Quotes of the Week

“TRUMP’S USE OF DECEPTION and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.” [Kurt Eichenwald writing in Newsweek, 31 October 2016]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“About the best way you can sum up Scott Morrison’s week is that he began it by accusing the ALP of raising taxes and he ended it by introducing a bill to raise taxes.”  [Greg Jericho writing in The Guardian, 20 August 2017]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The problem is that Kim Jon-un is largely the same personality type as Trump — both are paranoid, narcissistic and have huge egos…..We’ve never really had leaders like that on both sides before.” [Dr Genevieve Hohnen, Lecturer in Politics, Edith Cowan University, quoted at news.com.au, 15 August 2017]

Fate of politicians referred to the High Court over the citizenship saga will not be known until at least mid-October.

It appears that on Day One before the High Court of Australia there is to be no united defence by those sitting politicians defending their election as members of parliament and stories appear to be changing.

ABC News, 24 August 2017:

The fate of politicians referred to the High Court over the citizenship saga will not be known until at least mid-October.

The court held its first hearings on the cases in Brisbane today, and Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has ordered the matter be heard in Canberra on October 10-12.

It is not clear yet how long it could take the court to decide on the case and announce its decision on the five cases currently before it — those of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, former Nationals Minister Matt Canavan, One Nation's Malcolm Roberts and former Greens senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam.

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC, acting for the Commonwealth, had urged the hearings be scheduled in mid-September to ease any concerns about the validity of decisions made by the 45th Parliament.

In another twist, Mr Joyce's political nemesis, Tony Windsor, has been given permission to join the citizenship challenge in the High Court.

Mr Windsor will argue Mr Joyce has breached the constitution, as he was a dual citizen of New Zealand.

Mr Windsor's lawyers, appearing by videolink from Melbourne, also argued for the right to cross-examine Mr Joyce if they needed it for their case.

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC, acting for the Commonwealth, urged the court to hear the matters by mid-September.

Chief Justice Kiefel said she understood the "unusual circumstances" of the challenges, and the "high level of urgency", given it would have an impact on the current make-up of the Parliament.

However, she raised concerns whether the matters could be dealt with that quickly, particularly when Deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon's cases were awaiting formal referral to the court.

Chief Justice Kiefel asked the solicitor-general whether there was a "real practical difficulty in terms of governance" if the court waited until October to hear the cases, to which Mr Donaghue replied there was not.

Lawyers for Senator Canavan also said the Commonwealth had "underestimated the complexity of their case", given the nature of his Italian citizenship.

They also suggested the highly publicised story he had presented about his mother signing him up for Italian citizenship was "irrelevant", rather arguing that there had been retrospective changes to Italian laws that had led to the strife.

Mr Donaghue said the cases of Senator Canavan, Mr Joyce and Ms Waters were different to those of Senator Roberts and Mr Ludlam.

He argued Senator Canavan, Mr Joyce and Ms Waters had no knowledge they could be considered dual citizens under foreign law.

The solicitor-general but suggested Senator Roberts and Mr Ludlam knew or should have known.

Lawyers for Senator Roberts criticised the initial timing of the full hearings, suggested by the Commonwealth.

They also took issue with the Attorney-General's offer to get the same British QC enlisted to give expert evidence on other citizenship cases to also draft a report about Senator Roberts' status.

The argument was that they should have the chance to brief the legal expert themselves, and have the opportunity to find their own experts if they did not agree. [my highlighting]

The Australian, 24 August 2017:

Barrister Robert Newlinds SC, for India-born Senator Roberts, said his client did not concede to being a citizen of any country other than Australia.

However, Mr Newlinds said Senator Roberts made contact with the British Home Office before the election, but received no response. He then sent another email before the election and “renounced” any foreign citizenship.

However, Senator Roberts did not receive any acknowledgement from the Home Office until after the election, the court has heard, when they sent him a renunciation form to fill out.

He later was told by the Home Office that his renunciation of British citizenship had been accepted – but Mr Newlinds said it was not clear whether that acceptance was in relation to the pre-election email or the post-election form……

Attorney-General George Brandis says the government is “grateful” the High Court agreed to hear all eligibility cases in the one hearing.

Senator Brandis said the hearing, to be held in the first fortnight of October, was scheduled as early as possible, despite the government asking for an earlier date on the 13th and 14th of September.

“We are very grateful that the High Court has listed the matter at the next practicable opportunity, we were pressing the court to hear it even earlier in September but it just wasn’t practicably possible particularly since the matter was going to be set down for three days,” Senator Brandis said.

“By the standard of listing matters in the High Court it is a very swift hearing, it gives all the parties a full opportunity to be ready, to present both written submissions and of course oral argument….. [my highlighting]

Matters for judgment by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns:

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Senator Matthew Canavan

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Mr Scott Ludlam

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Ms Larissa Waters

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Senator Malcolm Roberts 

NOTICE - Reference by the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns - The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP

Lofgren introduces resolution urging Vice President and Cabinet to fulfil duties under 25th Amendment

It was only a matter of time......

“Amendment XXV

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.” [Cornel Law School, U.S. Constitution]

Democratic Party Representative Zoe Lofgren’s (D-Calif.), Press Release, 18 August 2017:

                                                                                                                                     

Lofgren introduces resolution urging Vice President and Cabinet to fulfill duties under 25th Amendment

Resolution cites President Trump’s “alarming pattern of speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit”

Washington, August 18, 2017 

WASHINGTON, DC – Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?

Today, U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution that urges the Vice President and Cabinet to have the President examined by medical and psychiatric professionals to assist them in determining whether the President is unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the United States Constitution outlines this obligation.

As the resolution reads, “President Donald J. Trump has exhibited an alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties.

“Many Americans, including many Republicans, have observed the President's increasingly disturbing pattern of actions and public statements that suggest he may be mentally unfit to execute the duties required of him,” said Lofgren. “The President has not released a serious medical evaluation. Just as would be the case if the President were physically unable to execute the office of the President, this resolution urges those entrusted with the responsibility enshrined in the 25th Amendment to employ the services of medical and psychiatric professionals to help in their determination whether the President is mentally capable of carrying out his Constitutional responsibilities.”

Lofgren’s resolution urges the Vice President and Cabinet to “quickly secure the services of medical and psychiatric professionals to examine the President… to determine whether the President suffers from mental disorder or other injury that impairs his abilities and prevents him from discharging his constitutional duties.” 

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment states:

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

A full copy of the resolution can be found here.

# # #

How the young in Australia view Senutter Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party?

https://youtu.be/8oeeTcB3A2M

Australian Politics: when is a welfare program trial not a trial?

When is a welfare program trial no longer a trial? When the Turnbull Government decides to remove those restriction which made it a trial……….

This Bill removes section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which specifies that the cashless debit card trial will occur in up to three discrete locations, include no more than 10,000 people, and will end on 30 June 2018. Removing this section will support the extension of arrangements in current sites, and enable the expansion of the cashless debit card to further sites. Individual sites, once identified, will be determined by disallowable legislative instruments. [Explanatory Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017]

What the federal government proposes to implement is in practice an open-ended cashless debit card roll-out at the discretion of Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Aston, Alan Tudge

BACKGROUND

Human rights implications

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, which notes that the Cashless Debit Card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and non-discrimination. [Ibid, p. 6]

See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human rights scrutiny report, 8 September 2015, pp. 20-29.

Who's Who in Charlottesville "Unite The Right" Rally litigation

Eighteen far right groups and every single person who marched as part of the “Unite The Right” Rally on 11-12 August 2017 is being sued by two female Charlottesville residents injured when a car allegedly driven by a rally participant crashed into the back of their car.

This driver, James Alex Fields Jr., was charged with second degree murder, malicious wounding and hit and run by Charlottesville police on 12 August 2017.

Unite The Right Rally Lawsuit: Tadrint Washington and Micah Washington v James Alex Fields Jr. et al by clarencegirl on Scribd

This may not be the last lawsuit in relation to this violent white supremacist rally.

Things are crook at Tallarook for the Turnbull Government in August 2017

@LesStonehouse

On 21 August 2017 The Australian published the 18^th Newspoll in a row with negative numbers for the Coalition Federal Government:

The Turnbull government has taken a battering after a week of turmoil over the citizenship of key ministers, with the Coalition trailing Labor by 46 to 54 per cent in another brutal verdict from voters.

Labor has climbed to its strongest primary vote this year, with its core support at 38 per cent, giving it a convincing lead that would see it form government with a gain of 20 seats if the trend held at the next federal election.

The latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, shows the government’s primary vote has fallen from 36 to 35 per cent over the past two weeks, amid internal rows over same-sex ­marriage and the storm over the foreign citizenship of three cabinet ministers.

Malcolm Turnbull has lost ground to Bill Shorten in his personal standing with Australians but has held his lead as preferred prime minister, favoured by 43 per cent of voters compared with 33 per cent who prefer the Oppos­ition Leader…..

The combined effect has widened Labor’s lead to 54 per cent to 46 per cent in two-party terms, a swing of more than 4 per cent against the government since the election in July last year….

The Newspoll survey of 1675 respond­ents, conducted from Thursday to yesterday, saw most of the results move within the margin of error of 2.4 percentage points, except for the fall in Mr Turnbull’s rating as better prime minister and the greater dissatisfaction with both leaders.

This is the 18th consecutive Newspoll in which the Coalition has trailed Labor in two-party terms, a tally that is now used against Mr Turnbull by his critics because he cited the loss of “30 Newspolls in a row” as a reason for challenging Tony Abbott in September 2015.

The swing against the government, if repeated in a uniform fashion at the next election, would lead to the loss of about 20 seats — eight in Queensland, four in Victoria, four in NSW, one in South Australia and three in Western Australia.

Mr Turnbull has retained his lead over Mr Shorten as preferred prime minister but the gap between­ the two has narrowed.

Voters cut their support for Mr Turnbull as better prime minister from 46 to 43 per cent, while increasing­ their support for Mr Shorten from 31 to 33 per cent.

The proportion of voters who were “uncommitted” increased from 23 to 24 per cent.

As a result, Mr Turnbull is now 10 points ahead of Mr Shorten on this measure, compared with a lead of 15 percentage points two weeks ago.

Primary vote

If the federal election for the house of representatives was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? If uncommitted, to which one of these do you have a leaning?

Two-party preferred

Based on the preference flow at the July 2016 federal election.

Leaders' net satisfaction

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Prime Minister is doing his job? Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Leader of the Opposition is doing his job?