On Monday 27 year old Ayanle Hassan Ali set out to kill 3 Canadian soldiers in a frenzied knife attack.   

This was no random stabbing.   It was a targeted  attack on uniformed Canadian soldiers on duty at a Canadian forces facility.   The Muslim who tried to kill the soldiers says he did it in the name of Allah.

Two soldiers were seriously wounded.   Imagine the worry now amongst families of Canada's service men and women. 

Ali faces:

• Three charges of attempted murder.
•  Two charges of aggravated assault.
• Three charges of assault with a weapon 
• One count of carrying a weapon dangerous to the public.

So how did Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau respond to this attack on his country's armed forces on home soil?

For the first day after the attack he did nothing.

Then yesterday Justin Trudeau sent a Tweet wishing the soldiers a speedy recovery after they were "injured".  

No mention that they were wounded in an attack on the Canadian Armed Forces.

No recognition that they were attacked in the name of Allah.  

Just a motherhood statement, with a Hallmark Greeting Card "get well soon" line.

Canadians - and the @CanadianForces - will not be intimidated by terror & hate. May the CAF members injured yesterday make a full recovery.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) March 15, 2016

Let's all hope they do.

Contrast the reaction from Canada's head of government when a Mosque re-opened a few weeks ago after fire damage was repaired.   The red carpet came out for a Prime Ministerial visit, speeches of support, a moment's silence for Muslim victims of Muslim terror, pledges of money and a message to non-Muslim citizens that the people associated with the Mosque were "showing Canadians how it's done".

Here are a few headlines from 17 January this year.   Trudeau says  "thank you to the Muslim community for showing their exemplary Canadian-ness" and gave a Prime Ministerial vow of more support for Muslims.

And the attention grabbing  call for a moment's silence for Muslim victims before speaking.

When a Muslim attacked and tried to kill members of the armed forces, Trudeau spoke of  injured CAF members without saying how they were wounded. But make no mistake about the Mosque fire, this was a hate-crime calling for a choreographed Prime Ministerial show of support.

Trudeau said the mosque "showed Canada how it's done" with its positive attitude.  

Just like the Parramatta Mosque in Sydney showed Curtis Cheng's murderer Farhar Jabar how it's done - NSW Police say Muslim Raban Alou met Jabar at the female section of Parramatta Mosque, where there were no CCTV cameras, and handed him the revolver in the hours before the 15-year-old committed his violent act of terror. 

Here's Trudeau speaking at the official opening of the repairs to the building.

But to the members of his own defence forces recovering after the attack on Monday?

Get well soon.   You're on your own.

The Labor Party is starting to believe it could win the next election.

That is the great tragedy of Turnbull and his innovation.   

An old adage applies almost perfectly for people like Turnbull.    Those who can do, those who can't teach innovation.

Turnbull's plan for the economy is innovation.  Innovating what?  Everything.

It's quite reasonable to ask "What's innovation?"

Turnbull would say something like "It means to encourage creative ideas and bring those ideas to market".

"Oh, like Facebook or Google or hybrid cars?'

Turnbull, "Exactly".

So do we have a few of those brewing, actionable investments?   Are there solid cash flows on the way to replace iron ore or coal revenues?

No.   We don't have industries.   We have innovation.

I've no idea what countries are planing on big innovation purchases.  I don't know how much innovation sells for or where the markets are.

But it's easy to find out.

Try it on your bank manager.  Ask for an unsecured $1M loan with a plan to pay it back based on innovation.

Turnbull has absolutely no flamin' idea.

If you can stomach it, watch the Labor ranks as Tony Burke carves up the sitting Turnbull duck.

A mandate wasted.   A broken budget unfixed.  A majority gone.   And absolutely nothing to show for it.

Except for the self-satisfied smirk of the soulless man who has no idea why he's there.

It was a simple request for an update after 3 years and 4 months of police investigating The AWU Scandal.   

30+ days after my letter along with several chasers, public shaming and a follow up to police media, there was no response from the Victoria Police Chief.

This morning I lodged a complaint with Victoria Police Professional Standards Command about commissioner ASHTON's behaviour.

3 hours later the Commissioner's office found my original letter and produced a soviet style reply (below).  

This unedifying episode has done nothing to build confidence in the administration of justice in Victoria under this Commisioner's watch.

The AWU Scandal involves major frauds totalling about $1m in current value.   This website acts for you our readers in seeking out information about how your police are investigating these offences against you and your laws.  Many of you have contributed directly to the investigation of these matters with professional and other useful insights.   You have a right to know.

Up until December, 2014 there was no difficulty in eliciting information like this.   Police were always responsive and helpful.   The investigation was progressing towards an outcome.  Most importantly, you were kept informed about the progress made on your behalf.

I am the complainant in this matter.   I volunteered countless hours for the community working with detectives to have these major frauds cleared up.   I have a right to feedback from police on the investigation of my complaint.

So here is Graham ASHTON's reply this morning.

Dear Mr Smith,

 I write on behalf of the Chief Commissioner to acknowledge receipt of your recent email requesting information in relation to Operation Tendement.

Please note access to this information is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.    Accordingly, it will be necessary for you to either write a letter or complete the relevant application form and send it to the Freedom of information Office, Victoria Police, PO Box 913, Melbourne 3001, together with a cheque or money order for the FOI application fee of $27.20.   Your letter should set out clearly the document(s) you require from Victoria Police, as well as providing sufficient detail to enable the document(s) you are seeking to be identified.

Alternatively, you can submit an application online by accessing the Freedom of Information Online website atwww.foi.vic.gov.au by clicking on the link https://online.foi.vic.gov.au/foi/request.doj

Dean Nicholls | Correspondence Manager| Chief Commissioner's Office | Victoria Police 
________________________________ 
telephone: (03) 9247 6878 | fax: (03) 9247 6869
address: Victoria Police Centre, Level 10 Tower 1, 637 Flinders Street, Docklands , VIC 3008 | DX 210096

ENDS

If one of Commissioner Ashton's constables told a complainant in a burglary, child abduction or domestic violence investigation to submit an FOI application for a report on police progress, there would be hell to pay.

FOI processes are lengthy and costly.   They canvass only documents that already exist.

Tendement is an open, operational investigation that has yet to result in the arrest or interview of offenders let alone charges.   It is bordering on improper conduct for a Chief Commissioner's office to suggest that an FOI application during an operational investigation will find any papers that could be released without affecting the investigation or prosecution of offenders.

That's why police commissioners have advisors, media liaison officers and - prior to Victoria's Andrews Government  - independent Chiefs of Staff.   They are paid to tailor a statement or reply to a letter like ours in a way that keeps the public informed without affecting the work of the operational investigators or prosecutors.

Graham ASHTON is stonewalling.   He is operating in a febrile environment with unions closely associated with the government that appointed him under criminal investigations.  He is already under scrutiny for approving the insertion of Premier ANDREWS right hand man as his Chief of Staff.     ASHTON must not be seen to be favouring or ignoring any stakeholder in these matters of significant public interest.   Avoiding a response to letters like ours creates unnecessary and unhelpful suspicions and invites the question "Why?   What do you have to hide?".

Police investigations of union corruption are always controversial.   Requests for information like mine require a nuanced response from a senior officer - not the insult of a futile FOI process.

ASHTON should be on notice, his duty is to act without fear or favour, malice or ill will.   He must not only act that way, he must be seen to act that way.  

One practical way this Commissioner could deal with doubts about his allegiances would be to reform the way his office is managed, starting with his Chief of Staff, also known as Premier Andrews right hand man.

The perhaps he could let us know when the victims in The AWU Scandal can expect to see justice.

Tomorrow the Privileges Committee will table its report on Craig Thomson misleading the parliament.

Yesterday we wrote about Peter Wicks and his story based on a leak of the confidential proceedings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members Interests.

Leaking the committee's work before it's tabled is a contempt of the Parliament because"it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions".

The Houses has the power to declare an action to be a contempt and to punish offenders. 

The Privileges Act authorises fines up to $5000 for individuals or imprisonment for up to six months.

Lesser punishments such as admonition, reprimand or suspension of a member are also available under the normal powers and processes of the House. 

In May 2012 The Age published an article by Michelle Grattan based on a leak from the Privileges Committee.

As part of the investigation that followed each Member of the Committee and each secretariat staffer signed a statutory declaration to the effect that they did not disclose the committee's internal proceedings .

Michelle Grattan appeared before a formal sitting of the Committee to give sworn evidence.   When questioned under oath she said,  "the whole question of sourcing of material involves confidentiality and journalists do not breach that confidentiality. This is how we operate in my trade ... We accept the consequences."

Tomorrow we'll be able to compare the actual Privileges Committee report on Craig Thomson with Wicksy's piece.

Someone among this group may be feeling nervous.

Committee Members

• Chair

  Mr Russell Broadbent MP

  

  Liberal Party of Australia , McMillan VIC

• Deputy Chair

  Ms Anna Burke MP

  

  Australian Labor Party , Chisholm VIC

• Member

  Hon Jamie Briggs MP

  

  Liberal Party of Australia , Mayo SA

• Member

  Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP

  

  Australian Labor Party , Hunter NSW

• Member

  Mr Andrew Giles MP

  

  Australian Labor Party , Scullin VIC

• Member

  Dr David Gillespie MP

  

  The Nationals , Lyne NSW

• Member

  Ms Clare O'Neil MP

  

  Australian Labor Party , Hotham VIC

• Member

  Mr Tony Pasin MP

  

  Liberal Party of Australia , Barker SA

• Member

  Mr Graham Perrett MP

  

  Australian Labor Party , Moreton QLD

• Member

  Hon Philip Ruddock MP

  

  Liberal Party of Australia , Berowra NSW

• Member

  Mr Ross Vasta MP

  

  Liberal Party of Australia , Bonner QLD

Here is the final report by Peter Heerey QC into Michael Lawler, "an undignified middle-aged quasi-judicial figure presenting on national television home movies of overseas holidays with his girlfriend, accompanied by saccharine lovers' chit chat".

Heerey found good reason for a joint sitting of both houses of parliament to have dismissed Lawler.  Instead Lawler resigned - however we don't yet know whether he was permitted to do so with his entitlement to his $250K indexed pension or life.

 

Peter Heerey QC Report Into Michael Lawler by Michael Smith

UPDATE

I've exchanged a couple of very cordial and pleasant notes with Peter Wicks late today.   Peter stands by the accuracy of his report about the Committee's recommendations regarding Thomson.   In simple terms that suggests that Peter has a very good source either from an MP on the Committee or less likely from one of the Parliamentary staffers.

The Committee will now be duty bound to investigate the leak.

ENDS

The website https://independentaustralia.net carries this report today:

The Privileges Committee issues a XXXXX to Craig Thomson for pointing out in Parliament that Michael Williamson, Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler and Marco Bolano were all very likely to be crooks. Peter Wicks reports. 

This morning, the findings of this Standing Committee will be handed down to Parliament after its lengthy analysis of one particular address to parliament by one former MP.

That former MP is Craig Thomson, whose lengthy address to parliament included allegations of some dodgy practices by several people and how some of them may have related to allegations against him.

Peter's report goes on to publish what appears to be a leaked copy of the Committee's recommendation against Thomson.

Publishing proceedings of the Committee before they are tabled in The House is a serious breach of the Committee's confidentiality.   It's taken very seriously indeed in Parliament.   

I'm sure Peter has a very good source and good reason to believe what he wrote.   A link to his work is circulating widely on Twitter.

However the Committee isn't listed to report to the House on the Daily Schedule for the House of Representatives for today.   

The Committee's website lists the Thomson investigation as still ongoing.  And thus far the House has not heard from the Committee, with the house due to rise about now for the day.

Earlier today I wrote to the Secretary of the Committee:

Was the Craig Thomson investigation finalised today?

Is there a statement or hansard reference?

Thank you,

Michael

Dear Mr Smith

The committee is yet to finalise its inquiry. When it has finalised it, the website will be updated in the usual way.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXX

_______________________________

Secretary to the House Committee of

Privileges and Members’ Interests

Deputy Clerk | HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA

RG39 Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

ENDS

This is a very serious matter.

A breach of the Committee's confidentiality can put the leaker and any person who publishes the material in contempt of the Parliament and in very hot water.

Such a breach and publication took place in May 2012 involving Michelle Grattan and The Age.

The Privileges Committee's report is here - it includes these paragraphs:

1.13               On a number of occasions the Committee has expressed its frustration about inquiries it has conducted into unauthorised disclosures of committee information. These of course have been inquiries into disclosures from other committees, not an inquiry into a disclosure from the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests itself, but the issues are the same.

1.14               In a report in 1994 concerning the unauthorised publication of material from the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts (the 1994 report), the Committee (then the Committee of Privileges) noted:

The Committee acknowledges the difficulty that can be faced in seeking to ascertain the sources of such disclosures. Those guilty are unlikely to identify themselves. Media representatives can be expected to claim that their professional code of ethics prevents them from revealing the identity of such sources ...[2]

1.15               Similar sentiments have been expressed in a number of reports since 1994 and the Committee expresses the same frustration on this occasion reflecting the same issues.

1.16               In the 1994 report the Committee also noted in relation to the Australian Journalists Association Code of Ethics ‘that neither House has accepted the existence of such professional rules or conventions as justifying the refusal to reveal sources’.[3] Since then, the Parliament has enacted legislation to provide protection to journalists’ sources in relation to court proceedings. However, that protection does not extend to the powers that parliamentary committees have to compel journalists to reveal their sources. In light of the evidence, the Committee chose not to press further the matter of Ms Grattan’s sources.

1.17               While the person or persons who disclosed the material in the first place are the most culpable in these matters, the Committee reiterates the view in the 1994 report that ‘It is also important that where it is necessary to do so the Houses are willing to proceed against those who knowingly publish the material’.[4] In this case the Committee specifically asked Ms Grattan about her knowledge of the restriction on the publication of committee proceedings that have not been reported to the House and she responded:

I have thought about this matter, obviously, since. If I was aware, I had forgotten that awareness. I was aware that one does not pre‑empt committee reports. I do not know I was ever aware of dealing with the question of committee proceedings. I do not swear that I was not, but if I was, I had forgotten it.

1.18               The Committee does not find this explanation from one of the Press Gallery’s most senior and experienced journalists very satisfactory, but it chose not to pursue the matter further on this occasion.

1.19               However, the Committee wishes to make it very clear to Press Gallery journalists and their publishers that a potential contempt can be committed in the act of publishing material from parliamentary committees that has not been authorised for publication. The Committee’s view is supported by its equivalent committee in the Senate. In a report on the issues of parliamentary privilege raised by the unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings, the Senate Committee of Privileges noted that:

The committee remains of the view, declared in the 74th report, that both the leaker and the receiver of the information are culpable and should be treated accordingly.[5]

1.20               In addition to a possible contempt being found as a result of publication of unauthorised material, it would be open to the Committee to recommend penalties to be imposed for a contempt.

ENDS

TURC & the FWBC : As Cummo said: 'Let’s deal with facts and not with fiction'. Setka & Reardon Here to Stay #CFMEU pic.twitter.com/jwjCoj6fRq

— CFMEUWA (@CFMEUWA) February 24, 2016

Here's our reporter on the spot at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court, Bill Thompson.

FINAL UPDATE FOR THE DAY - 1630

The afternoon session went from 3pm to 4pm, featuring mainly disputes over which witnesses can be cross-examined. Our learned friends, Richter & Clelland, seem concerned about the recorded phone conversations - it seems that Boral had a process for recording all incoming & outgoing calls but there is a question whether everyone was informed of the recordings. Mr Richter said words to the effect that there may have been deceptive conduct by Boral in this regard. Presumably this may effect the admissibility of recordings of conversations involving the
accused. Richter, for Mr Setka, also advanced that a planned witness - Mr Van Camp (spelling?) - "is an architect for the destruction of the CFMEU", who has had Mr Setka in his sights for a long time.

Mag R set down a 13 day hearing, to begin on 2 November, with leave granted to cross-examine witnesses per the Form 32. Any claims re LPP are to be resolved at a special mention, at least a month before 2 November.

Cheers,

Bill T
Sent from my iPad

This audio update recorded about 2.35PM

THIS REPORT ABOUT 11AM

10.25AM

Magistrate Rozencwajg just allowed a request from Robert Richter for a 1 hour delay pending discussions with the prosecution. Setka, Dave Noonan & about 15 fans had just trooped into the court & they then all trooped out again. 2 mins, start to finish. No demonstrators outside this morning.

Backgrounder

Victorian CFMEU boss John Setka and his deputy Shaun Reardon will continue to fight blackmail charges. The CFMEU pair were charged with blackmail in December, accused of blackmailing two executives from concrete supplier Boral, in an alleged bid to cause loss to construction giant Grocon. A sea of protesting construction workers caused traffic chaos in Melbourne's court precinct during their first court appearance relating to the matter late last year. It is not known if similar protests are planned for Tuesday when the duo will front the Melbourne Magistrates Court.

Thanks to Seeker of Truth for the tip - from the IMO's website:

That's the brochure, the details are here.

About the Loan Scheme

The International Organization for Migration’s No-Interest Travel Loan Fund assists proposers to meet the travel costs of refugees entering Australia with a subclass 202 visa.

The fund provides up to 75% of the travel costs, to be repaid after your family or friend’s arrival in Australia.

As well as helping you with the cost of travel, IOM also provides advice and support before, during and after your family or friend’s journey to Australia.

This support can include assistance, where possible, in attaining any documentation necessary to facilitate departure to Australia, and dedicated staff present in most points of transit to ensure a smooth transition between flights.

Who is eligible?

IOM, as the leading international organization for migration management, is ideally placed to support proposers with the logistical concerns of arranging travel to Australia, and in conjunction with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, is dedicated to easing the financial burden on proposers of subclass 202 visas.

If your family or friend has been granted a subclass 202 visa, then you are eligible to apply for a No-Interest Loan.

How do I apply?

Fill out the application form attached to this Detail Sheet. 

You’ll need to attach the following documents:

1. A letter from a group willing to support the applicant and be the contact point for IOM throughout the life of the loan. 
2. A clear copy of the letter advising that a subclass 202 visa has been granted

Once your application is complete, mail it to:

IOM Canberra
PO Box 1009
CIVIC SQUARE  ACT 2608

Or fax it to 02 6257 37 43

Who is responsible for repaying the loan?

The proposer or the 202 visa entrant is responsible for repaying the loan in full, in an agreed time frame.

We are a revolving loan scheme, and we rely on people to repay their loan promptly and according to the documents signed in the application process, so that the funds can be reused to assist another family to travel to Australia.

Entrants will be required to sign an acknowledgement that they may be responsible for repayment of the loan if the proposer chooses

How do I repay the loan?

Loans are repaid in fortnightly instalments through Centrelink’s Centrepay Deduction system. IOM will suggest a repayment schedule once your travel costs are confirmed. 

The repayment schedule can be altered if the proposer or their support group advise IOM of a change in circumstances.

IOM strongly prefers one repayment to be made per travelling group, but if the debt owed is more than $3000.00 you will be given the choice of splitting the repayments. Each member will be required to sign a Promissory Note indicating that they are responsible for repaying their own (and/or their dependant children’s) travel costs.

If a loan repayer is no longer receiving Centrelink benefits, they must contact IOM immediately in order to arrange an alternative method of repayment.

Supporting an application

It is important that a proposer who is applying for an IOM Loan has a supportive and knowledgeable support group.

By acting as a support group for a proposer, your organisation will be expected to provide the following services:

• assist the proposer to submit a complete loan application to IOM. 
• agree to be the contact point for IOM and take responsibility for explaining all IOM correspondence to the proposer or entrant before witnessing their signature and returning the original document to IOM. 
• agree to liaise with IOM on any matter relating to the loan, throughout the entire life of the loan. 
• agree to follow up with the proposer or entrants to ensure that the loan is paid in full and in a timely manner. 
• agree to advise IOM of any change of address or telephone number of proposer or entrants. 
• agree to inform IOM of any change in circumstance of proposer or entrants, especially if the loan repayer is no longer receiving Centrelink benefits. 

We encourage all organisations to read the above guidelines before offering support to their clients to access the IOM Travel Loan. If you do not feel your organisation can provide this level of service, please consider referring the proposer to another organisation. 

How can I contact IOM?

If you need more help or information, please contact IOM Canberra.

Ph:02 6267 6600

email: [email protected]

ENDS

Wondering what a subclass 202 Visa is?   So was I.   Australia's https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/202- tells us whether "this Visa is for you!" here:

​The Global Special Humanitarian visa (subclass 202) is for you if you are outside Australia, are living outside your hom​​e country, are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to a gross violation of your human rights in your home country, and are proposed by a person or organisation in Australia. 

This is a permanent visa.

• About this visa
• Visa applicants
• Visa holders
• Proposers
• Community pilot