EDITORIAL FRIDAY 18.06.10.
A senior judge has called for a review of bail and sentencing laws because he believes that too many people are locked up in jail and too much money is spent on keeping them there. Justice Reg Blanch is the Chief Judge of the District Court, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions, so he has a wealth of experience and knowledge backing up his opinions. In a speech to Legal Aid lawyers at a conference he claimed that having record numbers of prisoners in jail didn’t necessarily make the state a safer place. He claimed that New South Wales has lost the balance between the need to protect the community and the cost of providing that protection.
More than 10 000 people are currently held in New South Wales prisons, and while it would be easy to dismiss that as an indication that law enforcement agencies are succeeding in the fight against crime, about one quarter of those prisoners have not yet been convicted of a crime. That’s an awful lot of people locked up waiting for justice, and in part is due to the introduction of presumption against bail provisions intended to reduce the risk of violent suspects reoffending while on bail. Justice Blanch maintains that while offences are sometimes committed on bail, “it cannot be said to be a common occurrence”.
Also bulking up the prison population numbers are standard non parole periods, mandatory disqualification for some driving offences, the definition of some sexual assaults, and a tendency to wards longer sentences across the board. Justice Blanch believes that all of these factors should be subject to a “calm review” to determine if the aim of protecting society can be achieved at a lesser cost. Of course, the financial cost is substantial, but the human cost is also enormous. Justice Blanch points out that longer sentences have resulted in former prisoners having “extreme difficulty” reintegrating into society, and that the cancellation of driver’s licences had led to the jailing of drivers who could not be considered dangerous.
Justice Blanch made a comparison with the State of Victoria, where prison budget is half that of New South Wales, and suggested that “there is no greater level of safety in New South Wales and that the level of crime is no less as a result of the increase in sentences”. In other words, locking up more people and throwing away the key, doesn’t necessarily mean that the community is a safer or a better place. While it is essential that the community is protected by an effective justice system, it is important to remember that the measure of success is not how many prisoners are locked up, but whether fewer crimes are committed.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Buck Stops At The Top
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 17.06.10.
Yesterday I suggested that the growing disconnect between Kevin Rudd and the Australian public was perhaps reflected by a similar disconnect between the Prime Minister and his own colleagues. In recent weeks it has increasingly appeared as if the Prime Minister and a substantial chunk of his own government have been at cross purposes. When senior Ministers have attempted to promote a more conciliatory approach to the mining industry, the Prime Minister has maintained his bluster about not backing down. Yesterday I mentioned Wayne Swan, Craig Emmerson, Martin Ferguson, and Simon Crean all, to one extent or another, having spoken in favour of a meaningful process of consultation, while the rhetoric of the Prime Minister himself seems to be firmly opposed to giving any ground whatsoever.
Today, it has been reported that the Trade Minister Simon Crean, a senior Cabinet Minister and a former leader of the party, has in effect asked his own bureaucrats to keep him informed of government policy because the Prime Minister has displayed a tendency to keep him in the dark. Last month, he addressed a gathering of executive officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and urged them to establish closer connections with their colleagues in other departments so that he could be kept better informed. It was reported that this request had been prompted by the embarrassment of learning of important policy decisions from the media rather than from his own Cabinet colleagues. “Little surprises”, such as the decision to put the emissions trading scheme onto the back burner, or the response to the Henry Review of taxation. It has been reported that Simon Crean has asked for no more such “little surprises”.
Amidst ongoing speculation about Kevin Rudd’s leadership, admittedly much of it driven by the media more than anything else, such an admission of the lack of communication and consultation between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers is hardly reassuring. And let’s face it, some of those Cabinet Ministers have a lot more experience in government than Mr. Rudd does, so at the very least it is unwise to ignore the benefit of their collective wisdom, not to mention just plain rude. The fact is that Simon Crean’s experience, his level headed approach to policy, and his well proven negotiating ability probably make him better qualified to be Prime Minister than anyone else in his party. Keeping him out of the loop can only result in the sort of policy screw ups that have destroyed the Prime Minister’s once unassailable popularity.
Mr. Rudd has long had the reputation for micro-managing, to the point of being considered a control freak. Such things are tolerated in politics as long as they are successful, but the downside is that when everything starts to crumble, as it is now, there is really only one person to blame. As Mr. Rudd was once so fond of saying, the buck stops with him.
