4 reasons why Dyson Heydon should stay as TURC commissioner

Fresh from the successful scalp of Bronwyn Bishop the Media/ALP pack are at it again. This time the target is Dyson Heydon, the ex High court judge now leading the Trade Union Royal Commission(TURC). Universally acclaimed as a man of integrity he is now being hounded out of office. The next few days will prove whether this mass attack is successful.

But irrespective of the outcome, is this attack reasonable? Would his removal be just and in the best interests of our country or would it reward and thereby encourage and legitimize such unseemly political tactics as the new normal in Australia's political discourse.

Much has been said and written on this so I am sure everyone is familiar with the core facts. I will restrict my comments to make just four points.

1. There is no 'Perception of bias'
2. A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role
3. There is no down-side in keeping DH in his role 
4. There is a serious downside in removing him from his role

There is no 'perception of bias'

There is no evidence that DH has exhibited any bias at all. In fact no one is arguing that he has or even that he is likely to. All argument is that there is a 'perception of bias'.
ALP and many in the media argue that 'perception of bias' is a sufficient criterion for his removal.
However the loudest calls come from those who do not apply this rule universally. The case of Gillian Triggs comes immediately to mind. In that case the argument was not even about a perception of bias but what was argued to have been demonstrated bias. Those who argued that Triggs should remain in her job but today argue that Heydon be removed are doing so for reasons other than potential 'perception of bias'.

ALP MPs are simply arguing out of self interest trying to stop the TURC as they see it as politically damaging given their close Union allegiance. Their colours were shown even before Dyson Heydon was appointed to his role, labeling the TURC as political witch-hunt, and they have not let up ever since. Their calls are certainly tainted.
As for the journos, they should explain their different stance themselves. It certainly looks like they are simply exposing their own political leanings.

Calls from those who are themselves biased must be dismissed.

A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role

A vast majority of thinking Australians have a political leaning. They vote in elections for one of the parties and they carry their leanings into their work and their private lives. So too do lawyers, police, teachers, judges and even royal commissioners. Why would we expect any judge not to have a political leaning?. 

Every day Judges, especially High Court judges are expected to rule on matters which may have some political impact. Yet we trust our judges, especially our High Court judges to make their rulings impartially, dependent only on the evidence presented and in accord with the laws of the land.

So why should anyone expect DH not to have a political leaning? Such leanings cannot rule him out as royal commissioner. Indeed if it did then no person could serve as a royal commissioner as no one is free of such leanings.

 Moreover, past High Court judges and Royal Commissioners have remained in their roles even after they presented speeches at party events. This is not even the case with DH, as he withdrew from the event.

There is no downside in keeping DH in place

There is no downside in keeping DH in his role because the TURC is the first step in a process which will have thorough parliamentary and legal scrutiny.

The TURC is gathering evidence on Union Corruption. The evidence will form the basis of a report, which will result in many Union officials facing criminal charges. Some have already been charged and some thirty have been named, who are likely to face charges. The evidence against individuals will be revisited in a court of law, where it will be weighed and considered. 

The final report of the TURC will no doubt make a series of recommendations regarding the introduction of new laws around Union governance.  The recommendations will also be weighed and considered by the government and will be debated by parliament.

So DH can continue to fulfill his role as TURC commissioner, irrespective of perceived or even actual leanings, without invalidating any of its findings.

There is a serious downside in removing him from is role

At the same time there is considerable and serious downside if DH does not continue to lead the TURC. 

You don't have to go past the hysterical calls for his resignation from the ALP to gauge the success of the commission to date. The TURC has brought to light corruption at the highest levels of many Unions (AWU, CFMEU, HSU etc.) and has named some thirty individuals who will in all likelihood face charges. No doubt much more is to come. 

It has been acknowledged by most commentators that DH has done an exemplary job to date.  While it has been argued that a new commissioner could be appointed, inevitably there would be a loss of momentum and who knows if the new commissioner would have the same level of success that DH has already demonstrated.

A further downside of removing DH from his role, would be to reward the 'shock and awe tactics' of the Media/ALP alliance. This contemptible political tactic is a new unwelcome entry into our social order. It works by confecting outrage over some issue, in this case the cancellation of a planned talk, and amplifying it through a compliant media into a political storm. Rewarding such tactics only encourages their use and debases our political and social discourse, and therefore should be strongly resisted. 

Finally, the removal of a high respected ex High Court judge without a 'just' cause would tarnish the exemplary record of a respected Australian. This is simply unethical.



Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

  

Footnotes - on MP expense rorts

• The term 'Entitlements' as Malcolm Turnbull and others have noted, is a complete misnomer that seems to have set the manner in which MPs feel entitled to drain the public purse. Drop the name 'Entitlements', call it what it is 'Expenses'.
• It may be acceptable for longer trips for MPs but business class travel for the children of MPs is definitely out of kilter with community expectations 
• Occasional trips by family to Canberra to spend time with their MP seems legitimate, but trips by MPs family around Australia are also out of kilter with expectations
• The community will accept greater leniency for travel expenses given MPs workload and role in our community but MPs have shown they cannot be trusted when rules are so 'open-ended'
• Enterprises often provide executives with an expense allowance. Why not do the same for MPs. Within some defined limits the MP can decide where to use the allowance but never above the limit. The allowance should cover ALL claims by MPs for re-imbursement, ie study tours. The allowance should vary by status back-bencher, minister, etc., and be generous but not unreasonable. I suggest something in the order of 10-15% of their salary may be a guide.
• Contrary to many voices in the media I believe expenses related to party fundraisers should NOT be eligible for claims. The parties can pay these expenses themselves, if they want their MPs to attend.
• Despite some specious arguments to the contrary, it is not difficult to differentiate between a fund-raiser and a public meeting. It is ALWAYS a fund raiser if the money collected goes to a political party.
• We should not have to wait for 6 months to get this sorted out. It seems like a delaying tactic, hoping the controversy will die down. An interim report and actions should be available before the end of the year.
• Having experienced the venom from the electorate the pollies and some 'friends' are now trying to put the issue 'back in the box'. Watch for specious arguments about the difficult working hours, the disruption to family life and all the other hardships our poor MPs suffer. Before you accept any of this gumph, apply Joe Hockey's 'smell' test. How does the MPs role compare to other workers in our society; ambulance drivers, nurses, defence forces, and what benefits do they enjoy?

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Conflict of interest

Politicians work hard to project the image that they always strive to fulfill the needs of the people and the community they represent. But is this always so?

There is no doubt room for argument about what effectively represents a community whose views are, lets say, less than uniform. But this is a mere quibble when we look at some of the conflicts of interest they face in fulfilling this image.

The most obvious is that of parliamentarian remuneration,. While there is always a 'misalignment' between the community and its representatives, here at least, there is a credible argument that 'you get what you pay for'. As many have argued that given what we get, we should be paying more.

But it is hard to think of a case where politicians interests are less aligned with the people they represent than with our pollies' travel expense claims. These are a veritable cesspool of iniquity. There are all too many cases where the peoples' representatives seem to only represent themselves. From their profligate travel-style one would think they lived on a different planet, totally out of touch with their constituency.

When brought to our attention, we all rail at the magnitude and mindlessness of such excess. What in the remotest corner of her brain would have concocted the notion that spending $5,000 for a helicopter to travel half an hour to a Liberal fund-raiser was reasonable, let alone acceptable to the people she represents? It is non-sense. It cannot be justified! And we all know it. Lest you think I am being one-sided, consider our recent past PM claiming expenses for her partner's jaunt around Victoria promoting hair-care goods.

There are of course more subtle abuses where an MP will sort of 'tack on' a claimable event to what is in large-part un-claimable. While this is generally accepted by MPs, and a compliant media I add, as 'fair', we, the public, see it as a rort.  It would not be acceptable to our employers so, as employers of these MPs, it is not acceptable to us.

"a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour"

It does not matter one iota that when caught the MP pays it back. It does not matter that there is a bit of a penalty when a mis-claim has been identified. The public, the people these MPs are meant to represent are outraged. We don't accept such egregious conduct as a simple 'error of judgment' from those we select to represent us.

The lack of scrutiny, the lack of clarity, and the lack of visibility of MPs' expenses is a serious issue. It demonstrates a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour. No corporate entity would accept an open-ended expense system. Commercial operations clearly define the scope of claims, the means of travel allowed, and set and review budgets. Indeed where expenditure by a company has been seen to benefit an individual it is a 'Fringe benefit' which is taxable.

Expense claims must be Reasonable and Accountable

I guess this is just a rant unless I add a few suggestions. So here goes.

All politician expense claims must be reasonable and accountable.

'Reasonable' simply means a claim must be consistent with accepted norms within commercial and non-commercial enterprises. This is just the 'sniff' test. Many travel claims, by our MPs certainly fail this 'sniff' test. If an MP has some doubt about what is reasonable, they should submit an application for pre-approval (see below).

A suggested set of guidelines for what constitutes 'reasonable' is provided below;

What constitutes 'reasonable' travel claims?

MP will be reimbursed for travel expenses when directly connected with their role as a member of parliament

Actual costs incurred for air or road travel subject to; -

- travel by most direct route

- travel at lowest cost

- travel with approved carrier

- Business class (but not first class)

Actual out of pocket costs with supporting receipts subject to a per day limit of $1000, or $700 per day if claimed on a per diem basis when no receipts are required

Spouse/partner/family can accompany but any additional costs to be paid by MP

Where only a part of a trip is claimable as being a necessary part of MPs role, the reimbursement for carrier costs will be pro-rated for the proportion of travel which is claimable. The out-of-pocket costs will be for those full days which qualify as claimable Any claims which would breach these rules must be submitted and pre-approved in writing

Accountability requires all claims to be managed formally by an independent body and for the public interest they should be visible. If the MP's work on behalf of their constituents then they should 'report ' to their constituency. What better way to shine a light on the excesses than to publish all claims on a website.

A suggested set of rules for accountability are provided below;

How to ensure accountability for travel claims

Expense claim policy to be fully documented and provided to MPs.

All claims must be submitted on the appropriate form together with supporting receipts and be signed by the MP within 30 days of costs being incurred. MPs can submit 'pre-approval' requests for a future claim, if they seek certainty that a claim will not be rejected. Such requests for pre-approval are processed as normal claims and if approved a pre-approval authorisation is provided

All claims to be vetted against the policy by the nominated department (Finance?) and rejections notified to the MP

All approved AND rejected claims,are to be published on a web-site to provide full visibility to the electorate

Its about time!

Unfortunately, like a bad dream the looseness of MP travel expense policy keeps coming back. Indeed past and current PMs seem to rely on our short memories. The media change focus to the next drama and we are easily distracted. Screaming headlines earlier this week have been replaced by the ALP annual conference. The ALP's proposed turn-back of asylum seeker policies drowning out the cacophony of 'helicopter-gate'. So the circus moves on. 

But lets face it. Unless we address the vagaries in the current policies, the next travel rort drama is just around the corner. It is not only about time to address these policies, it is long overdue.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved