Sunday, 22 December 2013


From: g87
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:58 AM
Subject: PVO IS A FOOL

Hello PVO!

I now wish to contemplate that you, Peter Van Onselen are also*** a fool.

You are in good company! How is it possible that you lack even the basic elements of nous?

****Like another organization I know..... does not bother coming to terms with what has been freely available in the pages of The Oz over the past few days: it is a massive indictment for a former Liberal staffer like you who is so keen to distance himself from his past to ignore it all!
There are dozens of plain stupidities extant in your current article in the Saturday edition of The Oz.
ALL arising from the basic principal that you are indeed STUPID.

Maybe between playing with my grandchildren I will bother listing them all? But what a waste of time: I now formally regret my first - time use of the leftist phrase as below.

The most elementary catastrophe is the subject of PVO - the very idea that the esteemed Attorney -  General George Brandis is a hypocrite!

Peter, dear twirp; understand this. Politics is governed by a series of rules. Your childish derivation of hypocrisy at best trite.

Let me explain this to you.

  1. Politics is governed by the need to be re - elected when in government and the logical inverse when in opposition.
  2. Along the way the combatants dual in the classical way on trying to discredit each other.
  3. Your silly words about inflated rhetoric... is plain asinine. THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT JUSTIFIES YOUR TITLE! I wish time could be spent on this alone; but someone will explain it to you when / if you go back to JOURNALISM school for remedial lessons in clear thinking / logic. I am of course assuming that someone will bring this to your attention - because you are not easily contactable, methinks.
Actually - I will try to email this to you: if it is a valid email address so be it.

Send me a cheque for $1000 and I will give you a complete analysis of why you are a fool.


That is the advantage of being so asinine that you rarely have any idea of what goes on around you when it comes to the subtler elements of the journalists' art. Why you could go through life like members of PER CAPITA –you mention them – who also never get to understand the basic idea that socialism is DYSTOPIAN!!
Geoff Seidner
PS: Was there not a comedy film about a Winthrop?

Trading Places (1983) - IMDb

By the way: your professorship indicates you lecture in journalism: it is seriously suggested that you sue me for defamation or libel. I will have a lot of fun.
I May even need to complete a didactic analysis of the above.


Peter van Onselen appointed Foundation Professor in Journalism ...

  1. › NewsGroupsFaculty of Arts
    Apr 12, 2011 - Winthrop Professor Peter van Onselen ... has been appointed Foundation Professor in Journalism at The University of Western Australia.

The University of Western Australia

UWA Staff Profile

W/Prof Peter Van Onselen

Foundation Professor in Journalism
Communication Studies
Contact details
Communication Studies
The University of Western Australia (M257)
35 Stirling Highway
6488 7239
6488 1030

Brandis and Dreyfus take hypocrisy to a new level



Hi Geoff Discover news with your friends. Give it a try.
To get going, simply connect with your favourite social network:
Illustration: Eric Lobbecke Source: TheAustralian
ALL you can do is laugh at the hypocritical actions of the first law officer, Attorney-General George Brandis QC, and his opposition counterpart, Mark Dreyfus QC, himself attorney-general in the previous Labor government, when it comes to appointments and the pair's commentary on those appointments.
The two men are no strangers to hypocrisy, having used inflated rhetoric to condemn others for entitlements abuses before themselves being caught out for not dissimilar failings. But the pair's commentary about two recent appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission reads as if it were torn from the pages of a Yes Minister script.
Last July, Dreyfus appointed 31-year-old Tim Soutphommasane to the AHRC. Brandis slammed the appointment, describing Soutphommasane as an "overt partisan of the Labor Party", adding that "appointees must be people who can command the confidence of the entire community that they will discharge their responsibilities in the human rights field in a non-partisan manner".
Soutphommasane was a member of the Labor Party and an active voice for the Left, appearing regularly on the political talk-show circuit. He was also a fellow at the left-leaning think tank Per Capita. Dreyfus rejected the Brandis attack, arguing Soutphommasane was well qualified for the role. I'll come to that misnomer in a moment. It is worth noting that Soutphommasane was an entry-level academic (albeit a very good one) when he was appointed to a role previously held by judges and former federal ministers.
This week Brandis made his first AHRC appointment, selecting 33-year-old Tim Wilson, a director at the right-wing (it sees itself as "free market") think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
All of a sudden Brandis no longer thought it important that appointees "discharge their responsibilities in the human rights field in a non-partisan manner", as he had previously said. Equally, having condemned Dreyfus for making the Soutphommasane appointment late in Labor's term without consulting the opposition before doing so, Brandis announced Wilson's appointment to the AHRC before the Governor-General had even formally signed off on it. Brandis's high bar for due process was suddenly forgotten.
What was Dreyfus's reaction to the Wilson appointment? He said it was "dubious to say the least", attacking Wilson's partisanship (until the appointment Wilson was a member of the Liberal Party). How can Brandis and Dreyfus expect people to take them seriously? By all means condemn a partisan appointment by your political opponents, but don't then make one yourself. By all means make partisan appointments, but for God's sake shut up when your opponents go on to do likewise.
The sad thing about Dreyfus and Brandis is that they are supposed to be the adults in any room: former senior members of the bar and now senior frontbenchers within their parliamentary parties. Prior to Brandis and Dreyfus demeaning themselves, I would have argued that the biggest complaint anyone should have with the Wilson and Soutphommasane appointments is that with a base salary of more than $320,000 a year, surely candidates should have CVs to match the likes of a Brandis or Dreyfus to even be considered for positions on the AHRC.
In truth, the reason appointees to the commission no longer live up to the pedigree of past commissioners is because the AHRC has been exposed as nothing more than a lobbying arm of the public service, and an expensive one at that. The Fraser government set up the AHRC as an almost quasi-judicial body that would have the power to enforce rulings on issues within its ambit. But a 1995 High Court judgment stripped the commission of the power to make and enforce decisions, turning it into a toothless tiger. Hence the AHRC no longer conducts hearings.
The limited role of the AHRC today is what brings into question the $25 million it costs each year to run. It isn't just the salaries of the commissioners that are expensive and no longer justifiable. The entire apparatus takes rent-seeking to a new level. You have to love the irony that in the same week that Treasurer Joe Hockey talked about the need to reduce the size of government when releasing his mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, the Attorney-General makes a new appointment to a body he had previously (privately) canvassed abolishing.
It is hard to justify the salaries of commissioners being tied to those of judges, now the role of the AHRC has been downgraded. The calibre of appointments isn't what it once was. There are exceptions: Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, a former law partner, is one. Another is Gillian Triggs, a former dean of law at the University of Sydney. But for the most part finding senior practitioners to fill AHRC roles is increasingly hard to do now the functions of the commission centre around a glorified form of lobbying and public advocacy. And with this shift the likes of Soutphommasane and Wilson become ideally suited to becoming commissioners: able to hit the airwaves to mount arguments in the policy areas they have been assigned.
The question for taxpayers is: why are we now paying for them to do pretty much what they already had been doing, at a cheaper price, when they were paid by their ideologically driven organisations? A new conservative government was always likely to counterbalance years of left-wing appointments to the AHRC with right-wing appointments of its own. A strong conservative government, however, would simply have abolished the commission and saved the money.
There is nothing the AHRC does that can't be done by advocacy groups within academia, the non-government sector or even government departments. Equally, the toothless reports the AHRC produces could just as easily be done by the Ombudsman, only with much greater powers to investigate before publishing findings.
If the AHRC has to exist at all, Wilson's appointment at least starts the process of balancing up the organisation. Were it a truly quasi-judicial body such ideological thinking wouldn't much matter, but as a body for public advocacy it certainly does.
Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia.

No comments:

Post a Comment