commission would remove all confusion about where complaints could be lodged, which authority should be investigating specific issues, or doubts about proper release of information.

Recently the paper/website also expressed concern that the number of Labor advisers has increased from 191 to 275 since 2002.

While paid by the public purse, these advisers are not traditional public servants.

Public servants are employed to work for the government of the day, regardless of its political hue - whether serving at a counter, maintaining orderly financial accounts or offering policy advice. Political advisers are employed specifically to protect the personal interests of ministers and the broader interests of the government of a particular political philosophy. Before working for government they have often been loyal party political workers personally known to their minister and the wider government.

Realistically, ministers need a policy filter to assess advice offered by the Public Service. They need press secretaries to field the increasing demands of a diverse media serving a society hungry for information.

It is a trend which began in the 1970s under then prime minister Gough Whitlam and, in South Australia, premier Don Dunstan. But in too many cases the growing army of political advisers is now usurping the role and responsibility of the traditional Public Service. They have a higher regard for political philosophy than public need.

Press officers, working on a "need to know" basis, withhold or distort information for the benefit of minister or government. Some public servants no longer have frequent and direct contact with their ministers.

It is no longer a case of "Yes Minister" but "Yes Adviser".

This is not a criticism directed solely at the state Labor Government.

It can be just as easily directed at the Liberal Federal Government and the previous Liberal state government.

But it is a trend which promotes not the well-being of the people but the survival of the incumbent government.

Premier broadens definition of terrorist

According to today's InDaily newsletter, Premier Rann has, apart from announcing several new budget initiatives, declared that "bikie gang members are terrorists who deal drugs".

Terrorists? If so, why hasn't he called in the Feds to help him deal with the problem? Or is it just another example of his hyperbole?

Update 5 June

Mr Rann has, as far as I can tell, not yet sought any control orders from the Federal Police, nor, to judge from what The Australian reports today, does he appear to have done anything to deal in other ways with the problem he's so graphically identified.Other than talk, that is.

Advertiser takes strong stand against pokies

Yesterday's Advertiser came out with a strong editorial against poker machines: "The pokies gamble has failed SA"

For more than a decade, poker machines in hotels and clubs have been the antithesis of Robin Hood – taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The major losers are people in lower socio-economic areas of the metropolitan area and country districts where, coincidentally, the largest number of poker machine hotels and clubs are concentrated. The winners are a select group of multiple-hotel owners – individuals and corporations – and the State Government.

Gambling Minister Paul Caica must begin a serious program of initially reducing the number of poker machines in hotels, and ultimately phasing them out. If the Government fears that people will flood across state borders to feed their craving to gamble or that bans will trigger compensation claims, then perhaps the Federal Government should take national control of poker machines in the same way it is seeking to control the Murray-Darling river system.

.....

Figures obtained by The Advertiser this week suggest that in the current financial year, South Australians will lose more than $800 million on poker machines. The State Government's tax take is likely to exceed $300 million for the first time, while poker machine operators will pocket almost $500 million. These are shameful, reprehensible figures. In a community which has unacceptable levels of poverty, deprivation and homelessness, they are unconscionable...As a community, we have a clear choice – live with the appalling social and economic damage caused by poker machines, or take radical and perhaps politically painful steps to eliminate them. In the end, there is no choice.

These are strong words, with which it's tempting for me to concur as I don't patronise pokies. However, I'm not in favour of removing all pokies unless it can be proven to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that such a step is necessary to reduce problem gambling. There's also the likelihood that reducing gambling outlets will drive the problem, like others, outside the law and thus create another set of problems and consequent need for resource allocation . I'm old enough to remember the days when SP bookies were common.: they were generally considered to be harmless, but the spotlight in those days was rarely turned upon the consequences of their activities.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see if there's much of a debate on the topic. The winners mentioned in the editorial would be a formidable collective adversary to significant attempt at reform.