Yesterday I suggested that the growing disconnect between Kevin Rudd and the Australian public was perhaps reflected by a similar disconnect between the Prime Minister and his own colleagues. In recent weeks it has increasingly appeared as if the Prime Minister and a substantial chunk of his own government have been at cross purposes. When senior Ministers have attempted to promote a more conciliatory approach to the mining industry, the Prime Minister has maintained his bluster about not backing down. Yesterday I mentioned Wayne Swan, Craig Emmerson, Martin Ferguson, and Simon Crean all, to one extent or another, having spoken in favour of a meaningful process of consultation, while the rhetoric of the Prime Minister himself seems to be firmly opposed to giving any ground whatsoever.
Today, it has been reported that the Trade Minister Simon Crean, a senior Cabinet Minister and a former leader of the party, has in effect asked his own bureaucrats to keep him informed of government policy because the Prime Minister has displayed a tendency to keep him in the dark. Last month, he addressed a gathering of executive officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and urged them to establish closer connections with their colleagues in other departments so that he could be kept better informed. It was reported that this request had been prompted by the embarrassment of learning of important policy decisions from the media rather than from his own Cabinet colleagues. “Little surprises”, such as the decision to put the emissions trading scheme onto the back burner, or the response to the Henry Review of taxation. It has been reported that Simon Crean has asked for no more such “little surprises”.
Amidst ongoing speculation about Kevin Rudd’s leadership, admittedly much of it driven by the media more than anything else, such an admission of the lack of communication and consultation between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers is hardly reassuring. And let’s face it, some of those Cabinet Ministers have a lot more experience in government than Mr. Rudd does, so at the very least it is unwise to ignore the benefit of their collective wisdom, not to mention just plain rude. The fact is that Simon Crean’s experience, his level headed approach to policy, and his well proven negotiating ability probably make him better qualified to be Prime Minister than anyone else in his party. Keeping him out of the loop can only result in the sort of policy screw ups that have destroyed the Prime Minister’s once unassailable popularity.
Mr. Rudd has long had the reputation for micro-managing, to the point of being considered a control freak. Such things are tolerated in politics as long as they are successful, but the downside is that when everything starts to crumble, as it is now, there is really only one person to blame. As Mr. Rudd was once so fond of saying, the buck stops with him.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Mixed Messages Damaging The Government
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 16.06.10.
Is it just me or is the Federal Government sending out mixed signals? It seems that every time that Craig Emerson or Wayne Swan says that a process of consultation and negotiation with the mining industry is underway, Kevin Rudd pops up somewhere declaring that he will not budge. When someone like Trade Minister Simon Crean says that perhaps it might have been better if there had been greater consultation before the announcement of the tax, Kevin Rudd comes forward demanding that the mining companies cough up their fair share. Every time someone like Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says that when it comes to the tax “one size doesn’t necessarily fit all”, Kevin Rudd rushes out to maintain that he his holding firm. It’s almost like a bad parody of “good cop, bad cop”, and it would be as funny as a Leslie Neilson movie if it wasn’t so serious.
I could be wrong, but this hint of a disconnect between Kevin Rudd and his own party would seem to be consistent with the much more obvious disconnect between the Prime Minister and the public. The plummeting opinion polls indicate clearly that people have taken a sudden dislike to Kevin Rudd, and the only real question is “why?” Many believe that this death-dive in the polls indicates that people no longer feel that they know what Mr. Rudd actually stands for. Having backed away from the “greatest moral challenge of our time” because it appeared to be no longer politically expedient, the Prime Minister has increasingly been seen as a politician who has the unique ability to start with what most people recognize as a good idea and turn it into a disaster. For examples, just consider the school halls, the roof insulation, and the latest blockbuster, a tax reform which is supposed to make people better off, but instead everybody is fearful will destroy the economy.
At the same time there has been increasing speculation that Kevin Rudd’s leadership might be in doubt, with reports of rumours of rumblings within the party regularly making the front pages, and equally regularly being denied by the heir apparent, Julia Gillard. The problem with repeated denials is that at some point people stop believing them and start asking if where there is smoke there might also be fire. Kevin Rudd’s leadership is getting closer to that point, but the catch for the Labor Party is that they might also be at the point where changing the leader wouldn’t make any difference anyway. John Howard crossed that point of no return about a year before he lost office. Prior to that, a leadership change might possibly have saved the coalition, and forever altered Peter Costello’s Curriculum Vitae. Similarly, I suspect that changing leaders now would not necessarily improve the government’s fortunes.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. But if it does, I’m not convinced that Julia Gillard would be the only contender. Watch this space.
Is it just me or is the Federal Government sending out mixed signals? It seems that every time that Craig Emerson or Wayne Swan says that a process of consultation and negotiation with the mining industry is underway, Kevin Rudd pops up somewhere declaring that he will not budge. When someone like Trade Minister Simon Crean says that perhaps it might have been better if there had been greater consultation before the announcement of the tax, Kevin Rudd comes forward demanding that the mining companies cough up their fair share. Every time someone like Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says that when it comes to the tax “one size doesn’t necessarily fit all”, Kevin Rudd rushes out to maintain that he his holding firm. It’s almost like a bad parody of “good cop, bad cop”, and it would be as funny as a Leslie Neilson movie if it wasn’t so serious.
I could be wrong, but this hint of a disconnect between Kevin Rudd and his own party would seem to be consistent with the much more obvious disconnect between the Prime Minister and the public. The plummeting opinion polls indicate clearly that people have taken a sudden dislike to Kevin Rudd, and the only real question is “why?” Many believe that this death-dive in the polls indicates that people no longer feel that they know what Mr. Rudd actually stands for. Having backed away from the “greatest moral challenge of our time” because it appeared to be no longer politically expedient, the Prime Minister has increasingly been seen as a politician who has the unique ability to start with what most people recognize as a good idea and turn it into a disaster. For examples, just consider the school halls, the roof insulation, and the latest blockbuster, a tax reform which is supposed to make people better off, but instead everybody is fearful will destroy the economy.
At the same time there has been increasing speculation that Kevin Rudd’s leadership might be in doubt, with reports of rumours of rumblings within the party regularly making the front pages, and equally regularly being denied by the heir apparent, Julia Gillard. The problem with repeated denials is that at some point people stop believing them and start asking if where there is smoke there might also be fire. Kevin Rudd’s leadership is getting closer to that point, but the catch for the Labor Party is that they might also be at the point where changing the leader wouldn’t make any difference anyway. John Howard crossed that point of no return about a year before he lost office. Prior to that, a leadership change might possibly have saved the coalition, and forever altered Peter Costello’s Curriculum Vitae. Similarly, I suspect that changing leaders now would not necessarily improve the government’s fortunes.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. But if it does, I’m not convinced that Julia Gillard would be the only contender. Watch this space.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sticks And Stones
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 15.06.10.
I once wrote that half the trouble in the world is caused by people who choose to give offense, and the other half is caused by those who choose to be offended. It’s a way of looking at things which can allow an individual to ignore the ignorant and unjustified insults of others by recognizing that it is the perpetrator and not the target who is diminished by such attacks. If, on the other hand we choose to take the bait and rise up in righteous indignation, we may run the risk of becoming the very thing we oppose. We risk becoming just as intolerant as those who revile us.
However, that doesn’t mean that we should always ignore the taunts and insults which might come our way. Sometimes, it becomes necessary to say “no” to ignorance and prejudice. When Andrew Johns referred to Greg Inglis as a “black so and so”, it could have been taken in the context in which it was no doubt intended. It could have been accepted as nothing more than boisterous talk among mates in private, as they built up a common purpose to defeat their opponents on the sports field. These were not public remarks, and were not intended to become public remarks.
The words might not have even been intended to be racist, but for at least one individual present, that’s how they were interpreted. Timana Tahu decided to stand up for what he believes in and he left the New South Wales State of Origin training camp, sparking a controversy which has opened old wounds and led to fresh allegations of ingrained racism in rugby league. Some have accused him of being precious and of causing trouble, while others have admired his decision and supported his actions. The truth is that it was a decision which must have taken courage, and which Timana Tahu had every right to make.
It is said that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never harm us, and that might sometimes be a useful comfort. Equally they say that actions speak louder than words, but the true power of words should never be ignored. It is words which make us who and what we are. It is words which define the way that we think, which in turn determines how we act. The power to speak is what separates us from the animal kingdom, and it is the power of words which creates the lives we lead. Words actually do have the power to change the world. That’s why it is important that we choose our words carefully.
And that’s why Timana Tahu’s decision to make a point and walk away will achieve more than if he had simply chosen not to be offended.
I once wrote that half the trouble in the world is caused by people who choose to give offense, and the other half is caused by those who choose to be offended. It’s a way of looking at things which can allow an individual to ignore the ignorant and unjustified insults of others by recognizing that it is the perpetrator and not the target who is diminished by such attacks. If, on the other hand we choose to take the bait and rise up in righteous indignation, we may run the risk of becoming the very thing we oppose. We risk becoming just as intolerant as those who revile us.
However, that doesn’t mean that we should always ignore the taunts and insults which might come our way. Sometimes, it becomes necessary to say “no” to ignorance and prejudice. When Andrew Johns referred to Greg Inglis as a “black so and so”, it could have been taken in the context in which it was no doubt intended. It could have been accepted as nothing more than boisterous talk among mates in private, as they built up a common purpose to defeat their opponents on the sports field. These were not public remarks, and were not intended to become public remarks.
The words might not have even been intended to be racist, but for at least one individual present, that’s how they were interpreted. Timana Tahu decided to stand up for what he believes in and he left the New South Wales State of Origin training camp, sparking a controversy which has opened old wounds and led to fresh allegations of ingrained racism in rugby league. Some have accused him of being precious and of causing trouble, while others have admired his decision and supported his actions. The truth is that it was a decision which must have taken courage, and which Timana Tahu had every right to make.
It is said that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never harm us, and that might sometimes be a useful comfort. Equally they say that actions speak louder than words, but the true power of words should never be ignored. It is words which make us who and what we are. It is words which define the way that we think, which in turn determines how we act. The power to speak is what separates us from the animal kingdom, and it is the power of words which creates the lives we lead. Words actually do have the power to change the world. That’s why it is important that we choose our words carefully.
And that’s why Timana Tahu’s decision to make a point and walk away will achieve more than if he had simply chosen not to be offended.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Figures Never Lie, But Bankers Might
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 11.06.10.
It really comes as no surprise that the latest Reserve Bank figures have revealed a dramatic increase in bank fees in the past twelve months. The total fees collected amount to $12.7 billion, which is an increase of 9%, well above inflation. The bulk of the increase can be attributed to fees levied on business customers, who are now paying $7.6 billion, the fact is that any increase in the cost of business eventually flows through to the customer in the end. That is, if the business concerned can actually survive the more difficult trading conditions. But even retail customers like you and I are still getting stung if we have a credit card or a mortgage.
The fees charged on home loans grew by 17%, while credit card charges rose by 8%, and personal lending fees went up by 14%. Home loans in particular represent a graphic illustration of everything that is wrong about allowing the banks to get away with charging extortionate fees. The fact is that we are captive to the banks and we have no choice but to use their so called services, and it is nothing short of exploitative for them to impose fees for what should really be overheads. Mortgages are the category where customers are the least mobile. It’s a big inconvenience to change from one mortgage to another, and certainly not something that anyone would want to do over and over again looking for a better deal. So it’s not really a coincidence that the fees on mortgages have gone up the most with an increase of 17%.
Although the rules are supposed to allow the banks to charge reasonable fee to cover reasonable costs of providing services, surely these so called services should rightly be considered overheads. But even if we accept the need for some fees, which I believe is arguable, the truth is that with the total increase of all fees amounting to 9%, it is abundantly clear that the banks are opportunistically exploiting customers who are captive to their so called services, over and above anything that could be considered reasonable. The bottom line proves it, with bank profits continuing to expand at a rate which would embarrass even the mining companies... well, maybe not quite that fast, but you see what I mean.
We all know the banks are taking us for a ride, and the proof is in the figures. As they say, figures never lie, although I suspect that bankers might on occasion be tempted to stretch the truth.
It really comes as no surprise that the latest Reserve Bank figures have revealed a dramatic increase in bank fees in the past twelve months. The total fees collected amount to $12.7 billion, which is an increase of 9%, well above inflation. The bulk of the increase can be attributed to fees levied on business customers, who are now paying $7.6 billion, the fact is that any increase in the cost of business eventually flows through to the customer in the end. That is, if the business concerned can actually survive the more difficult trading conditions. But even retail customers like you and I are still getting stung if we have a credit card or a mortgage.
The fees charged on home loans grew by 17%, while credit card charges rose by 8%, and personal lending fees went up by 14%. Home loans in particular represent a graphic illustration of everything that is wrong about allowing the banks to get away with charging extortionate fees. The fact is that we are captive to the banks and we have no choice but to use their so called services, and it is nothing short of exploitative for them to impose fees for what should really be overheads. Mortgages are the category where customers are the least mobile. It’s a big inconvenience to change from one mortgage to another, and certainly not something that anyone would want to do over and over again looking for a better deal. So it’s not really a coincidence that the fees on mortgages have gone up the most with an increase of 17%.
Although the rules are supposed to allow the banks to charge reasonable fee to cover reasonable costs of providing services, surely these so called services should rightly be considered overheads. But even if we accept the need for some fees, which I believe is arguable, the truth is that with the total increase of all fees amounting to 9%, it is abundantly clear that the banks are opportunistically exploiting customers who are captive to their so called services, over and above anything that could be considered reasonable. The bottom line proves it, with bank profits continuing to expand at a rate which would embarrass even the mining companies... well, maybe not quite that fast, but you see what I mean.
We all know the banks are taking us for a ride, and the proof is in the figures. As they say, figures never lie, although I suspect that bankers might on occasion be tempted to stretch the truth.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Mostly Harmless
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 09.06.10.
The New South Wales budget handed down yesterday afternoon by Treasurer Eric Roosendaal could perhaps be best described in the words of the late author Douglas Adams as “mostly harmless.” Previously made commitments have been met, without any spectacular Easter eggs, while returning the budget to surplus earlier than expected, largely through good fortune rather than good management. Increased revenue from the GST along with the proceeds from transactional taxes levied on the resurgent property market have taken the pressure off the Government just in time for the lead up to the election early next year.
The most dazzling piece of policy to emerge from the budget has been the decision to eliminate stamp duty temporarily on all purchases of property off the plan, and discount the duty for properties already in the process of construction. The aim is to provide a real incentive to encourage new construction, which will boost jobs and economic activity while also increasing overall property supply, and hopefully improving home affordability. It’s very much a “win-win-win” situation, and even the government could come out ahead if there is sufficient increased activity in the overall market to offset the concessions.
Coupled with the $20 000 cap on Section 94 developer contributions to councils, there is every chance these measures will have the desired effects of better and more affordable housing supply, while at the same time fostering further economic recovery. However, there is a catch. The councils who depend on Section 94 contributions are now sticking up their hands and demanding to know just how they can be expected to pay for community infrastructure and services when the rates they charge are pegged, and the developer levies are scaled back. And they have a point.
The recent decision to shift the responsibility for rate pegging to the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal was a step in the right direction, but sooner or later councils must be given the power to set their own rates, and be directly answerable to their constituents. Until that happens, the State government must continue to be held accountable for the infrastructure shortcomings that plague the state of New South Wales at every level. And infrastructure of every kind is the big gap in this budget.
Perhaps they know they won’t be around to worry about it after next March.
The New South Wales budget handed down yesterday afternoon by Treasurer Eric Roosendaal could perhaps be best described in the words of the late author Douglas Adams as “mostly harmless.” Previously made commitments have been met, without any spectacular Easter eggs, while returning the budget to surplus earlier than expected, largely through good fortune rather than good management. Increased revenue from the GST along with the proceeds from transactional taxes levied on the resurgent property market have taken the pressure off the Government just in time for the lead up to the election early next year.
The most dazzling piece of policy to emerge from the budget has been the decision to eliminate stamp duty temporarily on all purchases of property off the plan, and discount the duty for properties already in the process of construction. The aim is to provide a real incentive to encourage new construction, which will boost jobs and economic activity while also increasing overall property supply, and hopefully improving home affordability. It’s very much a “win-win-win” situation, and even the government could come out ahead if there is sufficient increased activity in the overall market to offset the concessions.
Coupled with the $20 000 cap on Section 94 developer contributions to councils, there is every chance these measures will have the desired effects of better and more affordable housing supply, while at the same time fostering further economic recovery. However, there is a catch. The councils who depend on Section 94 contributions are now sticking up their hands and demanding to know just how they can be expected to pay for community infrastructure and services when the rates they charge are pegged, and the developer levies are scaled back. And they have a point.
The recent decision to shift the responsibility for rate pegging to the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal was a step in the right direction, but sooner or later councils must be given the power to set their own rates, and be directly answerable to their constituents. Until that happens, the State government must continue to be held accountable for the infrastructure shortcomings that plague the state of New South Wales at every level. And infrastructure of every kind is the big gap in this budget.
Perhaps they know they won’t be around to worry about it after next March.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Political Revolving Door
Editorial Tuesday 08.06.10.
Nobody expects the New South Wales Government to win the election next March. The list of policy failures, backflips, and disasters is just too long to be ignored. Since the last election there have been three different Premiers, and each time there is a new Premier there is a new plan, with previous commitments torn up, often at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Even when there is a plan, such as the Garling recommendations for hospital reform, the government appears to be incapable of actually carrying it out.
But it’s not just the policy failures which have led to growing disillusionment with the government. It’s the long list of embarrassing scandals ranging from the couch jumping former Police Minister Matt Brown, right through to the abrupt resignation of the minister dubbed “Sir Lunchalot” Ian McDonald amidst investigations by both the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet into allegations of travel rorts. It’s hard not to get the idea that for some of our politicians the $77 lunch vouchers are more important than delivering services to the people who elected them.
Mr. McDonald has not only resigned from the Ministry, but as of yesterday has also resigned from the Parliament. It has been widely observed that in doing so he has preserved his superannuation entitlement, estimated to be around $150 000 a year, indexed, for the rest of his life. Had he stayed on until the end of his term in the upper house his entitlement would have been reduced as it would have been based on his finishing salary as a backbencher. There would also have been the risk of losing his entitlement altogether if he was found guilty of any corruption. Mr. McDonald maintains his innocence and insists he will fight any and all allegations, but that won’t stop people making their own interpretation of his decision to quit.
Following on from the departure of Karen Paluzzano in disgrace, and Graham West apparently in disgust with his own colleagues, the government is appearing more and more to be in disarray. People must surely be wondering who will be next to be caught up in controversy, and whether there will be any more untimely exits through the political revolving door. After all, numbers are beginning to dwindle. If the exodus continues at this alarming rate, perhaps there won’t be anybody from the current government actually left in office next March for the people of New South Wales to boot out.
Nobody expects the New South Wales Government to win the election next March. The list of policy failures, backflips, and disasters is just too long to be ignored. Since the last election there have been three different Premiers, and each time there is a new Premier there is a new plan, with previous commitments torn up, often at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Even when there is a plan, such as the Garling recommendations for hospital reform, the government appears to be incapable of actually carrying it out.
But it’s not just the policy failures which have led to growing disillusionment with the government. It’s the long list of embarrassing scandals ranging from the couch jumping former Police Minister Matt Brown, right through to the abrupt resignation of the minister dubbed “Sir Lunchalot” Ian McDonald amidst investigations by both the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet into allegations of travel rorts. It’s hard not to get the idea that for some of our politicians the $77 lunch vouchers are more important than delivering services to the people who elected them.
Mr. McDonald has not only resigned from the Ministry, but as of yesterday has also resigned from the Parliament. It has been widely observed that in doing so he has preserved his superannuation entitlement, estimated to be around $150 000 a year, indexed, for the rest of his life. Had he stayed on until the end of his term in the upper house his entitlement would have been reduced as it would have been based on his finishing salary as a backbencher. There would also have been the risk of losing his entitlement altogether if he was found guilty of any corruption. Mr. McDonald maintains his innocence and insists he will fight any and all allegations, but that won’t stop people making their own interpretation of his decision to quit.
Following on from the departure of Karen Paluzzano in disgrace, and Graham West apparently in disgust with his own colleagues, the government is appearing more and more to be in disarray. People must surely be wondering who will be next to be caught up in controversy, and whether there will be any more untimely exits through the political revolving door. After all, numbers are beginning to dwindle. If the exodus continues at this alarming rate, perhaps there won’t be anybody from the current government actually left in office next March for the people of New South Wales to boot out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
