A Flowering Discontent

This John Flowers saga keeps rolling on.


I wrote previously about the issue here and here.

The Man himself.  From the Telegraph

The Sydney Morning Herald has, so far, barely covered the issue.  The Telegraph, on the other hand, seems to be quite enjoying the chance to have a dig at the new kids in town.


On Monday the Tele published a long piece online about Flowers, essentially speculating that he suffered from agoraphobia.  The suggestion is not attributed, but I wonder whether it came from a source that was keen to "flush out" the true state of affairs, or was otehrwise keen to perpetuate the story.


A new story was published yesterday that explained that in fact he suffers from PTSD as a result of, amongst other things, seeing a teacher's hair set on fire and having his car rocked by students.


The interesting issue here, in my view, is the Coalition's failure to take control of the story and kill it.


This is the week that the new parliament is being opened, but instead Labor has been able distract Telegraph readers with this issue.


There was some discussion in yesterday's Telegraph article about how it is that Mr Flowers "could not go back to teaching" and that to do would have been medically unwise.


He goes on to say that teaching is different to dealing with parliament as he will be dealing with adults rather than children.


Clearly he has never seen question time in the Bearpit, but I suppose that is another issue.


The article goes on to say the following: "[Flowers] said a psychiatrist and doctor advised him to be medically retired and he has since received a "breakdown pension" involving him receiving compulsory superannuation payments he had made earlier as a teacher."


Prior to this article appearing it was my impression that Flowers was on some sort of disability pension, suggesting that he was medically unfit for work.


As I have said, I am no expert at Suerannuation, and I don't understand what "a "breakdown pension" involving him receiving compulsory superannuation payments" means.  No doubt 99% of the electorate doesn't either.


It may be that, as a result of his PTSD, he was simply given early access to his super.


On the other hand, he may have been in receipt of some centrelink type payment.


Either way, the issue is that the public have no information about what was actually going on, which means that Labor now has the opportunity to produce this.


The piece is a bit over the top in suggesting that "the fix was in" or that he is "unfit to sit in parliament". But nonetheless it is a piece that, in light of the Telegraph articles, has some traction.


The failure of the Telegraph article to fully explain what the true situation was may be more to do with the writer than the Liberal party.


But either way, this issue, which should have been stamped out before the election, is being allowed to fester.  Labor and the Tele (surprising bedfellows, to say the least) are controlling the narrative, and the narrative is damaging for the Liberal Party.


The Liberals are going to have to learn to deal with this stuff or else they are quickly going have the gloss taken off, and in a big way.


The new government's first "scandal".  Not a good reflection on them at a time when they should be winning plaudits for starting to fix stuff in NSW.

A Holey Charade

Until now I've resisted blogging about "Labor's Black hole" mostly because I find the whole thing pretty bloody boring.

Every election where there is a change of government, no matter which side has seized power, there is the discovery of a "MASSIVE BUDGET BLACK HOLE" a few weeks after the election.

It is predictable and more than a little silly.  

The reason for the "black hole" is of course to allow the incoming government to cut service to pay for election promises, but not cop any flack for the cuts.

it's painfully transparent, but, as the saying goes, they'll stop doing it when it stops working.

It has also been interesting to note the divergent coverage of the "scandal" - the Daily Telegraph described it as "ALP's Budget black hole deepens to $5.2 billion" .

The Sydney Morning Herald is saying that the "Audit gets Labor out of a hole," reporting, in short, that Labor had been exonerated by the comments contained in the audit.

I quite liked Alan Moir's cartoon today that neatly summed up the entire kerfuffle:

From the Sydney Morning Herald

The issue is profoundly boring because it is a charade played out for the gullible, or at least those with memories so short they can't remember that the last 14 governments all played the same cards.

The only interesting part is seeing what programs the Coalition government plans to use this "black hole" to cut.

The first item, according to the Telegraph, is to be the number of state funded cars.  Apparently the NSW fleet vastly exceeds Victoria's figures.

Clearly spending more than Victoria on a particular item is all the justification that is needed to start cuts

A further area of "waste" is the number of cheques issued, at a cost that apparently runs into the tens of millions.

The Coalition also promised during the campaign to ditch the Western Expressway as well as the Parramatta to Epping Rail link, which will apparently save $4 billion.

The most important announcement, however, is that the budget is going to be one of "tough decisions"

Clearly, the Coalition is softening up the ground for a budget that will upset some people.

It makes sense as a tactic - upset people now when they will love you no matter what, so that by 4 years from now they will forget about the cuts you made just after you were elected.

It's the reverse of the tactic used by Labor over the last few election cycles of announcing a "freeze" of public transport fares in the months before the election.

What really annoys me is the shameless posturing.  Everyone who follows politics with any enthusiasm knows that the black hole is a joke, but of course those in power know that it is not the people who pay attention that they need to woo.

It's a tedious period in the electoral cycle, but it's unsurprising that Robertson is not saying much - better to let things settle down and then start making noise again once people are willing to give Labor a second look.

Unfortunately, it looks like we might have a fair bit more drudgery in store before things really kick off.

*******************************

An update on my blog about John Flowers. The SMH reported today that the government would be changing the relevant regulation to allow John Flowers to take his seat as the member for Rockdale.

It seems sensible enough - it's a bit ridiculous that a person cannot take their seat if on a pension, but also cannot elect to surrender said pension.

That said, it still reflects poorly that the issue was not resolved until the last minute.  Further, no one seems to have reported exactly what his disability is or how it is that he was too disabled to work as a teacher but well enough to run for and win a seat in the state parliament.  Odd.

A Super Situation

The Daily Telegraph revealed on Wednesday that new Liberal MP for Rockdale John Flowers may have to resign.

The story (incorrectly) stated that Mr Flowers "was elected while receiving a disability pension, in breach of the constitution." In fact, the section 13B of the NSW Constitution Act reads as follows:

(1) A person:

(a) holding an office of profit under the Crown, or

(b) having a pension from the Crown during pleasure or for a term of years,

shall not, if he is elected as a Member of either House of Parliament, be capable of sitting and voting as a Member of the House to which he is elected, and his seat as a Member shall become vacant, after the expiration of the period commencing with his election and ending on the expiration of 7 sitting days of that House after notice of his holding that office or having that pension has been given to that House in accordance with its Standing Rules and Orders, unless that House has previously passed a resolution indicating that it is satisfied that that person has ceased to hold that office or, as the case may be, that the right of that person to that pension has ceased or is suspended while he is a Member of that House.

So, you can be elected if you are in receipt of a pension.  However, upon being elected, if you do not give notice to the house that you are no longer in receipt of the pension before 7 sitting days have passed, your seat becomes vacant.

John Flowers is not in trouble yet.  But he will be soon.

The difficulty is this: he can't do the obvious thing and just give up the pension.

Mr Flowers is in receipt of a disability pension that he gained "when he was a teacher in 1997".

I'm not quite clear on what the disability was, or how it is that the disability prevents him from teaching but does not prevent him acting as a Rockdale councillor and mayor, or for that matter campaigning and being elected as a member of the Lower House, but there may well be a reasonable explanation.

I'm no superannuation expert, but I think that the relevant part of the Superannuation Act 1916 is section 52E.  It seems to suggest (at subsection (4)(b)), that a person can have the pension awarded for life. Presumably, this is the situation John Flowers is in.

The relevant provision contained in that section regarding removal of the pension is under subsection (6) which indicates that, if the SAS Trustee Corporation is of the view that the person has ceased to be "physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of any employment that… would be reasonable for the person to undertake," then the pension should cease.

What has apparently happened is that Flowers has sought permission from the State Superannuation Board to have his pension frozen.

Exactly what power they may have to do this is not something I know anything about, but I suppose they can do these things.

Now, the Government has an advice on this from Crown Solicitors, no doubt written by someone who knows far more about all this stuff than me.  

But, to me, surely the obvious solution is for Flowers to point out to the SAS Trustee Corporation that he is no longer "physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of any employment that… would be reasonable for the person to undertake."

The difficulty may be that this may mean that he loses this pension for life - and it would seem that he is likely to struggle to hold this seat in 4 years, and would therefore be loathe to risk being left with no income 4 years from now.

The surprising thing is that, as Luke Foley put it, "It beggars belief the Liberal Party would not have known about Mr Flowers' circumstances." So why was nothing done about it until now?

Surely a plan would not have been too much to ask for?  The whole thing could have been hosed down by someone from the Coalition being able to say "It's OK!  We have it under control!"

Instead we have the Daily Telegraph running with the byline "The O'Farrell Government is hoping that a State Superannuation Board ruling next week will avoid a by-election just one month into its term," which is an entirely fair assessment.

This must have come up when he was vetted.  If this becomes a "thing" - the Coalition has no one to blame for it but themselves.