Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Tuesday 6 September 2016

Senate Inquiry into Australian Census 2016: your chance to finally have a say on the ABS, personal privacy, data retention and #CensusFail



On 31 August 2016, the Senate referred an inquiry into the 2016 Census to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2016.

The Inquiry terms of reference are:

The 2016 Census, with particular reference to:
  1. the preparation, administration and management on the part of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Government in the lead up to the 2016 Census;
  2. the scope, collection, retention, security and use of data obtained in the 2016 Census;
  3. arrangements, including contractual arrangements, in respect of the information technology aspects of the Census;
  4. the shutting down of the Census website on the evening of 9 August 2016, the factors leading to that shutdown and the reasons given, and the support provided by government agencies, including the Australian Signals Directorate;
  5. the response rate to the Census and factors that may have affected the response rate;
  6. privacy concerns in respect of the 2016 Census, including the use of data linking, information security and statistical linkage keys;
  7. Australia’s Census of Population and Housing generally, including purpose, scope, regularity and cost and benefits;
  8. the adequacy of funding and resources to the ABS;
  9. ministerial oversight and responsibility; and
  10. any related matters.

Submissions close on 21 September 2016.

Address for submissions:

Senate Standing Committees on Economics
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3540
Fax: +61 2 6277 5719
economics.sen@aph.gov.au

Online submissions may be lodged here.

Thursday 11 August 2016

Only in the self-indulgent, damn democracy, political climate fostered by the Abbott & Turnbull governments.......


Only in the self-indulgent, damn democracy climate prevailing in the lead-up to the 2016 double dissolution federal election would a registered political party have considered endorsing a candidate with this legal history……

Rodney Culleton
Rod Culleton
Photograph: Channel Nine

The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 August 2016:

In Armidale Local Court on Monday afternoon, Magistrate Michael Holmes granted Culleton's application, and annulled the larceny conviction, which was made when he failed to appear in court in March.
Senator Culleton will fight the larceny charge, after pleading not guilty.
Mr Holmes adjourned the case to September 12 for mention to fix a hearing date.
He told the court if the matter "was short" he could deal with it on that day.
Mr Holmes told Culleton to keep in contact with his solicitor, and dispensed his bail, which was granted by police following his arrest.
Mr Holmes told the court he was happy to deal with the matter, and had read all the files.
He also referenced Senator Culleton's "colourful letter" which was sent to the court.
Fairfax Media understands the letter labelled the Armidale court as a "kangaroo court".
It's now expected Senator Culleton's district court challenge against the conviction, set down for next week in Armidale, will be withdrawn.

The Guardian, 8 August 2016:

New One Nation senator Rodney Culleton is in police custody after turning himself in over an outstanding warrant related to his failure to appear in a NSW court to answer larceny charges.
A NSW Police spokesman confirmed a man was being dealt with by police in Armidale and would be bailed to appear before the local court on Monday afternoon.
The West Australian senator was convicted in his absence earlier this year for stealing a tow truck key from a driver who was trying to repossess one of his company cars in 2014.
He's seeking to have that conviction annulled.
Larceny carries a maximum penalty of five years jail, which could deem him ineligible to be a senator.
The constitution says anyone convicted of crime that has a punishment of at least one year's jail can't be a member of parliament.
Senator Culleton is also awaiting trial in WA later this month - the week before parliament begins - after he was arrested and charged for allegedly stealing a car being used by receivers from RSM Bird Cameron as they began foreclosure proceedings at a friend's farm.
The senator won the 11th spot on the WA ballot.
He is expected to appear before Armidale Local Court again after 1400 (AEST) on Monday.

Financial Review, 7 August 2016:

For someone who apparently prides himself on being a defender of the nation's farmers, new One Nation Senator-Elect Rodney Culleton sure has a strange way of showing it.
ASIC documents show Culleton has appointed an administrator to his company, DEQMO Pty Ltd, which will have the effect of avoiding a wind-up application to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court today (Monday).
The petitioning party is Armidale farmer and mill owner, Jack Vivers, who says he is owed slightly more than $42,500 by Culleton, a former business associate. Money he will have much harder time getting back now that Culleton has put DEQMO into administration.
This is the same Rodney Culleton, it is worth noting, who took part in a 60 Minutes program last year called "Fighting Back" about his battle to retain his WA property and who describes himself on the One Nation website as a defender of Aussie farmers.
And the same Rod Culleton who may not finally be permitted to take his seat in the Senate pending the outcome of a larceny case, in which he is implicated.

Inside Story
, 3 August 2016:

In fact, the circumstances of his offence appear to have been relatively trivial: he was said to have stolen the key of a tow truck – a key worth $7.50 – in an effort to prevent the repossession of a vehicle he was leasing. Moreover, he was convicted in his absence because he failed to appear in court, and an appeal is now pending. Yet, at least until his appeal is heard, he is currently “subject to be sentenced” and is therefore “incapable of being chosen.”
It seems to have been assumed that, once it is recognised that Culleton is “incapable of being chosen,” section 15 of the Constitution will come into play. Under that provision, his Senate seat would be declared vacant. This would create a casual vacancy to be filled by the WA parliament, which would be required to nominate someone from the same political party – that is, another One Nation candidate. In the ballot paper on 2 July, the One Nation ticket listed Rodney Culleton first, his friend Peter Georgiou second, and his wife Ioanna Culleton third. So presumably one of these would be chosen.
But this assumption is wrong. As the authoritative explanation in Odgers’Australian Senate Practice makes clear, the mechanism in section 15 comes into play only when a senator who was validly elected “becomes disqualifiedafter the completion of the election process.” What happens when a senator “is found to have been disqualified at the time of election” is different. The election of that senator is totally void; the relevant seat in the Senate remains unfilled and the failure to fill it must be remedied by a recount.
Again, it seems to have been assumed that in this event, once Culleton was eliminated as “incapable of being chosen,” the votes that had been accumulated for him would simply be transferred down the line to the second candidate on the One Nation ticket, and if necessary to the third. But while this might be a realistic assessment of the probable result, it would not be so easy to achieve that result.
The distribution of preferences in Western Australia meant that the ballot papers had to be counted 539 times; and it was only on the 539th count that Culleton achieved his quota. The other two One Nation candidates had already been excluded much earlier – Ioanna Culleton by count 153, and Peter Georgiou by count 157. Thus, in order to ensure that Rodney Culleton’s votes could be transferred further down the ticket, it would be necessary to rework the entire distribution at least from count 153, and the outcome of such a redistribution could no longer be predicted with confidence.
It happens that Culleton is also awaiting trial in Western Australia on a more serious stealing charge (with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment). If he were able to take his seat, and was later convicted on that charge, then the procedure in section 15 of the Constitution would come into play. But that is irrelevant to the fact that Culleton is now “incapable of being chosen.”
As it stands, the Australian Electoral Commission has declared a candidate to be elected who is in fact “incapable of being chosen.” Strictly speaking, that announcement is unconstitutional. Presumably it might be possible to avoid such an outcome if the AEC had some mechanism for checking, before the distribution of preferences begins, whether all the nominated candidates are “capable of being chosen.” But there seems to be no such mechanism.

Excerpt from Mills Oakley, Granting yourself a security interest: worthwhile or worthless?, October 2014:

In August 2008 Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd (Macquarie) entered into a chattel mortgage agreement with Elite Grains Pty Ltd (Elite) for the purchase of a Prime Mover (Truck).

In 2012 Elite defaulted under the agreement, and Macquarie demanded return of the Truck. Elite refused, so Macquarie commenced and was successful in proceedings against Elite and Rodney Culleton (Culleton), the sole shareholder and director of Elite.

On 7 August 2014 the Truck was sold at public auction, and simultaneously DEQMO Pty Ltd (DEQMO), of whom Culleton was the sole director and shareholder, registered a security interest in the Truck on the PPSR, with the effect that Macquarie could not pass clear title to the purchaser.

Macquarie then served an amendment demand on DEQMO pursuant to the PPSA demanding that DEQMO’s registration be removed. No response was received. Macquarie then initiated these proceedings seeking orders that:
DEQMO’s security interest was void;
DEQMO’s security interest be removed from the PPSR;
DEQMO be restrained from re-registering any interest on the PPSR; and
DEQMO and Culleton pay Macquarie’s costs.

Decision

Rein J granted the orders sought by Macquarie. The evidence put forward by DEQMO failed to establish the basis of the security interest, as Culleton was more concerned with the manner in which the Truck was repossessed and the conduct of its sale.

In light of this evidence (or lack of), Rein J found a number of reasons why DEQMO’s claimed interest was invalid. However, the key basis on which Rein J held the security interest was void was that the claimed interest was one given by DEQMO to DEQMO, as a person or company cannot give a security interest to itself, as per section 12 of the PPSA.

Conclusion

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any registration on the PPSR has a proper foundation to support it. The judgment of Rein J makes it clear that if a company or person purports to grant a security interest to itself, then such a registration will be invalid. If the security interest is in fact an ownership interest, such registrations do not secure “payment or performance of an obligation” as required by section 12, and can be removed under the provisions in Part 5.6 of the PPSA.

PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LTD -v- ELITE GRAINS PTY LTD [2014] WASC 495
In which a bankrupt Rodney Norman Culleton was involved as second defendant (bankruptcy declared October 2014).
Court transcript here.

Federal Court of Australia, Bankruptcy Guide:

What happens if you are made bankrupt?
If the Judge or Registrar makes a sequestration order a trustee will be appointed to manage your financial affairs. Your trustee will notify you of your bankruptcy in writing. The trustee will explain his or her role and your responsibilities as a bankrupt. The trustee will also give you a statement of affairs which you must complete and file with the Official Receiver (AFSA). Your period of bankruptcy runs for three years from the date you file your statement of affairs with AFSA.
There are several legal outcomes of your bankruptcy; for instance:
*You will be released from responsibility for most of your existing debts. However, the trustee can sell your assets or property to pay your creditors.
*Any house or your share of a house that you own may be sold to pay your creditors. 
*Any assets which you acquire while you are bankrupt may be sold by the trustee.
*You must not obtain credit from another person, or pay for goods or services by cheque for more than a specified amount without telling the person that you are bankrupt. The credit limit is updated quarterly, for an up-to-date figure contact AFSA.
*If you run a business while you are bankrupt you must keep all proper accounts showing your business transactions and financial position.
There are other consequences of becoming bankrupt. 

Disqualification
                   Any person who:…….
 (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent;……
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.


NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR WINDING UP ORDER
Company details
Company:
Elite Grains Pty Ltd
ACN:
091 599 941
An application for the winding up of Elite Grains Pty Ltd was commenced by the plaintiff Jameson Farm Pty Ltd and continued by Komatsu Forklift Australia Pty Ltd on 03/05/2013 and will be heard as set out below.

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Commonwealth Bank may be investigated for victimisation of whisleblower offence


The Australian bad bank reports flow like an never-ending stream …..


The chair of the powerful Senate economics references committee has lashed the Commonwealth Bank its "unacceptable" lack of attendance at a Senate inquiry into wrongdoing within its insurance arm CommInsure and has accused the bank of bullying. 

The rebuke comes as lawyers for CommInsure's former chief medical officer turned whistleblower Dr Benjamin Koh revealed they had lodged a formal request with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to "explore prosecution of certain employees of the bank for their victimisation of Dr Koh".

Under section 156C of the Life Insurance Act, 1995, victimisation of a whistleblower can carry a prison sentence of up to six months. 


Tuesday 3 May 2016

STATE OF PLAY: Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos' career path


The Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee currently comprises five Labor senators, three Liberal senators and three Greens senators.

Its Chair is Senator Jenny McAllister (ALP, NSW) and its Deputy Chair Senator is Cory Bernardi (LP, SA).

After the Australian Electoral Commission withheld $4.4 million in public funding from the Liberal Party of Australia due to political donation disclosure irregularities, the Senate by a vote of 32 to 30 on 19 April 2016 ordered an inquiry into this matter and, further ordered Cabinet Secretary, former Liberal Party president and former honorary treasurer of the NSW division of the Liberal Party, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, to attend.

The Committee issued an Interim Report after Senator Sinodinos refused to appear before the inquiry in a letter written on 27 May 2016 and leaked to the media sometime that same day – presumably by someone close to the senator.

Remarkably forgetful during his testimony before the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption in 2014, as well as in his 2011 mandatory member's interests disclosure to the Australian Parliament, Senator Sinodinos has again made a dubious career move ahead of the expected 2 July 2016 federal election.
_________________________________________
Interim Report
1.1        On 19 April 2016, the Senate referred the following matter to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee (committee) for inquiry and report by 4 May 2016.
(a) Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties, with particular reference to the adequacy of:
i the funding and disclosure regime relating to annual returns;
ii the powers of the Australian Electoral Commission with respect to supervision of the conduct of and reporting by associated entities of political parties; and
iii any related matters; and
(b) Senator Sinodinos appear before the committee to answer questions.[1]
1.2        The committee has decided to table this interim report in order to report non‑compliance of the Senate order by Senator Sinodinos to the Senate.
Steps taken by the committee
1.3        Following the referral on 19 April 2016, Senator Sinodinos' office was contacted informally by the secretariat on the morning of 20 April 2016 in order to obtain details of a contact for correspondence and to indicate the possible hearing dates under consideration by the committee in order to provide early advice of those dates. No issues with the possible hearing dates were raised with the secretariat.
1.4        Following a committee meeting later that day, formal correspondence was sent to Senator Sinodinos (at Appendix 1) indicating the hearing dates agreed by the committee and indicating that the secretariat would work with his office to find a suitable time. The committee asked for a response by midday 22 April 2016. Despite the secretariat following up with phone calls to his office and an email to the contact officer, the committee received no response to this correspondence.
1.5        On 26 April 2016, the committee considered the lack of response from Senator Sinodinos and agreed to send a further letter advising him of the time for him to appear on 28 April (at Appendix 2). Again the committee received no response.
Receipt of the response
1.6        The committee received a response from Senator Sinodinos to the secretariat in hard copy at approximately 4.45pm on Wednesday 27 April 2016. The response was provided to the Chair and not distributed to the committee until the next morning on 28 April 2016. However, the letter appeared in media in the evening of 27 April 2016. Under Standing Order 37 the 'evidence taken by a committee and documents presented to it, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not, unless authorised by the Senate or the committee, be disclosed to any person other than a member or officer of the committee'. As there appears to be a prima facie case of unauthorised disclosure, the committee is investigating the matter.
Committee view
1.7        The committee notes that in his response Senator Sinodinos cites his unavailability on the hearing dates. This was never conveyed to the committee. If the Senator was unaware of the inquiry agreed by the Senate on 19 April 2016, there were two and a half days between initial contact with his office and the initial deadline and over a week from the initial contact with his office until the actual response was received. The committee finds the lack of a timely response to a Senate Committee conveying an order of the Senate disappointing.
1.8        The committee notes that the week starting 26 April 2016 was originally scheduled to be a sitting week [2] and as such senators would have been expected to have commitments to the chamber in Canberra. 
1.9        The committee further notes the short inquiry timeframe set by the Senate for the committee to work within, resulting in limited flexibility to rearrange hearings to accommodate witnesses. In this case, the committee offered to work with Senator Sinodinos to find a suitable time for his appearance during the days that the committee had set aside for hearings. It is important to note, Senator Sinodinos' attendance was not requested by the committee: it was directed by the Senate. The onus is on Senator Sinodinos to make himself available to appear at the public hearing, not for the committee to reschedule its hearing to accommodate Senator Sinodinos.
1.10      In his response, Senator Sinodinos concedes that hearing dates and availability aside, he does not intend to comply with the order of the Senate.
1.11      This action by way of the Senate order is clearly provided for in the standing orders of the Senate (SO 177(3)).
1.12      The committee notes the following possible responses available to the Senate, including motions:
* requiring Senator Sinodinos to attend the Senate chamber in order to explain the reasons for his non-compliance to the Senate;
* directing Senator Sinodinos to attend a further hearing of the committee;
* referring the non-compliance with a senate order to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, consistent with Parliamentary Privilege Resolution 6(8);
* to censure Senator Sinodinos;
* to consider whether a contempt has been committed, under Standing Order 82; and
* to pursue other remedies which may be available under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.
Senator Jenny McAllister
Chair
_________________________________________

Saturday 7 September 2013

If there's a high informal vote in the Senate in the Clarence Valley ...


Click on image to enlarge

Today's Daily Examiner has rewritten the rules for voting in the Senate. While the AEC's instructions for voters in NSW who vote below the line is to number every box (and remember, there are 110 boxes) in order of preference the Examiner on page 5 advised its readers to number every box from one to 10. That will see voters having to vote 1-10 eleven times - the end result will be eleven Number 1 votes, eleven Number 2 votes, eleven Number 3 votes, ...