It would be a reasonable assumption that since Federation a vast number of the politicians who we have elected to Federal parliament have had some sort of citizenship right with another country. At the time of Federation the majority of people who called themselves Australian had a heritage that was either from England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
For most of that time, we as Commonwealth citizens had automatic entry rights to the United Kingdom. It was only when Britain entered the Common Market that this changed. It is because of this witch hunt to identify dual citizens sitting in the Federal parliament that many citizens are surprised to find that by the birth of their parents they have an automatic rights to claim dual citizenship in another country.
The only problem with that is when our Constitution was drafted the legal minds inserted a clause that required our elected representatives to be free of any encumbrance or obligation to another country, and that is the cause of the unseating of elected representatives that is presently roiling our Federal parliament.
There is no suggestion that the people involved are other than loyal Australians and their election was perfectly valid - had they known that this citizenship anomaly existed and been revoked by their own actions. Some have since done so and may face a fresh by-election to regain a seat that their dual citizenship declared vacant.
No doubt all future politicians will carefully examine this issue before contesting a seat but perhaps we would be wiser to simply change the Constitution to remove this anomaly. Unfortunately, this would need a referendum that would cost millions of dollars.
Concern about the way foreign influence is being used to shape policy in this country has the government looking at law reform. Representatives of other countries are required to register as lobbyists and there are limits on donations to political parties but measures being considered will take this a lot further. The government will seek to introduce a new category of " Political Campaigner " into the Electoral Act. That may be slapped on any person or organization that may be acting undercover in using funds to influence policy decisions.
In particular, the government is looking to identify and contain shadowy contributors who are stoking fake news stories on social media such as Twitter and Facebook to create a point of view that suits the interests of a foreign government. There is concern that this may constrict the flow of foreign donations to legitimate Australian charities if donors are forced to comply with the same disclosures and reporting requirements as a political party.
Social media has undergone an amazing change in recent years and old laws are no longer relevant. It has become evident that sophisticated departments exist in some countries specifically concerned with influencing public opinion in target countries by manipulating the stories going to air on social media to change public thinking. This public thinking can affect the outcome of elections, resulting in outcomes that suit foreign governments.
Social media change will continue to be constant and the laws that control it will need to keep pace. The influence on public thinking is a form of cyber warfare carried out by potential enemies. We ignore it at or peril !
Thursday, 7 December 2017
Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Killing the Goose !
Australia is the preferred destination for young backpackers from many world countries who enjoy a summer holiday here and cover the cost by working in the agricultural industry and helping to harvest the crops. Most enter this country under either the 417 or the 462 working holiday visa scheme.
Our agricultural industry makes it quite clear that without this willing labour there would be a serious shortfall in both meeting overseas orders for Australian produce and supplying the fruit and vegetable shops in our cities. They mostly spend the money they earn and as a result this backpacker flow contributes an estimated $ 3.5 billion to the national economy.
When Tony Abbott was prime minister there was a proposal to disallow the usual minimum earnings before tax applies and tax backpackers from the very first dollar they earn. This tax rate was originally proposed to be at the draconian rate of thirty-two cents in the dollar. That produced concern from backpackers in other countries and despair from Australian agriculture that tax would see Australia drop off the backpacker circuit - and our harvest would rot on the trees.
As a result, this tax rate was cut back to fifteen cents in the dollar, but it is now applied without the concession of a minimum level of earnings escaping tax before the tax rate applies, as is the system with domestic Australian taxpayers.
Now foreign backpackers have launched legal action against this impost. It is claimed that the tax contravenes the anti discrimination clauses in treaties Australia has signed with Britain, the United States, Germany, Finland, Chili, Japan, Norway and Turkey. The legal action seeks " declaratory relief " for citizens of those countries. If successful, it would render them exempt from the tax.
Many people see this tax anomaly imposed on backpackers as a knee jerk reaction when our immigration levels were attracting political attention. Some suggested that backpackers were taking jobs that would be better served by our unemployed young people, completely ignoring the fact that our unemployed reject this type of work.
We actually have people drawing the dole in areas where fruit picking jobs are going begging, and despite demands that the unemployed journey to where work is available we seem to lack the will to make that happen. Strangely, it is young Australian backpackers that often bring in the crops in the northern hemisphere when they take working holidays to see the world.
This move to impose what is a confiscatory tax on backpackers which is completely out of kilter with the tax ordinary Australians pay is simply a bad idea. Unfortunately we are already into this summer season and it is possible that many backpackers will have crossed Australia off their itinerary. That would be a price Australian agriculture may pay with unpicked crops.
We would be unwise to wait for this challenge to meander through the courts. This seems to have overtones about killing a goose that lays golden eggs.
Our agricultural industry makes it quite clear that without this willing labour there would be a serious shortfall in both meeting overseas orders for Australian produce and supplying the fruit and vegetable shops in our cities. They mostly spend the money they earn and as a result this backpacker flow contributes an estimated $ 3.5 billion to the national economy.
When Tony Abbott was prime minister there was a proposal to disallow the usual minimum earnings before tax applies and tax backpackers from the very first dollar they earn. This tax rate was originally proposed to be at the draconian rate of thirty-two cents in the dollar. That produced concern from backpackers in other countries and despair from Australian agriculture that tax would see Australia drop off the backpacker circuit - and our harvest would rot on the trees.
As a result, this tax rate was cut back to fifteen cents in the dollar, but it is now applied without the concession of a minimum level of earnings escaping tax before the tax rate applies, as is the system with domestic Australian taxpayers.
Now foreign backpackers have launched legal action against this impost. It is claimed that the tax contravenes the anti discrimination clauses in treaties Australia has signed with Britain, the United States, Germany, Finland, Chili, Japan, Norway and Turkey. The legal action seeks " declaratory relief " for citizens of those countries. If successful, it would render them exempt from the tax.
Many people see this tax anomaly imposed on backpackers as a knee jerk reaction when our immigration levels were attracting political attention. Some suggested that backpackers were taking jobs that would be better served by our unemployed young people, completely ignoring the fact that our unemployed reject this type of work.
We actually have people drawing the dole in areas where fruit picking jobs are going begging, and despite demands that the unemployed journey to where work is available we seem to lack the will to make that happen. Strangely, it is young Australian backpackers that often bring in the crops in the northern hemisphere when they take working holidays to see the world.
This move to impose what is a confiscatory tax on backpackers which is completely out of kilter with the tax ordinary Australians pay is simply a bad idea. Unfortunately we are already into this summer season and it is possible that many backpackers will have crossed Australia off their itinerary. That would be a price Australian agriculture may pay with unpicked crops.
We would be unwise to wait for this challenge to meander through the courts. This seems to have overtones about killing a goose that lays golden eggs.
Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Tax Dodgers !
There is n doubt that the big four banks in Australia have acted badly in exploiting their combined banking monopoly to amass huge profits. Bad publicity more than law changes have ended the practice of issuing fifty dollar fines for paying credit card debts just a day late but this coming Royal Commission is going to be a battle between the government and a phalanx of the worlds best lawyers hired by the banks to protect their profits.
A lot of unpleasant things are going to get dragged - kicking and screaming - into the spotlight and there is an expectation that the findings may result in a more ethical standard of banking practice in this country. Even the banks seem to have recognised that some sort of enquiry was inevitable and ceased voicing opposition.
Waiting in the wings is another huge problem that is crippling the world economy. The ability of giant corporations to legally balance their books in such a way that they avoid paying tax on their profits. There are accusations that oil giant ExxonMobil has paid no Australian tax in the past two years on the $18 billion money flow that is associated with their control of our natural gas industry. This is the firm that runs the critical Esso Longford gas distribution plant that supplies both domestic and industrial gas to homes and industries on the east coast.
We are about to becoming the biggest gas exporter in the world, and yet there is a gas shortage for domestic use and the price has escalated to crippling levels - and we are not getting the just rewards for the very product coming out of the ground - that is jointly owned by the Australian population.
Unfortunately, this can not be resolved by a Royal Commission, nor is it just an Australian problem. These behemoths juggle intellectual rights and stock transfers between countries and into offshore tax havens in such a way that they meet the standards of accounting practice. Should a country like Australia clamp down and force them to pay tax they have the ability to walk away from financing new industries and neglecting maintenance on existing local operations to inflict punishment on the Australian economy.
They have the monetary power to bluff the world and they play one country off against another and this is not helped by the power blocks in open conflict that prevent a united front to install commercial practice to stop these shenanigans. It is not helpful that some countries actively assist the scams by deliberately lowering their tax regimens to attract these giants to locate to their country. They do this to gain from the jobs establishing regional headquarters will create, plus the nominal tax to be paid as part of the arrangement.
Sadly, if all the giant international companies paid the legitimate tax owed in normal accounting practice we would probably have balanced books and a very healthy economy. It would seem reasonable to expect world countries to band together and install a common tax regime that would result in tax paid where the money was earned, but world politics make that unlikely to ever happen
It seems that the four banks facing a Royal Commission are only pygmies in relation to the giants of the commercial world.
A lot of unpleasant things are going to get dragged - kicking and screaming - into the spotlight and there is an expectation that the findings may result in a more ethical standard of banking practice in this country. Even the banks seem to have recognised that some sort of enquiry was inevitable and ceased voicing opposition.
Waiting in the wings is another huge problem that is crippling the world economy. The ability of giant corporations to legally balance their books in such a way that they avoid paying tax on their profits. There are accusations that oil giant ExxonMobil has paid no Australian tax in the past two years on the $18 billion money flow that is associated with their control of our natural gas industry. This is the firm that runs the critical Esso Longford gas distribution plant that supplies both domestic and industrial gas to homes and industries on the east coast.
We are about to becoming the biggest gas exporter in the world, and yet there is a gas shortage for domestic use and the price has escalated to crippling levels - and we are not getting the just rewards for the very product coming out of the ground - that is jointly owned by the Australian population.
Unfortunately, this can not be resolved by a Royal Commission, nor is it just an Australian problem. These behemoths juggle intellectual rights and stock transfers between countries and into offshore tax havens in such a way that they meet the standards of accounting practice. Should a country like Australia clamp down and force them to pay tax they have the ability to walk away from financing new industries and neglecting maintenance on existing local operations to inflict punishment on the Australian economy.
They have the monetary power to bluff the world and they play one country off against another and this is not helped by the power blocks in open conflict that prevent a united front to install commercial practice to stop these shenanigans. It is not helpful that some countries actively assist the scams by deliberately lowering their tax regimens to attract these giants to locate to their country. They do this to gain from the jobs establishing regional headquarters will create, plus the nominal tax to be paid as part of the arrangement.
Sadly, if all the giant international companies paid the legitimate tax owed in normal accounting practice we would probably have balanced books and a very healthy economy. It would seem reasonable to expect world countries to band together and install a common tax regime that would result in tax paid where the money was earned, but world politics make that unlikely to ever happen
It seems that the four banks facing a Royal Commission are only pygmies in relation to the giants of the commercial world.
Monday, 4 December 2017
" Marriage " Consequences !
It seems that we are just days away from same sex marriage becoming legal in Australia and when it does we can expect the marriage industry to go into overdrive as couples who have waited for so long rush to tie the knot. This legislation will also deliver legal sanction to same sex marriages which were held in overseas countries that recognised gay unions, but these marriages were not legally recognised here in Australia.
The bill before the parliament erases the ban on recognition of same sex marriages solemnised overseas and will apply retrospectively. The Equality Campaign estimates that thousands of Australian couples have taken their vows in countries such as Britain, Canada and the Netherlands where same sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Almost a thousand Australian couples have taken advantage of New Zealand's decision to change its marriage law in 2013. Many simply flew across the ditch to solemnise their union.
It seems very likely that this law change in Australia will have some unintended consequences. Those same sex marriages recorded under an overseas jurisdiction had no legal recognition in Australia, so if they foundered and the couple parted there was no necessity to apply for a divorce. You could hardly apply to an Australian court for a divorce from a marriage which the law considers did not happen.
All that changes when our new law comes into force. There is every expectation that like " straight " marriage, many same sex couplings will end in acrimony and separation. Some who married overseas may have walked away from that union and even remarried. They could find that because of this law change they are now guilty of bigamy.
There is another change that some may not welcome. Because those overseas marriages will confer legal status on the couples involved, dissolving the union will now involve the dreaded Family Court - with its starchy protocols on the division of property. We seem to be entering a new realm where one of a same sex couple can expect an unequal division of wealth which applies to how "wives " are treated by the Family Court. And interesting conundrum when both are of the same sex.
At the very least, when this law change comes into force we seem certain to see some overseas marriages where the couple have parted - and the sudden imposition of legal status delivers a need for the union to be legally terminated. It will take time for the Family Court to adjust its thinking accordingly.
In the past, the Family Courts concern revolved around divorce and its impact on the family unit. This law changed will certainly deliver a re-evaluation of needs.
The bill before the parliament erases the ban on recognition of same sex marriages solemnised overseas and will apply retrospectively. The Equality Campaign estimates that thousands of Australian couples have taken their vows in countries such as Britain, Canada and the Netherlands where same sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Almost a thousand Australian couples have taken advantage of New Zealand's decision to change its marriage law in 2013. Many simply flew across the ditch to solemnise their union.
It seems very likely that this law change in Australia will have some unintended consequences. Those same sex marriages recorded under an overseas jurisdiction had no legal recognition in Australia, so if they foundered and the couple parted there was no necessity to apply for a divorce. You could hardly apply to an Australian court for a divorce from a marriage which the law considers did not happen.
All that changes when our new law comes into force. There is every expectation that like " straight " marriage, many same sex couplings will end in acrimony and separation. Some who married overseas may have walked away from that union and even remarried. They could find that because of this law change they are now guilty of bigamy.
There is another change that some may not welcome. Because those overseas marriages will confer legal status on the couples involved, dissolving the union will now involve the dreaded Family Court - with its starchy protocols on the division of property. We seem to be entering a new realm where one of a same sex couple can expect an unequal division of wealth which applies to how "wives " are treated by the Family Court. And interesting conundrum when both are of the same sex.
At the very least, when this law change comes into force we seem certain to see some overseas marriages where the couple have parted - and the sudden imposition of legal status delivers a need for the union to be legally terminated. It will take time for the Family Court to adjust its thinking accordingly.
In the past, the Family Courts concern revolved around divorce and its impact on the family unit. This law changed will certainly deliver a re-evaluation of needs.
Sunday, 3 December 2017
When the Cops come a'calling !
About two thousand Sydney people are about to get an unexpected text message on their mobile phones. It will be from the police and it will tell them that their phone number was detected on the phone records of drug dealers arrested in a recent police swoop. This will not be a threatening message and it will simply request that the phone's owner contact the police with any information that may be applicable.
That will create panic in many circles because the police have just arrested twenty-eight men and three women in a brazen drug bust that has seen cocaine availability replicate the pizza trade. Simply place your order by phone and a friendly courier will be on his or her way to make that delivery.
This was crime on a well organized basis and operation " Northrop " has been gaining information since September. It culminated in an arrest in the city that set off police raids on homes in Wolli Creek, Sydney, Penshurst, Concord, Paddington and Campsie. This ever widening net has the expectation of more seizures of both drugs and money.
The impetus was mainly on cocaine distribution, but the gang also supplied MDMA and the raids seized more than $ 120,000 in cash - and two fully loaded firearms were detected in the swoop. It seems that the drug supply is now so common that it is adopting commercial supply methods in defiance of the police.
There is now a police expectation that they know the identity of two thousand Sydney residents who have at one time bought drugs from this criminal gang. Finding their phone number on a drug criminal's phone is not a crime in itself, but there is a reasonable assumption that they may turn to a new supplier to feed their habit.
