The cost of Secrecy (and)political deceit.

The article by Helen Haines in this week's "The Saturday Paper" titled as above is so important. The fact that Helen is the incumbent of the seat of INDI and is proving to be one of the most, if not THE most effective independent, in our parliament, must be listened to.

Not only did she, almost single- handedly, embarrass the current government into commencing the necessary action, to bring about and achieve, the "National Anti-Corruption Act". The fact that we are now experiencing the failure of this Act and realising how the final "ACT" was undermined, by the deceit of our so-called two-party system of government, is not her fault. That the NACC, after referral from Commissioner Catherine Holmes of the "Robodebt" Royal Commission, prevaricated over the referral for possible corruption, of six persons ( five public servants and one politician) for almost a year, then when subsequently pressed about their actions, admitted they had decided to take no action on the matter. It is only now that we are informed, that the NACC, after more than 1000 complaints to inspector Gail Furness, has reversed its original decision.

All of this preamble is to point out that over many decades, our successive governments have connived with their adversarial opponents (always discretely) to legislate favorably on matters of common interest. Most of the Parliamentary rules legislated for parliamentary practice, such as politicians' (so -called) base salaries, electoral expenses, office holder allowances, etc, are all promulgated by the so-called "Remuneration Tribunal".

A supposedly independent body that is charged with not only reviewing and establishing parliamentary incomes but also those of judges etc.. The result is Australia pays inordinately high incomes to our politicians as well as many public servants. From the aforesaid, we can see that the taxpayer is contributing a very significant amount, just for the pleasure of employing an opposition that spends most of its time negatively, with very little contribution to government. The most recent example of party political conniving ,is the newly introduced "Amendments to electoral laws". Passed through parliament in the last few days of sitting, it is apparently ( In fact almost certain ) to inhibit and limit the earnings for Independents. This only passed because the two major parties conferred and connived. These practices have been going on for decades. This is the reason that both parties, when in government, fought tooth and nail, to stop an NACC. Become a member of The Movement for Better Government. www.movementforbettergovernment.com.au