The Liberal Party of Australia continues to rip itself apart ahead of the May 2022 federal general election

 

On 5 April 2022 the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) Executive was composed of: State President Philip Ruddock, State Director (in attendance) Chris Stone, Urban Vice-Presidents Penny George, Country and Regional Vice-Presidents Tobias Lehmann & Aileen MacDonald Female Vice-President Mary-Lou Jarvis, Young Liberal President De Yi Wu, Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Party Scott Morrison MP (and from time to time his representative Alex Hawke MP), Leader of the State Parliamentary Party Dominic Perrottet MP, Urban Representatives James Wallace, Matthew Hana, Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond, Martin Zaiter, Sally Betts, Zac Miles, Michelle Byrne, Sammy Elmir & Jacqui Munro (replacing Matthew Camenzuli who was expelled from the Liberal Party on or about 6 April 2022 for bringing the legal action, Camenzuli v Morrison), Country Representatives Michelle Bishop, Patrick Doherty, Mark Croxford, James Owen, Chair of Convention Committee and Director of Policy Engagement Alex Dore and Treasurer Mark Baillie.

A battle had been brewing for some time between the Federal Liberal Party Executive, the NSW Liberal Party Executive and state local party branches over the 2018 changes to the NSW Division Constitution which included the right to state branch plebiscites. These changes also allowed the federal leader of the Liberal Party a guaranteed seat on the executive.

The first hint of factional fighting and preselection battles came to light in the local government arena with Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock and Zaiter v Ruddock in July 2021.

The open stoush widened and had developed by February 2022 into Camenzuli v Hawke. Followed by Morrison & Ors v Camenzuli & Ors; Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v Camenzuli & Ors, heard by the High Court of Australia in March 2022. The High Court remitted the case to its jurisdiction and then promptly remitted it back to NSW Court of Appeal – given that no difficulty was found to exist in the hearing schedule in the state court.

On 5 April 2022 in Camenzuli v Morrison the NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, ruled that the Federal Liberal Party Executive had the power to intervene in the NSW Division’s candidate preselection process and take control of the selection of candidates.

The 12 electorates in question being Farrer, Mitchell, North Sydney, Hughes, Parramatta, Fowler, Grayndler, Newcastle, Warringah, Greenway, Eden-Monaro and McMahon. Candidate selection and endorsement was by a three person federal committee comprising Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke and Trent Zimmerman and occurred ahead of the 5 April judgment.

Subsequent to the 5 April judgment Morrison ordered the expulsion of Matthew Camenzuli from the Liberal Party. Mr. Camenzuli is appealing this expulsion.

Legal proceedings in the matter of the usurped state candidate preselection process has not gone away however.

In MATTHEW CAMENZULI v THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP First Respondent, CHRISTINE McDIVEN AM Second Respondent, THE HON. DOMINIC PERROTTET MP Third Respondent, THE HON. ALEX HAWKE MP Fourth Respondent, THE HON. SUSSAN LEY MP Fifth Respondent, TRENT ZIMMERMAN MP Sixth Respondent, THE HON. PHILIP RUDDOCK AO Seventh Respondent, THE HON. JOHN OLSEN AO Eighth Respondent on 7 April 2022 the High Court of Australia decided the timetable for hearing of oral arguments in this Special Leave To Appeal Application, commencing 4pm on Friday 8 April 2022.

Apparently Morrison et al intend to argue that Camenzuli no longer has standing before the Court as he is not now a member of the Liberal Party and will ask that the application be dismissed. 

Scott Morrison's dysfunctional need to control every aspect of the Liberal Party of Australia is ripping this 77 year-old conservative political party apart in a very public manner.

Court of Appeal rejects Adani's application to search an activist's home & Supreme Court orders Adani to pay $106.8 million to four companies - in part due to its own "serious dishonesty"

ABC News, 27 August 2020:

Mining company Adani secretly sought to raid the Brisbane home of an activist to seize evidence but failed twice, court documents have revealed.

Adani and its Carmichael Rail Network applied for a search order, known as an Anton Piller order, against Benjamin Pennings in June this year.

It claimed Mr Pennings had possession of "confidential information on a computer at his home" which was being used in a concerted campaign of "intimidation and conspiracy" against the Galilee Basin coal project.

As part of the application, Adani claimed Mr Pennings had information to which only company executives and other select staff and contractors had access.

Anton Piller orders are searches carried out without notice to the defendant to ensure that evidence cannot be destroyed and is preserved to be used in judicial proceedings.

Adani's court application and subsequent appeal in July were also heard ex parte, meaning they were both heard without notice.

Adani has described Mr Pennings as the "principal" of a group of political activists called the "Galilee Blockade", whose objective is to prevent the development of the mine and railway.

In rejecting Adani and Carmichael Rail Network's appeal last week, the Court of Appeal ruled the evidence was "wholly inadequate to justify the order sought".

"The appellants have failed to establish the likelihood that Mr Pennings has any confidential information or that he has any confidential information stored at his home," the Court of Appeal judges said.

"They have failed to establish the likelihood that the use of any confidential information has resulted in any loss."

The Court of Appeal also raised concerns about the impact of a search order could have had on Mr Pennings' partner and children.

"Surely, to permit a search of a defendant's house, with the humiliation and family distress which that might involve, lies at the outer boundary of the discretion," the Court of Appeal judges said.

"This is because, for reasons that anyone can understand, the 'shock, anger, confusion' and the 'sense of violation and powerlessness' will be much greater in such a case and may be suffered not only by someone who is proved in due course to be a wrongdoer, but by entirely innocent parties as well."……

Read the full article here.

BACKGROUND

Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v Pennings [2020] QCA 169 (17 August 2020)

The Adani Group appears to have been the applicant or been named as a respondent in around seven court cases between 2013 and 2020.

This is the latest:

Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd v Lake Vermont Resources Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 260 – 26 August 2020. Adani ordered to pay $106.8 million.

Excerpts from the judgment:

“[197] The applicant’s conduct was deliberate, not just heedless or indifferent ⁸¹ to the position of the remaining users. The applicant was fully cognisant as to the effect its behaviour would have in increasing the fixed costs to the remaining users. It desired that effect in order to advantage itself financially. That is, to achieve a gain for itself, the applicant engaged in calculated behaviour to the disadvantage of the respondents.⁸² This is evident in the timing and structure of the QCPL transactions.”

“[203] The applicant’s behaviour in attempting to disguise or camouflage the true basis of its dealings with QCPL involved dishonesty – [117] ff and [122], and so far as this proceeding is concerned, involved serious dishonesty – [98] and [121].”

Supreme Court removes authorised status from a planned protest march from Sydney Town Hall to NSW Parliament House & rally calling for justice for Indigenous man David Dungay Jr. who died in police custody in 2015

NSW Police, Latest News, 26 July 2020:

NSW Police Force statement on Supreme Court decision  

The NSW Supreme Court has prohibited a public assembly planned for Sydney on Tuesday (28 July 2020) due to health and safety concerns associated with COVID-19. 

The protest is now unauthorised. 

Those thinking of attending – despite the Supreme Court decision and health advice – are strongly urged to reconsider their plans. 

While the NSW Police Force recognises and supports the rights of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, large-scale events, such as these, are currently subject to restrictions under the Public Health Act. 

As such, police will not hesitate to take the appropriate action, if required.

The NSW Supreme Court case in question was Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Padraic Gibson (OBO Dungay Family) - 2020/00213575.

Murray-Darling Basin irrigator has cotton farm asset frozen under Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act - required to pay back $15.7 million

People living along the major rivers on the NSW Far North Coast, particularly those on the Clarence River, will remember that it was irrigators in southern Queensland as well as other areas within the Murray-Darling Basin who made repeated calls to dam and divert one of more of these coastal rivers to fill heir greedy maws with additional water.

The Courier Mail, 25 January 2019, p.27:

Authorities have gone to court to force an award-winning Queensland cotton farmer to pay $16 million to the state’s Public Trustee after a “covert source” told them the accused water fraudster had sold his farm for more than $100 million.

John Douglas Norman, 43, a former Australian Cotton Farmer Of The Year, from Toobeah in southern Queensland, has been charged with defrauding the Murray-Darling Basin water program of $20 million.

The charges are before the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Last week the State Government was granted an urgent court order, forcing Norman to pay $15.7 million to the state’s Public Trustee, after the police received a tip that his company had sold its Queensland cotton and grain farms to a global corporate giant.

Norman must pay the $15.7 million once his deal with the $43 billion Canadian giant Manulife Financial Corporation settles, a Supreme Court judge has ruled. The order was made under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act.

The mega-deal was due to settle last week, court documents state. Until the $15.7 million is paid, Norman’s share of the giant farms, west of Goondiwindi, will remain frozen by the Supreme Court.

The remaining share of the business is owned by his mother Aileen Joan Norman. She has not been charged with any crimes and has not had her assets frozen.

The farms, spread over 18,000ha, are mostly irrigated and run along or close to the NSW-Queensland border, the court heard. They are in “a core crop production region” and with “significant water entitlements”.

The farms and a $2 million riverfront Southport mansion, owned by Norman’s wife Virginia, were raided and searched by police during the probe, court documents state.

BACKGROUND

The Land, 30 August 2018:

Meanwhile in Queensland, a major alleged fraud in the cotton industry was uncovered by police, with two executives from Queensland's cotton group Norman Farming charged over an an alleged $20 million fraud involving federal funds earmarked for Murray-Darling water savings.

Norman Farming CEO John Norman, 43, and his chief financial officer Steve Evans, 53, were granted bail after appearing in Brisbane Magistrates Court over the alleged fraud.

Police allege the director of the company submitted fraudulent claims, including falsified invoices related to six water-efficiency projects on a property near Goondiwindi, called Healthy Headwater projects.

Police allege the fraud occurred over seven years.

In NSW, the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) has issued a number of charges in the north and south-west of NSW for various alleged water offences.

The NRAR is the new independent water regulator in NSW. It started operations on April 30, after an outcry over alleged water deals in northern NSW exposed by the ABC's Four Corners program….

NRAR said it was pursuing the following cases:

● A Moree company has been charged with water theft offences. It is alleged the company, involved in irrigation, took water from a river while metering equipment was not working, an offence against section 91I(2) of the Water Management Act 2000. It is further alleged they constructed and used a channel to convey water without approval.

● A Carinda man has been charged with using a channel to convey water without approval, an offence against s91B of the Water Management Act 2000.

● Two men have been charged with water theft offences on properties in Walgett and Mallowa.

● A 35-year-old man from Carinda in Northern NSW alleged he provided false and misleading information to water investigators.

● Two men have been charged after they allegedly carried out controlled activities on the Murray River near Corowa.

ABC News, 13 February 2018:

The Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is powerless to prevent upstream farmers harvesting overland floodwaters desperately needed to flow through the river system for the benefit of all users, the authority's head has admitted.

It comes as details emerge of massive earthworks built to enable upstream farmers to carry out "floodplain harvesting"…..

Last week, MDBA head Phillip Glyde travelled to Mr Lamey's farm to see first hand what was happening.

"I've learnt a lot," Mr Glyde told 7.30.

"For people like the Lameys, it's very hard to negotiate through and find what's the best way to make sure the problems they're experiencing don't occur."

Although he admitted floodplain harvesting was a serious issue, he acknowledged there was nothing the authority could do in relation to the approval and regulation of irrigation earthworks.

"There's overlapping responsibilities: local, state, different departments," he said.

"Then you've got the Commonwealth, then you've got the Murray Darling Basin Plan."

On Wednesday, the Senate decides whether to pass a proposed reduction in the amount of water Queensland irrigators give back to the ailing Murray Darling River system.

"We don't want the irrigators to be keeping even more water, we want the banks pulled down in Queensland," Mr Lamey said.

"We want the river to run like it should."

Tweets of the Week

Supreme Court of QLD found that Wagner brothers have succeeded in their defamation claim against Alan Jones, 2GB, and 4BC . Awarded a total of $3.754m. Read summary and judgment here, https://t.co/zze75fWRnn

— Supreme Court of QLD (@SupremeCourtQLD) September 11, 2018

* Between 28 October 2014 and 20 August 2015, 2GB Radio and Alan Jones published 30 broadcasts. Twenty-seven of these broadcasts conveyed 76 defamatory imputations of and concerning the Wagner brothers according to the Court*

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge says the public is "fed up". You bet we are!

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 June 2017:

Judges and magistrates have lashed out at "grossly improper and unfair" conduct by several Turnbull government MPs, who accused Victorian courts of being too soft on terror offenders.

Federal Liberal MP Alan Tudge has taken a public swipe at Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews over the State's soft terror laws and the Premier has answered his critic.

The three ministers' criticisms of the courts have appalled the professional association of judges, which said the comments could be misconstrued as an attempt to interfere in a case before the courts.

Judicial Conference of Australia president Robert Beech-Jones said the "co-ordinated and direct attack" on the independence of the courts risked undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

"The statements attributed to the ministers are deeply troubling. They represent a threat to the rule of law. They should never have been made." Justice Beech-Jones said.

Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula also hit back at the federal frontbenchers, warning they have come "dangerously close" to contempt of court.

Following national agreement to toughen parole and bail laws to prevent violent extremists being released from prison, Health Minister Greg Hunt and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge claimed Victorian judges were failing the public.

Triggered by recent courtroom comments from Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Mark Weinberg, Mr Hunt said their apparent support for lighter sentences was "deeply concerning". Mr Tudge said the public was "fed up".

So Human Services Minister and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge thinks the public is "fed up".

You bet we are!

However, I suspect that it is not the judiciary which has caused this reaction so much as it is the antics of Alan Tudge and his Coalition cronies.

This constant ideological assault on the nation’s legal, political and social institutions and, the continuing erosion of the citizen’s civil and human rights, has moved well beyond the pale.

This latest attack on the judiciary has provoked a response from the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr. Tudge in his overweening sense political superiority probably did not even consider.

Judicial Conference of Australia: Media Release Grossly Improper Attack on Vic Judiciary 13 June 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

The Age, 14 June 2017:

Three senior Turnbull government ministers will be hauled before the Supreme Court of Victoria to explain why they should not be charged with contempt after accusing the judiciary of advocating softer sentences for terrorists.

In an explosive development, the Supreme Court has ordered Health Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge to appear on Friday "to make any submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt" .

A letter from Judicial Registrar Ian Irving obtained by Fairfax Media says comments by the three ministers published in the The Australian accusing the judiciary of going soft on terrorists would appear to bring the court into disrepute.

"The attributed statements were published whilst the judgements of the Court of Appeal were reserved," the letter says.

"The attributed statements appear to intend to bring the Court into disrepute, to assert the judges have and will apply an ideologically based predisposition in deciding the case or cases and that the judges will not apply the law."

The extraordinary order follows comments published in The Australian in which the senior ministers blasted the Victorian judiciary for handing down lighter sentences for terrorists as part of "ideological experiments".

The judicial registrar has also written to The Australian's editor and the journalist Simon Benson asking them or their legal representatives to attend the court, alongside legal representatives for News Limited.