Friday, May 15, 2015

Turnbull's Swearing Staffer, Ellis, charged with indecent act and drug possession.

Post on Pre-election Blog. Turnbull senior adviser, Ellis, has quit. I'm still to get an apology.

There are two issues for me with Turnbull's Ministerial Office and his actions:
  • Anyone in a Ministerial Office, let alone "a senior advisor", doing drugs and behaving badly enough in public to get charged is not a fit and proper person to be on the public payroll or involved in making public policy. This is not "a private matter", this goes directly to the suitability for office and the poor character of the person.
  • Turnbull never offered an apology, never contacted me in any way (nor any of his staff, nor Ellis or Lynch) and issues a rather misleading twitter that "calm restored". Only in his mind and  his staffers.
Original Post and Update follow:

Update 4: 02-May-2016.
ABC News reports Ellis has had his case heard. He plead guilty to two charges and had a total of four charges dropped by the prosecution. No criminal conviction was recorded, nor was any penalty imposed, not even a good behaviour order. His lawyers argued Ellis' partner was from the USA and they travelled there often, a criminal conviction would prevent that travel.

It seems that Political staffers can get away with taking and possessing drugs, lewd acts and public indecency, in the same way the Politicians can make false expenses claims (fraud / embezzlement elsewhere) and unless you're Peter Slipper, when caught, you can pay it back without penalty or investigation.

Update 3: 14-Sep-2015
New Matilda, 13-Sep-2015: Turnbull's non-apology at #6 of "14 Of The Greatest Moments In Abbott Government Apologies"

Canberra Times, 11-Sep-2015: Ellis to fight charges. Hearing in May, 2016. This quote might explain his swearing and policy:
He was allegedly found with LSD and amphetamines.
Canberra  Times, 05-Jun-2015, First court date. Ellis on 6 charges, management hearing in August.
ABC, same day, same content.

Update 2: 15-May-2015
Staffer bailed to reappear Jun-5, quits. ABC News, Herald-Sun.

Contrast this "its personal" position with the Turnbull attitude to Free Speech.
My opinion: rampant hypocrisy, possible political interference.

SBS sports presenter sacked after Turnbull tweet & phone call

Update 1: 15-May-2015.
Malcolm Turnbull's NBN adviser Stephen Ellis charged for indecent act, drugs

Delimiter story, 7-Aug-2013, caused minor media fracas over swearing, nothing reported about lack of transparency in Turnbull's office and NBN Policy figures.

Turnbull Tweet [Note: Never contacted me in any way, no apology ever offered.]
Regret my staffer's lapse into vulgar anglo-saxon in an email to a blogger. Charm remediation has been administered & equanimity restored.
Original Post: Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Following on from their previous diatribes and attacks in May, when I also sought concrete figures and was stonewalled, yesterday the same guys got stuck into me for again asking for numbers from their spreadsheet.

I wrote to a senior Turnbull staffer, asking a reasonable commercial question that Retailers should know before the election, so they might review their business plans and start contingency planning.

His response left me in no doubt about his character and "born to rule" attitude.
To these people, everyone else is mere pond-scum. Wonderful that Turnbull surrounds himself with people of this calibre. Is this an aberration, an outlier, or like-seeking-like? I've no idea.

I replied to Lynch that I didn't need to ask the Government or NBN Co such basic questions - it's all on public record, in detail. There's a lot about transparency and openness that he seems to fail to grasp.

He also seems to have problems with plain english: I asked for the Coalition wholesale costing. Lynch answered as if I'd asked "what would the retail pricing be?". Why answer questions that can only harm your cause? Far better, in his mind, to flip the sense of the question and go on the attack.

Lynch, by his own lights, is an impartial observer and doesn't favour one side or the other in the NBN debate. How can someone so ill informed and demonstrably prejudiced maintain this position? I have no idea.

Message 1:



I mark your emails 'junk' (like your copy) so didn't see your note until Grahame replied.

Nobody challenges your numbers because nobody takes your psychotic rantings seriously.  Nobody. Nevertheless they are all wrong.  All of them - you don't have a clue about the existing deal, much less how it might be modified.  Given what you write is a delusional fantasy that exists only in your own mind, you can get fucked.

Since the NBN stands to be greatly modified under whoever wins, your serial lies and distortions will be exposed in due course.  In the meantime do not contact me again.

Have a nice life.

Stephen Ellis / +61 403 411 898

Message 2:


With respect do you understand that a wholesale only network and its patron (whether they be LABOR or LIBERAL) have no control over retail pricing?

Why do you never ask these questions of the current government and why do you hold one side of politics to a considerably higher standard of burden of proof than the other that is AHEM actually in government? Will you ever speak an ill word against the present situation or will you hide behind your defence that there is "no data" about the NBN as it stands (that was your justification for your single minded pursuit of the claimed flaws in the Coalition policy)? What is your real opinion of the current CVC? Does your silence EQUAL endorsement?

In the real world of media, we subject people IN power to as much scrutiny as the people who seek it. When will you subscribe to that basic tenet of reporting discourse?


My email

Subject: Disclosing Retailer Pricing for FTTN/HFC Plans

On 04/08/2013, at 6:43 PM, steve jenkin <> wrote:


Now is the time for you to disclose Retailer pricing in your Plan.

I'd like to know a couple of modelling assumptions as well:

If I don't hear back from you, I'll derive some numbers that seem reasonable to me and use them in my models, on the same basis as your "if nobody has challenged them, then they're correct".

steve jenkin