As 2012 draws to an end Abbott's chief propagandist is not happy with this joint parliamentary committee

 

Members of the Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM):

 

Chair Mr Daryl Melham MP (Labor)

Deputy Chair The Hon Alexander Somlyay MP (Liberal)

Members The Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP (Liberal), Senator Simon Birmingham (Liberal), The Hon Alan Griffin MP (Labor), Senator Bob Brown (Greens), Ms Amanda Rishworth MP (Labor), Senator Carol Brown (Labor), Senator Helen Polley (Labor), Senator Scott Ryan (Liberal).

 

Following the inquiry into the conduct of the 2010 federal election, JSCEM tabled a report entitled The 2010 Federal Election: Report on the conduct of the election and related matters.

 

A bill is currently before the Australian Parliament which implements the Gillard Government’s response to seven of the thirty-seven recommendations in the JSCEM report.

It gives effect to recent amendments to the Electoral Act that enable the Electoral Commissioner to directly update or transfer a person’s enrolment without claim or notice from the person and to enrol an unenrolled person without claim or notice from the person.

According to the Special Minister For State the Australian Electoral Commission; would have to notify a person it intended to add to the electoral roll and give them 28 days to tell the AEC if they did not live at the address listed or were not eligible to vote.

 

In The Australian on 10 December 2012 Christopher Pyne gave vent to the far right’s ‘official’ line on this particular proposal:

 

THE Coalition has accused Labor of trying to "rort" the electoral roll to boost its standing at the next election on the back of law changes allowing automatic voter enrolment.

Manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne said it was “routine” for Labor to attempt to “tip the scales in their own favour if they can” when it came to elections and said eligible voters should be required to present identification to enrol and vote in elections.

“It's no surprise at all that Labor would try and find every trick in the book to increase their electoral clout,” Mr Pyne told Sky News.

“They are not supported in the electorate so they are trying to do things that they can to improve their chances with the electoral roll. The Greens are the same.

“Suddenly Labor thinks they are behind in the polls, why don't we do something to trick the voter, let's rort the roll, let's get an advantage over the Coalition, they've been doing it for decades and this is just their latest iteration.” ……

 

Readers may recall that the former Howard Government (of which Pyne was a member) changed electoral legislation seventeen months before the 2007 federal election, so that new enrolments closed at 8pm on the day that election writs were issued and enrolment changes closed three business days after the issuing of the writs - thus ignoring past practice and possibly denying the franchise to many caught unawares by the election announcement, including young people only recently reaching voting age.

 

In 2010 the High Court struck down the law that forced the closing of the electoral roll at 8pm on the same day the writ for the election was issued on the grounds it was unconsitutional.

Which makes Pyne's present histrionics laughable and, raises the possibility that if Abbott et al gain government in 2013 they will attempt to disenfranchise the young by other means, as they appear to believe the young predominately favour the Labor Party in spite of Abbott's relentless attacks on the Gillard Government.

Harmers produces an exercise in the pathetic

Statement by Harmers Workplace Lawyers
Wednesday 12 Dec. 2012
"Whilst of course we respect the court's decision, we are shocked and disappointed by it. We will argue strongly on appeal that the conclusions in his Honour'sjudgment made about our conduct of the case are simply not justified by the evidence. Neither myself, nor this firm, are part of any conspiracy.
Harmers Workplace Lawyers has over many years assisted thousands of individual,corporate and union clients to access justice.
We have assisted James Ashby in that same way, as an individual who could not otherwise afford to run very expensive litigation in our courts.
This is the sole reason we took on James Ashby's case. Politics played absolutely no role in the decision to take on James as a client. As I swore in my affidavit, and as recognised by his Honour in his decision, my political views are notconsistent with the conservative side of politics. We are a law firm, consciousof our professional obligations, and take no role in politics.
As a firm, we will be examining all avenues to have this decision, and its comments, overturned through due judicial process."
Michael Harmer
Harmers Workplace Lawyers
Michael is not available for further comment.
MEDIA CONTACT Anthony McClellan
AMC Media
Mob. 0433 122 360
anthonymcc@gmail.com
T: antmac9

Is this the end of Mal Brough's renewed political ambitions? ASHBY v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and PETER SLIPPER - 12 December 2012 judgement

Earlier this year Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had openly backed former Howard Government Minister Mal Brough’s attempt to return to Federal Parliament:

TONY Abbott has given a boost to former minister Mal Brough's campaign for Liberal National Party preselection in Fisher by declaring ''he would be a very welcome addition to our team''.

Now that Brough is linked to a political conspiracy to bring down the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, one wonders how Abbott will spin that sordid fact.

Excerpts from JAMES HUNTER ASHBY v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and PETER SLIPPER judgment:

132 Mr Ashby and Ms Doane had decided by 29 March 2012 that Mr Ashby would make allegations of sexual harassment in legal proceedings against Mr Slipper and would assist Mr Brough and Mr Lewis to damage Mr Slipper in the public eye and political arena with any information they could find including using the requested diary entries together with any proceedings. Mr Ashby referred to seeing or using lawyers in his texts from about this time. Accordingly, I have inferred that he, Ms Doane and Mr Brough intended that Mr Ashby would bring proceedings against Mr Slipper alleging at least sexual harassment.

133 Once they had decided on their course of action, Mr Ashby and Ms Doane did not go straight to see a lawyer to air any concerns about any legal wrongs that either may have suffered. Instead, Mr Ashby or Ms Doane contacted Mr Brough and they began working with him and Mr Lewis. That was an act of disloyalty that they both knew was antithetic to their continuing to work for Mr Slipper. But they did continue. They asked Mr Brough to help them find a lawyer. They used their positions on his staff surreptitiously to copy and provide extracts from Mr Slipper’s diaries for periods in 2009 and 2010 at the requests of both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis. There is no evidence that Mr Ashby ever provided any of Mr Slipper’s diary entries concerning the 2012 Cabcharge allegations to anyone. Mr Ashby met Mr Lewis on 4 April 2012 and Mr Ashby so enthused Mr Lewis that the latter wrote “We will get him!!” just before flying to Sydney.

138 I am also satisfied that Mr Ashby and Ms Doane by about 29 March 2012 were in a combination with Mr Brough to cause Mr Slipper as much political and public damage as they could inflict on him….

141 Mr Brough was unlikely to have been offering to assist Ms Doane and Mr Ashby in seeing Mr Russell QC for advice or looking for new careers out of pure altruism. Realistically, his preparedness to act for them was created and fed by their willingness to act against Mr Slipper’s interests and assisting Mr Brough’s and the LNP’s interests in destabilising Mr Slipper’s position as Speaker and damaging him in the eyes of his electorate….

167 …..In my opinion, Mr Ashby included the Cabcharge allegations in the originating application for the predominant purpose of injuring Mr Slipper and assisting a political attack on him to benefit Mr Brough and the LNP…

199...I am satisfied that the exceptional situation that enlivens the Court’s power to dismiss (or stay) proceedings as an abuse has been proved to the heavy standard required: Williams 174 CLR at 529. The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings under r 26.01...

Judgment transcript here.

Bet you won't read about this in the NRMA's Open Road

Which northern rivers NRMA worker was not on a roadside assistance call but doing other work-related tasks and driving a motor vehicle when he was booked for not wearing a seat belt?

And, remember, the offence of being an unrestrained driver results in the loss of 3 driving points (6 points in a double demerit period) and a fine of $298.

The driver escaped penalties this week when he appeared in a north coast local court and said there were mitigating circumstances.

After describing to the court the turn of events that resulted in him being caught by a highway patrol officer while driving in a built-up area the worker (who represented himself and was unaided by a legal beagle) had the charge dismissed under Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act.

Not wearing a seat belt is definitely not a good look for the NRMA.

Eric Warner

Northern Rivers

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration.