Home > 'None of the Above' Campaign, Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL Opinion, The EYE-BALL PoliticalZone > EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – We don’t trust our Leaders –

EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – We don’t trust our Leaders –


Latest EYE-BALL ‘None of the Above’ Posts:

– 28th May – New cash grab to cover Political Party Administration Costs

– 5th Nov – Referendum Discussion No 1 – Compulsory Voting – “None of the Above” Campaign –

– 3rd Nov 2012 – ALP voters beware – The Labour Party is not what it seems –

– 2nd Aug 2012 – New Q’LD LNP amends Party Funding arrangements ….

– 13th July 2012 – The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership

– 12th July 2012 – This Labour Party is Diseased

– 10th Jan 2011 – Australia Votes – “None of the Above” Campaign

Link to 2011 JSCEM Submission

(PDF file format)

– we don’t trust our Leaders –
– part of Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” –
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 4th Aug 2013 |
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2Link to the Eye-Ball – ‘None of the Above’ campaign Front Page …

Most of this post was written during the past week – but the news yesterday – [Sunday 4th Aug 2013] – that PM Rudd has called a 7th Sept election is news that a Nation has been waiting for, and renders some of the commentary outdated.

On the Election:

Why Rudd believes calling an election now serves the ALP’s as the best timing for an ALP good showing, can only mean that he and his advisors do not expect to win.

Last week’s release of the NSW ICAC reports into NSW ALP corruption, and with the ‘Acacia’ report still to be released, can only mean the news cycle in coming weeks will harm the ALP vote bigtime.

There is also the revelations of new investigations into additional ALP figureheads that will only do additional harm to the Labor vote.

Why would Rudd choose to go now?

If Rudd does lose and he will, his political career is over.  It it more than likely that his ‘arrangement’ included a contingency that in the case of a loss, he will resign and look to take up a UN or Security Council position.   In that scenario  Rudd’s future career becomes something he wants.

Who would want to lead the ALP given the issues they will have to deal with after the election and in Opposition.

Look to NSW and QLD post their State elections.  In fact given those results everybody had to have known that the Federal ALP brand could not survive the swell against the ALP vote.

The ALP cannot win this election and to think otherwise is fanciful.  They would have to win 6 seats plus hold all the seats they currently have.

In NSW they are expected to lose 10-15 seats … Victoria about 4-5 … SA maybe 2-3 … Tasmania maybe 1-2 … WA perhaps 3-4 … and in QLD, before Rudd took over from Gillard they only had a chance of holding Rudd’s own seat – now they talk of winning seats there, the reality is they will probably lose 3-4 seats.

In a worst case scenario that means losses of 33 seats, and in a best case scenario the losses would be restricted to 23 seats.

Before Rudd’s appointments the talk was of a 30-40 seat loss, so any number less than these Gillard leadership predictions can only be seen as justifying the Gillard dumping.

The NSW ICAC Reports:

Where is the effort to fight injustice and tyranny within our Political ranks?

Any investigative body who investigates itself can never be trusted.  That is a statement that rings true in any industry or Government office.

Management the globe over and in positions to write their own expense account limits carry that air of entitlement that most can only dream about.

That Management gravy ride has extended deeper and deeper into our Public Service ranks, and these days Government have some of the best perks and paying jobs around.

Politicians head the list where entitlement is demanded as expense claims are tendered where no entitlement exists.  It becomes the Dept of Finance’s job to establish legitimacy of any parliamentary claims, and many MP’s and Senators err and are forced to refund overstated claims.

Why are these errors not treated in the same way as Peter Slipper’s overcharge use of cabcharge vouchers?

We are asleep to these issues – the real life struggle for survival the world over is in refugee camps, on the high seas where refugees dream of a better life,  among the ever increasing homeless living on the streets, and the children being used in divorce court settlements where money becomes more important than the children.

In all this gloomy existence a new political voice speaks,  that message is reproduced below:

Lack of transparency undermines our democracy

| Author: Julian Assange | Date: 25th July 2013 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE federal parliament has received enormous attention in the past year not because of the eloquence of its debates but because the behaviour in its chambers and in its backrooms has been so Machiavellian that the world has looked on in amazement.

