Cartoon of the Week

Reg Lynch, cartoonist

The Greens stumble in Week 2 of the 2016 Australian federal election campaign

To be honest I find it hard to warm to the man, but I was still very surprised to find that Greens Senator for Victoria Richard Di Natale had not properly declared the property interests of both he and his wife.

Di Natale was elected to the Australian Senate at the 2010 federal election and his term began on 1 July 2011.

On 19 July 2011 Di Natale signed the Statement of Registerable Interests for senators.

In this declaration to parliament he stated that he received income from  “Twin Gums”  – a small rural property, near Deans Marsh in Victoria .

On 4 August 2014 he again declared income from “Twin Gums” farm.

Senator Di Natale told The Sydney Morning Herald (in a video) in June 2015 that the property was purchased “about ten years ago”.

On 20 May 2016 he was quoted in The Australian as saying that his wife Lucy Quarterman became a full owner of this farm in October 2012.

In The Guardian on the same day it was reported:

A spokesman for Senator Di Natale’s told Fairfax: “the farm was listed as a business interest from the time Richard was elected” and that by declaring income from the farm, he had met the requirements for declaring property in the register of senators’ interests.

This has been a significant misstep and is likely to affect The Greens party image with some voters.

Memo for Kevin Hogan (The Nationals) Member for Page

Yesterday, Thursday 19 May, a regular at the table of knowledge at the local watering hole reported on a visit to the city of Grafton, which is in the federal electorate of Page that's currently held by the National Party's Kevin Hogan.

A short walk along the western side of the main block of Grafton's main street (Prince Street) between Fitzroy and Pound Streets at 10.30am, revealed six vacant business premises. A sad sign indeed! And the eastern side wasn't much better.

And if that wasn't bad enough, our mate decided to visit the premises occupied by the local federal Member for Page, which is also located in that same, sad western section of Prince Street, to express concerns about the state-of-play in the economy of the southern end of the electorate of Page. However, that wasn't possible as the MP's office was closed until 12.30pm. That, according to our mate, said it all. 

Our mate couldn't help but notice a plethora of signs featuring the National Party member's face plastered on fences and walls around the Jacaranda city with the vast majority of them on vacant blocks and premises. What does that say!?Is the incumbent Member for Page specialising in empty spaces?

Footnote: our mate also reported seeing a sign outside a Grafton business informing potential customers of its "speicals" [sic].

Federal MP Stuart Robert channelled $70,000 from his Liberal Nationals Party campaign fund to three local government candidates

This was MP for Fadden Stuart Robert, the then Australian Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Human Services newly appointed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, on 28 November 2015:

Fast forward to May 2016 and this is the Member for Fadden.

The Australian, 3 May 2016:

Sacked Turnbull cabinet minister Stuart Robert secretly bankrolled the campaigns of three independent council candidates on the Gold Coast, fuelling calls for his disendorsement by the Liberal National Party on the eve of the federal election.

The funnelling of at least $70,000 out of Mr Robert’s LNP branch fundraising arm, the Fadden Forum, into the campaigns of the independents before March 31 local government elections has already led to the ­demotion of LNP state director Lincoln Folo.

Mr Robert, under investigation by the Australian Federal Police over a 2014 trip to China with a donor friend, may have breached party rules by directing the LNP funds to the independents without the approval of his branch.

It is understood Malcolm Turnbull is aware of the emerging scandal after a meeting of the LNP’s state executive ­decided not to take any action against Mr Robert, who holds the Gold Coast seat of Fadden, despite internal calls for his disendorsement.

Instead, Mr Folo — who made the transfers at the behest of Mr Robert — was removed last month as state director and appointed campaign director in a move the LNP has publicly claimed was part of plan to split the roles because of growing ­administrative duties.

LNP state president Gary Spence yesterday defended the decision to keep Mr Robert as the LNP’s endorsed candidate despite conceding the transfer of the LNP supporters’ funds to the independents was “inappropriate’’……..

The funds were given to John Brent, the now-ousted long-serving mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council on the Gold Coast hinterland, and newly elected Gold Coast independent councillor Kristyn Boulton.

Mr Brent yesterday confirmed his campaign was given $10,000, while Ms Boulton — who refused to confirm or deny if Mr Robert had supported her campaign — is understood to have received $30,000.

A third independent candidate on the Gold Coast, who was ­unsuccessful at the election, ­received $30,000 but did not ­return calls yesterday…….

Gold Coast Bulletin, 6 May 2016:

INDEPENDENT Gold Coast City Council candidates Kristyn Boulton and Felicity Stevenson did not reveal the $60,000 in LNP donations they received through Federal MP Stuart Robert when confronted by voters and rivals during the election.

Candidates in their divisions have also told the Gold Coast Bulletin they were intimidated by a volunteer at a pre-polling booth if they told voters the LNP was bankrolling or backing the party workers.

Mr Robert, for the first time, yesterday revealed he told his former office workers in early February that they would be getting financial backing from his rich fundraising arm, the Fadden Forum, to beat Labor rivals.

“I’m fighting Labor. I now have an interest. I will provide you with some support,” he said.

But Facebook posts, community debates and verbal exchanges at the pre-polling booths by early March show neither Ms Boulton nor Ms Stevenson told anyone their biggest financial backer was their former boss.

On February 18 on Facebook, Ms Stevenson wrote: “Honesty and transparency are important so I thank you for contacting me to ask these questions. I am funding my campaign from my own savings and local supporters.

“I have recieved (sic) no funding from developers. I am not a member of any political party. I have not received funding from any political party.”…….

ABC News, 17 May 2016:

Gold Coast City councillors and their financial backers are under scrutiny by state and federal authorities following allegations of undisclosed Liberal National Party (LNP) funding of candidates in the March local elections.

It comes after revelations federal Liberal MP Stuart Robert channelled tens of thousands of dollars from his national LNP campaign fund, the Fadden Forum, to council candidates who stood as independents.

Mr Robert has confirmed he gave candidates Kristyn Boulton and Felicity Stevenson $30,000 each from the Fadden Forum to run their campaigns.

Both are former staffers in Mr Robert's electorate office.

Queensland law was changed in 2007 following a corruption inquiry into the 2004 Gold Coast elections, creating three categories of candidates: independents, groups and political parties.

All candidates must now declare their status, with heavy fines for failing to disclose which type applies.

There are now calls for a broad inquiry into the conduct of this year's local election on the Gold Coast, which has the second-largest council in Australia after Brisbane, with an annual budget of more than $1 billion.

By law, council candidates are not obliged to disclose details of their financial backing until weeks after the election. The deadline in this case is July 4…….

The Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) said that "in light of the allegations and reports" it would "inquire into the activities" of the Fadden Forum once the disclosure deadline expired.

"If candidates are running as a group, as defined under the LGEA, then they must declare their membership of that group," the ECQ said in a statement to 7.30.

"Candidates cannot work together to promote themselves or fundraise during the election unless they register as a group with the returning officer."

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) told 7.30 it, too, would look into the matter after it was raised in Senate estimates this month.

"The AEC will undertake appropriate inquiries to determine whether there has been a breach of disclosure requirements by any of the parties mentioned," it said…….

It has also emerged that as many as five or more candidates may have used an LNP-linked lobbyist and former public relations adviser to Mayor Tom Tate, Simone Holzapfel, for campaign advice and support, giving rise to questions about their connections.

7.30 has established that Cr Tate, Division 7 Councillor and former mayor Gary Baildon, and Division 12 Councillor Pauline Young all used Ms Holzapfel's services.

All three deny acting as a bloc.

Planning committee chairman and Division 3 Councillor, Cameron Caldwell, told 7.30 he had received no donation or gift in kind from Ms Holzapfel but declined to comment on whether she had worked on his campaign.

Cr Boulton, who was elected in Division 4, was reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin as having received Ms Holzapfel's help, but she did not respond to 7.30's requests for comment.

Mr Robert's former staffer Felicity Stevenson, who was not elected, and former president of the Young LNP and Division 11 Councillor Hermann Vorster — who had campaigning support from Young LNP volunteers — also did not respond……

Ms Holzapfel was previously a staffer in former prime minister Tony Abbott's office when he was health minister in the Howard government.

Her clients have included developers ASF, which wants to develop a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast and Sunland, which has plans for a 44-storey twin tower scheme on undeveloped beachfront land at The Spit.

Ms Holzapfel reportedly donated $114,000 to the Fadden Forum in 2013 in multiple small amounts, although this does not appear in publicly available disclosure documents.

7.30 has no evidence that either Ms Holzapfel or the candidates acted improperly.

The Fadden Forum does not make separate disclosures of its activities to electoral authorities as electoral watchdogs consider it to be part of the LNP…….

Surrounded by political scandals and allegations of wrongdoing as he is, an ordinary person might have thought that the Turnbull Government would quietly distance itself from him.

However, there was Treasurer Scott Morrison with Stuart Robert on 17 May 2016 – the ninth day of the federal election campaign:

UPDATE

This 19 May 2016 front page says it all about the Robert attempt to install what could be suspected to be political glove puppets..... 

Labor blots its copybook in Week 2 of the federal election campaign

Preselecting a 49 year-old candidate in West Australia who at nineteen assaulted a police officer could be seen as an unfortunate mistake easily rectified, but for this to be followed less than a week later by the discovery that one of Labor’s Victorian MPs seeking re-election had not declared an investment property for close to three years can only be called the first big blunder of the party’s federal election campaign.

To then find that the Member for Batman and Shadow Minister for Justice David Feeney is also one of those politicians who claims $271 a night while living in an apartment owned by a close family member – in this case his lawyer wife’s trust – only makes the situation worse.

This parliamentary entitlement claim places him is the same category as former treasurer Joe Hockey and current prime minister Malcolm Turnbull* and, is likely to alienate some voters in his electorate.

* Malcolm Turnbull’s last Summary of Parliamentary Expenditure show this multi-millionaire is still claiming the nightly allowance for living in a Canberra apartment owned by himself.

Australian Federal Election 2016: a tale of five polls

Poll No. 1 based on statistical analysis….

Roy Morgan Research:

May 16 2016 Finding No. 6808 Topic: Federal Poll Public Opinion Country: Australia

In mid-May ALP support 52.5% (up 1.5%) is now clearly in front of the L-NP 47.5% (down 1.5%) on a two-party preferred basis after the first week of official campaigning following Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to call a Double Dissolution Election for Saturday July 2.

This is easily the best result for ALP since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister in September 2015 and if a Federal Election were held now the ALP would win.

Primary support for the L-NP is 36.5% (down 3.5%) with ALP at 33% (up 0.5%). Support for the Greens is up 2% to 15.5%, Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) 5% (up 1%; 19.5% in South Australia), Katter’s Australian Party is 0.5% (down 0.5%), Palmer United Party is 0% (unchanged) and Independents/ Others are at 9.5% (up 0.5%).

The massive vote for minority parties (30.5%) suggests that today they would definitely control the Senate and the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) could control the House of Representatives.

Poll No. 2 also based on statistical analysis….

Galaxy Research:

8 May 2016 release

Poll No. 3 based on the degree of attraction to clickbait….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2015:

 The Holder of the TV Remote poll....

Media Spy, 13 May 2016:

The Punter’s poll….

Sportsbet, accessed 16 May 2015:

Australian Federal Police and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) in 2016

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) are not covering themselves with glory in relation to one Australian union.......

This article in The Guardian on 16 April 2016 appears to indicate that, in subsequent interactions with Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Australian Federal Police did not forget that the union had successfully defended itself in court in 2015:

A complaint from the construction union to the commonwealth ombudsman paints an extraordinary picture of heavy-handed tactics by special police taskforces, including a police officer allegedly warning one unionist he knew his children’s names and what time he dropped them off to school.

The letter, sent by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) on Tuesday, complains that police repeatedly attempted to question witnesses without their lawyers present and, in one case, demanded a junior employee grant access to union headquarters during a raid without first showing her a warrant.

The union’s complaint alleges that when the Australian federal police searched the ACT branch’s headquarters on 25 August, one officer told the branch secretary Dean Hall, “I do know about your family things”, to explain how he knew his wife’s name.

“Like, I know your kids’ names and their ages and where they go to school and when you drop them off,” the officer is said to have told Hall. “What do you expect? I am profiling you.”

The union’s lawyer, Phillip Pasfield, told the ombudsman these alleged statements were intimidatory, unwarranted and designed to threaten Hall, who was “extremely upset” about the incident.

In December the Australian Capital Territory supreme court ruled that the raid was unlawful because police withheld information from the magistrate in order to get the warrant.

The CFMEU complained that the officer in charge of the raid told building industry participants that he would prefer to make workplace agreements with the Master Builders Association, not the CFMEU…..

The union claimed the AFP deliberately misled a Fairfax Media journalist by saying a CFMEU official had been “raided” on 2 December then changed its story to say the raid related to the official but was not a raid on his or her property. This was done to “destroy the reputation of the official involved”, it said.

In another incident, the CFMEU said the union police taskforce provided false information or failed to correct journalist Stephen Drill, who incorrectly reported Victoria police’s union taskforce Heracles had raided the CFMEU’s Victorian headquarters…..

While this report in The Guardian on 9 May 2016 raises serious concerns about the conduct of the federal police:

Union officials have launched an extraordinary attack on the Australian Federal Police, accusing the force of adopting an "unbalanced and aggressive" approach to union activities and executing the Turnbull government's union-busting ambitions.

Sparking a flare-up of simmering tensions this week, a Victorian union safety officer has become the subject of a criminal investigation after he tested the stability of a guard rail during a site visit and it immediately collapsed.

A letter from the AFP, seen by Fairfax Media, details the allegation of property damage against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union's Peter Clarke. 

The union said the case was "bizarre" and added to serious concerns that police were responding to political pressure to become more heavily involved in industrial relations matters.

"This is a bizarre use of AFP resources that ought to be used to deal with the serious criminality that goes on in the community," union secretary Dave Noonan said.

"It's clear to us that senior officers of the Australian Federal Police are directing some kind of campaign against the union and its officials."

The case is the latest example of what the CFMEU claims is unjust, heavy-handed treatment of its members and officials in Victoria, the ACT and Queensland by the federal police. Slater & Gordon, the union's legal firm, has filed a formal complaint against the AFP with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Video footage of the alleged property damage incident shows Mr Clarke – a safety officer with the union's Victorian branch – approaching the guard rail during a safety inspection at a Canberra construction site in February. It appears to show him momentarily shaking the railing before a large section collapses.

Mr Clarke has been called in for interrogation over the incident.

"During the course of the investigation, Mr Clarke was identified as being responsible for damaging a guard rail at that location," AFP acting Commander Robert Wilson said in the letter.

"The allegation against Mr Clarke is property damage ... Police wish to speak to Mr Clarke in relation to the matter in the form of a record of interview."

The union said falls from heights were a leading cause of workplace injury and death, and every safety official was expected to check the stability of guard rails during site inspections. Statistics from Safe Work Australia shows the nation's construction industry accounts for almost 40 per cent of fall-related deaths.

"The fact that this rail was so flimsy it didn't survive a light shake shows it would have been completely ineffective in preventing a fall, and completely fails to comply with the relevant codes of practices," Mr Noonan said.

"Are our priorities saving workers on construction sites from getting killed, or trying to cover up for builders who cut corners on occupational health and safety and put workers' lives at risk?"

The Australian Federal Police said the investigation was ongoing and it would not be appropriate to comment.

CFMEU video footage of the alleged property damage:

https://youtu.be/9VEoTWhiO8c

The Guardian, 5 May 2016:

In separate proceedings, union official and rugby league great John Lomax will appear in the ACT Supreme Court on Friday against the AFP.

Mr Lomax was investigated and prosecuted for blackmail last year, with police alleging he attempted to force a Canberra painting company and its principal to sign a union enterprise bargaining agreement.

The prosecution was dropped in October. 

Now Mr Lomax is considering a malicious prosecution lawsuit. 

He and his lawyers declined to comment ahead of Friday's court appearance.

But CFMEU national construction secretary Dave Noonan, Mr Lomax's employer, said the former Canberra Raiders hardman's lawyers had been forced to seek a court order to access information about the investigation after requests to the federal police failed.

"The solicitors [who act for Mr Lomax] have sought various documents to ascertain whether or not our concern that there was a malicious element to the prosecution can be sustained," Mr Noonan said.

"Those documents have not been supplied.

"As the documents were not produced it's necessary to make an application in court for pre-trial discovery."

Mr Noonan said the contents of the documents would determine whether Mr Lomax would launch a malicious prosecution suit against the federal police.

"[Mr Lomax] was charged on a completely bogus charge, our QC said so at the time, they proceeded with the charge, they failed to provide any evidence to the court and the charges were dropped.

"If the AFP has got nothing to hide, why not provide the documents? If they acted in good faith, why not provide the documents?

"We think the proper thing for the AFP to do is to produce the documents."

ABC News reporting on the ACT arm of the Australian Federal Police on 22 March 2016:

A former staffer at the centre of an investigation into the office of Labor MLA Joy Burch has hit out at ACT police after it was announced the inquiry had been dropped.

Last year, allegations arose that Ms Burch's chief of staff, Maria Hawthorne, leaked sensitive details of conversations between the ACT Government and the chief of police about the conduct of officers on construction sites in Canberra, to the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Energy Union (CFMEU).

ACT Policing has announced no criminal charges would be laid but revealed that allegations also involved another former staff member.

Ms Hawthorne dismissed the allegations against her and other staff.

"ACT Policing's last-ditch attempt to implicate a second staff member should be seen for what it is – a desperate act of distraction," she said.

"The truly unprecedented event of the past three months has been an elected minister losing her job because of unfounded allegations by an unelected official."

BRIEF BACKGROUND

In this ACT Supreme Court judgment, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2015] ACTSC 362 (2 December 2015), the Australian Federal Police are found to have abused process:

140. The fact that a second or subsequent warrant might be an abuse of process does not go to the question of the validity of any such warrant, but only if it is shown that the second warrant is actually issued for an ulterior or improper purpose or otherwise constitutes an abuse of process.

141. In my view, it could not be said, in this case, that the issue of the second warrant was an abuse of process. No prejudice to the plaintiff was identified that was outside the contemplation of the construction of the relevant provisions.

Relief

266. As I have found the seizure under the second warrant to be invalid because of the failure to disclose fully the circumstances that were required to be disclosed for the issuing officer, the learned Magistrate, to make a proper decision about whether to issue a warrant that is able to be executed after 9.00 pm, I have not found that any of the other complaints invalidated the search or the warrants.

267. In relation to the material obtained under that warrant, the material must be returned or destroyed.

268. In relation to the breaches that I have found, I have been asked to make declarations of non-compliance with the relevant sections.

269. The question of whether I had power to make declarations was not subject to any challenge by the first defendant, other than as to discretion. This is not a case such as Kennedy v Baker where such an issue arose. There is, in this Court, plenary power to make such declarations and I do not need to consider the jurisdiction further.

270. As to discretion, the only basis on which it was urged that I should not make any declaration is that a failure to do so would still leave a court, which was required to deal with any criminal proceedings on which any seized material is sought to be admitted, and which retained jurisdiction under s 138 of the Evidence Act, to deal with any impropriety or illegality then.

271. I accept that a court will be appropriately able to protect an accused’s interests in any such criminal proceeding by such means; see Phong v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth [2001] FCA 1241; (2001) 114 FCR 75. It seems to me, however, inappropriate to deprive such a court of my findings following what was a detailed hearing with not only affidavit evidence but cross-examination and oral submissions.

272. In the circumstances, I am prepared to make the declarations.

273. It seems to me that the plaintiff has had sufficient success to justify an order for costs. I shall permit the parties to seek another order but otherwise so order.