Previous month:
September 2016
Next month:
November 2016

October 2016

ABC axes Friday 730 program for Stan Grant platform to entrench aboriginal disadvantage

Dire Straits – Money For Nothing Lyrics

(I want my ABC)

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
When your opinion suits the ABC
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free.

This is what happens when how much money you get is determined by how well you lobby the government.   This move is right in synch with TBD Turnbull, Lin Hatfield Dodds and the fellow travellers.

Awash with cash, the ABC can afford pet projects like the indigenous disadvantage reinforcement unit to be headed by Stan Grant.  Every week Stan and his team will pop up to remind everyone how how awful the white community is, how awful things are for aborigines and how angry we should all be as a result.

Stan Grant admits that he struggles to contain his rage.  But Stan's promotion of top-tier anger is good, not bad like if a rugby league player said the same thing about just about anything.  Stan's rage is about white oppression of aboriginals so it's fine, it's good and worthy of a prime time slot on the ABC.

Let's talk about containing the rage at poor old Leigh Sales house.  How do you reckon she's reacted to the inevitable news that she's had to swallow a 20% pay cut, 20% staff cut and 20% budget cut for the 730 program to provide the funds for Stan to get this new gig.  

Yep, I'm dreamin'.

This is The Age's report.

 ABC axes Friday edition of 7.30 program to make way for Stan Grant show

Fergus Hunter 
  • Fergus Hunter

The ABC has axed the Friday broadcast of the 7.30 program less than two years after it controversially replaced state-based editions of the show. 

From 2017 the slot will be filled by a current affairs program hosted by veteran journalist Stan Grant, who has also been appointed as the national broadcaster's new editor of Indigenous affairs.


Stan Grant 'struggles to contain rage'

Indigenous broadcaster Stan Grant has delivered a powerful speech on Aboriginal rights and recognition at the University of New South Wales.

The axing of the state editions in a round of sweeping cost-cutting measures provoked outrage in late 2014, with critics arguing the programs – formerly known as Stateline – were a popular source of crucial coverage of local issues.

Grant – a media veteran with experience domestically and internationally, including roles at CNN, NITV, Sky News and Guardian Australia  has forged a reputation for his powerful writing and speeches on discrimination against Aboriginal Australians.

Stan Grant will become the ABC's editor of Indigenous affairs.
Stan Grant will become the ABC's editor of Indigenous affairs. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

In his newly established role, Grant – a Wiradjuri and Kamilaroi man – will lead a national team dedicated to coverage of Indigenous affairs. He will also be available to fill in for 7.30 presenter Leigh Sales.

The new Indigenous affairs team comes as part of ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie's strategic focus on boosting diversity in the organisation. It was the key recommendation from an internal Indigenous staff summit.


In a speech on Friday night, Ms Guthrie said the unit will "enhance the breadth and depth of our Indigenous coverage, across policy, the challenges to those communities and the contributions they make".

She praised Grant's "tremendous ability to articulate his experiences and those of his people".

7.30 anchor Leigh Sales.
7.30 anchor Leigh Sales. Photo: ABC

"I could not think of a better journalist to lead this important team at the ABC," she told the New News Conference at the University of Melbourne.

Grant said it was "significant and appropriate" for the national broadcaster to be adopting a more structured approach and lead discussion in this area.

"These issues go to the heart of the country – to who we are as Australians – and these initiatives will put the ABC at the heart of the conversation," he said.

News director Gaven Morris said Grant was "ideally suited" for the roles and would be working to strengthen the reporting of Indigenous affairs.

"Stan is one of Australia's top journalists, a highly respected talent with extensive media experience nationally and internationally," Morris said. "He is also one of our leading voices in the area of Indigenous affairs."

Most recently, Grant has contributed regularly to Guardian Australia and hosted The Point on NITV, a nightly show featuring interviews and coverage of Indigenous affairs. In February, he released a book called Talking to My Country.

He has won multiple awards and was based overseas for several years as a correspondent with international news channel CNN.

Earlier this year, Grant attempted to enter politics but negotiations with various parties broke down.

The ABC will also provide Indigenous cultural awareness training for staff and institute professional development for Aboriginal employees.

Ms Guthrie has announced a modernisation of ABC News and ABC Local Radio branding, which will roll out over the coming months and make it "easier for audiences to identify trusted, distinctive ABC news, no matter where they are" and across platforms.

The ABC will also launch a service on Facebook Messenger next week, which will send users a morning news summary and allow them to respond for further information and customise their interests. It will also send breaking news alerts.

Check the headline on this New York Times publicity for Waleed Aly

If Australia was a person it would be in court today filing against the New York Times.

There isn't an iota of evidence to support the shocking claim that our country chooses to "sacrifice lives" for anything, let alone to deter people from getting on death trap boats.


I respond to the NYT about Australia's Wahhabist Waleed, Sunni Islam promoter and Australia-critic

The premise of Waleed Aly's New York Times column is 4th hand hearsay from people who make money out of complaining about Australia.

Based on what the misery industry says, Aly has just told the world:

  • Australia tortures people 
  • Australia’s detention regime is intentionally brutal as a punishment and warning to others
  • People die in our care because we knowingly make only inadequate medical care available
  • Australia knowingly destroys lives to deter others

His opinions about us come from reading reports written by Gillian Trigg's Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations and Amnesty International.

Mine come from a 3 week trek following asylum seekers from Somalia through transit countries, then onto a boat from Cilicap Indonesia to Christmas Island.

New Yorkers today are reading Waleed Aly stick it up Australia under the headline Australia's Poisonous Refugee Policy.  

Poisonous what?

The country and culture that's given Waleed Aly so much opportunity is also the world's most generous provider of places for refugees, based on GDP and per head of population.

My source is the Refugee Council publication on which the following article from The Australian is based - and good on The Australian for its refreshing pro-Australian reporting.

Asylum-seekers: Australia pulling its weight on refugees 

Australia is the world’s most ­generous nation for resettling genuine refugees when calcu­lated per head of population and by national wealth, pipping Canada and ­Norway.

Australia gave a new home to 11,570 of the world’s most vulnerable people last year by providing offshore humanitarian places to refugees approved by the UN’s Refugee Agency.

Many were languishing in refugee camps. New figures from the Refugee Council show the US resettled 77,011 refugees in 2014, followed by Canada, which resettled 12,277 people.

Australia comes in third, but when the resettlement figures are calculated by head of population the nation is the top provider of refugee places. It is followed by Canada, Norway and the US.

Australia also emerges as the most generous nation in the tally of resettlement places when they are calculated by GDP, followed by Canada and Finland.

The ability to provide ­humanitarian places for offshore refugees is seen as a significant dividend of stopping the flow of asylum-seeker boats to Australia.

Aly is the former head of public affairs (and a member of the executive committee ) of the Islamic Council of Victoria.   So it's not surprising that it's always Australia cast as the torturer, dishing out brutal exemplary punishment, withholding vital medical care and destroying lives.   We never hear this bloke use his platform to talk about the reason for the conflicts that people are said to be fleeing.


The world is falling over itself to give aid to the people in this clip.   These poor buggers live in makeshift tents in what was a beautiful manicured park in Mogadishu, Somalia.   Why?  Islam.


What upsets me most, is that the aid can't get through because Waleed Aly's brand of Islam, the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia won't let it.  They won't take a single refugee.  They won't pay us for taking their share.  And when we try to send in aid - it's blocked by the Sunni-backed Al-Shabaab terror group.

But according to Aly - it's Australia at fault.

It's the same story for the babies.


When we turned up at the baby health centre, this is the firepower we carried.   Why?   Islam.


The blokes in this clip were being held for longer than they wanted after negative security assessments at Christmas Island.  I know their stories.   I was there.   According to Amnesty, Human Rights and sundry others enriched by the misery of others, they're being tortured by Australia's brutal regime.


Selective Sunni Aly wouldn't know their history but he's happy to take the misery industry's word for it.  These men were awaiting trial in an Australian court for offences committed here in Australia.  Offences which one explained as "so what, one day I go jungle" turned out to be a mass breakout and reign of terror over the locals.  But to Waleed Aly the Human Rights Industry's reports are authoritative.   There's only one side to his story.

Waleed drop the pretence at unbiased observations based on fact.

If you believe the misery industry, you are being conned.  If you believe me, you should also check my sources to make sure I continue to deserve your trust.

But if you believe Waleed Aly and you vote, you place the future of our country in peril.

Here is some of my report after visiting Christmas Island Detention Centre.


Waleed Aly writes for the New York Times to shit-can Australia

Images (2)

Australia's Poisonous Wahhabi Aly

Australia doesn't execute people for not being like us.  Islam does.  As a paid Islamist PR you'd reckon Waleed Aly might open up a bit about that central tenet of the system he pushes.  

We couldn't give a rat's about other people's religion as long as they don't want to hurt us.  

And we don't decide who's in or kept out of our country on race, gender, sexual orientation or how they say their prayers.

In our democracy what goes on here is what we the people of Australia want to go on here.    Not Muhammad.   Not Buddha.  And certainly not the views of Sunni Islam's head office, Saudi Arabia spouted through slick PRs like Waleed Aly.

We don't like it when people get killed because of something we did.  

We are revolted when it's children who have no say in getting on board leaky boats only to drown at sea while en route to claim a prize for mum and dad.

We're more Hippocrates than Muhammad.  First do no harm.  We want to know a bit about who's coming here and their intentions.  We don't want them dead on arrival.  And self-selection or queue-jumping isn't on.  

Residency or citizenship in Australia is a glittering prize.  Many want it.   Let it rip and ruthless people smugglers will quickly fill the leaky boats again.  That's what happenned last time Wahabbi Aly's preferred system was running.  And thousands drowned.  

Australians could see that our system was killing people.  Mohameddan fatalist culture might cop that sweet as the will of a vengeful creator.   But just like we do in most things - or overdo at work - it's Safety First here and decent Australians won't be a party to industrial scale killing.

I won't cop two-faced criticism of our caring culture from a paid promoter of its opposite.   The least worst option is the stable one we have now.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's strong border protection and denial of the prize of residency to those who try to buck our system by arriving illegally by boat is working.   Lives are being saved.

We can't offer refuge to everyone on earth from those who'd attack or persecute them.   But we can manage Australia and remove further unacceptable temptations and risks to life from our system.

Michael P. Smith is an Australian with a website and unfunded opinions.


Here's the pretend proud Australian Waleed Aly using the pages of the New York Times to attack Australia and most of our population. 



So on one level, when Amnesty International reported last week that Australia’s system of offshore detention — in which asylum seekers heading to Australia by boat are intercepted and sent to camps in Nauru or Papua New Guinea indefinitely — “essentially amounts to torture,” the Australian government’s response was entirely predictable.

“I personally find that to be offensive,” said the head of the immigration department, Michael Pezzullo.

“I reject that claim totally,” declared Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. “It is absolutely false.”

But that’s largely where the defense ended. Mr. Turnbull wasn’t about to engage in a legal argument on Amnesty’s claim. There was no need because he knows that ultimately not all that many Australians care all that much.

That’s been true for at least 15 years, when former Prime Minister John Howard prospered so handsomely from his asylum-seeker policies, from which the current program is derived. Repeated polling since 2013 shows that whatever those policies seem to be, somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of Australians think they should be even more severe. Around another 35 to 40 percent think the policy is about right. The view that our policy is too harsh tops out at around 27 percent.

These figures scarcely change, no matter how many reports come out from Human Rights Watch, the United Nations or Australia’s own Human Rights Commission.

You see, we’ve “stopped the boats.” That quote doesn’t come from anyone in particular. It’s everyone’s. Mr. Turnbull’s predecessor, Tony Abbott, most relentlessly repeated it, but it’s on high rotation in every government official’s playlist. Whatever the scandal, whatever the latest account of refugee children attempting suicide or detainees setting themselves on fire, it’s all anyone need say.

This is the great sedative of Australian politics: dulling our attention, rendering all else some indecipherable white noise we only vaguely register before we fall asleep. Then we can snooze through any bombshell. Even Amnesty’s language isn’t arresting anymore. Merely a year and a half ago a United Nations special rapporteur found systematic violations of the Convention Against Torture. None of it registers because as long as boats carrying asylum seekers aren’t making it to Australia, all is justified.

So Australia’s detention regime becomes virtuous, brutality repackaged as compassion. Those languishing in detention centers, even the people who die there thanks to violence or woefully inadequate medical care for simple afflictions, they’re just a warning to others who might be tempted onto a boat. It’s true the journey is deadly, but it’s also true that Australia is using the more than 1,200 other people stuck in limbo in Nauru and Papua New Guinea as a deterrent. These are the starkly utilitarian terms of the policy: We sacrifice the lives of innocent people to dissuade others from risking theirs.

This rhetoric masks an enormous problem. While Australia was adamant that anyone arriving by boat would be turned away forever, it has never had any idea where these people would ultimately go. Paying other countries to detain them could be only a stopgap measure. Eventually their refugee claims would be processed, and eventually they would need to be resettled somewhere.

And while we were sleeping, that moment arrived. Papua New Guinea’s highest court in April found the detention center there to be illegal, meaning the detainees must be sent elsewhere. Australia has paid Cambodia $42 million to resettle refugees — only two have been successfully resettled. Otherwise, Australia resorts to persuading people to return home to the lands they’re fleeing — war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, among other menacing places.

We have traded a boat problem for a resettlement one. And in the meantime, lives are still being destroyed, just slowly.

It’s here we confront Amnesty’s most arresting finding: Australia’s policy is a kind of contagion, lowering global standards on refugee policy, shifting the boundaries of what nations now find acceptable.

The most direct example is Indonesia, which, partly at Australia’s urging, has sharply increased its own use of detention centers, criminalized the act of providing accommodations for anyone without a visa, and attempted to return boats headed for Indonesia back to the countries they had left.

But we’re also seeing a procession of European far-right nationalist parties — the U.K. Independence Party in Britain, the National Democratic Party of Germany and the Danish People’s Party — expressly hold Australia up as an inspiration. There are even individual voices of support from within mainstream conservative parties, like Britain’s Tories. It’s clear that Australia would like its policy to be adopted more broadly.

Successive prime ministers — most recently Mr. Turnbull in his September address to the United Nations — have encouraged the world to follow Australia’s lead. It’s the kind of thing you can say when you’re an island nation far removed from the theaters of human misery producing the current refugee crisis. But it’s not the kind of thing to which the world can afford to listen.

The human displacement is too deep, the numbers too large. And with a global problem this urgent, the very worst you could do right now is reach for a sedative.

Clinton Foundation Corruption investigations to catch out Australian Ministers



When authorities want to interview Alex Downer, Julie Bishop, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and others they won't be able to say they weren't warned.

Each of the them has caused Australian taxpayer money to be diverted to a conman as donations to his Foundation.  Each of them has been made aware before today that he's a shonk, that the Foundation doesn't deliver and that our money has been donated for dubious returns.   Yet they persisted and in the case of Julie Bishop - continue in spraying our money for favours up until today.

Every cent of our $80-$100M that went to the Clinton Foundation was a donation.  It may have had MOUs, AIDS work, climate change, carbon accounting or Clinton Global Initiative sponsorship as a fancy description on an invoice - but that's just cover.  Every cent we sent was a donation to the Foundation.

God knows where our money went - because it was spent precisely as the Clintons wanted it spent.  Amongst other things that included private jets, parties - lifestyles of the rich and famous.   Courtesy of Australian taxpayers!

From the New York Times moments ago.


The emails, obtained by hackers and being gradually released by WikiLeaks this month, also are revealing how efforts to minimize potential conflicts at the foundation led to power struggles and infighting among aides and Mrs. Clinton’s family.

One top aide to Mr. Clinton, Douglas J. Band, noted in an email that the former president had received personal income from some foundation donors and “gets many expensive gifts from them.”

Chelsea Clinton accused her father’s aides of taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally,” of “hustling” during foundation events to win clients for their own business, and of even installing spyware on her chief of staff’s computer.

Hillary Clinton, another email showed, had promised to attend a Clinton Foundation gathering in Morocco at the behest of its king, who had pledged $12 million to the charity. Her advisers worried that would look unseemly just as she was beginning her presidential campaign in earnest.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” a close aide, Huma Abedin, wrote of Mrs. Clinton in a January 2015 email.

For months, the Clintons have defended their foundation, making public proclamations that it went above and beyond what the law required in terms of transparency while Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

“Do they plan to do big events next year?” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, asked about the foundation last year, shortly after Mrs. Clinton kicked off her presidential campaign. “Possible for those to be smaller and lower key in 16?”

Founded in 1997, when Mr. Clinton was still president, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion to fund projects around the world, helping African farmers improve their yields, Haitians recover from a devastating 2010 earthquake and millions of people gain access to cheaper H.I.V./AIDS medication, among other accomplishments.

Some of the former president’s staff members followed him from the White House to the foundation, and the emails provide an extraordinary look at the soap opera that unfolded years later as people close to the couple felt their power threatened.

“This is the 3rd time this week where she has gone to daddy to change a decision or interject herself,” Mr. Band, the longtime aide to Mr. Clinton, wrote about Chelsea Clinton in 2011.

At the time, she was beginning to exert influence at the foundation, expressing concerns that Mr. Band and others were trying to use the charity to make money for themselves, and accusing another aide in her father’s personal office of installing spyware.

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his political consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.In another email, Mr. Band wrote that Mr. Clinton had even received gifts from some donors.

The tensions came to a head when Chelsea Clinton helped enlist an outside law firm to audit the Clinton Foundation’s practices. Some interviewees told the audit team that the donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gift.” The audit suggested the foundation “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

The advice proved prescient as Mrs. Clinton faced intense scrutiny about whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received special access to her State Department or other rewards. In August, the foundation said it would no longer accept foreign donations should Mrs. Clinton win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed criticism of the charity as politically motivated. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Glen Caplin, declined to verify the authenticity of the emails, but said the hack was part of the Russian government’s efforts to use cyberattacks to influence the election in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Band’s firm released a statement saying: “Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Behind the scenes, Mrs. Clinton’s aides grappled with how to sever her from the problematic optics of some of the philanthropy’s fund-raising practices.

In an October 2014 email, Mr. Mook asked whether Mrs. Clinton’s name would be used in connection with the foundation, which is formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. “It will invite press scrutiny and she’ll be held accountable for what happens there,” he wrote.

The next year, when Mrs. Clinton was on the verge of declaring her candidacy, Cheryl D. Mills, a lawyer and top aide, said she discussed withMrs. Clinton various “steps” to take to adjust her relationship with the foundation, including her resignation from the foundation’s board.

By fall 2015, Mrs. Clinton’s aides had fine-tuned her response to questions about foreign donors. “As President, I won’t permit any conflicts between my work for the American people and the Foundation’s good work,” aides advised Mrs. Clinton to say in a coming debate.

The emails give insight into the periodic fires that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought they had to put out. Mrs. Clinton ultimately did not attend the foundation event in Morocco that Ms. Abedin had complained about; her husband and daughter did go. It is unclear if the king had given the $12 million he was said to have pledged; he is not listed among the foundation’s donors.

In March 2015, Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who had given more than $10 million to the foundation, was “relentlessly” requesting a meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to an aide, Amitabh Desai. If the former president declined, the relationship would be damaged, Mr. Desai wrote in an email.

“No is better. Is that viable?” wrote Mr. Podesta, who by then was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is unclear if the meeting took place.

That same year, during a discussion over a potential meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Saudi king, Mr. Podesta replied, using the former president’s initials, “Not something that would be on our top 10 list of WJC requests.”

Mr. Podesta took a leadership role at the charity when Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House counsel and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton who had been chief executive of the foundation, had a stroke in 2011.

His role at the foundation, coupled with his later capacity as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, put Mr. Podesta in the middle of internal workings of both operations and, by default, the delicate battles unfolding between Chelsea Clinton and her father’s top aides.

The day Mrs. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, died in 2011, Chelsea Clinton emailed Mr. Podesta. “Doug called and yelled and screamed at my Dad about how could he do this,” she said, a reference to the internal scrutiny going on at the foundation. “My mother is exhausted, we are all heartbroken but we need a strategy and my father needs advice/counsel.”

Mr. Band has said the exchange described in the email never happened.

Mr. Band, who helped Mr. Clinton build the foundation, clearly felt irritated by Chelsea Clinton’s stream of implications that he had padded his own pockets from his work for her father.“As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far,” he wrote. “A kiss on the cheek while she is sticking the knife in the back, and front.”

When Chelsea Clinton, using a pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” that she also sometimes used to check into hotels, sent Mr. Band a complimentary email in January 2012, he forwarded it to Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills.