Bills, Bills, and More Bills!

The present federal government insists that the more Bills, the more successful the Government.  Here is one of its real, latest Bills, The Homelessness Act (2013) which makes some sweet statements in favour of homeless people (who might not actually be homeless but may be, for example, living in a hostel or caravan), without actually creating any right, obligation, or anything useful other than vague commitments:

A Bill for an Act to provide for the recognition of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness, and for related purposes
The Parliament of Australia enacts:

Part 1—Preliminary

1  Short title
This Act may be cited as the Homelessness Act 2013.
2  Commencement
This Act commences on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.
3  Object of Act
The object of this Act is to increase recognition and awareness of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness.
4  Definitions
In this Act:
homelessness: see section 5.
mainstream services means general services provided by government or nongovernment agencies that are available to the general population, such as Centrelink, public and community housing, aged care and community health centres.
specialist homelessness services includes services to assist persons who are, or are at risk of, sleeping rough or living in an improvised dwelling.
5  Meaning of homelessness
For the purposes of this Act, a person is experiencing homelessness if:

(a) the person is sleeping rough or living in an improvised dwelling; or
(b) the person is temporarily living with friends or relatives, has no other usual address and does not have the capacity to obtain other suitable accommodation; or
(c)  the person has no safe place to live (including because the person is, or is at risk of, experiencing domestic violence); or
(d) the person is living in accommodation provided by a specialist homelessness service; or
(e) the person is living in a refuge, shelter or similar crisis accommodation; or
(f) the person is living in a caravan park, boarding house, hostel or similar accommodation, whether on a shortterm or longterm basis, in respect of which the person has no secure lease and the person is not living in that accommodation by choice.

Part 2—Recognition of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness

6  General recognition
(1)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness should have the same ability to exercise their rights, and have the same choices and opportunities, as other Australians, regardless of age, race, sex, disability, sexuality, religious or political beliefs, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage, cultural or linguistic differences, socioeconomic status or locality.
(2)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness face more challenges than other Australians in exercising their rights.
(3)  The Commonwealth recognises that children and young people who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness should have the same ability to exercise their rights as all children and young people and should be supported to reach their full potential.
(4)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness contribute to family, social and community life.
(5)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness should be supported to enjoy optimum health, safety and social wellbeing.
(6)  The Commonwealth recognises that support for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness should be provided in a way that respects their dignity as individuals, enhances their selfesteem, is sensitive to their social and economic circumstances and respects their cultural backgrounds and their beliefs.
(7)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness should be supported to achieve greater economic wellbeing and sustainability and greater participation in civic affairs and should have opportunities to participate in employment and education.
7  Factors contributing to homelessness
(1)  The Commonwealth recognises that factors contributing to homelessness include unemployment, a lack of appropriate, affordable, safe and sustainable housing, physical or mental health issues, substance abuse, family conflict, discrimination, domestic violence and physical, emotional or sexual abuse.
(2)  The Commonwealth recognises that certain persons leaving institutional settings such as custodial, juvenile detention or mental health institutions, or noninstitutional settings such as guardianship and foster care arrangements, may be at risk of experiencing homelessness.
8  Access to housing
(1)  The Commonwealth’s aspiration is that all persons living in Australia have access to appropriate, affordable, safe and sustainable housing.
(2)  The Commonwealth recognises that having access to such housing contributes to a person’s social and economic participation.
9  Social inclusion
(1)  The Commonwealth recognises that persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness face barriers in achieving social inclusion, including barriers to participating in education, employment and civic affairs, to accessing basic needs such as healthcare and to maintaining community and social links.
(2)  The Commonwealth is committed to a cooperative approach with the States and Territories, local government and the notforprofit and forprofit sectors to address the issue of homelessness in order to help more persons living in Australia achieve social inclusion.
10  Service delivery
(1)    The Commonwealth is committed to the following 5 service delivery outcomes.
(2)  The first outcome is that mainstream services, and specialist homelessness services, for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness are of the highest quality.
(3)  The second outcome is that, within available resources, mainstream services, and specialist homelessness services, for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness are based on priority of access, taking into account an assessment of the needs of those persons and of the vulnerability of those persons.
(4)  The third outcome is that mainstream services, and specialist homelessness services, for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness are timely, responsive, appropriate, accessible and integrated.
(5)  The fourth outcome is that mainstream services, and specialist homelessness services, for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness address the individual needs of those persons, and are culturally appropriate to those persons, taking into account the views of those persons.
(6)  The fifth outcome is that mainstream services, and specialist homelessness services, for persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness are provided in a way that does not prejudice the universal human rights of those persons.
11  Strategies to reduce homelessness
(1)  The Commonwealth recognises the importance of having strategies to reduce the number of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness, including the following:

(a) prevention and early intervention;
(b) increasing the supply of affordable housing;
(c) increasing the range of appropriate accommodation options;
(d) ongoing support and services, including individual case management where appropriate.

(2)  The Commonwealth recognises that research helps to identify and target strategies to address the individual needs of those persons.
12  Cooperation and consultation
(1)  The Commonwealth is committed to working cooperatively with the States and Territories, local government, the notforprofit and forprofit sectors and persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness to reduce the number of such persons.
(2)  The Commonwealth is committed to its agencies working cooperatively to reduce the number of such persons.
(3)  The Commonwealth is committed to maintaining a consultative approach to the development of policy to address the issue of homelessness.
13  Australia’s international human rights obligations
(1)  The Commonwealth has acted to protect the rights of all of its citizens, including persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness, by recognising international standards for the protection of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms through:

(a) the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination done at New York on 21 December 1965 ([1975] ATS 40); and
(b) the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1976] ATS 5); and
(c) the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1980] ATS 23); and
(d) the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women done at New York on 18 December 1979 ([1983] ATS 9); and
(e) the ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on 10 December 1984 ([1989] ATS 21); and
(f) the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 ([1991] ATS 4); and
(g) the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12); and
(h) the acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
(i) the acceptance of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; and
(j)  the statement of support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and
(k) the enactment of legislation such as the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

(2)  Accordingly, the Commonwealth recognises that reducing the number of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness is part of meeting Australia’s international human rights obligations.

Part 3—Other matters

14  Act does not create or give rise to rights or obligations
(1)  This Act does not, by its terms or operation, create or give rise to any rights (whether substantive or procedural), or obligations, that are legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.
(2)  No action, suit or proceeding is to be instituted in reliance on the terms of this Act or the operation of this Act.
15  Act not intended to exclude similar State or Territory laws
This Act is not intended to apply to the exclusion of any law of a State or Territory that provides for the recognition of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness.

 See “Vanity bill keeps homeless out in the cold”, by Nick Cater:

On Sunday, with the triumphal tone of a functionary in a Soviet shoe factory, Wayne Swan boasted of the 43rd parliament's output.  It was, claimed the Treasurer, one of the most successful parliaments in a generation.  “More than 582 pieces of legislation have gone through the House of Representatives with a week to go.”

The history of the Soviet Union is a cautionary tale in the perverse consequences of measuring industry by gross output, rather than its ability to meet demand.  If output targets are set by weight, factory managers respond by producing heavier goods, which is why nails in Eastern Europe used to be larger than those in the West.  If output is set by volume, the measure Swan applies to parliament, the goods will be light and flimsy.

The Homelessness Bill is the natural outcome, a piece of shoddy legislation that achieves no serious public policy objective beyond defining homelessness and expressing aspirations that a broke government can’t pay for.  Meanwhile, the productive side of the economy struggles to overcome a mountain of red and green tape.  “Day-to-day we get on with the job,” the PM told Jon Faine last year.  “Parliament works, it gets things done.  It passes new bills, it creates new laws, and they’re not just garden-variety things if I can use that terminology.  They're blockbuster pieces of legislation that are changing the nation and setting us up for the future.”

UPDATE:  for similar enacted pieties, which are explicitly not enforceable, see “Schedule 1” of the Carer Recognition Act (2010) which, according to Section 6, provides a “Statement for Australia’s Carers”:

1 All carers should have the same rights, choices and opportunities as other Australians, regardless of age, race, sex, disability, sexuality, religious or political beliefs, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage, cultural or linguistic differences, socioeconomic status or locality.
2 Children and young people who are carers should have the same rights as all children and young people and should be supported to reach their full potential.
3 The valuable social and economic contribution that carers make to society should be recognised and supported.
4 Carers should be supported to enjoy optimum health and social wellbeing and to participate in family, social and community life.
5 Carers should be acknowledged as individuals with their own needs within and beyond the caring role.
6 The relationship between carers and the persons for whom they care should be recognised and respected.
7 Carers should be considered as partners with other care providers in the provision of care, acknowledging the unique knowledge and experience of carers.
8 Carers should be treated with dignity and respect.
9 Carers should be supported to achieve greater economic wellbeing and sustainability and, where appropriate, should have opportunities to participate in employment and education.
10  Support for carers should be timely, responsive, appropriate and accessible.

Has anyone hitherto suggested that carers should not have the same rights, choices and opportunities as other Australians?  Anyway, see Section 10 of the Act:

10  Act does not create legally enforceable obligations etc.
(1) This Act does not create rights or duties that are legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.
(2) A failure to comply with this Act does not affect the validity of any decision, and is not a ground for the review or challenge of any decision.
(3) If a public service agency, or an associated provider, is required by another law of the Commonwealth, or by a law of a State or Territory, to consider particular matters, or to comply with particular requirements, in the exercise of its functions or powers, nothing in this Act is to be taken to require the agency, or the associated provider, to act inconsistently with that law. 

A Different Mood, a Different Voice

In “Girls and women, heed the Gillard examples” at Quadrant Online, Dr Philippa Martyr explains rather well how our dear but tense PM coped with irksome questions:

When you read the transcript of the interview, it’s clear that Gillard dealt with Howard Sattler’s question very well.  She defused it, answered it, and moved on.  That actually shows competence, not offence.

This rather explains, I reckon, why so many people suspect that Ms Gillard was expecting the tenor of those questions, though she was unimpressed with the artless expression thereof, and that some sort of deal had been devised.  There was far less tightness of the throat and strident argumentativeness which she revealed when pressed by Ben Fordham to state whether she’d been in the same room as Ralph Blewitt (when she allegedly witnessed his odd Power of Attorney), and there was none of the hysterical shrillness accompanied by a grumpy demeanour which she manifests whenever peeved by questions from wicked bêtes noires in Question Time.


Since we know that the PM’s career has been marked at all stages by assistance from various puppeteers, it is not irrational, whenever we suspect some degree of competence from the PM, to suspect also that there’s been some manipulation from below to make her seem competent.

[This was posted originally as a comment at Catallaxy Files.]

UPDATE I:  some earlier commentary on Twitter about the PM:

UPDATE II:  some much earlier commentary from the PM, when she was in opposition, in 2006:

UPDATE III (17 June):  meanwhile, police from the Victorian Fraud Squad continue to investigate the PM’s dodgy conduct as a lawyer; see update xiv of “The Prime Minister Is a Liar”.

Onus Probendi

At The Drum, in “Toxic week a taste of the election to come”, the irredeemably partisan Barrie Cassidy, in yet another assuete example of special pleading, writes of “a disgustingly sexist and offensive mock menu related to a Liberal Party fund-raising dinner”:

The Coalition released an email from the author of the menu, the owner of the restaurant, who argued he had produced it as a joke, “never for public distribution.”  The email took the heat off Mal Brough, and by extension, Tony Abbott.
The explanation however, raised several points.  Firstly, why then did Mal Brough personally apologise for something that he now says, didn’t happen. That is, the menu was not circulated.  Secondly, why did it take so long for the explanation to emerge?  And finally how plausible is it anyway, that somebody would go to so much trouble producing such elaborate material just for the amusement of a few kitchen hands?

I companionably provided some likely explanations for Mr. Cassidy’s three points in a comment below his article:

1.  It was the decent and honourable thing to do.  Mr Brough, after his being presented with what he was told was a menu from his dinner (though he had not seen it), recognising that it had offended people, rightly apologised in the same way that Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard* apologised for actions by previous governments though they bore no direct responsibility.
2.  The man responsible for the fake menu was unaware, perhaps, of the whole kerfuffle for much of the day.  Would a quicker response be more credible?  I suspect you’d find a swift response even more suss.  Of course, if journalists had investigated the matter thoroughly before testifying to the credibility of the fake menu, no explanation at all would have been required to redress errors.
3.  How plausible is it that people will go to such trouble?  Very plausible.  We have marvellous modern gadgetry which makes that sort of drollery quite easy.  People sometimes spend many hours on an edited graphic, say, or an entire day just creating a fake Facebook group, merely for the amusement of themselves and, perhaps, a few strangers.

Another reader, AT, responded to my comment:

Okay, Deado, but using your own methodology for sussing things out, you'd have to concede you could just as easily construct an equally plausible scenario reaching the opposite conclusions;
1.  Brough didn’t apologise until it became an issue.  A decent man would’ve immediately issued an apology and distanced himself from the whole affair.
2.  The man responsible for the fake menu must’ve been aware his handiwork, his restaurant and his Liberal party fund-raising event was the biggest story of the day.  If his apology was sincere, he would have issued that apology immediately to staunch the damage his party is now experiencing.
3.  It’s totally implausible to believe a successful restaurateur hosting a high-profile fund-raiser for his political party would take time out from preparations to produce a joke-menu for the sole amusement of kitchen staff, none of whom have come forward to corroborate his story.
Whaddaya think?

The Drum has prevented the posting of further comments but, had I been free to supply a response, I should have written something like this:

1.  This point is a lie, based on accepting partisan and probably mischievously erroneous accounts.  Mr Brough did apologise at the first opportunity.  The burden of proof lies on those who doubt this to prove otherwise.
2.  This point makes an unproven assumption:  where is the evidence that Mr Richards, the restaurateur, “must have known”, and where is the evidence that he cared about damage to “his party”?  The burden of proof lies on those who doubt Mr Richards’ account to prove otherwise.
3.  This point is predicated on a baseless assumption that the fake menu was concocted during the preparations of the dinner. The burden of proof lies on those who assert this to prove it.
AT argues, in bad faith it seems, on the basis that Mr Brough has an obligation to provide a account which his enemies will consider plausible; that’s wrong.  The relevant legal maxim here is semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit—“the necessity of proving always lies on him who lays the charges”.  The PM and her minions and all others who doubt Mr Brough must either provide sound evidence that his account is false or accept his explanation.

For further information on the strange case of the non-existent but extremely offensive menu, see “Paul Murray on Menugate”, “Menugate – a story in tweets” and “ABC still pushing menugate” at Catallaxy Files.

*  as I wrote elsewhere, why did Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard personally apologise for the pain and suffering caused by previous governments’ policies?  Were they somehow involved in, say, stealing babies from single mothers, perhaps.

UPDATE I:  see also “SCOOP: ALP Menu Worse than LNP” and “Why Is Main-Stream Media Not on the Menu?” by W. Dallas Brooks:

When journalists lie, what hope have we got?  This past week has been a low point in five years of an ever descending waterline on conduct.  As the ALP and their main-stream media advocates drool, hiss and spit about a menu from a private Liberal Party function that was not even seen by Liberal Party MPs, they now refuse even to acknowledge the existence of a very real, and very offensive menu from a Labor function hosted in May.

UPDATE II:  despite the clear evidence that the supposedly offensive menu was fake, the PM’s feigned outrage and the partisan propaganda seems to be working; for example, see “A little spotted dick, anyone?”: 

That menu didn’t just insult Julia Gillard, it insulted every female in this country.  While I was facing indecision about where to cast my vote, after today I’m DAMN sure I know where I am NOT casting my vote.

UPDATE III (June 15):  see “Chooks on the menu”, by Roger Franklin, at Quadrant Online:

On Tuesday night, a Brisbane chef re-tweeted the alleged menu from a Mal Brough fund-raiser held 10 weeks earlier.  We all know what happened next:  a document of dubious provenance, distributed by a nobody who had earlier said he would prefer to be “raped by an AIDS-infected pit bull” than see Abbott in The Lodge, and whose Facebook page reflects an enthusiasm for centrefold lesbianism,  was hailed as a champion of truth and women’s rights.  Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and Sinclair Davidson have all done forensic analyses of the so-called Menugate “scandal” and its timeline, and those who need a further reminder of why election reporting by Fairfax and the ABC must be taken with a truckload of salt should visit their posts for a refresher course.

Mediæval Rock

Viâ Medieval Music Videos from History for Music Lovers at Medieval.net.

Nearing the Downfall

The Incompetent PM and Her Odd Lack of Support

Within her bunker,
the PM, who promised
“no ‘carbon’ tax”, broods,

and wonders why she’s
hated, and why her party’s
so riven by feuds,

when she’s so superb.
(She and her lackeys want to

proscribe attitudes

insufficiently

servile; and then they’ll try to

ban sweet, tasty foods.

Led by a moll famed
for having had multiple

flings with married dudes,

our inept, rotten
government consists of
censorious prudes.)

Mystified by her
unpopularity, our
Dear Leader concludes

she’ll change naught.  Inside
her bunker, reality
at no time intrudes.

UPDATE (18 June):

Stultifera Navis

As Gillard flounders deep in pools
of tears, complaining that her mules
in caucus are bereft of tools
whilst shrieking that she’ll fund State schools,
K. Rudd won’t chose between two stools
but, undecided, sits and drools.
And all this while the planet cools.
Come, all aboard the ship of fools!

UPDATE II (20 June):

Scylla aut Charybdis

Labor has a simple choice:
the cloying or the strident voice;
the barking Tearer of the shore,
the certain Sucker of before;
but, he or she, each option must
produce for voters more disgust.
Charybdis, Scylla, either one
ensures for years the party’s done.

See “It’s Mr Arsenic or Ms Old Lace”, by Nikki Savva, for an assessment of the two likely leaders of the Parliamentary Labor Party:

Rudd is an evil control freak who betrayed his own side during the 2010 election, was a bad-tempered prime minister who treated underlings, ministers and senior public servants with contempt, and couldn’t deliver anyway.
Gillard is stubborn, refuses to heed advice or accept responsibility for mistakes, uses her gender as a crutch, then when she has to make a call it’s invariably the wrong one.  Other than that, she’s a nice person.

UPDATE III (20 June):  a slightly rewritten response (to a criticism of my describing the Labor caucus as “bereft of tools”) by Huckleberry Chunkwot at Catallaxy Files:

You must avoid the big red box!

The caucus is a paradox:
so soft of purpose, hard as rocks,
it gives but cannot take hard knocks;
though not right-thinking, orthodox,
it forces gloom on callow flocks
of how the “carbon” bomb tick-tocks;
prescribing keys but banning locks;
it’s full of—but bereft of—cocks.

UPDATE IV (16 July):  her caucus colleagues finally approved of having their rotten PM removed.