Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Stanhope clubs Barr

By John Hargreaves - 29 May 2017 20

Hi there, fervent followers. This writer is just back from a spot of R&R. Sorry about the lack of fodder for you to consume or criticise.

You know, when one travels overseas, one loses the thread of community opinion often because of a paucity of access to locally produced news and current affairs. The federal government’s fortunes are fairly easy to follow but the vicissitudes of local affairs are a void. Or so I have often thought.

As with many Grumpy Retired Uber B@stards (GRUBs for those who like this stuff), when I got back, I wandered the halls of TV and radio news, looked at the opinion columns of the Crimes and even read the Chronicle once. The consensus I reached was that nothing much had changed. People were still whingeing about the government, the tram, planning issues, Icon water bills. It was the same before I left and the writers were the same old GRUBs.

But last Thursday’s Letters to the Editor made me sit up, take notice and spit out soggy cornflake remnants and Shape milk. Jon Stanhope had gone for Andrew Barr’s throat.

This letter was a confusing one for me because many of the sentiments previously expressed by the last Chief Minister but one I do strongly agree with. The Asylum seekers plight being the main one.

But, methought, isn’t there a time when relevance is shunned, the deprivation sought, and policy rage receding?

When I decided to give public life away, three years before the election I did not contest, relevance deprivation in the public arena looked pretty enticing. Sure, we all need to feel important and needed from time to time but the public area should not always be the panacea for our relevance deprivation syndrome (RDS).

One of the symptoms of RDS is brain snapping. Shooting from the lip (or the pen/keyboard). The first casualty after the reputation of the writer is truth. Fact and truth are interchangeable because they are both absolutes. There are no alternative facts. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good Letter to the Editor.

Returning to the Letter. Mr Stanhope berates the Chief Minister, whom he mentored to an extent whilst I was on the team, for suggesting that the CM would only deal with a new peak ACT Clubs association. He described that new group as the CFMEU Clubs Association. He also described the CFMEU as the most powerful and influential organ of the [Labor] party. He also said that if the Labor Party was smart, it would sell the clubs (before the establishment of an independent integrity commission).

I agree that the current CM should consult as widely and comprehensively in the contemplative stage of any policy development, regardless of whether the party to be engaged with suffers an antipathy to the government. But that is all I agree with.

Firstly, the new group is chaired by Athol Chalmers, President of the Burns Club, not anyone in the CFMEU. Athol Chalmers is a well-respected member of the community, engaged in many community benefitting activities and a man of immense integrity. Also, the CFMEU is not a club. It is a union. The Tradies group is the club which is a member of the new group as is the Hellenic Club. And… the Labor Club Group is not a member of either peak association at this stage. You propagate alternative facts, Jon.

In the dark ages, the ACT ALP was ruled by the Left faction and to some extent that is still the case. And it is true that the CFMEU was the dominant union which was affiliated with the party. Another significant union was the SDA (the shoppies) and the TWU. But a number of years ago the CPSU affiliated and their numbers at the annual conference meant that the CFMEU and TWU combination was outgunned by that one union. Fortunately for those unions, all three are affiliated with the non-official Left faction. So, shenanigans were played out with that faction’s caucus and some solidarity expressed on the conference floor. But the point is that Jon’s notion of the dominance of the CFMEU is outdated and has been for some time.

Jon also perpetuates the myth that the Labor Party ”owns” the Labor Club Group. No organisation can “own” a licenced club in the ACT. It is illegal. Only members of a club can “own” one. The members of the Hellenic and Burns Clubs own those clubs, not the Greek or the Scottish communities. The Raiders don’t own the Raiders clubs, the Ainslie Football Club doesn’t own the licenced Ainslie Football Club group nor does the Belconnen Football Club own the Magpies anymore that the Catholic Church owns the Southern Cross Club Group.

If Jon wants the Labor Party to divest itself of influence through membership of the governing board, fine, but don’t perpetuate the lie that the Labor Party owns the club and benefits directly and immensely from it. He knows only too well that the Labor Party cannot “sell” the Labor Club Group. He also knows too well that the membership at a Special General Meeting would need to vote to put the Group on the market. He also knows that the market doesn’t have an appetite to “buy” the clubs in the group and that there is a real movement by clubs to find alternative revenue sourcing to replace dependence on pokies.

Additionally, he would know that the membership is aware of where the Club’s revenue goes and they are not under any illusions about the group’s support for the ALP and they join the club voluntarily because of it or in spite of it.

He would know that the party created a foundation to divorce its earning from the clubs’ industry to the child care industry and he was party to the discussions to create that foundation.

As for the rest of the article, his language diminishes himself as a former Chief Minister and damages his legacy. His description of the Chief Minster’s “Trump-like response” was uncalled for, inaccurate and unbecoming.

Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member. Barry Reid was a former member of the House of Assembly here in Canberra, a member of the Left and when he spoke out publicly against Rosemary Follett, CM at the time, he was expelled from the party.

In his second paragraph, he said “I don’t know if it is just me, but…”.  Well, Jon, it is just you.

My plea to Jon Stanhope is to stick to advocating for the asylum seekers and do any complaining about party policy inside the tent. Once he had a strong guiding hand on policy within the party but not anymore.

Old soldiers should just fade away.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
20 Responses to
Stanhope clubs Barr
1
Blen_Carmichael 7:24 am
29 May 17
#

Not a fan of Stanhope, but I’m amused at the irony of John saying Jon is “shooting from the lip”, “brain snapping”, and speaks with “venemous antipathy”.

2
devils_advocate 1:44 pm
29 May 17
#

Great lesson in how to win battles but lose a war. The Labor Party gets money from poker machine addiction. No amount of arguing can gloss over that.

3
John Moulis 3:11 pm
29 May 17
#

Well I don’t know about the Labor party not owning the Belco Labor Club. I was there on election night last year having dinner with our line dancing group and the function room was decked out with ACT Labor posters, tables and a lectern. Later that night Andrew Barr came in and made his victory speech in front of party members and other supporters.

4
Mysteryman 3:25 pm
29 May 17
#

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

5
Flippant 4:28 pm
29 May 17
#

John Hargreaves omits that his protege (a twice unsuccessful Labor candidate) is the Vice President at the Burns Club and that the new group, is there to do the bidding of the Labor party, through clubs aligned with it. Burns – Labor people, Tradies revenue to CFMEU to donations to Labor Party (and so much more)… the two others are immaterial.

Stanhopes letter pointed out that people are missing the relationship between Party, Union, Certain Clubs and the Government or worse are simply turning a blind eye. Hargreaves is clearly comfortable with the system and how dare the other clubs take a stance against it.

6
Garfield 5:14 pm
29 May 17
#

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

7
Mysteryman 9:37 am
30 May 17
#

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Gary Humphries lost to Seselja for a number of reasons. That’s not the same as being expelled from the party.

My point stands – the Liberals allow their members to voice disagreement without being expelled.

8
dungfungus 11:14 am
30 May 17
#

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Ah, but the Liberals then gave Mr Humphries a $400K pa “soft landing sinecure” didn’t they?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/former-act-liberal-senator-gary-humphries-to-be-appointed-to-administrative-appeals-tribunal-20141211-124syk.html

9
Garfield 12:53 pm
30 May 17
#

Mysteryman said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Gary Humphries lost to Seselja for a number of reasons. That’s not the same as being expelled from the party.

My point stands – the Liberals allow their members to voice disagreement without being expelled.

How about addressing the issue of the former ACT Liberal president? Hargreaves said if Stanhope was an ordinary member it wouldn’t be tolerated and you claimed the Libs were different but that former President, who was more than just an ordinary member, was forced out for criticisms that were not as harsh as some of what Stanhope has said about Labor & Barr.

10
Garfield 12:59 pm
30 May 17
#

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Ah, but the Liberals then gave Mr Humphries a $400K pa “soft landing sinecure” didn’t they?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/former-act-liberal-senator-gary-humphries-to-be-appointed-to-administrative-appeals-tribunal-20141211-124syk.html

His colleagues in the federal parliament did that, not the people who replaced him here in the ACT. Its also a judicial type appointment meaning he hasn’t participated in public debate, which I’m sure suits the ACT Libs just fine. Stanhope also received a nice appointment after leaving office, which kept him pretty quiet until it ended.

11
dungfungus 1:40 pm
30 May 17
#

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Ah, but the Liberals then gave Mr Humphries a $400K pa “soft landing sinecure” didn’t they?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/former-act-liberal-senator-gary-humphries-to-be-appointed-to-administrative-appeals-tribunal-20141211-124syk.html

His colleagues in the federal parliament did that, not the people who replaced him here in the ACT. Its also a judicial type appointment meaning he hasn’t participated in public debate, which I’m sure suits the ACT Libs just fine. Stanhope also received a nice appointment after leaving office, which kept him pretty quiet until it ended.

I recall Stanhope making many public comments on several issues when he was the administrator for Christmas Island so he wasn’t “kept quiet” at all.

12
HiddenDragon 5:04 pm
30 May 17
#

“But last Thursday’s Letters to the Editor made me sit up, take notice and spit out soggy cornflake remnants and Shape milk. Jon Stanhope had gone for Andrew Barr’s throat.”

Not quite for the first time, as anyone who follows a chirpy weekly publication around the town will know. I seem to recall previous pointed comments about the Alexander Maconochie Centre, and other topical issues such as housing affordability (lack thereof). There may, perhaps, have been an element of RDS/”how sharper than a serpent’s tooth”, in some of what has been said, but the main points have typically been well made, including in this case where perceptions (not just technical details of relationships) matter, particularly in the cosy world of Canberra politics.

13
Mysteryman 5:21 pm
30 May 17
#

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Gary Humphries lost to Seselja for a number of reasons. That’s not the same as being expelled from the party.

My point stands – the Liberals allow their members to voice disagreement without being expelled.

How about addressing the issue of the former ACT Liberal president? Hargreaves said if Stanhope was an ordinary member it wouldn’t be tolerated and you claimed the Libs were different but that former President, who was more than just an ordinary member, was forced out for criticisms that were not as harsh as some of what Stanhope has said about Labor & Barr.

It seems that you do not understand the difference between resigning and high profile position and being expelled from the party. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the distinction.

14
Garfield 5:25 pm
30 May 17
#

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Ah, but the Liberals then gave Mr Humphries a $400K pa “soft landing sinecure” didn’t they?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/former-act-liberal-senator-gary-humphries-to-be-appointed-to-administrative-appeals-tribunal-20141211-124syk.html

His colleagues in the federal parliament did that, not the people who replaced him here in the ACT. Its also a judicial type appointment meaning he hasn’t participated in public debate, which I’m sure suits the ACT Libs just fine. Stanhope also received a nice appointment after leaving office, which kept him pretty quiet until it ended.

I recall Stanhope making many public comments on several issues when he was the administrator for Christmas Island so he wasn’t “kept quiet” at all.

You may be right, however I’ve just done a quick search looking for news stories featuring Stanhope in the period that he was the Administrator. All the criticisms of Labor and general contributions to public debate that I can find online are after he finished up on Christmas Island in October 2014.

15
dungfungus 7:06 pm
30 May 17
#

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

dungfungus said :

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

“Jon’s venomous antipathy to poker machines in the casino, the CFMEU, and it would appear, Andrew Barr, would not be tolerated in the party if he were an ordinary member.”

You’ve perfectly summed up what’s wrong with the Labor party; in their minds the Labor party comes first and the public second. It creates an echo-chamber of self interest. The Liberals have their faults, but at least they allow members the freedom to speak their minds and even vote against the party, without threat of expulsion.

That may be the theory, but didn’t a former president of the ACT Liberals resign a few years ago before he was expelled for speaking out about problems within the party, and wasn’t Gary Humphries’ crossing of the floor in favour of the ACT being able to legislate for itself in respect to civil unions one of the things that contributed to his loss to Zed Seselja?

Ah, but the Liberals then gave Mr Humphries a $400K pa “soft landing sinecure” didn’t they?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/former-act-liberal-senator-gary-humphries-to-be-appointed-to-administrative-appeals-tribunal-20141211-124syk.html

His colleagues in the federal parliament did that, not the people who replaced him here in the ACT. Its also a judicial type appointment meaning he hasn’t participated in public debate, which I’m sure suits the ACT Libs just fine. Stanhope also received a nice appointment after leaving office, which kept him pretty quiet until it ended.

I recall Stanhope making many public comments on several issues when he was the administrator for Christmas Island so he wasn’t “kept quiet” at all.

You may be right, however I’ve just done a quick search looking for news stories featuring Stanhope in the period that he was the Administrator. All the criticisms of Labor and general contributions to public debate that I can find online are after he finished up on Christmas Island in October 2014.

Put this spay under the heading “general contributions to public debate” then:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-17/asylum-seekers-families-sue-over-2010-christmas-island-tragedy/5528270

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site