Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Legal Profession Admission Board Annual Report 2015-16 deficiency : Is the Member for Cronulla, the AG NSW, a victim of regulatory capture by NSW Liberal donor Top Group?

by Ganesh Sahathevan



On 17 May 2016 the SMH reported:

The ad for the $2800 PwC - Top education internship on WeChat.



The ad for the $2800 PwC - Top education internship on WeChat.CREDIT:TOP EDUCATION



Top Education Institute, headquartered in the University of Sydney's biomedical sciences building in Sydney's inner west, circulated advertisements targeting Chinese international students on social media app WeChat last week, spruiking the opportunity to "work closely with PwC partners" in a program with a "1 per cent admission rate in Australia".

Top Education staff told prospective applicants the "internship" program would cost $2800, sparking anger from students concerned that the world's largest professional services firm was selling work placements to the highest bidder, rather than based on merit.

But the advertisements misrepresented what was actually a two-week training course, the companies now say.

Top Education's assistant principal of external engagement, Susan Cao, said PwC had approached Top Education to start a partnership.

"PwC provided the opportunity to us, we are providing the opportunity for our students," she said


"We don't want the journalist to report this," she said. "We already take off the advertisement, we want to change the words.



The advertisements reveal that for the more than $2000 price tag, students would have the opportunity to be exclusively placed for 10 days in PwC's Sydney offices, the Australian hub of the global company that turned over $35 billion in revenue last year.




The incident above should have triggered a regulatory response from the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) which supervises the activities of colleges granted licenses to issue LLB degrees which can qualify holders for admission to practise in NSW. Together with that licence comes special powers under the Uniform Admission Rules to issue what are in effect certificates of good conduct which the LPAB relies on to determine if applicants for admission to practise are fit and proper.

However the LPAB's 2015-2016 Annual Report does not disclose if and whether Top Group was subject of any sanction or investigation; neither does it disclose the reasons why there was not any sanction or investigation, despite the matter being reported widely. As shown above, the matter remains in the public domain.

The Attorney General NSW ,who is also the Member for Cronulla is responsible for tabling the LPAB Annual Reports in Parliament. While he does not sign-off on the accounts he does have a duty to ensure that the documents he tables are do not mislead Parliament. It is hard to imagine that he was not aware of the Top Group internship scandal, and its exclusion from the LPAB Annual Report.

As reported previously the Member for Cronulla, The AG's NSW Liberal Party received donations of $44,275 from TOP Education Group just before after TOP was granted the "first & only" license issued a private company to award law degrees.


It does appear as if the Member for Cronulla, The AG NSW, is a victim of regulatory capture. Consequently his LPAB and Department of Justice NSW annual reports need reviewing and amendment.


It as previously been shown by this writer that the  Legal Profession Admission Board Annual Report 2015-16 can be shown to be incomplete and deficient by comparison with  publicly available documents,   including documents of the Australian Academy Of Law.

The LPAB and the AG have yet to indicate what action they might be taking to address the issues raised above, and elsewhere by this writer. They maintain that being victims of threats and intimidation by this writer, there is no need to address any of the issues raised.


END

See also

AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)

Monday, July 15, 2019

Transfers of GST revenue to the Consolidated Fund cannot be theft or a breach of trust; GST refunds are not guaranteed

by Ganesh Sahathevan





Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court July 15, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court July 15, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif



While it is true that the administration of any Goods and Services Tax system is complex, in simple terms, the tax is revenue to the government concerned, and traders registered for GST purposes are in effect collection agents for the government. Whether they receive a GST refund is dependent on whether their input taxes( i.e. the GST they pay) exceeds their output taxes (i.e. GST they collect).

This statement on the GST Consolidated fund reported by the Malay Mail does not reflect that simple fact:



Attorney General Tommy Thomas said channelling good and service tax (GST) revenue directly into federal government’s consolidated revenue account was wrong.




In his correspondence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last October, Thomas pointed out that this was a breach of fundamental trust law principles and trust accounting requirement as it violates the Section 7 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 and Section 54 of the GST Act 2014, Malaysiakini reported today.
“The GST regime is based on the fundamental precept that taxpayers will receive a refund for the amount of GST they pay in the course of producing taxable supplies.
“Parliament’s intention is that taxpayers receive this refund. The statutory entitlement to a refund and the creation of the GST Trust Fund are evidence of that intention,” he said.

“By failing to ensure that taxpayers received their refunds, the former government failed to give effect to Parliament’s intention,” Thomas added.
Thomas’ reply was appended to the PAC’s report on the delayed RM19.4 billion in GST refunds released today.
The PAC concluded that no GST fund was lost, but stated that GST Trust Fund was insufficiently funded because it was used for other purposes.


The PAC is right in that the GST Trust Fund is akin to a bank or insurance company where there is an obligation to meet depositors or policyholders demands.However that indeterminate demand does not prevent the bank or insurance company from investing the money held in their accounts. 
The duty to ensure Tiley payments to depositors, policyholders, and in the case of those registered for GST purposes is a matter separate from the right of the recipient of those funds, in this case the Government of Malaysia, to utilise those funds for its legislated purposes.
Clearly, channelling the GST revenue  into the Consolidated Fund is well within the legislated purposes.
END 

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Replacement of long time LPAB employee Louise Pritchard with Tan Siew Ting McKeogh adds to questions about Zhu Minshen's dealings with the NSW Liberals & minister in charge of the LPAB, AG Mark Speakman

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

L'Affaire Adelaide : DOD can justify the DCNS submarine contracts by making full public disclosure of the related offset contracts

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Mr Pyne and the boss of DCNS, Herve Guillou, visit the shipyards in Cherbourg.

Mr Pyne and the boss of DCNS, Herve Guillou, visit the 
shipyards in Cherbourg. Is l'affaire Adelaide a repeat of DCNS's l'affaire Karachi

-Australian taxpayers have not been told why French subs will cost 5 times more



Robert Gottliebsen in The Australian this morning:



Australia’s defence outlook is changing rapidly and new Defence Minister Linda Reynolds faces a daunting task.

She is being bombarded with material from defence officials defending what are increasingly obvious past mistakes or strategies in danger of becoming obsolete.

The submarine contract and the joint strike fighter (JSF) are at the top of the list with yet another defence expert warning over the weekend that technology change is endangering the $90 billion French submarine gamble.


The ABC reports that former government defence adviser Derek Woolner and fellow researcher David Glynne Jones say that Australia’s objective to produce a “regionally superior” submarine is “now under challenge” and by the time the new submarine hits the water around 2034 “it’s going to be obsolete”.

Woolner says our submarine is to be built with a heavy metal main battery, as part of a process already initiated under a contract signed by France’s Naval Group company and MTU Friedrichshafen for diesel generator sets.


Hydraulics expert Aidan Morrison’s detailed research paper last year showed that the while the pump-jet system works well with nuclear submarines, at the slow pace required for diesel electric it fails.

After a long delay, defence countered by claiming that pump-jets could be efficient across the entire speed range. Morrison responded: “It is a bizarre, irrational claim with no basis whatsoever in physics. It is frankly bewildering that such a claim could be made, given how easily its falsehood can be established by even moderate research, or simple logic.”



To pretend that the Australian DCNS contracts are nothing like the other DCNS contracts is to indulge in that naive Australian habit of pretending that this country alone is pure and incorruptible.

The reports below show that even documents in the public domain show that belief to be fantasy.
If the Department Of Defence wants to justify its DCNS-Barracuda decision, it can start by providing full public disclosure of all the related offset contracts, providing details of when, who and how much.

END 




Friday, July 12, 2019

Erdogan' to visit Australia next year-What insights might Gov Beazley ,her Premier & AG provide Erdogan with regards his enemy Gulen?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Turkey stand against failed military coup attempt
A man holds a placard reading in "Take your hands off Turkish democracy" with the portrait of Fethullah Gulen in Istanbul, Turkey. Source: Getty Images

SBS has reported today that Turkey's President Erdogan will visit Australia next year. In 2016 SBS reported how Erdogan's sworn enemy, Mohamad Fetullah Gulen and his Gulen movement enjoy access to the highest levels of government in NSW.


The 2016 story also reported that Turkey’s then ambassador to Australia Ahmet Vakur Gökdenizler had warned federal and state authorities that local Gulenists were part of the international network that had attempted to overthrow the Erdogan government in the 2016 coup,which had the backing of some parts of Turkey's armed forces.


None of this seemed to have deterred the NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and various members of the judiciary, including the Chief Justice Tom Bathurst and the then President of the Court of Appeal, Margaret Beazley from lending their support to various Gulen organised events.Beazley was appointed Governor of NSW in May this year.


The NSW Supreme Court website includes a speech by Beazley at a Gulen movement event,where she argues that sharia and the common law are not incompatible. Gulen is a proponent of political Islam, and hence the public support of a President of the Court Of Appeal, placed on the Supreme Court website, is quite an achievement.


Erdogan has declared the Gulen movement a terrorist organisation;in Turkey the movement is officially known as the Fetullah Gulen Terrorist Organisation (FETO). When in Australia however he might find that his hosts in NSW might want to re-educate him with regards FETO. They seem to have insights into the activities and motives of the Gulen movement which have escaped Erdogan, his advisers,and others who have researched the movement over the past two decades.
END 


See also

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Australia's College Of Law has established a Professional Legal Training course in Malaysia, at the national level: CLP changes have yet to be revealed in Malaysia

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

From the College of Law Australia's  website listing its academ:ics and management




Neville Carter

Mr Neville Carter

CEO & Principal, The College of Law



BA LLB (Sydney); MBA (Melb); Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW
Neville Carter is the CEO & Principal of the College of Law. He is a legal practitioner and academic of approx 40 years standing and established the IPLS program in New Zealand and a similar program for PLT students in Malaysia. Mr Carter has been Principal of the College of Law for over 20 years.  

The IPLS program in New Zealand provides tutoring for that country's  version of Malaysia's Certificate of Legal Practice, which is required for practice in Malaysia.
PLT stands for "Professional Legal Training" the Australian equivalent of the CLP, expect that it is pratise based, and almost impossible to fail.


The  statement above seems to suggest that proposals  to convert the CLP from an academic exam based program into a "practice based" or "practical" course are well advanced. As reported before on this blog, the new CLP can be expected to be far more expensive than the current program, and may well require PTPTN funding.
END


Monday, July 8, 2019

Anwar Ibrahim's solid grip on MPs statutory declarations meaningless: SDs cannot be used to secure a promise

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Muhyiddin, Zahid lash out at fake SDs supporting Anwar;
 probe ordered

The denial by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi of  having signed  statutory declarations in support of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim taking over as prime minister beginning July 2 is irrelevant even if it were true.

A uniquely Malaysian innovation, the SD pledging support makes for good theater in the land of the wayang kulit, but otherwise means nothing. A SD is, as its name implies,  a declaration that something is true and for that reason its use is limited to declarations that say,  statements regarding ones name, identity or nationality are true. 
It cannot be used to affirm ones support, affection, undying love or loyalty. These are akin to promises, for which there are contracts or deeds.

So, even if Saudara Dr Anwar Ibrahim obtains SDs of support from all MPs, that fact would mean nothing. He would still have to go back to Parliament, move a vote of no confidence against Mahathir, who would then need to advise the Yang DiPertuan Agong  that Parliament should be dissolved and a general election called.

END 









Sunday, July 7, 2019


Anwar Ibrahim's vote of no confidence against Mahathir: GE 15 must be called, and voters will expect a solid grip on 1MDB prosecutions :Australian interference will not prevent a people's revolt

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -APAustralian foreign policy advisers cannot understand that Anwar like his friend Erdogan will only make the ASEAN region more jihadi friendly.Instead,it is assumed that he will promote a more inclusive, tolerant (read LGBTQI++ friendly) Malaysia.


News reports, rumours and details suggest that Sdr  Dr Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is about to make his move against PM Tun Mahathir Mohamad. It does look as if Anwar is about to do to Mahathir what he did to Ghafar Baba in 1993; present to Mahathir a seemingly united front of MPs who prefer him as their beloved leader.

It is believed that Dr Anwar's coalition will comprise both Pakistan Harapan and Barisan National MPs,for it is not felt that he will have the numbers by relying solely on Pakistan MPs. If all goes well, Anwar Ibrahim expects to be Malaysia's eight Prime Minister by the end of this week, if not very, very soon.

Unfortunately, it cannot work that way. Mahathir is PM, so a vote of no confidence against him is in effect a vote of no-confidence against the Government.A government that has lost the confidence of the majority of MPs ie the representatives of the people, must be dissolved and an election called.
To do otherwise is to have a dictatorship.

Seeking the support of Barisan Nasional Opposition MPs makes matters worse; it takes Anwar type logic to not understand that when Government MPs join with Opposition MPs to vote against the sitting Prime Minister in a vote of no confidence, Government MPs are in fact admitting that their Government has failed.Again, the only logical consequence is to call an election.

If an election is called now voters will demand that  Najib Razak and others charged with 1MDB offences be held in a solid grip, and not allowed to escape jail. There is already unhappiness with the current state of the various matters against Najib and others; call another election and voters will demand that whoever is elected show that they can do a better job of investigating and prosecuting 1MDB matters.


In this day and age foreign interference is assumed, and attempts by especially Australia to promote the Anwar-Najib cause will not go down well.

END

aturday, September 29, 2018


Australia attacks Mahathir, backs Anwar for PM: Australian interference in Malaysian elections discovered by former IGP Rahim Noor in 1994



by Ganesh Sahathevan


Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP



Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP
(see 1MDB-The Anwar Ibrahim phase (Coming soon, ask UMNO and PAS about it)



The Australian Government agency that produced the document that contains this statement continues to stand by its finding:
43.It is reported on https://www.thethirdforce.net/ganesh-sahathevan-rpk-clare-brown-ginny-stein-and-the-blood-money-trail/ that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and corruption defamation


The "Thirdforce" story suggests that then opposition leader Tun Mahathir  financed this writer and others in  a scheme to fabricate false allegations against then PM Najib Razak with regards 1MDB.

The suggestion is expressed in    this linked Thirdforce story:
Which is why, you now have fellows like Ganesh Sahathevan telling you that Trump was forced to expand his powers just to resolve the 1MDB issue. Ganesh was paid USD1 million by a member of team Mahathir to float the idea (READ FULL STORY HERE) while Kit Siang prepped the Red Bean Army (RBA) with one-liners that accused Trump of being anti-Islam.


The Australian Government has made no secret of its preference for Najib and Anwar over Mahathir and the above seems to be an attempt to exonerate Najib , discredit Mahathir, and pave the way for "PM in waiting" Anwar Ibrahim's ascendancy to the prime ministership.

Australia has done much over the years to nurture Anwar in whatever way possible (a story for another posting) but that should not surprise. In 1994 former Chief Of Police Malaysia Rahim Noor discovered that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) had  recruited members of the then opposition to undermine the Malaysian government  of the day.See stories below.

END



News; International News
Proof Of Opposition Spying For ASIS - Malaysian Police
168 words
3 February 1994
The Age
9
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
Kuala Lumpur, Wednesday. Malaysian police had uncovered evidence to support claims that opposition politicians spied for the Australian secret service, the top police officer said today.
The Inspector-General of Police, Mr Abdul Rahim Mohamad Noor, said preliminary investigations had uncovered the evidence, the national Bernama news agency reported.
He did not disclose details but said police had set up a committee to investigate.
The `Sunday Telegraph' in Sydney on 16 January quoted former agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Services (ASIS) as saying they paid senior opposition politicians in Malaysia and Singapore without Canberra's knowledge or consent.
Mr Lim Kit Siang, the leader of the largest opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), has described the allegations as ``preposterous''.
``ASIS must be very stupid to be recruiting agents from the opposition as I cannot imagine what secret information DAP leaders could lay their hands on which would be of use to the Australian spies,'' he said. _Reuter
Document


Malaysia
Australia unwilling to help in graft probe, says KL
325 words
15 May 1994
Straits Times
English
(c) 1994 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia could do very little about Australia's unwillingness to co-operate with a police investigation into allegations that Australian spies bribed politicians here, Law Minister Datuk Syed Hamid Albar said yesterday.
"If they don't want to co-operate or do not want to allow us to take evidence, then it is within their right not to do so," he told reporters after talks with visiting Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Aghazadeh at his office here.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor was quoted as saying on
Friday that police had been denied permission by the Australian government to interview editors and reporters about the allegations.
Australia's Sunday Telegraph in January quoted former agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis) as saying that they paid senior opposition politicians in Malaysia from the time they were junior members of Parliament, without Canberra's knowledge or consent.
The Canberra Times weighed in with a report several weeks later saying that Asis had paid politicians from the ruling National Front coalition government up until four years ago.
"We would suggest that it would be better for countries that have made allegations against a country to allow that country to get to the bottom of the allegations so that the truth will prevail," Datuk Syed Hamid said.
He added that the co-operation of the Australian government would enable the
government to investigate the allegations and, if necessary, to take action against the parties involved.
"The investigation will identify which opposition party is involved and whether there is any criminal act to enable us to take action," the Law Minister said.
Malaysia and Australia have only recently smoothed over a row that began whe n Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating called his counterpart, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a "recalcitrant" for boycotting a summit of Pacific Rim nations last November. - Bernama, Reuter.
Document STIMES0020050711dq5f03tls