Thursday, May 24, 2007

Tune in Next Monday: WORLD EXCLUSIVES

Next week promises to be a very busy one for Team Slanderyou.

Tune in from Monday, when we will reveal:

It'll be a big week.

In the meantime, please post your usual sparkling and enlightened insights in the comments section.

11 Truth On Comments:

Cait Catt said...

The commentary in Slanderyou is on a par with that of Michael Bachelard in The Aged. Disgusting and indecent. Read below the Landeryou blog's exposure of Bachelard tactics. The most formidable parliamentary debater, Theo Theophanous, has made mince meat of the Bachelard tactics.

THEO ROCKS: The State's Most Formidable Parliamentary Debater Crushes Michael Bachelard Like A Bug

Too many nancy boy Members of Parliament on both sides of politics take their ideologically driven whippings from The Age in dutiful and pathetic silence.

Not so Theo Theophanous, the state Minister most recently slagged by that pitiful rag. Check out this comprehensive withering response to the Age's smear attacks in the Legislative Council Hansard (or as some call it The Landeryou)[pdf] and reproduced below.

He demolishes smut scribe Michael Bachelard and leaves us wondering why they won't give the Minister a real right to reply. Read his response and you'll see exactly why. They can't handle the truth.

Very interesting to see what followed. The Libs did what Oppositions do and moved to censure the Minister. What did the swinging votes make of The Age's claims versus the Minister's explanation. The Greens who usually vote with the Liberals these days, the Nationals who were once in coalition with the Liberals and the DLP whose patriotism burns undiminished all voted with Theo, formally rejecting the Age's smear campaign for the farrago of lies it clearly always was.

Stick that in your bong pipe and smoke it Michael Bachelard.

Small business: government contracts
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Industry and State Development. I ask: will the minister assure the house that he has never sought to influence any minister or government department in relation to the awarding of any government contract?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I advise Ms Lovell that I am not convinced the question is strictly within the limits of minister’s responsibilities. I will give the member an opportunity to maybe reframe it. If she cannot do that, we will move on.
Ms Lovell — On a point of order, President, the minister in his — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Is this a point of order on my ruling?

Ms Lovell — Sorry, it is a point of clarification. The minister is responsible for tens of millions of dollars worth of contracts in his role as minister of the Crown, and I feel that it is within the minister’s responsibility.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Is the member talking about contracts within his portfolio or area of responsibility?

Ms Lovell — In his portfolio and departments.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected. (OC: The Maestro was warming up)

The PRESIDENT — Order! I hear the minister is happy to answer. However, I do express a concern that the minister is not directly responsible for contracts. I am bordering on not allowing it, but given that the minister is prepared to answer, I will allow it.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Industry and State Development) — Let me just say, as I said in answer to a previous question by David Davis, that this government is very clear about one of the things that it does. We are very clear that the tender arrangements that we enter into, the way in which we give contracts out, is done through a pristine process involving tenders that are done with independent probity officers and are done free of any political interference. That is the case and has been a hallmark of the Bracks government and the way that it operates. It is the case that if you want to go back and have a look at some of the deals that were done during the time of the previous Kennett government that maybe that standard does not apply the way that it does here.

Obviously the opposition is seeking in this instance to make suggestions which in my judgement are meant to somehow build on a case which has been the subject of press reports.

Since the member has decided that she is happy to give me the opportunity to respond to that by the inferences in her question, I am happy to take that opportunity and to put some things on the record about it.

First of all let me say that the accusations which are behind the member’s question and which have appeared in the newspapers are based in the first instance on unnamed sources. We live in a political climate here, we are all political actors, and we know that some journalists are prepared to accept as gospel unnamed sources when clearly those sources would always have — and journalists ought to be aware of this — political agendas underlying them. It borders on defamation and is totally inappropriate behaviour on behalf of a newspaper to go ahead and publish accusations without being able to state who those unnamed sources are. In the instance that is behind the honourable member’s question — and I do want to take some time to respond to this, because I think it is a serious matter — the Age printed the allegations despite denials by me and despite the fact that the Office of Housing told the Age that the tender process had been open and transparent, overseen by an independent probity officer, with no political interference. That is what the Office of Housing told the Age. It was also denied by me to the Age, but the Age decided that that was not good enough because it had some unnamed sources that it was relying on. Those sources have not been verified by any independent source. The accusations were printed despite that.

The Age was contacted and asked if it was possible for me to have a right of reply in the form of an opinion piece to put a more detailed case. The Age declined that invitation. If a member of Parliament gets up in this house and makes a comment about a private citizen, the private citizen has the right of reply under standing orders in this house as you, President, are well aware.

The PRESIDENT — Subject to the President’s ruling.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Absolutely. The director of the Office of Housing wrote a letter to the editor of the Age in which he outlined the comprehensive probity process that had been conducted in this case. The Age declined to publish it; it did not suit its case. In his letter the director pointed out that the process complied completely with the Department of Human Services and Victorian Government Purchasing Board probity requirements and that the probity officer provided written confirmation that it complied with the VGPB probity framework. That was in a letter sent by the director of the Office of Housing to the Age. It did not suit the Age to publish the letter, so it did not. The director also pointed out that government ministers and their staff do not participate in the tender process — and in this particular case — in any way. The director also indicated in his letter that he would welcome independent scrutiny in this case by the Auditor-General. All of those things were sent by way of a letter to the Age, but the Age declined to publish the letter or did not want to publish it because it did not suit its case.