That is an incredibly valuable information source that police may use to their advantage. Anyone getting that message from the police would assume that there is a good chance that their phone may be monitored in the future. Many will discard that phone and seek a new network and a new number, but that in itself may be motivation for police undercover surveillance.
No doubt it will create suspicion in many families. If a family member has a hidden drug habit that police text message creates a dilemma. Ignore it and that might result in a uniformed officer making a house call to follow up - with embarrassing results.
In nothing else this drug bust illustrates that what are called " party drugs " are now so common that seeking a dealer in a grotty back street no longer satisfies demand. The profits are so rewarding that the drug trade is adopting commercial practice and buyer expectation involves home delivery. That sharply increases the risk of exposure.
That will create panic in many circles because the police have just arrested twenty-eight men and three women in a brazen drug bust that has seen cocaine availability replicate the pizza trade. Simply place your order by phone and a friendly courier will be on his or her way to make that delivery.
This was crime on a well organized basis and operation " Northrop " has been gaining information since September. It culminated in an arrest in the city that set off police raids on homes in Wolli Creek, Sydney, Penshurst, Concord, Paddington and Campsie. This ever widening net has the expectation of more seizures of both drugs and money.
The impetus was mainly on cocaine distribution, but the gang also supplied MDMA and the raids seized more than $ 120,000 in cash - and two fully loaded firearms were detected in the swoop. It seems that the drug supply is now so common that it is adopting commercial supply methods in defiance of the police.
There is now a police expectation that they know the identity of two thousand Sydney residents who have at one time bought drugs from this criminal gang. Finding their phone number on a drug criminal's phone is not a crime in itself, but there is a reasonable assumption that they may turn to a new supplier to feed their habit.
That is an incredibly valuable information source that police may use to their advantage. Anyone getting that message from the police would assume that there is a good chance that their phone may be monitored in the future. Many will discard that phone and seek a new network and a new number, but that in itself may be motivation for police undercover surveillance.
No doubt it will create suspicion in many families. If a family member has a hidden drug habit that police text message creates a dilemma. Ignore it and that might result in a uniformed officer making a house call to follow up - with embarrassing results.
In nothing else this drug bust illustrates that what are called " party drugs " are now so common that seeking a dealer in a grotty back street no longer satisfies demand. The profits are so rewarding that the drug trade is adopting commercial practice and buyer expectation involves home delivery. That sharply increases the risk of exposure.
Saturday, 2 December 2017
Sexual Complaint - as a Weapon !
Sexual predators who use their positions of power to coerce women to have sex with them are being unmasked as women find their voices. In many cases it is the captains of industry and people high in the media spotlight who are being named and shamed - and in most cases their employers drop them like a hot potato !
This is the unspoken hazard women have faced for generations and it manifests itself in all lifestyles. There have been whispers that those attending the police academy are under pressure for sex in exchange for better grades from their instructors and similar incentives are rife in our universities. Wherever a man is in a position to award a reward he has the opportunity of exchanging that benefit for a sexual favour.
That has simply been a fact of life since the early days of the industrial revolution. A woman who spoke out and complained was ostracised and disbelieved. Now the feminist movement is removing those shackles and many famous sexual predators are facing justice. All it now takes is for a woman to come forward and make a claim and this is immediately taken up by an enthusiastic media. If the person named is a serial transgressor, other women join the fray, eager to see justice served.
Unfortunately, it is also a medium for settling scores. It is indeed a powerful weapon in the hands of a woman who has other reasons for disliking a work colleague. Such a claim can end careers. The person accused may deny this claim and no proof may be forthcoming, but the damage is done and in the present mood the media will run with the story.
Just such a situation appears to have ensnared Geoffrey Rush. Rush is a serious actor who has won Academy Awards and regularly appears in productions by the prestigious Sydney Theatre Company.
Surprisingly, it is the Sydney Theatre Company which has chosen to release a statement implicating Rush in a claim lodged by a woman that he is a sexual transgressor.
Through his lawyers, Rush comments " It is a disappointment the STC has chosen to smear his name and unjustifiably damage his reputation in this way ". He has not been afforded the right to know what has been alleged. The release of that information to the public is both a denial of public justice and is not how our society operates.
The STC has made it plain that this was an allegation made to the STC and is not a conclusion of impropriety. It appears that the STC was approached by a journalist earlier this month and asked if it had received a complaint alleging inappropriate behaviour. The STC responded truthfully and the complainant had requested that the matter be dealt with confidentially and did not want Mr Rush notified or involved. The STC complied, acting in the interests of the complainant's health and welfare. The identity of the complainant has been withheld at the request of the individual.
This seems to be an intolerable situation where Geoffrey Rush has received maximum media attention and been branded as a sexual predator. It appears that he will not be told of the nature of his claimed assault nor the identity of the supposed victim. If that victim declines to press the matter further no other action will take place and the matter will rest in limbo, but Rush will suffer the implication if the public mind that he is a sexual deviant.
The feminist movement may demur, but justice demands that those making sexual complaints be publicly identified and prepared to defend their claim as it is publicly scrutinised. Otherwise, it is simply trial by innuendo which may have other sinister motives. It opens the door for character assassination without redress.
Trial by media will never achieve the tried and true dissemination of facts achieved by the presentation of evidence in a court of law. Such is the right of all accused !
This is the unspoken hazard women have faced for generations and it manifests itself in all lifestyles. There have been whispers that those attending the police academy are under pressure for sex in exchange for better grades from their instructors and similar incentives are rife in our universities. Wherever a man is in a position to award a reward he has the opportunity of exchanging that benefit for a sexual favour.
That has simply been a fact of life since the early days of the industrial revolution. A woman who spoke out and complained was ostracised and disbelieved. Now the feminist movement is removing those shackles and many famous sexual predators are facing justice. All it now takes is for a woman to come forward and make a claim and this is immediately taken up by an enthusiastic media. If the person named is a serial transgressor, other women join the fray, eager to see justice served.
Unfortunately, it is also a medium for settling scores. It is indeed a powerful weapon in the hands of a woman who has other reasons for disliking a work colleague. Such a claim can end careers. The person accused may deny this claim and no proof may be forthcoming, but the damage is done and in the present mood the media will run with the story.
Just such a situation appears to have ensnared Geoffrey Rush. Rush is a serious actor who has won Academy Awards and regularly appears in productions by the prestigious Sydney Theatre Company.
Surprisingly, it is the Sydney Theatre Company which has chosen to release a statement implicating Rush in a claim lodged by a woman that he is a sexual transgressor.
Through his lawyers, Rush comments " It is a disappointment the STC has chosen to smear his name and unjustifiably damage his reputation in this way ". He has not been afforded the right to know what has been alleged. The release of that information to the public is both a denial of public justice and is not how our society operates.
The STC has made it plain that this was an allegation made to the STC and is not a conclusion of impropriety. It appears that the STC was approached by a journalist earlier this month and asked if it had received a complaint alleging inappropriate behaviour. The STC responded truthfully and the complainant had requested that the matter be dealt with confidentially and did not want Mr Rush notified or involved. The STC complied, acting in the interests of the complainant's health and welfare. The identity of the complainant has been withheld at the request of the individual.
This seems to be an intolerable situation where Geoffrey Rush has received maximum media attention and been branded as a sexual predator. It appears that he will not be told of the nature of his claimed assault nor the identity of the supposed victim. If that victim declines to press the matter further no other action will take place and the matter will rest in limbo, but Rush will suffer the implication if the public mind that he is a sexual deviant.
The feminist movement may demur, but justice demands that those making sexual complaints be publicly identified and prepared to defend their claim as it is publicly scrutinised. Otherwise, it is simply trial by innuendo which may have other sinister motives. It opens the door for character assassination without redress.
Trial by media will never achieve the tried and true dissemination of facts achieved by the presentation of evidence in a court of law. Such is the right of all accused !
Friday, 1 December 2017
Treachery !
China has laid claim to most of the South China Sea as an integral part of its sovereign territory. It has enhanced that claim by developing a number of submerged rocks and tiny island outcroppings by dredging sand to expand the above water area. These are now so substantial that they can house airfields and other defence facilities.
China has claimed the air space above the South China Sea and demands that civilian air traffic adhere to Chinese air traffic control when using this area. It has placed no restrictions on movement, but the rest of the world has ignored this claim.
No attempt has been made to interfere with commercial shipping, but when naval ships of other nations use this international waterway they are warned that they are infringing Chinese territory and there is an implied threat to their safety.
This ownership issue was settled when the Chinese claim was rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. China has ignored that decision and is fast building a blue water navy that may at some future time attempt to enforce Chinese sovereignty by placing restrictions on who may use this international waterway.
Having failed to achieve legal recognition, China is playing the " might is right " option. It is in possession of the South China Sea and is harassing the fishing boats of other nations who traditionally fish its waters. This is becoming one of the world trouble spots that could easily dissolve into military conflict.
The Australian government backs the stance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that the South China Sea is an international waterway with right of passage open to all countries. It now appears that Labor Senator Sam Dastyari disagrees with the policy of both the government and his own political party and has seen fit to publicly endorse this Chinese claim at a press conferenced, which saw him dropped from a position on the opposition front bench. There was also an issue where a leading Chinese businessman had paid Dastyari's personal bills which compromised his integrity.
Dastyari has long dodged coming clean on that press conference speech in which he claimed that Australia should not become involved in the South China Sea claim. He claimed to have been misquoted and taken out of context, but now a recording of that speech has surfaced to haunt him.
Even more damaging is a claim that he warned that leading Chinese businessman that his phone was likely to be tapped by Australian security and that he should not speak near his phone, either near the instrument or anywhere within his home. He took the Chinese businessman into the garden to deliver that message.
As an elected member of the Senate Dastyari is expected to be loyal to Australia. The fact that he has attempted to compromise the Australian Security service by giving a warning which may have come to his knowledge because of his position in the Senate is completely untenable. He should be disendorsed by his party at the next election.
The Prime Ministers question of " Which side are you on " was very valid !
China has claimed the air space above the South China Sea and demands that civilian air traffic adhere to Chinese air traffic control when using this area. It has placed no restrictions on movement, but the rest of the world has ignored this claim.
No attempt has been made to interfere with commercial shipping, but when naval ships of other nations use this international waterway they are warned that they are infringing Chinese territory and there is an implied threat to their safety.
This ownership issue was settled when the Chinese claim was rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. China has ignored that decision and is fast building a blue water navy that may at some future time attempt to enforce Chinese sovereignty by placing restrictions on who may use this international waterway.
Having failed to achieve legal recognition, China is playing the " might is right " option. It is in possession of the South China Sea and is harassing the fishing boats of other nations who traditionally fish its waters. This is becoming one of the world trouble spots that could easily dissolve into military conflict.
The Australian government backs the stance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that the South China Sea is an international waterway with right of passage open to all countries. It now appears that Labor Senator Sam Dastyari disagrees with the policy of both the government and his own political party and has seen fit to publicly endorse this Chinese claim at a press conferenced, which saw him dropped from a position on the opposition front bench. There was also an issue where a leading Chinese businessman had paid Dastyari's personal bills which compromised his integrity.
Dastyari has long dodged coming clean on that press conference speech in which he claimed that Australia should not become involved in the South China Sea claim. He claimed to have been misquoted and taken out of context, but now a recording of that speech has surfaced to haunt him.
Even more damaging is a claim that he warned that leading Chinese businessman that his phone was likely to be tapped by Australian security and that he should not speak near his phone, either near the instrument or anywhere within his home. He took the Chinese businessman into the garden to deliver that message.
As an elected member of the Senate Dastyari is expected to be loyal to Australia. The fact that he has attempted to compromise the Australian Security service by giving a warning which may have come to his knowledge because of his position in the Senate is completely untenable. He should be disendorsed by his party at the next election.
The Prime Ministers question of " Which side are you on " was very valid !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)