It’s Common Wealth of Australia

So Liberal Party dominated State governments (with an assist from mining companies) are planning to challenge to the legality of the Gillard government’s carbon and mining taxes in the High Court.


Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-expect-the-court-to-undo-carbon-and-mining-taxes-20120326-1vum7.html#ixzz1qFzPw4UD

As Chris Bowen (Immigration Minister) recently found out, there the are often a few surprises handed out with court rulings.

In the Social Sciences, we have what is known as the Law of Unintended consequences,  a perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended.

State politicians and at least one mining billionaire have suggested that the requirement of Section 114 of the constitution is that the Commonwealth not “impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a state”

The assumption here is that the mineral resources are state government property and these resources are indeed owned by the crown. There is only one Australian crown and that is vested in the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Government). So it is possible that there is no such thing as State government ownership of these minerals.  The High Court could determine that these mineral resources are the property of ALL Australians (common wealth) and this may mean State governments have no right to claim royalty payments.

So if State Government’s insist on their “pound of flesh” they may end up with nothing.

Gotta love the Law of Unintended consequences, so c’mmon Liberal State Government’s hava go.

81 comments on “It’s Common Wealth of Australia

  1. ‘Australian Constitution – Section 114 – States may not raise forces – Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State

    ‘A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.’

    Electricity power generation, if they are owned by the state, may offer grounds but I suspect they have all been privatised.

  2. Wow

    a high cour challenge on the MRRT could be like a game of dare with a double edged sword. Particularly with these 2 options

    The states join Twiggy and challenge and lose the right to royalties
    Twiggy and states also get advice and decide not to challenge, the other consequence, the federal government has just increased its power over the states.

    So in a way Twiggy has got a result, he must challenge with the states or the States and Miners have lost in regards to bargaining with the Government.

  3. If a challenge was made would the High Court determine that minerals in WA are the property of WA or the property of the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia.

    Minerals were not built or created by a State. They just happened, by a stroke of luck to be located within the man made boundaries of a state within the Commonwealth of Australia.

    In my opinion minerals, no matter where they are located should be property of the Commonwealth of Australia not the sole ownership and benefit of one state, to the detriment of another.

  4. Lunalava, George Williams opinion is certainly worth noting being the Anthony Mason Professor at Law.

    This is a risky line of attack for the states. It presumes that coal and iron ore are state property. Such minerals are indeed owned by the Crown, but the concept of the Crown is divided between the Commonwealth and the states. The High Court might find that the minerals are in fact owned partly by the Commonwealth.

    Therefore it will get back to the concept of The Crown which, depending on differing circumstances can mean either the Commonwealth or the States, or both.

    However, traditionally the Crown is seen as the unifying force between the States and Territories. The Crown is of course Queen Elizabeth II, represented by the Governor General who in turn is the non-political representative of the Australian people. I would therefore expect that the High Court would decide on the traditional role of the Crown and rule that minerals belong to the Crown in the traditional sense, and that as a consequence belong to the Australian people rather to than individual States.

  5. Frankly, I reckon the Libs are overplaying their hand…and the connection to these mega-rich miners is not good.

    Now QLDers have vented their spleen…and many frustrated voters got their mocking and venom out in recent days (that Q&A was a bloody disgrace)…

    the other issues become more prominent in their minds…like why does Tony Abbott suck up to these super rich miners?…

    what role does Barnaby Joyce play in all of this mining baron canoodling? (what a disrespectful and aggressive approach he took on Lateline last night)…

    Certainly the states have every right to fight this in the courts…

    but their connection to certain mining barons has a bad stench about it.

    This is sinking into the public mind.

    N’

  6. A problem with the mega miners is that they have run with the theme for years about how mines = employment, when the truth is that the mining industry employs very few people and those who do manage to get jobs on the mines are highly skilled and experienced.

    However, you then have people such as Tony Abbott saying that the unemployed should be prepared to move interstate to “work on the mines”.

    That’s the trick that the miners play, we = jobs when the truth is we = mega profits.

  7. The Mining Industry should be nationalised. Australia’s natural resources belong to all Australians, not to a greedy minority nor to Federal or State governments for their wasteful purposes.

  8. A poll was conducted asking Australians what percentage of the workforce they thought was employed by the mining industry. The consensus was 16%. the actual percentage is less than 2% at a paltry 1.9%. So 1.9% of the workforce which is booming is causing devastation in 98% of the workforce.

    A poll was conducted asking Australians what percentage they thought of our mining companies was owned by australians via shares. The concensus was around 50%. the actual fact is 17%. So 83% is owned by overseas investors.

    The mining industry has certainly conned and duped the population.

  9. Lunalave, if the law of unintended consequences gives LNP dominated state governments and High Court rulings in favour of mining conglomerates, imagine the impact on top of all that the return of a Coalition government with Tony Abbott, PM, and Barnaby Joyce his deputy? Ad Astra over at TPS mentioned ‘Barmy Barnaby’s’ appearance on Lateline last night. I found that oddly inspiring!

    Barnaby barmy! Come on, that’s not fair!

    Barnaby barmy? That’s unfair!
    To suggest that he’s not quite all there!
    Barnaby is not irrational.
    He is the very best of Nationals.

    The Coalition resurrection
    Owes so much to his selection
    To lead his party in the Senate
    And explain their every tenet.

    The media love our Barnaby
    Cos he’s the man who’s gunnabe
    Deputy PM soon for sure.
    What reporter could ask for more?

    One day there could be a story –
    By-lines, journalistic glory,
    Headlines and acclamation
    When Barnaby stands in to lead our nation!

  10. “Palmer has left constitutional experts scratching their heads. It is not clear whether he has a genuine argument that the carbon tax is invalid or whether his statement should be given the same weight as his charge that the Greens are guilty of treason because they are being funded by the CIA to destroy Australia’s coal industry.

    In contrast, the likely basis of attack on the minerals resource rent tax by the West Australian mining billionaire Andrew Forrest is well known. It has been suggested this tax breaches the requirement in section 114 of the constitution that the Commonwealth not ”impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a state”.

    It is hard to see how this argument can succeed. The mining tax is not, in any direct sense, a tax on state property. Instead, it is calculated as a percentage of the profits made by large mining companies from the extraction of coal and iron ore. This is consistent with an earlier High Court decision that found section 114 was not infringed by a tax on income produced by state property.

    It has also been suggested the mining tax is invalid because it breaches the requirement in section 51(2) of the constitution that federal taxes not ”discriminate between states or parts of states”. This protection is complemented by section 99, which says the Commonwealth must not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give ”preference” to one state over another.

    The mining tax would certainly fall foul of these provisions if it imposed a higher rate of tax in one state than in another. But it does not. The tax is the same throughout Australia in being set at an effective rate of 22.5 per cent.

    Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/tax-challengers-take-a-swing-but-legislation-is-unlikely-to-buckle-20120326-1vulz.html#ixzz1qH4vcrDF

  11. Interesting is that Palmer is yet to specify under which section of the Constitution he is likely to mount a High Court challenge. I thought I heard a couple of sections mentioned a couple of weeks ago, but could find nothing in print.

    It was therefore of interest to see George Williams’ opinion that s51(2) is highly unlikely which means we’re left with s114.

    s114 reads:

    A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

    Therefore it will hinge on whether the High Court will consider that minerals belong to the states or to the nation.

  12. can I ask a question… why is it, that no one accepts (except perhaps Jarl) that whether we call it Crown land or not… the Government is merely the caretaker for all of us… the actual owners of the land and by saying all I certainly assume the indigenous landowners and those of us who pay the taxes that are supposed to maintain our lands. It’s like councils vs. private purchases… when we order a new item e.g. garage, we get quoted $5,000…. when a council orders a garage its now $50,000, a council is merely the caretaker of our suburbs and cities and the money, land holdings etc are that of the rate payer, tax payer etc so why do Govts, et al get ripped off …therefore we get ripped off… and we lose assets and land and minerals all in the name of government when in fact they are the caretakers on our behalf. I for one say leave it alone, or pay for the privilege of mining my land… and if you take my government to court you are in essence taking us all…. so Buggar off, pay the mining tax and the carbon tax because I’m an owner and I want you to take better care of my land when you rape and pillage it…thank you

  13. This, from ABC News, was emailed to me. I don’t have a link:

    Australian mines continue to rank as the world’s top investments in terms of political risk, despite the looming introduction of the mining tax.
    In its annual political risk assessment of the mining industry, global resources consulting firm Behre Dolbear placed Australia at the top of its 25-nation ranking, ahead of Canada, the US and Brazil.
    Behre Dolbear chief executive Karr McCurdy says Australia has topped the list for several years.
    Any investor concerns about the mining tax are mitigated by the quality of Australia’s resources and the ease and transparency of approvals, Mr McCurdy says.
    “There’s no place better than Australia to put your investment dollars at work with respect to the underlying political, if you will, risk,” he said.
    And while Australia has led the way with the passage of the mining tax, Mr McCurdy says many other countries are considering similar taxes.
    “I don’t think you are going to see the sector shut down as a result,” he said.
    The survey examines how nations’ political policies and business conditions promote investment growth in the mining sector.
    It does not consider economic returns or other investment factors as part of its assessment.

  14. Well, bugger me!! Thanks for this post, lunalava.

    I guess it will come down to whether the resources beneath the ground belong to individual states or is the property of us all. Common sense would say the resources are the property of the nation, not parts of the nation.

    Jarl, there is merit to your suggestion, but can you imagine the squealing?

    Nas’, I think you could be right wrt overplaying if their hands as there is the danger that now people will discover more about the mining boom than the mine owners and their lackeys in the Liars Party would like.

    patricia, love the pome!

    shane, hopefully it will be harder to conceal how few jobs the mining industry actually provides and how much influence they exert over the LIars Party both at a state and federal level. And how little of the profits actually remain in this country.

    These resources are finite and people have to wake up to the fact that we have to get as much out of them as we can while they last. I’m certain that the miners won’t shed a tear if we’ve handed our inheritance to them for a pittance.

    If people finally wake from the hypnotic spell cast by the Unholy Triumvirate and their acolytes in the Liars Party and realise how badly they’ve been conned by this mob, their revenge at the ballot box could be more terrible than Sneerleader and his scaly mates bargained for.

    It could make Queensland look like a garden party. I bloody hope so. I reckon it could also cause a bit of damage to the Emperor, with any luck.

    Min, I thought Palmer had hand balled the High Court challenge to Twiggy. Has his elevation to Premier of Queensland emboldened him?

    Bring it on and may the best woman win. 😆

    I won’t be around for a few days as I’m orf to the National Gallery to look at the Renaissance exhibition and spend a couple of days with the daughter and son #1 and his fiance.

    I’ll be agog to read developments.

  15. Jane, apparently he’s going for both of them. From Lunalava’s link..

    The attack on the carbon tax is led by the Queensland mining magnate Clive Palmer. He revealed on ABC’s 7:30 that he had received legal advice that ”the carbon tax in its current form is unconstitutional”, but refused to set out why.

    Palmer has left constitutional experts scratching their heads.

    That is, there are some grounds against the mining tax, but as per the link nobody has much of a clue about his grounds on the carbon tax.

  16. Good luck to Palmer and co as they show at every step that they really don’t care about the future of Australia and only care about having unrestricted license to extract the resources and sell them off to the highest international bidder.

  17. el gordo, it is not based on what they States think they own.

    It is based on the super profits of the miners.

    I do not believe the States own the miners, even though the miners might think they own the State governments.

    It does not say the States own the minerals I believe. It says the Crown does.

    The States believe that State crowns were not distinguish at Federation.

    That belief has not been questioned or challenged up till now.

    It could lead to a massive change with Federal and State relationships.

    It might not be one Pandora’s Box the States want open if they give the matter some thought.

    I do not see that the Federal government has much to lose, if legal action does occur.

  18. What will be the future of State Governors, is it is found that the States have no crown.

    If it is found that States do have crowns, will they be the same as Commonwealth rules and regulations that takes precedent over the States.

  19. State rights have been gradually eroded since WWW11, when they handed over their powers to raised money by personal taxation.

    Will this be the final score, as far as the States are concerned.

    The Federal government appears to have much success in the High Court, regardless of the migration challenge. Even that was more on technically that can be easily got around. It was not challenging the powers of the relationship between the States and Federal government.

    I, for one hope they go ahead with the challenge. Many of these questions need answering.

    I also believe the country will not be the same at the end of the exercise.

  20. Min, I would like to point out, we are only talking about three mining identities, that do not appear to have the support of the mining industry in general. We are talking about three who refuse to negotiate with PM Gillard.

    They are not the total mining industry in this country.

    I heard Mr. Palmer say he was not a miner, that he only invested in mining companies.

    Ms. Rhinehart definitely is a miner, but I feel she only represent herself and has little interest in the entitlements of others.

    Mr. Forrester sets out to paint the picture of being an benefactor, but I believe he sees himself as the most neediest.

    There has nothing he has done, that does not serve his own interest first.

    I am more interested in what the MSM seems to be ignoring these people.

  21. Signe @12.45pm, I agree and I think Jarl also has a good point. It would certainly spook the horses!

    Nas’ @1.36pm, that would be ideal.

    Alex @1.57pm too true. And it seems Chris Townley is one of those who fits the “don’t care” mould.

    CU @2.09pm, exactly. The tax is not on the minerals themselves, but on the super profits, which perhaps has been overlooked by Porkie Pie Palmer and the other members of the Unholy Triumvirate.

    It’s also interesting to note that so far, other mining companies have not bought into this. I suppose they’re standing on the sidelines watching developments and letting the Unholy Triumvirate do the heavy financial and legal lifting.

    It’s no surprise that the msm is studiously ignoring the actions of the Unholy Triumvirate, though.

  22. “Can I offer you a tissue?”

    Chris, why?

    One would believe we think the world has come to and end.

    I believe as they say, the news of our death is greatly exaggerated.

    Labor has been written off many times, but it is still the same party that has been around from long before Federation.

    It will as in the past, pick itself up, dust itself off and get on with planning for the future.

    This is unlike the Liberals that have gone back to the days of 1950’s to seek answers. Not one new idea or policy for today’s world.

    The answers will not be found in the past. Clever people know this.

  23. CU it often interests me, how the right considers itself all mighty, however it is neither the Party of builders nor the saviours of anything, they generally, from our history, sit on their hands other than to wield an axe, do little other than ride the coat tails of the previous Labor govt and bank the taxes. The do not build a future, they blame everyone but themselves and quite frankly cut jobs until there are no jobs left to cut, which saves them money but guarantees plenty of infrastructure backlog, less community ownership and lots more poor people….no claim to fame in any of that in my opinion. Then, when all else fails they drag our young off to a war somewhere we aren’t’ wanted and are rarely needed.

    For me the Greens have a future vision and even in QLD, Labor will make a comeback, but the reality is they were there too long and people forgot what life was like under JBP, it strikes me it won’t take Mr Newman long to remind them.

  24. I’ve listened to Tony Abbott’s rants on a number of occasions about how he will donate the mining tax back to the miners. I can’t say that I’ve heard him explain why the mining tax is bad for the country. What’s wrong with all Australians having a fair share in our own resources.

  25. I imagine they are after their pound of fresh. I wonder who is leading the field.

    QUEENSLAND’s resources industry is lining up to meet the new Campbell Newman-led government to clarify the LNP’s policies and assess what Queensland’s electoral earthquake means for the industry’s expansion and controversial issues like coal-seam gas.

    While the heads of industry contacted by The Australian yesterday broadly welcomed the change in government, there has been some disquiet over the lack of clarity about the LNP’s policies towards the booming sector.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/lnps-policies-concern-queensland-miners/story-e6frg9df-1226310720972

  26. One thing’s for sure. If the state challenge is successful you can bet the Pilbara Secessionist Movement will be off & running by the end of the day. There’s been plenty of local secessionist movements in our history & Perth ‘aint much closer to the Northwest than is Canberra. Gina & Twiggy wouldn’t need to reside in their new fiefdom of course, as the lawmakers they’d see to that.

  27. Signe

    Wasn’t Joh’s policy plan determined by the size of the brown paper bag delivered late each day.

  28. Perhaps the mining states should cecede (is that the right word?). Then they can lose all the support from the Commonwealth. They could establish their own postal services, armed forces, raise their own taxes.

    Good luck.

  29. Migs, don’t say it..remember when Howard mooted that he would sell Australia Post. That one could be right back on the agenda with Tony Abbott.

  30. Bob, would a state success change much. Things would be as they are now.

    New legislation would be crafted and the Federal; government would go on as usual.

    If the States lost, that is a new ball game altogether. I wonder if they are willing to take the risk.

  31. Maybe twiggy really is sticking up for the small miners, as has been his claim about his oppostion to the mrrt.

    when the states lose royalties the small miners will not pay any taxes to the state

    the miners should run an advertising campaign is support of twiggy and his opposition to royalties.

  32. For me the Greens have a future vision and even in QLD, Labor will make a comeback, but the reality is they were there too long and people forgot what life was like under JBP, it strikes me it won’t take Mr Newman long to remind them.

    Well put, Signe. Premier Palmer will soon remind them about JBP, Borbidge etc

    AntonyG @4.53pm, Sneerleader’s following the “never explain” even if they ask, school of spin. And luckily for him, they’ve got no intention of asking. And what’s wrong with all Australians getting a piece of the pie? It just doesn’t figure in Liars Party policy. Can’t have those plebs getting their hands on

    Bob, they’re cock-a-hoop now, but when they’ve been raped and pillaged and there’s nothing left but a gaping hole, what’s the bet there will be shrill demands for the rest of the country to get out the chequebook.

    Sue, I’ve predicted that sales of brown paper bags will go through the roof. 😆

  33. Maybe twiggy really is sticking up for the small miners, as has been his claim about his oppostion to the mrrt.

    Maybe it is the small miners that would like to be free of royalties, that have to be paid whether one makes a profit or not.

    It was the mining industry that wanted to move away from royalties.

  34. CU, if that’s the case , why aren’t the miners challenging state legislation rather than federal?

  35. Sorry, lunalava, not the ideal place for that pome. The States and their constitutional challenge is the all important thread of this post. I thought the brief discussion on the elimination of the states altogether was interesting on Q&A this week. There was unanimous agreement that whatever political persuasion of their governments all states would oppose that.

    I think the idea of Barnaby as potential Deputy Prime Minister needs a bit more exploration which Ad Astra’s latest post on Tony Abbott at the Political Sword has done. There’s also discussion there of last night’s Lateline interview.

    I’ve gathered all the links to these in my notes at

    http://polliepomes.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/barnaby-barmy-surely-thats-not-fair/

  36. Okay, lunalava! Just a few minutes ago after reading your post but wanting not to think about those horrible miners and the Coalition, I started to just think about the States alone. Here’s what happened.

    There’s Queensland…..New South Wales…..

    (Listen! It’s poetry!)

    Then South Australia…..

    The Northern Territory…..

    Victoria……Tasmania…..

    Last, not least…..the A.C.T.

  37. patriciawa

    barny barnaby is the friend of clive and a family counsellor to gina

    i do enjoy your pomes

  38. On State cession from the Commonwealth, would need one of Anthony Greens informative articles before I could make a meaningful comment.

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/

    He is my go to guy for constitutional stuff, however I can appreciate the irony that at the time of Federation and the question of would WA join or not, it was a very close call.

    I have read that it was the miners who traveled from the Eastern States (to the WA gold rush) that swung the vote in favor of WA joining.

    On a totally unrelated point, NZ decided against joining because Australians were descended from “convict stock” whereas New Zealanders (the white ones anyway) thought of themselves as yeoman stock.

    Would the last one to leave NZ and migrate to Bondi Beach please turn the lights out.

  39. lunalava

    aren’t those miners troublesome they just don’t know whether they want in or out of the commonwealth

  40. jane, that is the mystery. What changed their mind. Maybe they are , just lying low.

    Maybe they did not intend the Federal; Government to put the tax in place.

    I believe royalties. are not efficient or the preferred method.

  41. Luna, that is indeed the history of WA..around the time that the gold started to peter out, then it was discovered in WA. Therefore many failed miners from Victoria travelled to WA. As a family historian of over a decade..if a family member went missing especially on the Victorian BD&Ms and they were from the Bendigo/Ballarat/Dunolly/Rushworth areas, the first place to check was WA.

  42. horrible miners ??????????????????????????????

    Why are miners horrible? I assume you mean Clivey, Gina and Twiggy?

    Miners are generally, highly skilled, hard working folk, from the CEO to the people that clean the FIFO rooms … and the spouses who stay at home or live in the middle of nowhere … just so the family can get ahead …

    I know ’cause I worked with them … here and overseas …

    Just sayin’ ..?

    And … I reckon the MRRT is at risk in a HC challenge … (unfortunately) …

  43. This guy seems to doubt that such a challenge is likely to succeed…

    George Williams is the Anthony Mason professor of law at the University of New South Wales.

  44. TB, as has been mooted here that High Court challenge is risky business. The only senior legal opinion we have on that one currently comes from George Williams AO who is the Anthony Mason Professor at Law at the UNSW. That title is one of considerable distinction in legal circles as indicating considerable proficiency in Constitutional Law.

    Being a cagey lawyer, George isn’t overly specific..but that’s the law for you..the ifs, the buts and the maybes. However he does state:

    It would be very surprising to see either (the mining or the carbon tax) struck down by the High Court.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-expect-the-court-to-undo-carbon-and-mining-taxes-20120326-1vum7.html#ixzz1qJ8BltlJ

  45. TB, I believe we are only talking about three.

    I think I pointed that out earlier.

    The rest have been very quiet.

    Min, there have been a couple of others with similar beliefs.

    Twomey for one.

    I do not believe there will be a challenge. It is all talk.

  46. CU

    If it is all talk and the premiers saying if you do, we will as well. Has that in itself weakened the barons and premiers supposed power over the commonwealth government?

  47. Cu, if you come across any links for those, I would love to read them..my major studies being Constitutional law, and criminal law.

    Step 1 is for the case to accepted, the High Court does not waste it’s time on frivolous cases. If we hear no more of this, then I would expect that either the lawyers have said that it’s a waste of time or that that High Court believes that the case is weak in the extreme. I should imagine that the lawyers would be either 1. doing zilch or 2. working over time pouring over Case Studies.

  48. Min, they were on news shows last week. Cannot remember but will have a look. Would be the ABC I think.

  49. Yes, Min that has been pointed out as the first hurdle.

    The second is that it is unclear whether the miners have the the right to make application.

    No state is saying they will. They are only saying they will join an action.

    I believe our new Premier as a friend of both Abbott and Palmer just might be green enough to do so.

  50. A nice bloke indeed.

    Ms, Bligh’s husband is to be kept on to close all the programmes down,

    Be interesting if he stays or walks out.

    How can a premier appoint all these people without any other input.

    One could be nasty enough to surmise that jobs for the boys is well and truly back.

    I worker in the PS long enough to know this type of action does not go down that well. It does not encourage cooperation.

    I predict there will be many mistakes across the board, as some set up their new bosses.

    PS This is not the army where one has to obey orders.

  51. Continuation

    Greg Withers worked for former premier Peter Beattie, but when Ms Bligh took over he was moved into the newly created position of director of the Office of Climate Change.

    His three-year contract was controversial because it included provisions for a 15 to 20 per cent termination payment.

    Fairfax quoted sources in the department on Tuesday saying Mr Withers was clearing out his desk, but Mr Newman says he has other plans for him.

    “We made it very clear in the campaign that we wanted to see these green programs shut down because there’s going to be a carbon tax – we said that,” he said.

    “We would expect then that the director of that program would have, as part of that transition to government planning move, be very clear that that’s what we expect to happen.

    “All these rumours swirling around about Mr Withers; they’re untrue, they’re unfounded. We want him to unravel those programs because he’s the bloke who set them up.”

    But Mr Newman has wielded the axe elsewhere.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/blighs-husband-spared-public-service-cleanout/3915872

  52. Do we have a little Hitler. Where is the consultation with anyone.

    He has already dumped the director-general of the Premier’s Department and announced six other changes today.

    Long-time treasury under-secretary Gerard Bradley has been shown the door, replaced by QUT deputy chancellor Helen Gluer, who once worked with Mr Newman at Brisbane City Council.

    Andrew Chesterman has also been poached from the council to head up the Department of Environment.

    Another council connection comes in the form of former councillor Michael Caltabiano, who is now the new director-general of Transport and Main Roads.

    He is a Liberal powerbroker and also a former state MP who was once touted as a future premier but lost his seat in 2006.

    Mr Newman was challenged on whether it was hypocritical given the LNP had accused Labor of having a jobs-for-the-boys culture.

    “I accept that that criticism could be there, but I’m saying to you and all Queenslanders these are people who’ll do a fantastic job,” he said.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/blighs-husband-spared-public-service-cleanout/3915872

  53. CU

    “Greg Withers worked for former premier Peter Beattie, but when Ms Bligh took over he was moved into the newly created position of director of the Office of Climate Change.

    His three-year contract was controversial because it included provisions for a 15 to 20 per cent termination payment.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/blighs-husband-spared-public-service-cleanout/3915872

    “We would like him to, since he is the head of the carbon-reduction programs that we pointed out are now irrelevant,” he said.

    “He’s the person who is charge of that. His brief at the moment is to actually unravel those, quietly and in a structured way dismantle those and shut them down to save I think, from memory around $270 million a year for Queensland.

    “That is what the new director general of Premier and Cabinet will be conveying to him. I am telling you that he has a job, if he wants one.”

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/newman-appoints-familiar-faces-20120327-1vvzs.html#ixzz1qJoDJMil

    The new Premier wants him to resign so that they will not pay the penalty termination contract

  54. No Sue, that is OK. I have a feeling he might just stick around to be a thorn in his side.

    I believe that Mr. Newman will soon find what the real world is about.

    It is definitely jobs for the boys from now on.

    What Mr. Newman does not realise, one man cannot run a whole department on his own.

    The PS will do as they are told to the letter. That is all they have to do.

  55. Sue @8.36pm, roflmao.

    How can a premier appoint all these people without any other input.

    Because he’s got a giant majority , no opposition and can do as he bloody well likes!

    I read a link at TPS about Clive’s Can do’s first act as premier and believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of commenters were already disillusioned and upset that his first act was to break an election promise.

    Most of them added the rider that his promise not to revert to “jobs for the boys” was the reason they voted for him. I could only shake my head ruefully. I didn’t bother to rub the old non-core salt into their open wounds.

    And don’t you love the green programs being closed down “because there’s going to be a carbon tax”. I wonder how he’ll spin it when it’s obvious there is no carbon tax?

  56. I thought one of the aims of the so called carbon tax was to finance more green programmes. This is not the first coalition state to draw back on such programmes.

    It is seen as a easy way to save money.

    Like not mending the roof, it could turn out to be a costly action for the future.

  57. “It’s time” to start printing the “Don’t Blame Me I Didn’t Vote for Can Do Campbell” bumper stickers.

    For non Queenslanders how about

  58. Newman has not even been endorse as leader yet by the elected members of the government. This will occur this afternoon I believe.

  59. Just so no one forgets or has not heard it. From one of our lying miners.

    No. We should get the lot.
    …surely a concise expression of his personal ideology, with We replaced by I.
    Palmer’s graceless and self-indulgent behaviour added ‘unashamed greed’ to a public face already shaded in as ‘several screws loose’ after his assertions that the Australian Greens were funded by the CIA, a statement which he has lately admitted was invented with the intention of transient political (which for Palmer means ‘personal’) gain. So let’s add ‘opportunistic liar’ to that list.

    http://www.blogotariat.com/node/308854

    Listen to the man.

    http://video.couriermail.com.au/2214770151/Clive-Palmers-rant

    Which got me thinking about Clive Palmer’s hideously less-than-magnaminous victory spew to the media on Qld election night, which the Courier Mail described, accurately, as ‘an almost hysterical rant’.

    Palmer himself, due to years of self-indulgence, now has the appearance of a besuited and overflowing sack of onions, stretched to the point of explosion, and his heart-felt response to the question ‘Has the LNP won too many seats ?’ was

    No. We should get the lot.

    almer and Morris are key Lib/Nat operatives. Palmer is their No.1 donor and Morris is a senior strategist. Their behaviour and/or appearance and/or attitudes are light-years from that of your normal Aussie. I hope that both will spend much more time in public commenting as loudly as possible as they display a heart of the Coalition which is alternately rotten (Palmer) and bizarre (Palmer and Morris).

    Nick Minchin must be chewing through his mobile credit trying to get Palmer to shut up and leave the talking-to-the-public to those trained in it art like himself and Abbott. But Palmer, a man of enormity in ego, size and wealth has developed a taste for public interaction. His 2011 advertsing campaign over the Mining Tax crippled the ALP and he now apparently believes his Green-CIA-Link Horror was an adroit and subtle manouver which rescued the LNP from disconcerting pressure. Palmer is not so easy to sit down or shut up. Minchin will have to convince him oney is at stake.

    Great! Let’s hear more from Palmer. With any luck he’ll cost the LNP about 20 seats at the next Federal Election.

    and

    So, here’s hoping the coalition’s collection of circus freaks can prevent a LNP victory in 2013. Graham, Clive and Gina, over to you.

    http://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/can-the-coalitions-collection-of-circus-freaks-prevent-a-lnp-victory-in-2013/

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s