What has been even more disappointing has been the stealth with which our elected representatives have worked together (often across party lines) to pass laws without proper public consultation. In the past month alone Labor and the Coalition have come under fire for agreeing to remove several federal departments from the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

Commentators argue that Australians are sick of the childish and bullying behaviour in Canberra but I think what Australians are really tired of is the way in which government in all its forms operates behind closed doors.

Whether it is superannuation entitlements for politicians or decisions about who should be prime minister, the doors in Canberra remain closed to the scrutiny of the average Australian.

The results are distrust and scepticism that anything enacted by the federal parliament is genuinely motivated by the wellbeing of all Australians.

According to classic notions of parliamentary government, the legislature imposes accountability on the executive government through legislation and inquiry. The original purpose of a parliamentary system is not only to represent voters but to ensure that the government is held to account for its actions between elections. This sort of accountability has been embarrassingly absent in Australian politics for years.

There is an implied assumption that all MPs should act in the interests of their electorate, but that doesn’t mean they do. The WikiLeaks Party will demand that the policies and legislation debated in the two houses will be the same debate that goes on elsewhere in the building.

One of the first actions of the WikiLeaks Party in the Senate would be to insist that there be full disclosure of the asylum-seeker arrangements with the Papua New Guinea government that Kevin Rudd announced last Friday, including host arrangements; the provision of resources and details of adequate medical and psycho-social health resources and personnel; the construct of the refugee claims review process and of subsequent judicial review; and of the conditions of resettlement for those whose applications are successful. Under the Migration Act 1958, Australia retains an obligation to Australia-bound asylum-seekers it may “transfer” to PNG. Considering PNG’s developing country status, the Australian government must disclose how it will assist PNG to financially support resettled refugees.

WikiLeaks Party’s core values of transparency, accountability and justice are the template against which we will examine any important issues for Australians: tax reform, asylum-seekers, climate-change policy and more. We will not accept legislation or government policy that is based on inaccurate, poorly disclosed or inadequate information. In this way our positions will always reflect fairness, good government policy and practice, and protecting the interests of all Australians.

True parliamentary democracy is a system that facilitates the obligation to dissent. The WikiLeaks Party recognises the need to scrutinise government activity and to defend the legislature against the executive government. We will stand as a constant reminder to MPs and senators that the proper function of the Senate is to be independent of the government of the day, something that has been forgotten in Canberra. The vigour of this scrutiny can be maintained only if the government does not hold a majority in the Senate.

The WikiLeaks Party is a party of investigation and oversight, at one with the Senate’s constitutional ideals. WLP senators will act as agents of independent oversight precisely because we are not a party of government, of factional deals, of big business or of the environmental lobby.

Our senators will seek to ensure that all legislation reflects the WLP values: transparency, accountability and justice.

Putting the WLP in the Senate is the same as putting Australia’s best investigative journalists in the Senate. That is what the dishonest Canberra establishment fears most.

Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks Party, is a federal Senate candidate for Victoria.

In this void of political time where promised deals mean nothing by weight or legislative process – Prime Minister Rudd and Opposition would be PM Abbott joust for political gain and play the game of winning voters.

Truth be known they have a ‘macro’ view of the Nation and the people only matter when it comes around to elections.


How do we as a Nation get back to a place where we will trust our political leaders – what will it take?

We can only choose from the candidates before us and with the track record of all the major parties, where does one turn to seek honest and uncorrupted Governance?

Julian Assange and his Wikileaks party speaks above of a ‘transparency’ within Government process – is that enough>

Or, do we as citizens have a role to play through our own scrutiny of the information provided?

In that context presented hereto are some well researched facts about the Tony Abbott parliamentary expense reconciliations – see excel file for full disclosure hereclick on image below to enlarge in a new window:

About 3-4 weeks ago Mr Abbott was asked about the parliamentary expense travel rort he was engaged in during his book tour.   The question came after FOI release of parliamentary expense refunds were released showing that Mr Abbott was forced to repay some $9,400 in travel expenses he claimed during his Australia wide book launch.

The travel expenses associated with Mr Abbott’s book launch were claimed as parliamentary business expenses but investigations showed they were nothing to do with parliamentary business but of a personal nature.

This on face value is no different to the ‘rort’ Peter Slipper is in court over when he used ‘cabcharge’ vouchers to transport himself to ‘wine-tasting’ events. Mr Slipper is charged with ‘rorting’ the parliamentary system for around $1,000 of misused taxpayers funds.

Now let me put a scenario to you:

An experienced politician like Tony Abbott would know what his travel expenses rules are. Yet he felt he had entitlement to claim ComCar services and airfares during his book tour event. Surely Mr Abbott’s intent to claim those expenses cannot be explained away as a clerical error, or that his staff got the purpose wrong.

The rule of thumb with parliamentary expenses seems to be – claim everything and let the burden of proof fall to the MAPPs Department to find the fraudulent claim.

Mr Abbott would have known that his book tour expenses were off limits in terms of his parliamentary expenses.  Then why the use of ComCar services to get him to and from airports and venues whilst promoting his book launch?

This is not how the system works – any burden of entitlement must fall to the Member and the Member alone must be accountable for erroneous claims – i.e. 500% penalties imposed if a claim cannot be verified or justified, and a revoking of all parliamentary expenses over and above the bare minimum to manage his staff and parliamentary office.   The parliamentary expense system is being abused and nobody seems to really care – least of all the Parliamentarians.

Peter Slipper is defending his abuse of expense claims in court with taxpayer funds – surely he must know that what he did was wrong and why hurt the taxpayer again by claiming Legal Aid to defend his position?  This is hubris and entitlement gone amuck and the fact that no MP or Senator speaks out about the abuse highlights just how deep they are all in it.

Further investigation of Mr Abbott’s parliamentary expenses see that he has used almost $500,000 in ComCar expenses since July 2009 and up until Dec 2012. His spouse/family has also used another $13,000 in ComCar expenses during the same period.

Now if Mr Abbott is an example of a expense entitlement deluge by all our MP’s and Senators – no wonder the $400 million parliamentary expense price tag is an expense that rises each and every term.


Morality, Integrity, Honesty – just three issues where our Leaders should excel … yet who can be trusted to provide Governance where these ingredients are in surplus?

Please make your vote count – please don’t vote top of the ticket i.e. PArty of choice, vote for you local candidate because you believe they are the best person and someone you can trust.   If you don’t know your candidate don’t blindly trust they will represent you.    If you have doubts make the effort to contact them and ask them questions that are of concern to you.

If unconvinced – vote “NONE OF THE ABOVE” in a box you will make on the ballot paper … don’t hand up your vote freely – whoever you vote for will get $2.51 in electoral refunds … make them earn that refund.

A ‘None of the Above’ vote saves taxpayers funds.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. August 5, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    For me, the interesting part here is the word or concept of “independence” in any authority relied upon by elected officials.

    Fatty O’Barrel has his independence of Independent Commission against Corruption that he has increased funding to by the tune of $3m and now a special Prosecutions group with the Independent DPP who have been increased funding to the tune of $5m to attack NSW Right wing ALP. If government gives them specific funding, how are they really independent. This might be the Houston Report see link http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report note the Australian Government moniker in top left corner or ACCC or iPART or any other independent commission. Why does it take a change of government to improve oversight, and that is in a very limited and specific way, requiring specific outcomes.

    In the case of Obeid and McDonald we clap and cheer (knowing it doesn’t go far enough). Old McDonald had a farm, E – I – E – I – O, with a politician pig here, and a chook chook there, and a stupid sheep here and a donkey there. As for Obeid, with a coal mine here, and a tenement there.

    It is the very concept of only allow Royal Commissions or special inquiries when you know the outcome.

    This government has used the Remunerations Tribunal to justifying giving federal politicians a massive pay rise during the term of this parliament, and guess what that same pay rise then flows onto commissioners of the Remuneration Tribunal. See http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/ and again note the Australian government symbol in top left corner. A marriage of convenience or symbiotic twins. To we on the outside just good old nepotism.

    They can not nor will not stop.

    We have every right to be skeptical. They routinely lie, diminish, twist truth.

    Maintain the rage.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: