Wednesday, 28 August 2013

http://imputeation.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/abbotts-age-of-entitlement-tonys-top.html

Abbott’s age of entitlement: Tony’s Top Twenty-five

In 2009 Tony Abbott falsely claimed flight and comcar costs while promoting his book and had to repay $9397.42. Here are 25 other examples of Abbott’s work-related claims:

1. In August 2009 Tony Abbott claimed $1720 in travel allowance + $1,883 for flights while “volunteering” as a truancy assistant in Aurukun

2. In April 2010 Tony Abbott claimed $1539 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Melbourne to Sydney + $480 flight to Melbourne

3. In November 2010 Tony Abbott and family claimed $420 travel allowance, $1956 for flights + $354 in comcar costs to attend the Melbourne Cup

4. In December 2010 Tony Abbott and family claimed $1910 for flights + $171 in comcar costs to attend day 1 of Boxing day Ashes test in Melbourne
0
5. In April 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $2875 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Gold Coast to Sydney + $556 flight to Brisbane

6. In May 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $420 travel allowance, $1646 in flights + $599 in comcar costs to attend the AFL Dreamtime game in Melbourne

7. In September 2011 Tony Abbott (+ passenger) claimed $744 travel allowance + $12133 for chartered flights from Sydney to St George and back to Brisbane to attend the Birdsville races

8. In October 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $424 travel allowance, over $823 for flights + $550 in comcar costs to attend the AFL grand final in Melbourne

9. In October 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $5623 for a chartered flight from Sydney to Bathurst return to attended the Bathurst 1000 V8 supercars

10. In October 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $848 travel allowance, $3722 for flights + $763 in comcar costs to attend the Victoria Derby in Melbourne

11. In October 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $351 travel allowance while “volunteering” as builder’s labourer in Hopevale

12. In November 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $941 for flights to compete in 70.3 Port Macquarie ironman event

13. In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $424 travel allowance, $771 for flights + $515 in comcar costs to attend the men’s final of the Australian Tennis Open in Melbourne

14. In January 2012 Tony Abbott (and passenger) spent $9347 to charter a flight to Tamworth to attend the Tamworth Country Music festival.

15. In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $1095 flights to Melbourne to compete in Pier to Pub swim in Lorne

16. In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $736 travel allowance, $1438 flights + $684 in comcar costs to participate in the Tour Down Under Charity ride in Adelaide

17. In March 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $3141 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Geelong to Canberra + $482 flight from Canberra to Melbourne

18. In April 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $2023 flights to compete in Hervey Bay Surf Lifesaving Pier to Pub swim

19. In May 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $424 travel allowance, $909 in flights + $328 in comcar costs to attend AFL Dreamtime game in Melbourne

20. In August 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $234 travel allowance while “volunteering” at Aurukun Mission and claimed $9636 for charter travel to/from Aurukun

21. In August 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $650 flights to compete in Coffs Coast Cycle Challenge

22. In Sept 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $354 travel allowance + $160 flights to compete in Wagga ‘Lake to Lagoon’ fun run

23. In Sept 2012 Tony Abbott and family claimed $429 travel allowance, $1480 in flights + $540 in comcar costs to attend the AFL grand final

24. In November 2012 Tony Abbott and family claimed $848 travel allowance, $1053 for flights + $594 in comcar costs to attend the Victorian Derby in Melbourne

25. In December 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $1108 travel allowance for three nights while driving a big rig down the Pacific Hway

That’s over $84,000 in work-related travel entitlements Abbott claimed while “volunteering”, running, swimming, cycling and attending major sporting events.

All in a day’s work?
Travel allowance is payed to Opposition Office Holders for the cost of accommodation, meals, and incidentals during overnight stays away from home when the stay is primarily due to official business such as sittings of Parliament, parliamentary committee meetings, official business as Opposition Office Holder, or parliamentary political party meetings.

The pattern and consistency of these travel claims provides the most compelling case against Abbott. Abbott’s work related travel is regularly associated with attending major spectator events or participating in sports events. More than just a coincidence? It seems likely the primary purpose for his travel is to attend these volunteer, charity, sporting or major spectator events. And if his travel is not primarily for official business it is not a legitimate work related expense.

International comparison
This list of Abbott’s dubious travel expense claims is astounding. Truly of international standard. So for an international comparison consider the Parliamentary Expenses scandal in the UK which arose when MPs and members of House of Lords were found to have systematically rorted their claims for travel and accommodation expenses. Many MPs were found to have made claims for expenses which were not “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member’s parliamentary duties”. Several MPs were charged and convicted, and many more stood down or resigned. For example:

• Elliot Morley was sentenced to 10 months jail for dishonestly claiming over ₤30,000 (around $50000) in parliamentary expenses
• John Taylor, Baron of Warwick was sentenced to 12 months jail for falsely claiming ₤11277 (around $20000) parliamentary expenses for travel costs
• Jim Devine was sentenced to 16 months jail for dishonestly claiming ₤8385 (around $15200) in expenses
• Baron Hanningfield was sentenced to 9 months jail for incorrectly claiming ₤14000 (around $25000) in travel allowances.

Consider Abbott’s $84000+ of claims in this context.

Abbott expenses v Slipper expenses?
And in Australia Peter Slipper faces court over alleged inappropriate claims of taxi expenses of less than $1000.

This list shows Tony Abbott has claimed over $84,000 in dubious travel expenses for his travel while volunteering, running, riding swimming and attending major sports events. But not a word is spoken.

UNExtract Sayomi Ariyawansa From Future Leaders

Detention-centre advocates tell us that our tough attitude towards “boat people” is a deterrent for others who may consider seeking asylum here. They tell us these people are a burden that we don’t want, and the best way to stop them is to show them that Australia is not an open country and will not accept everyone. However, there is a line between tough and inhumane, a line that is blurred in terms of our refugee policy. Our current system humiliates and psychologically damages innocent people and goes against UN conventions.

There must be a better way to treat this issue, and we should consider the systems in place by other countries. The UN International Refugee Convention requires host countries to treat asylum seekers with dignity and respect while
Australia’s Treatment of Refugees is Unnecessarily Harsh

their claims for asylum are processed. There is increasingly more and more evidence that detention centres hold asylum seekers in conditions harsher than those felt by convicted criminals. After Baxter detention centre held a mentally ill Australia citizen for nine months, an investigation showed the harsh conditions within detention centres. There are beds without mattresses, toilets without doors and showers without curtains. Is this how Australia treats asylum seekers with dignity and respect?

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has said that conditions in Australia’s detention centres are “offensive to human dignity”. Not only are detention centres stripping innocent people of their dignity, there are increasing claims that the harsh condi- tions within the centres are psychologically damaging. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have said that Australia’s detention centres are “worse than prisons” and saw “alarming levels of self-harm”.

Australia is not alone in using detention centres for processing refugees, but its callous treat- ment of refugees within the centres, their harsh conditions and the unnecessary time spent in detention have brought upon much criticism from multitudes of human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International. This criticism apparently has no effect on the Australian Government which continues its appalling treatment of people who seek refuge and acceptance here.

The spirit of the survivors of the most ruthless political regimes is often destroyed by the harsh environment they are placed in. Their resilience is tested, and the psychological damage done makes it extremely difficult for them to rejoin society as healthy, productive citizens. These people can enrich our community greatly, but in order to do so they deserve a fair go.

Detention-centre advocates tell us that detention is neces- sary in order to determine the asylum seeker’s identity. They also believe that detention centres are the best way to deter other arrivals. However, many countries need to deal with asylum seekers, and many of these countries do so with policies that are far more humane and concur with UN conventions.

Sweden is a country that has a policy that Australia should consider. If asylum seekers arrive in Sweden without appropriate documentation, they are placed in a detention centre. Their stay in the detention centre does not exceed six months and children may not be detained longer than six days. The detention centres in Sweden do not resort to barbed-wire fences, and all detainees have full access to legal advice, counselling and have the right to appeal their being held in detention. Asylum seekers are only required to remain in deten- tion centres for the time it takes to ascertain their identities and not the entire procedure.

Once their identities are confirmed they are released into Refugee Reception Housing or move in with friends whilst they await the decision. The Swedish system allows for all proper processing, ensuring national security as well as maintaining the asylum seeker’s right to being treated with dignity and respect. This is in comparison to many genuine refugees held in detentions centres for several years in Australia, regardless of their age. Asylum seekers are virtually stripped of their basic human rights, and do not have access to legal advice. Australia can learn from the Swedish policy.

About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here.

Tell me more | Dismiss this message

ATTORNEY-General George Brandis has paid back almost $1700 claimed in parliamentary expenses to go to the wedding of a radio shock jock. Senator Brandis said although he believed the function was work related, there was “uncertainty” about the entitlement. Senator Brandis and coalition colleague Barnaby Joyce have come under fire for claiming $3000 between them to attend the 2011 wedding of friend and former 2UE broadcaster Michael Smith, which was held at a hotel owned by John Singleton on the NSW Central Coast.
Senator Brandis had told Fairfax his attendance was “primarily professional”, because Mr Smith had been covering scandals involving then Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Craig Thomson. But in a subsequent letter to the Department of Finance he enclosed a cheque for $1683.06, saying while he considered that they were within parliamentary entitlements, he wanted to “resolve any uncertainty in favour of the taxpayer”.
“I considered that those costs were within parliamentary entitlements, since they were incurred in the course of attendance at a function primarily for work-related purposes. I remain of that view,” he wrote in the letter today. “It is clear that the relevant criterion is the purpose of the travel, not the nature of the event. “However, I accept there can be uncertainty about the circumstances in which attendance at a private function for work-related purposes is within the entitlement.” Comment is being sought from Mr Joyce, the new Agriculture Minister.
Labor leadership candidate Bill Shorten has called for an investigation into the matter, and noted the irony of the allegations against Senator Brandis. He said the attorney-general had been one the coalition’s “lead attack dogs” against former Speaker Peter Slipper, who is facing fraud charges over claims he abused his parliamentary expenses. “It is not normal to say that the reason why you get the taxpayer to support you to go to a wedding is so that you can network with journalists,” Mr Shorten told ABC Television. “I just wonder what George Brandis would say if it had been a Labor person. “I just wonder if he’d call for a police investigation. Would he expect the same standard to be applied to him, if he had called for a parliamentary investigation?
“It is most unusual that you just go to a shock jock’s wedding, who’s got political views close to your own, and then we read reports in the media that all of us a paying for it.” Finance Minister Mathias Cormann defended his coalition colleagues, saying both had believed the claims were within their parliamentary entitlements. “Claims that are made by politicians in terms of any type of public allowance need to be made with entitlement,” Mr Cormann told Network Ten. “At the time, the judgment was that it was. If there is change to this I’m sure that this will be worked through in the appropriate way, in the appropriate process, and if there are conflicts along the way, I’m sure they will be dealt with in the appropriate way as well.” AAP – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/george-brandis-pays-back-expenses-claimed-to-attend-radio-host-michael-smiths-wedding/story-fn59niix-1226729426554#sthash.LpaRZpFZ.dpuf

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/australian-story-olympia-nelson-takes-stand-on-sexualised-selfie/4973912

Teen Olympia Nelson takes stand against sexualised selfie photos

Australian Story

Updated Mon 23 Sep 2013, 2:50pm AEST

Video: Student attacks ‘anxious competition’ of hunt for social media approval (ABC News)

Map: Melbourne 3000
When Melbourne schoolgirl Olympia Nelson made headlines earlier this year with her critique of explicit selfies, it was not the first time she had been at the centre of a media storm.

As Australian Story reveals, Olympia first found herself on national front pages in 2008 when she was 11.

At issue, was a picture taken by her internationally renowned photographer mother, Polixeni Papapetrou, and reproduced on the front cover of Art Monthly magazine.

The stylised photograph showed an unclothed Olympia, aged five at the time, against a painted background in the style of a famous picture from the English Victorian era.

It was published in the wake of the furore over artist Bill Henson’s works featuring pubescent teenagers, and then prime minister Kevin Rudd denounced the picture, saying he “couldn’t stand this stuff”.

Now 16, Olympia has been critiquing another development in photography – selfies, or self-portraits, posted on social media.

The phenomenon has exploded over the past few years, but Olympia felt compelled to make a stand against the increasingly competitive trend towards sexualised pictures aimed at garnering ‘likes’, or votes, from an individual’s followers.

Analysis: The selfie generation

Selfies, sexting and twerking are part of a teen continuum outraging older generations, writes Vanessa Gorman.

Encouraged by her parents, she sent an essay on the subject to The Age newspaper in Melbourne.

The newspaper published her thoughts in a column, sparking renewed debate about selfies and exhibitionism on the net.

Age editor Andrew Holden said the column instantly generated a reaction from readers.