Friday 26th of April 2024
Home » content

Not Aware

Could someone ferret out a legal opinion on what, "I am not aware (of) ..." means?

For example, "I am not aware that reports about maltreatment of detainees have been accumulating on my secretary's desk," or, "I am not aware that I have a huge yellow dildo up my rectum."

Do pronouncements like those amount to any more than the stuff at the bottom of the parrot's cage? If it is, as it sounds like, evasive double talk, then why isn't it challenged?

Process and Procedures

I just want to comment on this problem of our Ministers not knowing anything about anything and therefore being able to use this language, and only ever hearing one side of the story. The process that is set up is designed so that the Ministers are kept as much in the dark as possible so as to protect the Minister and the Government and so as to cover up. Everything is dealt with at the Ministerial correspondence units and Executive Support Directorate Units. The correspondence units get your letter first and send your letter or complaint to the persons responsible and those then respond or make excuses, if they can present a story that can be believed and justified then nobody has to check to see if it is the truth, as they have great faith in their fellow public servants, and the matter is deemed dealt with and closed and the Minister, if the Minister sees anything at all, they only sees a draft response to your complaint which they then just okay and sign. They are under no obligation to see or take into consideration both sides, or give the complainant the right to respond or to be treated fairly or to see the Minister personally to present the issues.

I don’t know if you all know but I have written about my families situation with the Department of Education for some time. Even when I wrote to the Premier the first letter says that the Premier has received the correspondence and they will look into it and get back to me, it is signed by computer by the Secretary and other letters saying that he has been advised that the issues have been addressed and the matter closed has been signed by other Ministers, none by the Premier. So he is in the dark. When I requested the documents under the FOI they said that no documents existed, many of the letters did not have references for identification. The system justifies this by saying that the Premier, Ministers etc., are busy and get many letters. We all nod and understand - that is how they get away with it. I believe that if a person is not happy with the way a manner has been dealt and believes that they are being treated unfairly then they should be able to bring it before a Independent Committee that is required to personally hear both sides, The way it is now the only way you can defend yourself unless you are rich.

I have requested documents under the FOI and I have copies of these drafts replies that have been presented to Ministers by those I allege are responsible. Its interesting because on the bottom of the internal action sheet forwarding the correspondence it says the Departmental Correspondence Guidelines must be followed and that any changes regarding the allocation of responsibility and/or to the action to be taken as indicated on this sheet must be done in conjunction with the Executive Support Directorate. Only the Executive Support Directorate is able to amend TRIM to reflect such changes.

The response supplied is a total misrepresentation of the facts and does not address any of the issues but it is believed on face value and the matter deemed closed.

In the recent letter to the new Minister for Education where I made serious allegations and requested an urgent appointment to come in to see her and requested that she not take the word of those responsible as I was alleging serious misconduct and a conspiracy to cover up, the information provided to the Minister from the Department that I allege are responsible ended with:

"COMMENT: Mrs Challita maintains a relentless personal campaign in relation to her children's applications for placement in a selective high school and opportunity class.

"There is no discrimination or bias towards these children They have been treated in accordance with the relevant procedures.

"Mrs. Challita specifically requests in her letter that those administering these matters not be permitted to handle the complaints. If this request was to be satisfied it would be necessary to refer the situation to an independent organization.

"RECOMMENDATION: That the Minister approve the draft response.

"The letter signed by Ms. Carmel Tebbut to me ended with: "Extensive enquiries have now been undertaken by both the Department of Education and an external agency and as a result of these enquiries, the Department now considers the matter closed. All future correspondence on these issues will be filed without response unless it relates to matters not previously raised"."

Surely serious allegations of neglect, bias, misconduct and corruption warrant an investigation, not just enquiries by those responsible... It's the process they use to cover up and until the Public gets outraged and starts making them accountable they will continue to get away with it.

We family will continue our relentless campaign to protect our children and until the matter is subject to a proper and fair investigation we will not give up as they continue to neglect and target my family and children. If they have nothing to hide then why are they avoiding investigating the matter at all costs? We just want the investigation to be open and transparent - it should be our right.

It should concern everybody that if identified extremely intellectually gifted children that are being failed by the comprehensive system are denied access into Selective Schools and that this denial is justified on the basis of a process that is followed that allows them to be treated like this, then maybe there is more to this than meets the eye!.

Rhetorical question

Hey T.G., I'm not sure what point you are making with this. Obviously you just felt like making a statement of some kind but to what effect?

Why don't you challenge the statement, argue it out here with yourself and you'll see the answer. For there is no answer to your question is there?

It's either a true statement and maybe you aren't aware of the dildo or you are aware of the dildo and don't want to admit it. Maybe you threw it overboard with the children and don't want to think about it.

Either way the statement " I'm not aware " cannot be challenged as it may be the real belief of the person making the statement. How do you prove what a person is unaware of?

If it's untrue then it has to be proven and I, for one, have no interest in checking whether there is a dildo involved or not. So you need to answer that question for yourself.

Of course it is bullshit. On other parts of this site there are people discussing this topic, but they are calling it reframing. That too is bullshit as by giving it a title and making it a part of our language they are giving credence to such rubbish. In reality it is all simply bullshit which relies on the average voter being indifferent to whatever is being discussed.

It's the same as "I cannot recollect", "to the best of my knowledge", "as far as I know ", "I haven't been informed" , " I was on holidays" or " I was too focused on my dildo to notice". It's avoidance, lies.

As you well know.

It relies on people simply not having enough proof, not caring or not being able to disprove such statements. It relies on media who print or accept such bullshit. It relies on us not being interested enough to know it's bullshit.

If you want to challenge it, then start doing so. I will support you in that. I guess that's a part of why I came to this site, to encourage those that don't care to notice these statements and question them. Stop accepting this bullshit as if it is an answer and demand a real response. Isn't that what you want too?

I think most here would entirely agree with what you are trying to say. We're here because we know this is bullshit and are sick to death of the average punter swallowing such stuff as if it were actually an answer.

Holding politicians accountable for their language

We need to begin holding politicians accountable for the language they are using. This is the danger of populism.

John Howard has used this approach more effectively than any political leader in recent memory. A classic example of this type of politics is made evident through Howard’s treatment of the Tampa affair. He did not just cloud the distinctions between One Nation and Coalition policies he also forced Kim Beazley to back his hard line on asylum seekers, thus causing the ALP to appear confused and weak. Additionally, through his use of populist rhetoric such as ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come,’ he successfully united the nation behind him, whether individual groups approved or not.

The only politician of late who has come anywhere close to John Howard’s mastery of populist politics is Mark Latham. In a repetition of the border protection tactic, Mark Latham forced Howard to support his parliamentary superannuation scheme. Latham was also a master of the populist rhetoric through phrases like: I want the Australian people to be able to look at their system of democracy with pride and goodwill. This won't happen unless we significantly reform the system…

Here the language attempts to blur the division between traditional party lines. Here the language unites the Australian people behind a statement which is not necessarily correct (though I would support Latham in his assumption before Howard).

Populism is dangerous and the media allows them to get away with it. Abbott's abortion epidemic becomes headline grabbing rather than investigative. There is no epidemic. The misuse of language is highly emotive and easliy panics the average punter.

Maybe we should stop blaming politicians and start pointing the finger at the sensationalist media who has not worked out that spin doctors have taught the pollies to speak in sound grabs.

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

Twisting words and avoidance

Hey Norman, you're right about Howard using words effectively. He is very good at it. And wedge politics as you point out re Tampa. He tries to use words which always leave him wriggle room although he does not always succeed there either.

When he is caught out he simply slithers away with yet another version of the "truth" such as the safety net iron clad promise. Simply, he says, circumstances have changed. And indeed they have, he won another term but that's about all that changed.

Why the media let him state this sort of thing without pursuing him and pinning him down I just fail to understand. If they do Howard just tells them " I've already answered that. I have nothing to add" , or the like. And they let it go.

Beattie is just as effective except his government makes so many blunders and gets caught out so often so Pete uses apology as his way out. He simply says "I'm so sorry. We'll learn from this so it doesn't happen again." Then proceeds to the next debacle instantly insisting the previous matter is over and we should all "move on". And of course they have learnt nothing.

You're also spot on about sound grabs. That's exactly what they do - provide headline grabbers for the media who simply reprint it as fact. Even if they challenge it they still repeat the grab and it becomes difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.

About not pointing fingers at politicians. They hire the spin doctors so they are creating this so we should point at them, the spin doctors and the media. They are all creating a vacuum around the words honesty, integrity and truth.

About blurring the lines between parties, I'm afraid there is no line between them anymore, not since Hawke moved Labor into Liberal territory. The only way the Libs got back in was to move further to the right, as in fear campaigns. For me there is no Left in Australian politics. All our current governments dance to the big end of town's music. Money is the master.

So how do we, on this site, do anything about it Norman? How do we get enough people interested in this sites aims? What do you think?

Thanks for your words, you put it better than I could have.

Populism

Norman, was this written to add to the first part of my article about BUYING THE IRAQ WAR? You're on right the ball here.

Reply to Gus and Pegasus

No Gus, its just something I've been thinking about lately. I'm new to the site so haven't read your forum on Iraq. Populism is a particular interest of mine though Pegasus, I don't know how to change things. I do know people are becoming more and more disillusioned with what they are told in the media. The emphasis on critical reading is being emphasised more and more in schools. This is a good solution though I don't know how effective once the school students move off into the real world.

I do know that, especially with a populist government, protest is ignored. I mean when people put in their diaries to be at a anti-war protest on a Sunday morning nothing is going to change. Money and responsiblities make stop work moratoriums impractical for many. I may be optimistic but I think people still care but when you need a double income to live in the city some things become more important and people look at places like Sudan and think 'At least I don't live there'.

I think we all need to start thinking outside the box. I'm sure many people on this site have received the email about boycotting Mobil and BP to bring down petrol prices. It may be naive considering the lazy nature of a convenience society but this is a simple and easy solution to a problem which hits people's hip pockets.

Maybe when Australians start dying (interesting to note the Corby's ethnicity compared to the Bali 9) and war starts affecting national debt we might see some stirrings. I can live and hope.

Finally, in response to blurring party lines: superannuation affects Greens Senators and Families First Senators as well. I agree there is no longer a distinction between Labor and Liberal. The dangerous thing is that populism removes their voice as well.

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

Agree and good to meet you

Hey Norman, I too know there are many in Australia today that dislike what is happening in the media and politically. Unfortunately I think a lot of it is driven by talk back shows which have one political loyalty.

I have only met one man who says he voted for Howard although there are plenty on the radio. And there must be plenty of them out there otherwise we have have to assume the election was rigged. Maybe I mix in the right circles?

But I regularly hear people on the radio, whenever I'm out, in newspapers, everywhere all expressing basically the same message being:

They don't want to vote for either Libs or Labor but they just can't see an alternative so they have to choose between those two. In that contest Howard will win and at state level people like Beattie will win as there is no real Opposition. My voting pattern is to vote against the sitting government in most elections but give my first preference to a minor party so they get the $2 or whatever it is.

So we do know there are many with the same feelings we have across this site but you are right also in saying that life is just so hard making a living and providing for families that they don't have the time to create something. I think they are more than willing to join in with something which can show results and a potential outcome and I think that's what I am here to do.

To try and add my bit to the rest of those that want to contribute here. To nut out a strategy that can be presented to those that are too busy but want change. So they can cruise the site, see the plan, make a decision and add their name to our numbers even if they don't actually post etc.

I do have the time and the passion to stick with this until we get somewhere and, like you, I think we need to go outside the box. I have no time for street rallies etc as I have no interest in being attacked by Police and I think those demonstrations are treated as jokes by most Australians today.

I don't agree that's how it should be but I think it is. I lived through the Vietnam demos and I didn't see much in that except many people thinking they were achieving something. There was only change when the Government changed so I suppose the demos had some effect but that wasn't the aim of most of those demonstrating. It was a peer group thing as much as anything from my experience of it, in Australia at least.

I like Hamish's idea about using the Dome of Conscience site as that is less radical than what I would come up with. But I will still throw my wild thoughts in as they happen for others to get a laugh and maybe even spark some other ideas. I hope you do too. By the way you already have done that you know. Your comment about the critical reading is not something I was aware of and am glad it is happening.

For instance Roseanne wrote something about limiting tenure for all politicians much as the US President is limited to two terms. Basically not allow them the tenure which they now expect. That sort of idea is a big part of what I think we need.

Maybe we just need to all throw our dumb ideas in and put them together as a wish list. Then cull them down to something that we mostly agree on and use that as our long term goal. Meanwhile we can chip away at various other tactics to get the site active and productive.

I know when I was apathetic I still wanted change but just didn't consider it could happen. I would have been ready to say yes to something if there was a group that had demonstrated an ability to unite and had something to show.

Is this making any sense to you?

By the way, I haven't seen the email on the boycotting but I don't allow much email into my inbox these days. Too much spam so I only allow those I know and expect mail from so I don't see all the scams and even good ideas that might go around the net. Mailwasher is a boon.

Populism is indeed a blight as politicians may have no real idea of what the people actually want. Rather they take polls or listen to talk back jocks like Jones for their ideas and that is dangerous indeed.

Not sure what you mean about the ethnicity issue of the drug charged people. I see the cases as two separate ones but I think the Indonesian courts see them in the same way and they may all get a heavy or fatal sentence regardless. I hope not as I don't support capital punishment but the Indonesians do.

Voting

Yes Pegasus, we are getting like the USA except the media, especially the US media won't put the side of the US who don't vote. There is non-compulsary voting in America and at one time the government was afraid that the percentage would be greater than those that did vote. The voters around I think Nixon's era was only about 55% and they thought it would go below 50 percent. Even when Bush was elected last time there was three advertising campaigns, one for each side and another that told voters to go out and vote. The US media never puts the side of the people and they are about 40 to 45 percent who don't vote and don't believe in either party.

That would also have to be the case in Australia but we have compulsory voting and are fined if we don't attend a polling booth. All we have to do is attend a booth and get our name marked off. The informal vote has always been about 5%. If there was no compulsory voting I think it would be like the USA and be about 40%. I am Green. I vote for the environment and what has happened with the environment and Labor. Labor or the Coalition don't look after the environment. Labor has moved to the right and is a second-rate Liberal Party. Who wants to vote for a second-rate Liberal Party when there is aa first-rate Liberal party to vote for? I think that is why the Labor vote has plummeted. They are not Labor any more, they don't oppose any more. An opposition opposes on nearly every Parliamentary Bill.

Now they side with Government a lot of the time, just like Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Just where was the Opposition from Latham? He folded. He folded when it came to the election. Now we have a re-cycled Beazley and he will fold as well.

We are in the political doldrums because the Labor Opposition is poor, we then get a poorly performing Government with a man heading it who says there is no rubbish at ANZAC Cove. Can you imagine that goings on in Martin Place Sydney. No!

Good to hear from you Len

Hey Len, Good to hear from you. Yes we are very US oriented. Howard doesn't have to think. He just reads his orders from George and Tony, copies the policies they have used and proved to have failed and away he goes. No problem at all. I grew up with British influence through my parents and have more a British sense of humour and so on so I do find the swing to US culture etc difficult to take.

Usually when told to "Have a nice day" etc unfortunately I have other plans but...

I don't want the sort of society they have but I think we are almost there. What was the laid back Aussie approach has become more one of seclusion and exclusion as we find more and more we don't like about our country, or rather, society.

As to voting, the numbers that do vote in the US has been steadily declining as time goes on, as you say. You are quite right about voters in the US not wanting either major party and that is no different here. We have to vote here and most end up choosing the least repugnant of the two major parties although it seems the opposite is true of recent Australian elections.

Yes the percentage of voters in both the US and UK is low and therefore they cannot be described as democracies. Neither can Australia despite the compulsory voting. To me I would prefer compulsory voting simply because of instances like when Arnold ran for Governator. He had buses running around the slum areas offering people $1 to jump on board and go to vote. $1 for your vote. And he got plenty of takers. I don't want that rubbish in this country.

Of course compulsory voting too has it's flaws and I must admit to having lodged the odd vote for Mickey Mouse as a younger man. And if you are forced to vote when you don't like any of the candidates it seems a waste of everbody's time. Can't argue against that either. I suppose I just prefer it as it's what I'm used to regardless of the flaws.

As for Latham. When he first stood for Leader I really liked what he had to say and strongly supported what he espoused. But he certainly did cave when the pressure was on. He caved on pharmaceuticals and Free Trade. Both of those decisions are going to cause a lot of damage as the years go by. He too would do and say anthing to win power. As for Beasley, Howard has come out and said he wants to stand again in the next election as he knows he can beat Beasley. He's right. Who else does Labor have? Rudd? Swan? Gimme a break. Maybe Steve Smith but I don't see him getting the nod.

As for Howard's defence of the Gallipoli party. I've heard a number of talk back hosts supporting him strongly. They are saying photos were staged, the garbage was gathered and staged for political reasons. All sorts of absolute rubbish but some people believe it. Simply, Howard is a worshipper of soldiers and has always wanted his own army to play with. Now he has one and is taking every advantage of that. Next he'll be using thewm to replace workers in industries where workers can't survive on the income.

Good to hear your comments Len, more please.

Pegasus, or should I sign as McPegasus?

Uncertain Future

Pegasus, we are winging into an uncertain future with the US. The Prime Minister and media are joining the US and Australia at the hip. The US is not a democracy because the American media do not report the thoughts of the 40% who do not vote. Those people are said to be politically incorrect and therefore have no voice. That is undemocratic in a country said to be the most democratic. Do we want to join with an undemocratic country? The story of the American poor is a very sad story.

I agree, there are problems with the system of compulsary voting and non-compulsary voting. The American media are blind to the plight of those who do not like either party for the Presidency. The Australian media sometimes give glimpses of awareness of the flaws of the Australian government. It happened today.

This morning on the ABC Insiders the ABC gave a clip of Channel 7's Sunday Sunrise where Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was describing the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. In determining the ocean bordaries and borders said that a large rich country need not give away anything to a small poor country. He gave an analogy between Texas in the US and Mexico.

The Channel 7 journalists could not understand this analogy and neither could the ABC journalists, and neither could I. The Channel 7 journalists started to end the interview and Mr Downer did not like the response he got. He interjected.

Mr Downer said it was quite plain to see that the case between Australia and Indonesia was exactly the same as Texas and Mexico.
The Australian government is very much fixed and inbred with the United States whereas the Australian media see a difference that we are colonials and have a mind of our own. This idea may not be so with the Rupert Murdoch media. So there are splits in all allegiances. Are we Australian, British or US minded. None of us knows for we are all of those at different times. I know who I am, an independant Australian with an allegence to nothing but Australian soil and rock.

In the US is Rupert Murdoch with a foot in Australia where he used be Australian with foot in the US. Will Rupert put a bid in to buy Telstra? Is that the reason we are getting closer to the US and Hollywood because News Limited, now an American company is part Australian.

Peter Costello is getting restless to be Prime Minister and eventually will cause a showdown with John Howard, but it won't bring the silly mentally-impaired Labor Party up to equalibrium with the government. Remember Labor made a deal with the Family First Party and that deal lost the Senate to the Liberal Party. It cause the collapse of the Greens and any power in the Senate.

On the ABC Insiders it said that Mark Latham is to release his book "The Latham Diaries" within weeks. It is a ruthless expose of the Labor Party and very critical of Kim Beazley. While John Howard and Peter Costello are scrapping the media will highlight the Latham slings and arrows against Kim Beazley. So the Labor Party will self-destrust at the same time the Liberal Party will self-destrust when Costello challenges John Howard.

The US lean will continue with Peter Costello. As Treasurer he is narrow minded and does not think outside the square of the economy. This thinking is paramount when he challenges the Labor States to give up their taxes because he gave them the GST. He has no thought for social welfare, or the poor in Australian society.

It reminds me of the film "The Godfather". When the Goldfather died he handed over to his son. The result was that there was 10 times the slaughter and the killing and the blood and guts when the viewer thought that the killing would dissipate. Costello is a bookkeeper. He will want his pound of flesh.

U S is not US

Hey Len, we're thinking the same way it seems. You're right about Latham's book but I think maybe if it is what is alleged to be then those running the party now will become even more ineffective and hopefully "move on".

I'm dreaming of course as they will hang on just to lose the next election. Whether it's Howard or Costello (which is worse?) Labor don't seem to have anything to offer. Kim just sits quietly saying nothing and doing nothing hoping no one will notice him. Excellent leadershiip qualities. I gave up on him when Howard took back the voters with Tampa. Beasley should have opposed that rubbish from the start as it was and is wrong, as well as expensive, vicious and gives Australia a name it shouldn't have. Although that is now justified.

It'll be bloody Abbott and Costello if Howard does go or by some miracle loses the votes he currently has. Either way the joke is on us, a sick joke. Maybe Labor should get a couple of candidates named Lewis and Martin or Laurel and Hardy. Why not three? The Stooges of course. It's no laughing matter as the talent pool on either side is rather shallow.

What the hell is it going to take before Australians wake up and get rid of these people? What did it take for me to wake up? I'm still trying to work that out. One day I was happily oblivious and the next day I was listening, watching and getting bloody angry. What did it take for you Len?

Hey, wasn't it Howard who made the deal with Family First? That's all we need isn't it, religion with it's foot on our throats through having the balance of power. Maybe Irag will be a better option by then?

Hello Pegasus

Pegusus, you and me are very much alike in thought and attitude. I have suffered depression, and do.

At the Federal election Family First did a deal with both Labor and the Liberals and when they gained ground sided with the Libs. How is that for Christian ethics?

From the Melbourne Age, October 10, 2004:
"Steve Fielding of the Family First party has come from nowhere to emerge as favourite to win the sixth Senate place in Victoria thanks to preferences from Labor and the Australian Democrats.

"Despite receiving less than two per cent of the statewide vote, Mr Fielding was quietly confident this afternoon of edging out
the Greens' David Risstrom, who outpolled him on primary votes by almost five to one.

"This is the first Federal Election contested by Family First, which has close links with the Assemblies of God church."

Talk about Beazley? Latham also is not smart. A Laurel and Hardy duo.
NSW State Labor did it for me.

Good to meet you

Hey Len, good to meet you. Sorry you suffer as well but at least we know what is wrong so we can try and deal with it. There are so many still walking around trying to either figure out what is wrong or trying to get over that hurdle of admitting it and seeking help.

I think we're lucky in that way. Obviously not lucky to have been caught in the net of the Black Dog, but lucky we are able to acknowledge it and fight back. If you are interested I would be happy to email with you. That way you and I can really say how we feel about things rather than toning it down for public viewing. If you agree you or I could email Hamish and ask him to forward an email on just to get addresses without going public.

Believe me, I have some very bitter things to say about various parts of society, as I'm sure you do too. It can be very difficult restraining your thoughts and trying to make positive statements when you feel the opposite. Did I say difficult? Sorry, impossible!

It was a State government that led me into my current situation and I now live in QLD under Beattie. If I wasn't already depressed he would do it for me.

Back on topic!

I didn't know that Labor dealt with the "devil" as well. Of course I should have been less naive as the major parties don't care who backs them as long as they think it will give them extra votes.

The offer above is genuine and you will find me accepting and non critical as I would hope you too would be.