The director’s attempts to set the record straight and my attempts to get space in the Age in order to put a case after three consecutive articles in the Age, all fell on deaf ears at the Age. If the Age wants to put itself up as a newspaper which does things on the basis of an Insight team, it ought to at least acknowledge that it wants to do things on the basis of unnamed sources. I could go on and indicate all of the factual inaccuracies that were presented by that particular journalist. I do not think he deserves to be a journalist at the Age, because he is actually bringing the Age into disrepute by not checking on his sources and not putting an appropriate or balanced case.

Instead, the Age continued to publish innuendoes and assertions, somehow trying to link legitimate organisations such as the Greek Australia Council — which is an organisation that is trying to bring together the Greek community for the purpose of having a voice, an organisation which I helped to sponsor and to establish — because the individual concerned in this case happened to be or later became a member of this organisation. Do you know what we share in common, President? We share in common only one thing in relation to those things — we both happen to be of Greek background.

I think the way in which the Age has dealt with this issue, and particularly its attack on a legitimate organisation which has some of the most esteemed people in the community on its board — an organisation that I am not even a member of and which I simply helped and facilitated to establish; an organisation which both sides of Parliament have supported — and has tried to simply throw in things by innuendo, by guilt-by-association and all sorts of matters of that kind when there is nothing other than unnamed sources is not the way a legitimate newspaper in this country ought to be run.

I did not get the opportunity to put my case in relation to the article in the Age so I am pleased that the honourable member has given me that opportunity by asking me about it during question time.

The Age finally published a small letter from me, which we negotiated with the newspaper. The Age was prepared to give us 300 words; we took the 300 words because we could not get anything else. In that letter I made a number of points, amongst which was that as a minister of course I meet with hundreds of business people and their representatives and organisations. I also discuss a whole range of issues with colleagues, ministers and parliamentarians — and even opposition members.
I also put on the record that I suggested to the then housing minister that she meet with Mr Stamas, who was the managing director of the company concerned, because he wanted to update her on the steps he was taking to employ tenants within housing estates, to help clean those housing estates under his existing contract. I understand that that program actually took place and that the organisation concerned, in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence, implemented such a program.

I also understand that this particular company wanted to put the case to the government that it is not interested in using AWAs (Australian workplace agreements) in employing its labour and is only interested in working through legitimate award processes, and it wanted to put such a case to the minister concerned. It was absolutely appropriate for me to refer this person to that minister in this case, and I did so. The fact that that occurred 10 months before the tender process had even opened was a small detail that the Age might have been concerned with, but in fact it was omitted in any of the articles that the Age ran.

I also asked whether Mr Bachelard was asserting that such a meeting, 10 months before tenders had opened, with a company already providing services to a government was improper. I asked whether he was suggesting that the then minister was influenced by that meeting. I reject both of those claims, and I believe that they are rejected both by me and by the then minister.

They are nonsense and they are baseless. The bottom line is the following: I have done nothing wrong, the previous minister has done nothing wrong, and the Office of Housing has done nothing wrong. All those matters are matters of record. The government for its part is absolutely happy for the Auditor-General to examine any and all parts of whatever tenders were handed out at that time.

Game on.

Click here to Read More on this post...

Anonymous said...

middle of the morning, hunched over the computer, posting away on other peoples blogs cuse no one reads his own, sad, sad, sad

Anonymous said...

Have a great weekend Slanderyou, the team, and Slanderyou readers

I admit that I have come to this blog only recently, but I am enjoying it immensly


Anonymous said...

How do all these politicians who get praise heaped upon them by Landeryou feel? Surely no responsible and reputable public representative wants to be associated, no matter how obliquely, with a bankrupt ex-con who is the subject of serious allegations and an ongoing investigation by a number of authorities.

Why do these individuals not distance themselves from Landeryou? It almost appears as if the disgraced and marginalized blogger is working hand in hand with these people. Surely that cannot be. These public figures surely do not want to risk the public opprobium association with Landeryou brings.

It is indeed strange that we do not hear condemnation of Landeryou's hijinks from his former friends and collegues. Surely they know that to maintain the public trust and their own reputations they must publicly and privately reject and repudiate this man of such dubious character.

Anonymous said...

they are using him as their dirt man

Anonymous said...

Jsut been to landeryou's blog, and he is claiming to have scooped the glbal media about the Rudd story and Mrs Rudd selling her business

Either Landeryou is so well conected, or he is BSing!

Anonymous said...

he is BSing

Anonymous said...

landeryou a dirt man - are you being complimentary?

Anonymous said...

I've now stopped reading the Landeryou blog entirely. Slanderyou rocks. Much better informed than the lonely one. Sad, sad Andy. His life is on some sort of repetitive loop, he slags those that once slagged him. On and on it goes. Paranoid, sad, disgraced and friendless. A total wreck of a human being. LIving off the proceeds of crimes past... with no-one stupid enough to give the bankrupt one a chance to scam them again.

Anonymous said...

How can a bankrupt afford all the kfc Landeryou eats? The regulatory authorities must investigate.

Anonymous said...

How can a bankrupt afford all the kfc Landeryou eats? The regulatory authorities must investigate.