Is Turnbull laying the groundwork to throw Joyce under a bus if it becomes neccessary?

A very careful choice of words on the part of the Prime Minister leaves the door open to walk back support of his Deputy Prime Minister if Joyce is found to be telling the Australian Parliament untruths.

House of Representatives Hansard, excerpts, 13 February 2018:

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:25): The honourable member refers to some statements attributed to a spokesman of mine yesterday. Those statements, I'm advised, followed a background discussion. They were not authorised by me, but I will answer the question. As the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in his statement of Saturday, 10 February, and again in his statement this morning, The Nationals are responsible for decisions relating to staffing the office of Nationals members. He confirmed that the Prime Minister's office has an administrative role in informing the Department of Finance of changes. All ministers are bound by the ministerial standards.

All ministers are bound by the ministerial standards. The Deputy Prime Minister has today explained his circumstances as it relates to the standards, and I refer you to that statement. I would add that whether somebody is a partner of another for the purposes of clause 2.23 is, of course, a question of fact. The facts of the relationship which you're referring to are, of course, known to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is his responsibility to address it and comply with the standards, and he addressed that in his statement today.  [my yellow highlighting]

AUSTRALIA CARD MARK II: no national digital ID number will mean no access to any Australian federal government services

“When signing up to the platform for the first time, users will be asked to provide their name, email address, and phone number, and verify their details via email or SMS. They will then be asked to provide information from three identity documents, which goes through the exchange to the identity provider for verification. The exchange receives encrypted details back which it passes on to the government service the user wants to reach, which then grants the user access.”  [IT News, 20 March 2015]

IT News, 8 February 2018:

The Department of Human Services looks set to become the federal government's exclusive manager of digital identities after being selected to build the identity provider solution that will be used for the Govpass platform.

The Govpass framework is a decentralised identity model that allows individuals to choose their identity provider - an organisation that issues identity documents, like Australia Post or the ATO - and access a range of public and private sector services through a single digital identity credential.

There is no limit on the number of identity providers outside of the Commonwealth that can be accredited for Govpass; Australia Post has already indicated it will seek to become the first non-government identity provider, using its Digital iD platform.

Several state and territory government agencies and private sector entities are also expected to become identity providers over time.

However, the federal government last year made the decision that only one identity provider would operate for the entire Commonwealth.

The Digital Transformation Agency revealed the decision following meetings with existing Commonwealth identity service providers, DHS and the ATO. Its rationale for the move was to focus security efforts in one place and avoid complex administrative structures.

iTnews revealed in October that the DTA was yet to make up its mind up on which of the two agencies would serve as the federal government’s sole identity provider for GovPass, even as testing of the new platform was taking place with the ATO’s new online tax file number application service.

Instead the DTA said it was working closely with the ATO and DHS on the “next steps” for the platform.

But in response to questions on notice from recent estimates hearings, DHS revealed it had been instructed to develop the federal government’s single identity provider platform, to be known as myGov IdP.

“The department was commissioned by the DTA to build the identity provider (IdP) for the whole-of-government,” it said.

“The myGov IdP will enable citizens to verify their identity online and use it to apply for government services.”

iTnews has made several attempts to clarify the statements with the DTA and DHS, but both refused to comment on the build and DHS’ apparent position as the single government identity provider.

The ATO similarly redirected questions about its involvement with Govpass, including whether it had also been asked by the DTA to build an identity provider solution, to the DTA.

Selecting DHS as the sole government identity provider would be an obvious choice for the DTA - the agency is the government’s current defacto whole-of-gov identity provider through the myGov digital services platform.

A private beta release of myGov IdP is currently planned for later this month.

Identity providers on Govpass will use the DTA-built identity exchange – and in turn the document verification service (DVS) and facial verification service (FVS) – to verify an individual’s credentials without revealing their identity to service providers.

[my yellow bolding]

Note: The Face Identification Service (FIS) is a one-to-many, image-based identification service that can match a photo of an unknown person against multiple government records to help establish their identity. FIS is also available to police, security services, Dept. of Immigration and Dept. of Foreign Affairs. [Australian Attorney-General's Department, October 2017]

Why so many voters are annoyed by Barnaby Joyce's statement* that his private life is a private matter

“When it influences staff positions and even contributes to winners and losers in a reshuffle, Barnaby's affair with a younger staffer is not a private matter” [Stephen Mayne on Twitter, 9 February 2018]

During the lengthy extramarital relationship with a member of his staff Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce:

* arranged for a change of employment for the staffer in this relationship. She was employed at taxpayers’ expense by another federal minister, in a senior position specifically created for her with a six-figure annual salary;

* successfully sought a second staff position for his former staffer when that federal minister was forced to resign from the front bench while a dual citizenship claim was resolved. This second position was with the Nationals Chief Whip - resulting in him having two people in his office doing the same job at taxpayers' expense;

* left his wife of 24 years and their four children;

* began living rent-free with the now pregnant former staffer in an Armidale townhouse owned by multi-millionaire ­businessman Greg ­Maguire who himself attracted some political controversy in 2004-2006 concerning potential breaches of the Electoral Act;

* allegedly assaulted a member of the public in a pub in his electorate for referring to the former staffer as his “mistress”;

* publicly admitted in parliament to separating from his wife but not to the extramarital relationship; and

* allegedly during a cabinet reshuffle vindictively moved against fellow members of the Turnbull Government he felt had privately criticised the extramarital relationship.

Only the fact that his marriage had ended could be rightly said to be a private matter.

Five of the seven dot points above go to issues concerning fitness for office, possible corrupt conduct and what may be an in-kind political donation in a by-election year and not the post-election "gift" listed on the Register of Members' Interests on 3 January 2018.

Those issues are not private. 

As much as he wants to, Barnaby Joyce cannot pretend to be a victim of unfair media scrutiny.

BACKGROUND

Fifty year-old Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce, an accountant by profession, came into the Australian Senate in 2004 and his election appears to have not been without some passing controversy at the time.

He resigned from the Senate and was elected to the House of Representatives for New England, New South Wales, for the first time in 2013 then re-elected in 2016. 

Joyce refused to step down as deputy prime minister and refused to resign from the Australian Parliament once the New Zealand Government confirmed he was a citizen by descent of that country and he was referred to the High Court of Australia concerning the claim of dual citizenship. He continued to sit in the House of Representatives in contravention of the Australian Constitution.

His election was ruled void on 27 October 2017 under section 44 of the Australian Constitution. The High Court of ruling him ineligible from 2 June 2016, having found he held New Zealand and well as Australian citizenship since birth.

Having renounced his New Zealand citizenship in August 2017 he was elected at the New England by-election on 2 December 2017.

* Barnaby Joyce Statement 

One of the IPA's unofficial attack dogs is attempting to savage the charity sector once again

The Guardian, 24 January 2018:

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission has pushed for new powers to regulate charities' "effective use of resources" under its controversial new commissioner, Gary Johns.

The charities sector is up in arms over the proposal, seen as an attempt to control how charities spend their money from a commissioner who has argued that it is not appropriate for charities to fund advocacy.

In its submission to a review of charities law, the ACNC called for two new objects: to promote "the effective use of the resources of not-for-profit entities"; and to "enhance the accountability of not-for-profit entities to donors, beneficiaries and the public".

The ACNC's objects now are to maintain public trust in and the independence of the sector and to promote the reduction of "unnecessary regulatory obligations" for charities.

The commission argued the expanded scope was "appropriate" because "the maintenance and promotion of the effectiveness and sustainability of the not-for-profit sector" was already a factor the commissioner must consider when making decisions.

It said the new objects should come with additional powers, functions and resources.

The Community Council for Australia's chief executive, David Crosbie, said the proposed objectives were "incredibly disappointing" and amounted to a "bizarre overreach" from the regulator.

He said there was "no explanation" of how the ACNC would measure an "effective use of resources".

"It's not the role of a government regulator which may not agree with a particular charity's approach – it's absurd that should tell them how to use their resources," he said.

"As long as charities are meeting their statutory requirements and fulfilling their charitable purpose it is not up to the regulator."

He added: "The use of resources is best left up to charities, the communities they serve and their own governance structures."

Johns was a Labor minister under the Keating government and a former head of NGOWatch at the Institute for Public Affairs. After his appointment in December, Johns said when people gave to charities they expected that "most of [the donation] will be used for the charitable purpose … [and that] the work that is undertaken on behalf of a donor works". He promised to bring those matters "to the fore" in his work at the ACNC.

In 2014 Johns argued that the government should remove advocacy as a charitable purpose to "deny charity status to the enemies of progress", citing the fact the Environmental Defenders Office Queensland advocates against coal mining.

In his 2014 book The Charity Ball, he said advocacy was of "doubtful public benefit". He criticised larger charities "whose service delivery is heavily weighted towards advocacy, research, campaigning and lobbying", including World Vision Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Amnesty International Australia.

Crosbie said Johns' public statements demonstrated that he believed "charities should not be advocating for extra funding from government".

He suggested that advocacy for more housing for homeless people and spending on mental health services were examples of activities that could come under attack.

Crosbie, who served on the ACNC's advisory board for more than three years, said the original objects had been developed after thorough consultation and "not once" had stakeholders suggested adding the new objectives in the ACNC submission.

Labor's charities spokesman, Andrew Leigh, accused the government of an "ongoing war on charities" and said it was "worrying that the new commissioner's first actions have already put the sector offside".

Knitting Nannas show their teeth?

Given the rumours about Australian Deputy-Prime Minister and Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce's not-so-private life, this tweet probably raised a few quiet chuckles in homes across northern New South Wales.

The Knitting Nannas are making "Booties for Barnaby" to remind him of his responsibility to protect land and water for future generations #CSG pic.twitter.com/rFqPYnnZUi

— Jamieson Murphy (@jamiesonmurph) January 24, 2018

Australia's greenhouse gas emission abatement record goes far beyond disheartening

In 1990 Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were calculated at 547.7 million tonnes (Mt), CO₂ -equivalent (CO₂-e). This represented 32.1 tonnes CO₂-e per head of population.

In the following years emissions rose and fell in response to economic and environmental factors, so that in 2005 annual emissions totalled 584.2  Mt CO₂-e or 28.6 tonnes CO₂-e per head of population.

By 2007 these annual emissions had risen to 597.2 Mt CO₂-e. That was 28.3 tonnes CO₂-e  per head of population.  [Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 4613.0 - Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends, Jan 2010]  

In 2008 total greenhouse gas emissions were still climbing to reach 618.1 Mt CO₂-e.

Total greenhouse gas emissions were still high in 2009 with an annual total of 599.8 Mt CO₂ -e.

At the close of 2010 national emissions had fallen to 543 Mt CO₂–e for the year.

Then by the end of 2011 annual greenhouse gas emissions came to 546.3 Mt CO₂–e.

Annual emissions for the year to December 2012 were estimated to be 551.9 Mt CO2-e

In 2013 annual greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 538.4 Mt CO₂–e.

2014 saw annual emissions reach an estimated to be 535.9 Mt CO₂–e.

Come 2015 and annual greenhouse gas emissions totalled 529.2 Mt CO₂-e. This gives an estimated 21.1 tonnes CO₂-e per head of population. [Dept. of the Environment and Energy, Progress of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory]

However, Australia’s Emissions Projections 2017 report released last December by the Turnbull Government states in part:

“Australia’s emissions have risen in the past three years. A major factor in this growth has been the rapid expansion of the LNG sector.”

“Total emissions in 2030 are projected to be 570 Mt CO₂-e.”

Back in 2015 the Australian Government promised to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. Based on ABS data that should equate to an estimated annual emissions level of 420.7 Mt CO₂-e to 432.4 Mt CO₂–e in 2030 or between 20.6 to 21.2 tonnes CO₂-e per head of population.

Instead the latest report is indicating that Australia’s emissions are expected to exceed not only the base line 1990 level but also the 2005 annual greenhouse gas emissions level, with per capita emissions remaining static at approximately the 2015 figure.

It appears that policy efforts of the last twenty-seven years have been for nought, because it looks for all the world as though Turnbull & Co have abandoned any pretence they care about genuine, effective emissions reduction.

If the current federal government and industry had to sit a climate change mitigation exam today they would likely receive an F for failure  from the examiners.

UPDATE

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory data for 2016-17 show that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions stood at 550.2 Mt CO₂–e as of September 2017, a 1.3% rise on the 2015-16 annual emissions total. The 2016-17 per capita estimate was 22.5 Mt CO₂–e per person.

"Inequality is neither a personal choice nor a national tragedy. It is a choice governments make"

Chief executive of the St Vincent de Paul Society national council Dr John Falzon, writing in The Guardian on 13 December 2017:

In 1952 a Catholic newspaper in Ireland proclaimed: “The welfare state is diluted socialism and socialism is disguised communism.”

Extreme? Yes. Dated? No. When you listen to the dying declarations of the spear-carriers for neoliberalism, it’s hard not to hear the same alarmist codswallop.

The logic goes like this: being unemployed and poor is bad because people choose to be unemployed or poor. If you receive income support, it is because you are unemployed and poor. Therefore, receiving income support is bad. Therefore, removing income support is good. Coincidentally, this means more money for the rich and less for the poor.

Social services minister Christian Porter’s recent National Press Club address was replete with denunciations of the “politics of envy” associated with redistributionist policies, as well as the “morally unacceptable” nature of social expenditure because it means placing a debt burden on the children of today to pay off as the adults of tomorrow.

These are old tropes. Joe Hockey used them regularly when he was treasurer. The intergenerational framework is always going to be a useful means of distracting from the uncomfortable reality of class inequality in the current generation.

A false divide is constructed between those who have a job (and pay taxes) and those who don’t.

It is time that we did away with this fictitious divide. It was always false. It implied that the low-paid cleaner had more in common with the mining magnate than with the person who is locked out of the labour market.

But now, especially as we try to understand the future of work and the massive changes to the structure of the labour market, it is time we consigned this nonsense to the rubbish bin of ideological history.

People who are low paid, casually employed, underemployed, unemployed, informally employed, on dodgy contracts, women who work as unpaid or low-paid carers, students who take whatever work they can get and remain silent about the indefinite training wages, sole parents, people with a disability, aged pensioners, veterans; all have more in common with each other and with other members of the working class than we dare admit.

By recognising this commonality, we can begin to reframe the way in which so-called welfare dependency and the “injustice” and “immorality” of social expenditure is presented. This is crucial at a time when the government has ruled out increasing the woefully inadequate Newstart payment, which has not seen an increase in real terms since 1994 .

The discussion needs some perspective. We have a minimum wage that sits at around 40% of the average weekly earnings and a Newstart payment that sits at around 40% of the minimum wage. The minimum wage is not a living wage and the unemployment benefit is not even a pale shadow of a living wage. And we see the consequences at the St Vincent de Paul Society every day, where topping up from charitable assistance has become the norm for many people simply to survive.

We need a solid jobs plan, and full employment should be a policy priority. Instead we keep getting served up a putting-the-boot-into-the-unemployed-plan and a slashing-social-expenditure-plan. Behavioural approaches won’t fix structural problems. The government can blame people all they like but this won’t address the inequality many are burdened with, as wages are suppressed and profits soar, buttressed by tax cuts, wage cuts and social expenditure cuts….

Our social security system was built in very different structural circumstances. The labour market is different. Work is different. We should be embarking on a serious reframing of how we can, collectively and with common resources, achieve social and economic security for everyone. We need, for example, to explore how government might play a leading role in achieving full employment instead of harassing the people who have been structurally excluded from jobs.

There is nothing innovative about marginalising people who are already made to feel that they have been stigmatised through drug-testing and cashless welfare cards.

There is nothing smart about a program like Path that uses young people for six months as cheap labour and then discards them.

We need to build a way forward that ensures that no one misses out on the essentials of life: a place to live, a place to work (or income adequacy for those who cannot engage in paid work), a place to learn (from early childhood through to university and TAFE), and a place to heal.

This means not just leaving these essentials to the whims of the market but actively ensuring that no one is excluded. This is an economic as well as a social imperative.

Inequality is buttressed and boosted by unfair rules that must be changed. We need to imagine a future predicated not on the perpetuation of inequality but the provision of social and economic security.

Inequality is neither a personal choice nor a national tragedy. It is a choice governments make.

Read the full article here.

Effect of proposed company tax cuts according to Australian Prime Minister Malcom Bligh Turnbull - "All boats will rise"

As households across the country began the count down to the holiday season, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull smugly informed an ABC interviewer that as a result of a proposed cut in the company tax rate* everyone’s income will increase – “All boats will rise”.

This is another way of referring to that now legendary faux economic theory popular with right-wing politicians – the Trickle Down Effect.

This assertion is tested in an Australian Treasury working paper ANALYSIS OF THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF A COMPANY TAX CUT (May 2016) which modelled a tax cut reducing company tax from 30 per cent to 25 per cent – presumably implemented over the 10 years to 2026-27 proposed by government.

Yes, this working paper estimates that for “a static representative household” “calibrated to match the expenditure, income patterns, and taxes faced by aggregate Australian households” real wages will rise if all other factors in the economy remain unchanged.

So it seems that Turnbull's claim is genuine - or is it?

What Turnbull fails to say is that this “real” wage rise will probably be a paltry est. 1.0-1.1% in total, will take at least 20 years to achieve and will only come about if the average individual also works longer hours.

Based on ABS May 2017 All Employees Average Weekly Total Earnings and an optimistically estimated average annual wages growth of 1.9 per cent; at the end of those 20 years an average worker will have received a total wage increase of est. $851 to $929. Spread out over those 20 years that works out to between 81-89 cents a week extra in his/her pay packet as a direct result of the Turnbull Government’s company tax cut.

Because in real life these company tax cuts are staged and, each stage would have a lag time, no-one is going to see 81-89 cents in their pay packets anytime soon. Indeed a great many people will probably never see this meagre increase at all as the real wages of many low-skilled workers haven't increased alongside higher-skilled workers for the last seven years and there is no indication as to if or when this trend will end.

Over this same twenty-year time period any increase in company income as a result of a 5 per cent cut in the company tax rate would result in millions to one billion plus being added to the bottom lines of a significant number of medium to large corporations. With such savings being just as likely to be diverted into bonuses paid to senior management or paid as dividends to shareholders as they are to being reinvested in a business.

Once more proving that tax cuts for industry, business and those individuals wealthy enough to incorporate their landholdings/investments, have what is essentially a neutral outcome for rest of the population.

Company tax cuts will hardly stir the water beneath those metaphorical boats belonging to ordinary workers.

Therefore this classic illustrative meme still stands under the Turnbull Coalition Government:

Image from Perry Street Palace

Something to remember when it comes time to vote in the next federal election.

* A company tax rate very few companies actually pay. A tax rate that an estimated 36% of more than 2,000 of the biggest corporations doing business in Australia ignore entirely given they unilaterally decided that under current taxation law and for accounting purposes they should pay no tax at all.

Turnbull Government's gift to welfare recipients this Christmas? More pain....

Nothing like receiving bad news in the lead up to the festive season......

News.com.au, 6 December 2017:

CONTROVERSIAL plans to drug test unemployed welfare recipients will be suspended indefinitely after the Senate refused to endorse the idea.

The Turnbull government had hoped to drug test 5000 Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients across three trial sites in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia from January.

But Social Services Minister Christian Porter indicated this morning provisions for the pilot will be stripped from an omnibus welfare bill and dealt with separately, so other measures can be signed off by Christmas.

“There are some difficulties that are going to be presented in getting that part of the bill through the Senate, but that does not mean that we are abandoning drug testing,” Mr Porter told Sky News.

“No one can be perfectly certain with these things but my best assessment is the rest of it, everything other than drug testing, will likely succeed through the Senate.”

Minister Porter stood by the trial last month but indicated it might be split from other reforms that were crucial to overhaul the “near to dysfunctional” welfare system.

“The bulk of that bill, which reforms the compliance system, is so critical to what we are trying to achieve that I wouldn’t want to sacrifice the bulk of that in terms of timeliness while we are still negotiating around drug testing,” Mr Porter said at a National Press Club speech in November.

One reform the government wants to pass as a priority is the new “three strike” demerit point system for welfare recipients that would mean those who continually skipped appointments or job interviews would eventually lose their payments.

Another will fold seven welfare payments into one to become the main payment for people of working age.

That is slated to begin in March 2020.

According to the Australian Council Of Social Services (ACOSS) this bill:

* Sets a dangerous precedent that allows governments to determine who is covered by social security rights and protections and who is not, without legislation;

* Would make it more difficult for people to access payments;

* Will make applicants wait much longer for first payments and, in certain cases this could be as long as 26 weeks;

* Cuts payments to people seeking work by removing back-pay provisions;

* Cuts $478m from social security payments over the forward estimates, with most losses incurred by people who are unemployed and single parents;

* Rolls Wife and Widow B pensions & allowances (including the Bereavement Allowance) into the Jobseeker Payment which will leave pension recipients worse off unless they are transferred to another pension;

* Ensures that the Jobseeker Payment keeps recipients living well below the poverty line so that they will be unable to meet essential costs; and

* The new mutual obligation requirements and breach schedule indicates that annually an est. 80,000 people will lose at least one week’s payment and an unknown number up to four week’s payment.

See http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/170804-Social-Services-Legislation-Amendment-Welfare-Reform-Bill-2017.pdf

Mr. Huang Xiangmo becomes terse

After allegedly giving a number of large political donations to the Liberal, National and Labor parties, wealthy Chinese national and former chairman of the Australian Council for the Promotion of the Peaceful Reunification of China, Mr. Xiangmo of Yuhu Group Australia, grows tired of the media attention ………..

Herald Sun via @johhnybridge2

Mr. Xiangmo pictured with some of his many political acquaintances

Photographs sourced from Google Images

Don't laugh, this Nationals MP was serious

David Arthur Gillespie of Wauchope entered the Australian Parliament in 2013 as a National Party Member of the House of Representatives representing the Lyne electorate, with an annual salary many of his constituents can only dream about.

He is quite literally a man of property – aside from his house and farm he owns four commercial and residential investment properties, which appear to be snugly sitting in one or more family trusts along with a portfolio of shares.

His total parliamentary entitlements expenditure paid by the Department of Finance was $65,512.97 in 2013,  $399,946.31 in 2014, $339,797.06 in 2015 and $381,651 in 2016.

Yet two years ago he caught the greed bug and wanted more, more, more………..

ABC News, 2 December 2017:

The Prime Minister's Department has lost a two-year fight to conceal a minister's bid for thousands of dollars in extra pollie-perks, including charter flights and boat rides.

Former speaker Bronwyn Bishop's taxpayer-funded helicopter ride sparked an inquiry into politicians' entitlements.

Most MPs and senators' submissions were publicly released, but bureaucrats decided to hide Nationals MP David Gillespie's proposal.

After a lengthy freedom of information (FOI) battle, the ABC can reveal Dr Gillespie argued politicians in seats like his should annually be given:

* Nearly $15,000 extra "charter allowance" for charter flights, hire cars, boat rides or taxis

* 14 days more travel allowance for overnight stays within the electorate

* An additional office

* One more full-time employee

Dr Gillespie is the member for Lyne on the New South Wales mid-north coast.

He argued the boost would help meet "the significant logistical challenges that confront all rural MPs in meeting the needs and expectations of their constituents".

"If the additional costs are $10 million, it is a small price to pay to ensure fairness within our democracy is delivered," he wrote in the October 2015 submission.

Dr Gillespie wanted extra expenses for all electorates 10,000 square kilometres or larger.

The Assistant Health Minister's seat is about 16,000 square kilometres in size, and includes towns of Taree and Wauchope.

If implemented today, 24 Coalition MPs would benefit, along with six Labor members and two independents.

Electorates 100,000 square kilometres or larger would have received an even bigger windfall under the blueprint.

But the Government has only partly adopted one of his ideas by funding an extra office in Australia's seven biggest electorates — a group of seats that does not include Lyne.

I’m sure David Gillespie is as pleased with mainstream media outing this attempted cash grab as he was when they reported this……

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October 2017:

A Turnbull government minister is facing up to $500,000 in personal legal bills to defend his job against a Labor High Court challenge.

While the government is covering the costs of the seven federal politicians referred to the court over their citizenship status, the eighth MP facing constitutional eligibility questions is not getting the same assistance.

Labor is challenging Assistant Health Minister David Gillespie's right to stay on in Federal Parliament, putting the government's slender majority at risk, because it believes he may have an indirect financial interest in the Commonwealth – grounds for disqualification under section 44(v) of the constitution.

As revealed by Fairfax Media in February, the Nationals MP owns a small suburban shopping complex in Port Macquarie and one of the shops is an outlet of Australia Post – a government-owned corporation.

The Lighthouse Beach Australia Post outlet in Port Macquarie owned by Nationals MP David Gillespie. 

Photo: Peter Daniels

Alley v Gillespie [2017] HCA is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday,12 December 2017 by High Court of Australia.

Quotes of the Week

"All I'm thinking about now is things I'm going to do on my own farm to be quite frank" [ Nationals candidate in New England by-election and former Deputy Prime Minister until High Court revoked his election, Barnaby Joyce, on receiving a $40,000 cheque from mining magnate Gina Rinehart, 21 November 2017]

“As he was handed an oversized cheque on stage, Mr Joyce's first response was; "Holy Dooley. Rightio".”   [The Financial Review, 22 November 2017]

“Barnaby Joyce won't accept a $40,000 cheque gifted to him by Gina Rinehart after it sent shock waves through agricultural circles.”  [SBS News, 23  November 2017]

“Barnaby Joyce has defended his actions in initially accepting a $40,000 “dirty big cheque” from mining magnate Gina Rinehart, and said it was a surprise.” [The Australian, 24 November 2017]

Pressure mounted in Australia for a royal commission into banks and Turnbull caved

It would appear that some federal government MPs and senators are becoming nervous about their party’s chances at the next general election and are looking for ways to appease the electorate.

So the politically insecure Australian Prime Minister and former merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull announced a Royal Commission into the alleged misconduct ofAustralia’s banks and other financial services entities in order to appease theses nervous nellies on his backbench.

Having been dragged kicking and screaming to this point Turnbull has made quite sure that the carefully worded Terms of Reference hides a scorpion with considerable sting in its tail:

1. c) the use by a financial services entity of superannuation members’ retirement savings for any purpose that does not meet community standards and expectations or is otherwise not in the best interest of members;

This opens the door for a sustained assault over the twelve months this commission is sitting aimed directly at the sixteen industry-based superannuation funds.

These low-fee super funds are supported by Australian unions and, it is no co-incidence that eight of the top 10 list for the 10 years to 30 June 2017 are industry funds.

Industry superannuation funds which the Turnbull Government wants to see transferred to the control of the big four banks.

No wonder the banks are now in favour of this royal commission.

It is being observed in mainstream media that; It is noteworthy that the letter to Morrison from the big four bankchairmen and CEOs seems to have been used as the template for the royalcommission announcement.

Brief Background

ABC News, 28 November 2017:

The calls for a full inquiry have been relentless for years, emanating from a broad section of the community — from farmers, small business and households, jaded and disillusioned with the industry's rampant profiteering, fee gouging and blatant disregard for the law.

How many times can a Commonwealth Bank chairman sincerely apologise for a yet another breach of trust? What, pray tell, will be the cause of next year's?

But the overwhelming reason for an inquiry rests on just one principle — accountability.

What has been forgotten in the endless round of scandals in recent years is that the Australian banking sector is a taxpayer subsidised industry.

It's an industry that pays ridiculously bloated salaries to its leaders; that showers itself with massive bonus payments when profits are soaring but instantly demands taxpayer protection and support when the tide turns. More on that later.

A summary of bank transgressions during the past decade compiled by former Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mangan at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4310476/A-Summary-of-Bank-Transgressions-During-the-Past.pdf.

The Guardian, 28 November 2017:

A majority of Australians would support a royal commission into the banks, with this week’s Guardian Essential poll showing 64% in favour, including 62% of Coalition supporters.

With Barnaby Joyce holding out the prospect that the Nationals might formally support an inquiry into the banks when the party room meets next week, and with dissident parliamentary numbers for the proposal building, the new poll finds public support for a banking royal commission has stayed constant for two years.

Support is highest among Labor voters at 72%, and people intending to vote for someone other than the major parties (71%), but there is also clear majority support among Coalition voters and Greens voters – 62%.

ABC News, 28 November 2017:

It seems inevitable that a bill calling for a wide-ranging inquiry into banks, insurers and superannuation providers would pass the Federal Parliament, after another Nationals MP pledges support for it.

Llew O'Brien is one of the fresher faces in the 45th Parliament, but he has parachuted himself into the political spotlight by confirming he would back the proposal from Nationals Senator Barry O'Sullivan.

Mr O'Brien gave his support on the condition the inquiry investigate discrimination by financial institutions against people with mental health problems.

The Australian, 24 November 2017:

Liberal National Party senator Barry O’Sullivan will move a ­motion in the Senate next week to establish a powerful probe into the financial services sector, staring down government opposition and criticism from former prime minister John Howard.

Senator O’Sullivan yesterday hit back at Mr Howard’s labelling of his proposed bank probe as “rampant socialism” after circulating a draft bill to establish a commission of inquiry into the banking sector.