Showing posts with label Australian Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Parliament. Show all posts

Thursday 6 October 2016

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics' Review of Australia's Four Major Banks - Days 1 & 2


On 15 September 2016 the Australian Treasurer asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to inquire into and report on a Review of Australia's Four Major Banks.

Public hearing were conducted on 4 to 6 October.

News.com.au reporting on the Commonwealth Bank appearance on 4 October 2016:

Commonwealth Bank chief Ian Narev to face parliamentary inquiry into banking system…..

On Tuesday Mr Narev admitted an independent review found one in 10 customers received “inappropriate financial advice” from the bank.
Speaking to MPs, he said an independent report last week found of 8000 customers who asked for their financial advice to be reviewed, 6000 had been completed.

It found more than 10 per cent of those were given inappropriate advice. The bank had paid out $11 million in claims since its initial payout of $52 million several years ago.
Mr Narev defended the time it had taken to resolve the matter and said it would be wrapped up by the end of the year.

“We’ve gone back a large number of years in this program to statements of advice that go back prior to the global financial crisis,” he said. “So yes it has taken a period of time to do that but we’ve done it thoroughly, with independent oversight.”…

When asked by Labor’s Pat Conroy about whether there had been disciplinary consequences for CommInsure officers who rejected insurance claims from terminally ill people or refused to pay out life insurance, Mr Narev said there had been no terminations of employment.

“There are certainly individuals where we know enough about them that they’ve had some consequences related to remuneration but at this stage we have not had individuals terminated because of this because we’ve not seen the need to do that,” he said.

Independent committees within the bank will decide on disciplinary action after the review is completed.

Mr Narev said he expected there would be more cases of poor customer outcomes, but said this would be followed by more announcements regarding compensation due to customers…..

This was The Canberra Times commenting that same day:

Power is a funny thing.

It shifts and flows, is both tangible and vague.

Often, it is most identifiable when it is missing. 

As Ian Narev, the Commonwealth Bank CEO who received $12.3 million in pay last financial year, fronted the first of what are to be annual parliamentary committee hearings, who held the power was clear.

And it wasn't the government.

As far as Narev was concerned, everything he needed to say was said at his opening statement - the bank had not always done right by customers, but it was learning and changing and on the whole, its customers were "the most satisfied they've been".  

It was all, he said, about being strong and fair.  Strong banks equalled a strong economy. And that was almost an excuse for anything, even if they needed to work on being a little more fair.

Throughout the three-hour hearing, he often referred to what he said at the beginning, to the point where it became a mantra, no matter how many cases were mentioned.

On 5 October it was The Sydney Morning Herald which noticed what is probably a Brian Loughnane-inspired evidential trend:

This time, it was Shayne Elliott, the ANZ chief executive officer, who was very sorry.

He was very sorry for the issues within its wealth management division and its rural lending business, which saw ANZ foreclose on drought-stricken farmers.  

He was very sorry for not supplying all the promised services to thousands of financial planning customers, resulting in $30 million compensation. 

Very sorry for overcharging fees.

Very sorry for errors of a "reasonable magnitude" which saw more than 1.3 million customers within the OnePath financial advisory and life insurance arm suffer, including 1400 who had their superannuation directed to the wrong account.

These apologies are the opening moves.

But they were "mistakes", and the bank has since "put it right".

Processes have changed, systems have been put in place.  There's no reason to push further, Mr Elliott implied.  He's "proud of the culture of the bank", because when it's made aware of problems, it fixes them.

There's nothing more to see here.


Herald Sun, 5 October 2016:

Regarding the treatment of customers, Mr Elliott said ANZ had “not always met the standards we set for ourselves or that the community rightly expects of us”. He revealed the bank had seen off 40 financial planners in the past year after the bank breached regulatory rules.

Mr Elliott also admitted the bank had “poorly managed” an incident when 1400 customers had superannuation directed into the wrong account.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 October 2016:

So how remiss had the banks previously been in dealing with their indiscretions?

Let's take ANZ. Last year it reported 45 breaches by its financial planners to the regulator. That is one in 20 and in one year. But the year before there were only six reported.

As Pat Conroy noted,  that was a 750 per cent increase in reported breaches in the space of a year so either there was a massive jump in adviser breaches or they had not been reported in the past.

Elliott had to admit the latter was more likely.

Thus far the big banks have been all but laughing openly at parliament and the general public.  

Commencing at 9.15am this morning it's NAB and Westpac's turn to pretend to care tuppence.

Hearing transcripts can be found here.

Wednesday 5 October 2016

Australian Federal Police spokesperson careful not to say that investigation had 'cleared' Brough & Ashby


This was The Daily Examiner (News Corp) take on the completion of the Australian Federal Police investigation into the unlawful disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers alleged to have occurred when a member of the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ staff photocopied details of the diary and gave it to a person desirous of unseating Peter Slipper:


However, what the Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated was not a clearing of anyone’s name.

As at the time of writing there is no published media release from the AFP one has to rely on details gleaned from various media articles.

“Following a thorough investigation material was provided to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for certain advice. As a result of the advice provided by the CDPP the matter did not proceed further. The length of this investigation has been influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to the availability of individuals to provide statements, the provision of materials from third parties, and the substantial volume of material that needed to be assessed.”
In a statement to the ABC, the AFP said it considered the matter now finalised.
"In September 2014 the AFP received a request to investigate matters relating to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information from the official diary of former speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper," the statement read.
"Following a thorough investigation material was provided to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for certain advice.
"As a result of the advice provided by the CDPP the matter did not proceed further."
Mr Slipper said on Tuesday his lawyers has been informed by AFP assistant commissioner Shane Connelly that the investigation had been closed.  In a letter, Mr Connelly said a review found the available evidence was insufficient for any potential prosecution. 

In a letter to Mr Brough’s lawyers, AFP Assistant Commissioner Shane Connelly said the investigation had been finished and no charges laid.
“I write to advise you of the outcome of the Australian Federal Police ‘AFP’ investigation into the allegation a former staff member of then Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper had disclosed parliamentary diary entries of Mr Slipper without his authority,’’ the letter says.
“A review of the evidence available to support a potential prosecution has determined the evidence is not sufficient to prove all elements of the relevant ­offence ... as a result, the AFP will be taking no further action in ­relation to the matter.’’

I write to advise you of the outcome of the Australian Federal Police ‘AFP’ investigation into the allegation a former staff member of then speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper had disclosed parliamentary diary entries of Mr Slipper without his authority … A review of the evidence available to support a potential prosecution has determined the evidence is not sufficient to prove all elements of the relevant offence, being the disclosures of information by Commonwealth officers as described in section 70 of the Crime Act 1914 (CTH). As a result, the AFP will be taking no further action in relation to the matter.

Sunday 18 September 2016

So why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?



Why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?

It is a bit of a puzzle when religion appears to mean so little to couples deciding to marry.

For instance, there were 121,197 marriages registered in Australia in 2014 and only 31,336 (or 25.8%) of the marriage services were conducted by a minister of religion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

At least 79.4 per cent of all these couples co-habitated before marriage.

In 2014 a total of 299,697 births were recorded of which an est. 34.6% were born outside of a registered marriage.

If one looks at the broader picture – the 2011 Census records that that 67.3% of the population professed to having a religion.

Only 48.7% of the 2011 population over 15 years of age were married, 5.5% were widowed and 45.8% were never married, separated or divorced.

In 2011 a total of 301,617 births were recorded of which an est. 34.18% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Similarly In 2010 a total of 297,903 births were recorded of which an est. 33.63% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Given that the majority of religions practiced in Australia have some form of prohibition on the sexual conduct of unmarried males and females and encourage legally binding marriage, one has to suspect that an individual’s religious beliefs do not necessarily have any impact on how they choose to enter into partnerships for life or what type of partnerships these may be.

Nor does religious belief appear to play a large part in decisions to start a family.

As for the last stage of life, McCrindle Research (2014) states that in Australia; Cost is the biggest influencer when planning a funeral with 2 in 3 (66%) Australians stating it is extremely or significantly influential. Cost is considered more important than both religion or life philosophy (31%) and culture and family traditions (27%) and Over half (58%) of the population would prefer to have a civil celebrant conduct their funeral.

Which indicates that religious beliefs are no longer a primary concern for the majority of individuals when burying life partners and family members.

So, Liberal and National Party senators and members of parliament – why on earth are you creating such a hypocritical fuss over revisiting the federal Marriage Act again and including same-sex, transgender etc. couples in the definition of marriage and why are you considering giving people professing a religion and rabid homophobes the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ couples who may seek to marry in the future?

It was the Australian Parliament which narrowed the Marriage Act in 2004 and it is up to this 45th parliament to correct that mistake.

Thursday 15 September 2016

Australia's 45th Parliament in action


“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…..

Monday 29 August 2016

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



just.equal

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.

Sunday 21 August 2016

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…..

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.

Sunday 7 August 2016

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)

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)

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)

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: