page62

Brimbank Labor's oldest platform

News that former City of Brimbank mayor Charlie Apap has been convicted for indecent assault puts the spotlight once again on some of the more unsavoury history of the ALP in Melbourne's western suburbs, as a number of press reports show.

Labor Party identity Apap, 70 is known locally as a rent collector. He was found guilty in the Sunshine magistrate's court of putting his hand down the back of a 20 year old mother's jeans and underwear while collecting her rent.

Adding insult to injury, as the Leader reports "The landlord made a subsequent application for lost rent money due to the tenant giving insufficient notice before vacating the premises".

Apap is no stranger to the court, having previously been involved in a dispute over unpaid printing bills for Labor candidates at a Brimbank council election. At the last election five councillors did not declare any contributions to their electoral campaigns.

One of the councillors, Ken Capar, subsequently got into hot water at a New Zealand conference while on a council-funded junket for the Keilor Cemetery Trust. According to reports Capar remained drunk for the full three days of the conference, and was unfortunate enough on his return to wake up and see the headline "I was drunk" plastered on the front pages.

According to the local Star newspaper two women reported alleged sexual advances by Cr Capar. The story continues

"Cr Capar admitted being intoxicated on Thursday 10 October during the last day of the conference but in a letter to the Keilor Cemetery Trust he objected to allegations which included making inappropriate sexual advances to female and male delegates."

To cap it off hotel security staff later found him in possession of certain items that had been reported missing by other delegates.

Sexual harassment and theft by a councillor would not normally be rewarded. Capar resigned from the Cemetery Trust in disgrace but remains a sitting Brimbank councillor, no doubt grateful for the complexities of trans-Tasman litigation.

Chairwoman of the Trust at the time was Brimbank's Deputy Mayor Kathryn Eriksson, forced to endure the full three days of Capar's ratepayer-funded extravagance. With talk of police charges however she defended her colleague and in doing so submitted herself to public humiliation, saying

"It's a disgrace that we (the trust and council) can't communicate between ourselves. To have people turn around and say that we're going on junkets just because of one person behaved inappropriately, I find it really sad."

Indeed it is. Even more sadly Deputy Mayor Eriksson is also known as the wife of former Labor Minister Andrew Theophanous who became the first sitting member of parliament to be gaoled for bribery, conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and corruption.

Evidence submitted at his trial alleged that in rorting the immigration system he wasn't just seeking money, but also sexual gratification. An NCA tape recording has him saying "Maybe next week or towards the end of the week we might have a meeting, you know, see if I like her."

Channel 9's Sunday program quotes Theophanous from the secret recordings soliciting sexual favours. "…and she is prepared to have some times with me but keep her mouth shut completely then we will do it for $100 for a year." [A discount from the standard illegal fee he was asking for from clients].

Theophanous is still seen at Brimbank Council meetings, where he occasionally bumps into his close factional ally Hakki Suleyman. Suleyman is father of Brimbank councillor Natalie Suleyman; he runs the local migrant resource centre and in his spare time works as electoral officer for Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Suleyman was the subject of a formal complaint to the council in 2005, describing his behaviour toward a woman at a council meeting as "angry, rude, confrontational and abusive" to the point where she had to ask the CEO for protection and to be escorted to her car.

A number of metropolitan papers report an alleged assault by Suleyman on a woman handing out leaflets in the street. According to the Age

"He was pulling me and I was shaking back and forth at the force. I just saw his face and I thought, 'He's going to hit me'. I then started to panic and I screamed at the top of my voice, 'You leave me alone.' And he backed off."

The Herald Sun report of the incident mentions welts and cuts left by Suleyman on the victim's arm while "A day later, his son Mehmet Suleyman, who worked for former police minister Andre Haermeyer, allegedly attacked a young man with a screwdriver -- an incident police are now investigating." The report also mentions a fist fight between the younger Suleyman and Brimbank councillor Sam Tabban, but that's another story. Stay tuned for that one.

The press reports taken together paint the ALP in the west as a party of misfits and sexual predators using intimidation in the exercise of their power: the power of the rent collector over the young tenant, the power of the drunken councillor, the power to grant or deny a visa, and the power of sheer physical force.

Suleyman daughter Natalie shares with Charlie Apap the dubious distinction of being a former mayor of Brimbank council. Along with her current duties as councillor, she works as electoral officer for the now-discredited former Police Minister and MP Andre Haermeyer. For a time she worked alongside convicted criminal Craig Otte in the same office.

Haermeyer came to prominence again more recently when the Herald Sun reported police sources alleging he tried to influence the outcome of a rape investigation by using his influence over "top cop" Noel Ashby.

Ashby for his part said it was appropriate to keep Mr Haermeyer "informed" because Mr Haermeyer had a professional relationship with the woman. Perhaps you can work that one out.

The story makes allegations about the role of the Victorian ombudsman in the case and concludes by stating the obvious - there is no crime and corruption commission in Victoria capable of investigating the misdeeds of our elected representatives.

And don't they know it.

Borderline was perusing an article published by the Australia Institute - Do politicians deserve to go to heaven? Public attitudes to prominent Australians. Research Paper No. 47, July 2007. Clive Hamilton and Josh Fear, and got thinking about public perceptions and 'the perceived moral standards of our political leaders' when immediately a number of issues arose. Obviously the graphs to accompany the study indicated that those who believed that the politicians mentioned should or shouldn't go to heaven and mostly believed in heaven (and presumably hell) themselves although allowances were made for non-believers etc. However, it is not Borderline's intention to go into the research paper but for anyone interested in reading the PDF file follow this link; https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=web_papers/WP106.pdf

The other point which would obviously be contested by Messrs Hamilton and Fear is Mathew 7; judge not, that ye be not judged… still like any poll one would hardly be expected to answer as such because as part of the great unwashed they still value their judgment. Public opinion is something politicians do not take lightly and they wish to be judged. That's what your vote is a judgment. There are compensations in making such a judgment. If you're a Liberal Supporter and Labor triumphs you reassure yourself that the 53 or whatever per cent that voted Labor are brainless moronic cretins who will get their just desserts at the next election, because only the Liberal Party can guide - (insert) Australia/State/Council to it's great destiny. Labor on the other hand express a slightly different sentiment (though the language is the same) in that they are a voice in the wilderness, and what differentiates themselves from their conservative counterparts is that they have 'a social conscience'. This self-righteous approach was more pronounced in the past. Making accusations that a Labor member of any elected organization be it federal, state or municipal is tantamount to calling someone a bastard and they will defend the accusation with all the intellectual vigour they can muster. Remember when Ruddy was in election mode - and even after. Every second word was the working families of Australia, good solid folk. Some might even suggest that to Ruddy it's nothing more than a vague intellectual concept where everyone wears King Gee blue overalls and says 'bloody oath' a lot. To Ruddy just like Johnny Howard and Abbott, all have a concept of what the 'battlers' are. They both have battler focus groups that tell them what the battlers are thinking and more importantly what they want. The Liberals stole this descriptive state of a vast proportion of Australian society although they are in general agreement that the 'battler' seems to include anyone on less than $150,000.

If you were to ask a Labor or Liberal politician they would probably be lost for words because if he or she gave a precise elucidation of their ideal battler, other battlers who thought themselves more deserving battlers would take umbrage which could have serious repercussions at election time. That's why they'll be almost generic in their explanation. If they were honest they would say that a battler could be defined as a bit of a bastard who goes with the wind and has always got his or her hand out.

In Albury Wodonga the bent is conservative and they are really not tested as to what they believe in because they really don't care. You have to trust that their belief in a system is in our best interests - if people in Albury Wodonga were asked should Sophie, Bill, Susan and Greg go to heaven most would say yes because what else could they say. In the paper by Messrs Hamilton and Fear they gave the non-believers a chance to answer at length and with dignity. You always get the types who believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is in fact misguided but the trouble is a politician has to hold the party line forever - it's either that or commit the unspeakable act of treachery - going to the other side or sit on the cross benches. If you do so you are referred to (in the case of being a Labor) as a Rat with a capital R. You are shunned by all concerned and obliterated from Labor history except a brief footnote explaining your treachery and generally besmirching your character as much as the laws of libel and slander will allow. Privately they might even agree with the disgraced member, even clandestinely meeting occasionally for a few drinks. The Liberal party are less inclined to such rigorous ideological judgement. That's because the Liberal Party have a great belief in the individual where the Labor Party believe the masses should take predominance over the individual. That's the theory because both parties see the Australian electorate as one big pie chart that has to be tinkered with accordingly until the coloured bits are explained to you as being in your favour.

Politicians won't admit it but they don't want great sheaths of information, that's why they like looking at charts and polls and summaries from focus groups because those that compile the documents render them according to the intellectual abilities of the politician to make any sense of them. You ask any politician if he or she understands the issue and they will say 'Of course I do, I have been extensively briefed.' Yes but by who? For the ordinary backbencher you've probably been briefed by no-one. You may have made a contribution to the caucus discussion on the matter but they thought your arguments irrational and lacking in any intellectual acumen. When this criticism is made it's not so much that the politician is a halfwit but rather lacks political nonce.

There are some people who believe this but most people believe that nowadays if politicians join each other's party, there would be no discernable ideological difference. Abbott's Catholicism would not be out of place in the Labor Party. Even Sophie could be put to good use as a head kicker in some multi-cultural inner (socialist)Melbourne branch of the ALP. Rudd and Abbott are both pious men. If you really are into beliefs, both are Catholics as well because even though Ruddy converted from Catholicism to Anglicism, it doen't quite work out that way because once you're baptised a Catholic you're always a Catholic.

…It is true that there is not ordinarily any formal procedure for leaving the Catholic faith. Sometimes you may need to notify your local parish though, for example if you've pledged financial support to them. It is also true that the vast majority of lapsed Catholics are only a good confession away from coming back as well, no matter how long they've been away or what they may have done. I think most of us would tend to call someone who doesn't believe in all the teachings of the church a 'cafeteria Catholic' (ie they pick and choose what they accept of Catholicism) and someone who's left 'a lapsed Catholic' rather than really saying they aren't Catholic at all.There is a process known as excommunication. But this is merely a formal recognition that the excommunicated person themselves has, by their own acts, placed themselves outside the Church, rather than the Church casting anyone out… Catholic Answers.

Then one could suppose that it all gets back to judgment and John 8:7; let he who has not sinned cast the first sign…! After all everyone has a past.

Julia Gillard was once a member of the Socialist Forum who espoused a very radical restructuring of Australian society. If you asked her if she still believed in radicalism she (depending on who was asking the question), would say either yes, no, or to her old friends in the Socialist Forum - "I haven't changed I'm just doing it through the system.' And Abbott can't talk. Remember when he thought he had a son out of wedlock. I wonder when the DNA tests came back negative did Tony ask for the colour tv, the motorbike, the couple of grand in cash he gave him for his birthday. Did he ask for it back - of course he didn't. Because all was forgiven. Cardinal Pell would have forgiven him personally.

Say if you went up to a politician and asked them what do you believe in. They would be taken back because that's not a question. They would say if pressed that such a question was simplistic because the world is a very complex place. You could say well answer yes or no do you believe in the party line on Afghanistan - yes or no? They would say yes (except if you were a member of the Greens). Yet if someone sitting beside you who had known the politician since they went to school together and was out of earshot of anyone who might convey the answer to interested parties the answer might be quite different. 'The whole thing is a complete shemozzle -another bloody Vietnam'.

This led to an interesting phenomena which Borderline might call for want of a better terminology a 'variable belief system'. It is only to the hoi polloi where there is uniformity in the belief system. There is also a fixed rate belief system. This seems to be Abbott's particular way of seeing things. If Ruddy is for it - whatever it may be (except when we're fighting OS wars) Abbott's against it. This is a more traditional sense of opposition - you just oppose everything (except Iraq and Afghanistan). You don't really have to debate it in parliament - don't even have venture into the House of Representatives - just leave a message with the clerk. No.

So do politicians believe in what they do?

That's just like asking what was before the Big Bang. Time and space began with the Big Bang - 'BUT….? You might ask - there's no butt's about it. Politicians believe in what they do at a given moment in time and space. Asking the same question thirty seconds later is in a completely different time/space zone. Why? Because the universe is different every millisecond it exists. Just because you believe something thirty years ago doesn't mean you believe it now. Likewise just because you believed something this morning doesn't necessarily mean you believe it at lunchtime. You could put it down to personal growth - the human condition to evolve their thought processes. You could call it any bloody thing you wanted to.

In this example we shall use a nondescript politician (there are plenty of them around so fixing your mind's eye on a particular example shouldn't be too difficult).

TYPICAL POLITiCIAN

7.30    Politician wakes up, wife makes toast -'How's Afghanistan going dear?
            ANSWER 'Bloody awful!'
8.00    Politician stops off at newsagent to buy newspaper - 'Looks pretty bad in
            Afghanistan,' says the proprietor.
            ANSWER 'Don't always believe what you read in the newspapers - I't's
            going pretty well.'
8.15    Politician is in his electorate when he gets a call from a constituent. 'When are we          going to get out of Afghanistan?'
           ANSWER 'six months!'
8.33   Politician receives a call from a constituent. 'Will we win in Alfghanistan?'
           ANSWER 'For however long it takes!'
8.45   Politician get's a phone call from local paper - 'The government in Afghanistan is
          as corrupt as they come isn't it?'
           ANSWER 'This time he's promised that he's going to run hard on
           corruption.'
9.00 Politician get's a call from a friend - 'The Taliban have taken over the place - why         don't we just get
          ANSWER 'Well what do you expect when the place is run by war lords and
          drug dealers.'

We could go on but you can see in this modest example that besides the space/time continuum the politician does believe in what he is doing - being a politician. Ah-! You might say the hypocrisy but what's the alternative. After all this politician probably knows as much about what's going on in Afghanistan as the Minister for Defence, Mr Fawkner. It's only because in this instant that he has to have a fixed rate belief system that the Minister Fawkner must have some conformity in his reply except perhaps late at night when Ruddy takes him aside and asks him how Afghanistan is going.

Perhaps only then might Fawkner lift his guard.

'Bloody awful!' he might say.

'And he really believes it at that point in time, even though by the time he is cleaning his teeth he might have completely changed his mind. Then in the time it takes him to walk from the ensuite to his bed he might have changed his mind again, so that when Mrs Fawkner asks him 'How's the war going in Afghanistan he might say 'Very nicely dear,' and go to sleep.