Australia's 45th Parliament in action

https://youtu.be/Knob-rB35AI

“But before talking about what happened during the election campaign, I want to touch on something that is very close to my heart, and that is the national flag of Australia—our flag.” [Senator McGrath (Queensland) Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister]

“—particularly to you, Senator Cameron, who share my love of chocolates” [Senator Fierravanti-Wells (NSW)]

The New Daily, 12 September 2016:

The government began the second week of the new Parliament the same way it ended the first – amid high farce.

Little more than a week after being the first majority government in 50 years to lose a vote in the House of Representatives (it lost three) because Coalition MPs decided to go home early, it was the Senate’s turn to show the level of disorganisation within government ranks.

Soon after the Senate opened for business on Monday, the Coalition had no business to discuss.

And after another embarrassing session of Parliament ended, ABC’s Lateline revealed that Federal Cabinet had confidentially signed off on the mechanics of the same-sex marriage plebiscite, only for the details to leak almost immediately.

In the morning session of the Senate, a filibuster of Monty Python proportions ensued, leaving no one with any doubt the government was desperately trying to mark time until lunch.

With no legislation to debate, Coalition senators rose to talk for hours about their love of chocolates, love of the Australian flag, respect for roads, respect for a defeated candidate whose name they got wrong and other inane conversation.

It all led to Opposition Senate leader Penny Wong to chime in that the government had “no plans and no ideas”.

“They’ve got literally nothing to talk about,” Senator Wong said.

Meanwhile, manager of government business in the Senate Mitch Fifield put the word out that Labor was delaying passage of non-controversial bills in the House, therefore leaving the Senate with nothing to debate.

But the Senate scenes exposed further signs of chaos and weakness from the government, leaving Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appearing besieged from all sides…..

ADVOCATES URGE LABOR & CROSS BENCH TO VETO PLEBISCITE / TURNBULL'S "PLAN B" SHOULD BE FREE VOTE IN PARLIAMENT

just.equal

www.equal.org.au

MEDIA RELEASE

28 August 2016

 

ADVOCATES URGE LABOR & CROSS BENCH TO VETO PLEBISCITE

TURNBULL'S "PLAN B" SHOULD BE FREE VOTE IN PARLIAMENT

"If the Prime Minister is really concerned about achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible he will have a back-up plan should a plebiscite be vetoed, and that 'Plan B' should be to allow a free vote in parliament."

- Rodney Croome

Advocates have dismissed a renewed call by the Prime Minister for a marriage equality plebiscite and urged the Senate to veto it.

Malcolm Turnbull has said a plebiscite is the quickest path to marriage equality but Labor is hardening its position against the plebiscite because of the harm and cost.

Long-time marriage equality advocate, Rodney Croome, said,

"I reject the Government's rhetoric about a plebiscite being the quickest or the only way forward for marriage equality, and call on Labor and the Senate cross bench to unconditionally block plebiscite enabling legislation."

"If the Prime Minister is really concerned about achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible he will have a back-up plan should a plebiscite be vetoed, and that 'Plan B' should be to allow a free vote in parliament."

"If a plebiscite is vetoed by the Senate the political landscape changes and I expect the issue to return to the Liberal Party room and for Liberals who support marriage equality to push for a free vote or cross the floor."

"The risk there isn't a free vote is a risk the LGBTI community is willing to take to avoid the hurt, harm and indignity of a plebiscite."

"This was confirmed by a recent scientific survey of the LGBTI community that was the largest of its kind ever conducted in Australia with over 5,500 respondents."

On Friday the Greens announced they will vote against plebiscite enabling legislation. The Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch say they also oppose a plebiscite, meaning if Labor opposes it too it cannot pass.

Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm appears intent on publicly making a fool of himself

This is what Sydney Morning Herald journalist Mark Kenny had to say about Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm on 8 August 2016:

David Leyonhjelm is a boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block. And that new Hansonite conspiracy theorist from Queensland? He's an absurdist fringe-dweller and fellow hate-speech apologist. It's a case of wacky and wackier.

Neither of these self-promoting misanthropes would have the first idea about entrenched discrimination. Yet both are experts.

You may disagree with this harsh critique and probably think it unbecoming of a serious media outlet. But offensive to them, it is not. And that's the point.

You see, this gormless duo has declared, with all their angry-white-male certitude, that a verbal abuser cannot cause offence or humiliation. It is all in the mind of the recipient.

In their peerless assessment of the lived experience of all minorities, they have decreed that the fault of hate-speech does not lie with the utterer of a given slur or insult, no matter how cruel, baseless, or humiliating. Rather, the "offence" lies with the recipient - the subject who simply "decides" to be affronted.

Infantile reasoning, but there it is……..

Leyonhjelm, who has been sitting in the Australia senate since July 2014, has reported taken the matter of being described as having angry-white-male certitude to the Human Rights Commission allegedly lodging a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – the very section of the act he is keen to see abolished.

This is an excerpt from Section 18C of this act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence…..

The senator’s behaviour is suspect because he would be well aware that airing his supposedly offended feelings will probably go nowhere because of Section 18D of that same act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions

                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

New Matilda was less than impressed by both Leyonhjelm and Roberts on 16 August 2016:

Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, during an August 2016 

appearance on ABC's Insider's program.

News broke yesterday that Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging he was racially vilified by Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny, who called him an ‘angry white man’. Chris Graham explains why Leyonhjelm will lose, why the current debate around 18c is a ridiculous furphy, and why free speech has never really been under threat……

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts tried to claim on ABC Insiders recently that 18c was introduced by “Julia Gillard to nobble Andrew Bolt”.

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, 

appearing on ABC’s Insiders program in August 2016.

In fact, 18c was introduced by Keating government Attorney General Michael Lavarch in 1995. That’s three years before Julia Gillard was even elected to parliament, 15 years before she became Prime Minister, and 16 years before Bolt was successfully sued under the 18c provisions. It also happens to be about three or four years before Bolt started writing his rants for the Herald Sun (in the late 1990s).

George Brandis made headlines in 2014 while railing against 18c when he remarked in parliament that ‘everyone has the right to be a bigot’. Which is strictly true, but under Australian law, our Attorney General seemed not to understand that there are so sanctions for being ‘said bigot’.

Since Bolt lost, all the usual suspects have railed against 18c. They need to let it go. Really. So does the media. There is literally nothing to see here. Free speech is not under attack.

You cannot have a rational discussion about 18c without acknowledging the existence of 18d. But that is what conservative whingers keep doing, and the media keep letting them get away with it. It has to stop.

Of all those whingers, David Leyonhjelm is perhaps one of the least interesting, but that brings us neatly back to his boy’s own adventure in the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the other major reason why Leyonhjelm will lose his case.

Ego.

Shortly after news broke of his complaint, Leyonhjelm took to the airwaves to boast that he wasn’t really insulted, offended, humiliated and/or intimidated. He was just trying it on to expose how bad section 18c really was.

The work of the AHRC is extremely important. It has labored under funding cuts by the Coalition, and yet despite this, has still delivered crucial work, such as its inquiry into abuse in immigration detention.

And yet, despite the pressure on the Commission, an elected parliamentary representative appears to have tried to spark a government inquiry purely for sh*ts and giggles…..

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……

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. 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 44

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.

ASIC Insolvency Notices, 2013:

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.

Poor fella, my country: composition of the Australian Senate post-July 2016

This is a great day for democracy, Mr Speaker

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the passing of Senate reforms

Hansard,17 March 2016

The Turnbull Government’s legislative changes to how Australian senators are elected and its subsequent calling of a double-dissolution federal election in the face of a disillusioned and mutinous electorate, has resulted in this.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 August 2016:

Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is now a pivotal force in Australian politics, having secured a total of four senators and consequently a crucial balance-of-power role in the new Parliament.

The Turnbull government will require the support of the One Nation bloc - as well as the three Nick Xenophon senators - to pass any legislation blocked by both Labor and the Greens.

But already there are questions over how long the four Hanson senators will remain united, with election-watcher Antony Green pointing to the party's abysmal record of keeping MPs in line.

The anti-Islam party benefited from a strong flow of voter preferences to win two Queensland Senate seats, including Ms Hanson's, and one in NSW, when results were finalised on Thursday. Farmer Rod Culleton has also been elected in Western Australia…..

One Nation spokesman James Ashby said the party's senators would be bound by the party's official policy manifesto. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August 2016:

One of Australia's new senators, One Nation's Malcolm Roberts, sent a bizarre affidavit to then prime minister Julia Gillard in 2011 demanding to be exempt from the carbon tax and using language consistent with the "sovereign citizen" movement.

Mr Roberts has also written numerous reports claiming climate change is an international conspiracy fostered by the United Nations and international banks to impose a socialist world order. At least one report cites several anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, including notorious Holocaust denier Eustace Mullins among its "primary references".

Anti-government, self-identified "sovereign citizens" claim to exist outside the country's legal and taxation systems and frequently believe the government uses grammar to enslave its citizens.

NSW Police say such people "should be considered a potential terrorist threat".

In an affidavit he sent to Ms Gillard in 2011, Mr Roberts identified himself as "Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul", representing a corporate entity he termed MALCOLM IEUAN ROBERTS.

In the document, Mr Roberts demanded to be exempted from the carbon tax and compensated to the tune of $280,000 if Ms Gillard did not provide "full and accurate disclosure" in relation to 28 points explaining why he should not be liable for the tax.

Mr Roberts addressed the affidavit to "The Woman, Julia-Eileen: Gillard., acting as The Honourable JULIA EILEEN GILLARD" and presented her with a detailed contract he expected her to sign.

That stylisation of names is commonly used by "sovereign citizens" who believe the use of hyphens and colons is a way to evade governments' use of grammar to enslave their citizens.

When the largest Senate cross bench since Federation is combined with a one seat government majority in the House of Representatives - reduced to 75 votes on the floor once The Speaker is installed - then this country is now at the mercy of the cross benches. 

One of which is riddled with far-right, opportunistic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-immigration, conspiracy theorising, zealots and political berserkers.

The composition of the Senate until 2019……

NSW Senators elected:

1.Payne (Lib)

2.Dastyari (ALP)

3.Sinodinos (Lib)

4.McAllister (ALP)

5.Nash (NAT)

6.O’Neill (ALP)

7.Fierravanti-Wells(Lib)

8.Cameron(ALP)

9.Rhiannon(GRN)

10.Williams(NAT) 1

11.Burston(PHON)

12.Leyonhjelm (LDP)

Queensland Senators elected:

1. Brandis (LNP)

2. Watt (ALP)

3. Hanson (PHON)

4. Canavan (LNP)

5. Chisholm (ALP)

6. McGrath (LNP)

7. Moore (ALP)

8. McDonald (LNP)

9. Waters (GRN)

10. O’Sullivan (LNP)

11. Ketter (ALP)

12. Roberts (PHON)

Victorian Senators elected:

1. Fifield (Lib)

2. Carr (ALP)

3. Di Natale (GRN)

4. McKenzie (Nats)

5. Conroy (ALP)

6. Ryan (Lib)

7. Collins (ALP)

8. Paterson (Lib)

9. Marshall (ALP)

10. Hinch (DHJP)

11. Rice (GRN)

12. Hume (Lib)

South Australian Senators elected:

1.Birmingham (Lib)

2. Wong (ALP)

3. Xenophon (NXT)

4. Bernardi (Lib)

5.Farrell (ALP)

6. Griff (NXT)

7. Rushton (Lib)

8. Gallacher (ALP)

9. Fawcett (Lib)

10. Kakoschke-Moore (NXT)

11. Hanson-Young (GRN)

12. Day (FF)

Elected senators for other states and territories:

Tasmania

Western Australia

Northern Territory

ACT

CSIRO implements Abbott-Turnbull Government's climate change denial agenda?

The latest CSIRO chief executive Dr. Larry Marshall (with the organisation since January 2015) clearly states in this podcast that the type of scientific investigation to be conducted in the future will be dictated by the federal government ("the customer") and implies that the Abbott-Turnbull Government is unbiased when it comes to climate change.......

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/secret-tape-reveals-why-climate-change-is-off-the-csiros-age?utm_term=.tjdmAJnAG#.yr3Dy3Eyz

Both an Abbott and Turnbull appointee, Dr. Marshall was previously employed by a Silicon Valley-based private capital venture firm and, was sued in 2015; Shareholders in failed laser technology company Arasor claim Dr Marshall was a central figure in the company’s collapse, alleging he and other directors engaged in misleading and ­deceptiveconduct, as well as ­serious breaches of the Corporations and ASIC acts inrelation to the company’s financial reports and a disastrous $81 million float.

Meanwhile, as Marshall trashes the international reputation of the CSIRO, a newly resurgent One Nation is all set to strengthen the hand of  climate change denialists' in Coalition ranks.....

Independent Australia, 7 July 2016:

Hanson, who leads her own One Nation party, has won election to Australia’s Senate and, as counting continues, she could bring more candidates with her.

But as well as pushing xenophobia and division, the Queensland politician will also take a most extreme brand of climate science denial with her into the Senate.

As I wrote on The Guardian, Hanson’s party has been taking cues on climate science from one of the country’s most enthusiastic and relentless pushers of climate science denial, former coal miner Malcolm Roberts.

Roberts is the volunteer project leader of the Galileo Movement, a Queensland-based project launched in 2011 to fight laws to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

Roberts is also standing as a Senate candidate for One Nation and still has an outside chance of being elected, although Hanson is more enthusiastic about his chances than some analysts. The “wacky world view” of Roberts has since been reported by the Courier-Mail and the Sydney Morning Herald.

If you hang around the climate change issue for long enough, then at some point you’ll likely come across the extreme end of science denial and the conspiracy theories that Roberts represents.

It goes a bit like this. Humans are not causing climate change. Government-paid climate scientists and their agencies are corrupt. The United Nations is in league with international bankers to defraud the world. It’s all about control. 

That sort of stuff.

The Galileo Movement was founded in 2011 by Queensland retirees Case Smit and John Smeed.

A year earlier, the pair had organised a speaking tour for British climate science denialist Lord Christopher Monckton — a tour that attracted sponsorship from mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.

Roberts became the project manager. The group pulled together an “advisory council” that includes the likes of Fred Singer, Monckton, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen. 

The advisory group once included influential political blogger Andrew Bolt, until the News Ltd writer claimed Roberts had been spreading anti-Jewish conspiracy theories — a charge the Galileo Movement denied.

The climate policies of Hanson’s One Nation party have been quite literally cut and pasted from the Galileo Movement.

Those policies include calls for investigations into the “corruption of climate science” and the teaching of climate “scepticism” in schools.

After gaining enough votes to secure her own seat, Hanson told The Saturday Paper:

“This whole climate change is not based on empirical evidence and we are being hoodwinked. Climate change is not due to humans.”

Elsewhere, One Nation also reflects Roberts’ paranoia over United Nation’s policies to support environmentally sustainable development — known as Agenda 21. In the eyes of One Nation, Agenda 21 morphs into a sinister control program leaving “no person outside of its reach.”

Australian Federal Election 2016: oh the pain, it burns!

I’m sure there is more than one voter on a low income who is chortling about what went down in Week Three of the federal election campaign.

This has been the state of play for members of the Australian Parliament since 1999.

Excerpts from TR 1999/10 Taxation Ruling Income tax and fringe benefits tax: Members of Parliament – allowances, reimbursements, donations and gifts, benefits, deductions and recoupments:

10. Members commonly receive the following types of allowances, in addition to their Parliamentary ‘salaries’ (see paragraphs 42 to 45). Particular allowances may vary depending on the Parliament in which a Member serves.

• Committee allowance

• Daily expense allowance

• Electorate allowance

• Expense or entertainment allowance

• Opposition spokespersons’ allowance

• Postage allowance

• Printing and stationery allowance

• Private vehicle allowance/motor vehicle allowance

• Telephone allowance

• Travel allowance.

These allowances, like MPs and senators parliamentary salaries, are considered assessable income by the Australian Taxation Office.

Second property not used as a Member’s residence: A deduction is allowable for expenses of a non-capital nature, and for depreciation of plant, where the property is not properly regarded as a second residence. However, the deduction is limited to the extent to which the expenditure is incurred in respect of a property that is used by a Member for work-related travel purposes on overnight stays away from his or her residence, and the expenditure is not private or domestic in nature (paragraphs 328 to 336).

Second residence expenses: A deduction is not allowable for the costs of maintaining a property that is used as a second residence (paragraphs 337 to 343)……

These two sections of the ruling appear to allow parliamentarians to double-dip at the ordinary taxpayers expense – first using the overnight travel allowance to pay down the mortgage on a Canberra residence if it’s not owned outright and then claiming tax deductions including mortgage interest, rates, insurance and utilities on the same residence.

Then this cosy little arrangement became public knowledge…….

News.com.au, 22 May 2016:

TAXPAYERS are helping to pay the mortgage and the rent for federal MPs who are raking in $1000 a week to sleep in Canberra and then, on top of that, claiming a big tax deduction for rent, rates, electricity and mortgage.

In a little-known tax ruling, MPs who rent can also claim a tax deduction for a second residence including “lease payments; rent; interest on borrowings used for the acquisition of the property; rates; taxes; insurance; general maintenance of the building, plant and grounds’’.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, charged with cracking down on budget waste, is just one of the MPs double-dipping by claiming a $273-a-night travel allowance (which, bizarrely, is not regarded as taxable income) and scoring a tax deduction as well….

The rules state that an MP “may choose to rent or buy a property rather than stay in a hotel or other commercial establishment when travelling. A deduction is allowable for expenses, that are not of a capital, private or domestic nature, in respect of such a property where it is used by a Member for accommodation when he or she is undertaking work-related travel.

“Such expenses include: lease payments; rent; interest on borrowings used for the acquisition of the property; rates; taxes; insurance; general maintenance of the building, plant and grounds.’’

The Guardian, 22 May 2016:

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has defended politicians receiving both a $273 a night travel allowance and tax deductions for mortgages and rents for properties in Canberra.

Speaking on Insiders on Sunday, Cormann said the remuneration tribunal granted the travel allowance and the tax office allowed deductions for politicians’ accommodation expenses.

Federal politicians receive $273 a night to stay in Canberra, a travel allowance they can claim even when they stay in a property that they or their partner own.

Reports have revealed that on top of the allowance, MPs who rent or buy a property to stay in during work-related travel can also claim tax deductions for rent, interest on borrowings used for the acquisition of the property, rates, taxes, insurance and general maintenance.

The first report indicates that some federal politicians may be under the impression that a travel allowance paid for a presumed expense was not taxable income.

Then came this painful revelation……

ABC News, 23 May 2016:

Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan stressed that members of Parliament had to abide by the same standards as everyone else.

"The rules are the same for every taxpayer, regardless of their occupation," Mr Jordan said in a statement.

"Any taxpayer who has had to travel overnight for work is entitled to deduct the costs of meals and accommodation under our tax laws.

"However, given that there are clear misunderstandings of how the ruling is applied, we will undertake to review the 1999 ruling to give greater clarity for all taxpayers on the treatment of allowances they may receive from their employer to cover the costs of work related travel."

The ATO said the returns of all taxpayers, including MPs were scrutinised, and that any taxpayer should not be claiming deductions for travel expenses unless they have declared the allowance as income in their tax returns.

In 1999, the ATO issued a ruling about how it assesses travel allowances and tax deductions for MPs.

That ruling will now be reviewed in light of the issue being thrust into the campaign spotlight.

Australian Federal Election 2016: is the country really going to the polls on 2 July?

On 18 April 2016 the Australian Senate again failed to pass the Turnbull Government’s Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill - this time by two votes.

A fact which gave the prime minister the double-dissolution trigger he was hoping for and an apparently favoured poll date – 2 July 2016.

If this is indeed his preferred date, then the election writs need to be issued no later than 31 May, as there is a mandatory minimum 33 days between writs and polling day.

The 2016-17 budget speech is scheduled to be delivered on 3 May, the appropriation bills are then submitted to the House of Representatives later that same day or the next and read a first and second time.

With the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech expected on 5 May, all appears well with Turnbull’s time table. He has twenty-six days up his sleeve before having to quit governing to enter the official election campaign period.

However…….

The debate on the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is known as the ‘Budget debate’ and normally continues over a period of several weeks. The scope of discussion in the Budget debate is almost unlimited because the debate on the main Appropriation Bill is exempt from the standing order (rule) which requires the second reading debate on other bills to be strictly relevant to the bill. The standing order allows debate on appropriation bills to cover matters relating to ‘public affairs’. This is interpreted to mean any matters concerning government policy or administration. [Australian Parliament, Infosheet 10 - The budget and financial legislation]

In 2015 it took forty days for the House of Representatives to finish debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) -  the bill covering money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for ordinary annual services of government.

Government has the numbers in the Lower House and can possibly truncate this debate – but not by much and not without alienating a substantial numbers of voters.

At this point Turnbull’s twenty-six day leeway may be dwindling down to less than 14 days. Still, getting to the 31 May writs deadline with the main appropriations bill passed looks vaguely possible.

But…….

Before they become law the three main budget appropriation bills must be passed by the Senate in the same way as any other bills. [ibid]

Two years ago the Senate took a mere two days to send the main appropriation bill back down to the House of Representatives. Last year the senators took only one day.

This year the 'reformed' Senate may just decide to debate this bill a good while longer and, it will serve the prime minister right if the cross-bench runs him down to the wire on this.

Of course Turnbull could go to an election without money from consolidated revenue being guaranteed for 1 July 2016 through to 30 June 2017.

It’s just that this would be such a slapdash look for a former investment banker who portrays himself and his government as good economic managers.