Category Archives: Federal Politics
The Australian Government has made a final ad before the 2022 federal election and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. Occasional explicit language
Following China’s security pact with the Solomon Islands, Chinese Government-owned companies were parties to a hearing in the Supreme Court of Western Australia designed to circumvent the Australia Foreign Investment Review Board, Mineralogy Chairman Clive Palmer said today.
Mr Palmer confirmed that Chinese Government companies were seeking control over hundreds of square kilometres of Western Australian land and had not sought approval from the FIRB as required by Australian law.
He said the Chinese Government was unlawfully seeking control of Australian land in the Pilbara region.
“By commencing actions in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the Chinese Government companies were creating tension between the court and the FIRB,’’ Mr Palmer said.
“This is a tactic to divide and conquer our nation used frequently by the Communist-Government quest internationally.
“This is a serious attack on Australian sovereignty and the loyalty of Australian citizens assisting the Chinese Government-owned companies is a concern,’’ Mr Palmer said.
“In essence, they are trying to gain control of the Port of Cape Preston without first seeking approval of the FIRB. All Australians should be alarmed. I have serious concerns for Australia’s security.
“Mineralogy has not been able to gain access to its own tenements to inspect what the Chinese companies are actually doing at Cape Preston despite written agreements requiring such access.
“We received complaints from workers on site that there are secret activities going on. I believe the Minister of Defence must have the site inspected in the interests of the nation’s security,’’ Mr Palmer said.
“It is a matter of great concern that the Chinese Government companies are occupying a major Australian port and denying full access to Australian companies who own the right to the land where they are constructed,’’ Mr Palmer said.
George Christensen, delivers his final parliamentary speech, touching on reasons why he is leaving parliament, achievements, COVID response, the sugar industry, banks, insurance, and the broken state of politics, as well as his assessment of priorities for conservatives.
After a court victory ensured supporters can proudly hoist her campaign flag, independent challenger for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, says major parties must now stop vilifying hundreds of thousands of voters in Australia.
Bayside City Council, which regulates political advertising locally, mounted an extraordinary attempt to ban the display of Ms Daniel’s campaign material.
Her Goldstein opponent, Liberal MP Tim Wilson, used his parliamentary correspondence to argue the signs were illegal, and encouraged neighbours to dob in those guilty of violations to cop a $1000 fine.
The court’s overrule had been widely expected by experts, who had argued it had adopted a “strange” interpretation of state-based planning bylaws.
“Our supporters can now feel free: who could ever have predicted this to be an issue in our campaign for federal parliament?” Ms Daniel told The New Daily.
Mr Wilson even insinuated some of his electors were “lawbreakers”, and encouraged other residents to dob them in to him personally.
Goldstein has been in Liberal hands since its inception – despite a major swing at the last election the party sits on a two-party-preferred margin of nearly 58 per cent.
But senior Liberals are now tipping the seat to fall, not even mostly because of the sitting member’s “mystifying” support for a move to impose criminal sanctions on electors in the affluent areas but also under the strength of the campaign run by Ms Daniel, who is on the vanguard of a new electoral politics.
That Mr Wilson ever took such an unlikely yet provocative tack has become a widely used example of the depth of the party’s fears.
And he is joined around the country.
Prominent examples of seats facing independent challenge have recently focused on Bronwyn Bishop’s old seat of Mackellar in North Sydney and Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong. Colleagues say that increasing and irregular outbursts from Dave Sharma show how tenuous his hold on Wentworth is.
But the weekend’s state election in South Australia was yet another reminder, if it were needed, that the groundswell is growing nationally.
Independents had an unusually prominent role in last weekend’s election due to a number of government MPs moving to parliament’s cross-bench at the beginning of the most recent term.
But as counting continues in seats such as Finniss, where Lou Nicholson continues to hold on to a win-making swing of 17.5 per cent, experts say a greater threat to Liberals from independents is now all but assured.
That has particular implications for several seats but particularly Boothby, the federal marginal Liberal seat which will face a spirited challenge from Jo Dyer. Rebekha Sharkie, the crossbench MP currently representing the blue-blood seat of Mayo, is proof such shifts can happen and that the ingredients for their rise have long been observable.
Political scientists say the growing share of the independent vote in recent decades can be explained by a range of factors, including disengagement from political parties, a growing proportion of the electorate deciding who to vote for as they drive to the polling booth, and also the end of a compelling reformist era in national politics.
The successful showing of the independent challengers so far has inspired criticism, particularly from outlets linked to News Corporation.
Some such stories have gone close to alleging that the independents are a convenient decentralised cover for a grouping of Labor-aligned independents seeking to sneak into parliament under false pretences.
The presence of former staffers from Labor and the activist group GetUp in a company used by some for campaign services has been cited as further evidence that the independents are in fact aligned.
But University of South Australia Professor Rob Manwaring takes precisely the opposite view. He argues that fissures between moderate and right-wing factions within South Australian Liberals also present federally have weakened the party, but also created openings on policy that are especially apt to be exploited by independent moderates.
For her part, Ms Daniel, a former ABC journalist who says she voted for Liberal Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 before dropping her support for him over his failure to progress economic and environmental reform, says the movement owes nothing to any party.
“This is not about politics as we know it,” she said.
She also notes that because independents have no organisational or financial support around them, they begin at a massive electoral disadvantage.
Sharing ideas and broader fundraising structures makes sense, she said.
But she stressed that the overwhelming majority of contributions to her campaign come from local individuals, and her policy platform reflects issues that have been of pressing concern to local people.
While Ms Daniel agrees that some former Liberals are disillusioned by the failure to combat climate change and install a federal anti-corruption watchdog, she believes her platform follows no party line.
“I have absolutely no tilt toward either party whatsoever,” she said.
“People are not looking for me to be a political representative, it’s about having someone who listens and who advocates for them.”
Dictating when the people are against any government agenda, they LEGISLATE to stem the flow
The Identify and Disrupt Bill 2021 grants the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) the power to modify, add, copy, or delete data, on a person’s online accounts.
So what this means is that the AFP can log into your Email, your Facebook, Instagram any other social media, and not only view it but actually alter it however they want. They can send emails on your behalf, they can post things on your behalf, they can engage in criminal activity on your behalf in order to reach their objective. And if they want to throw you under the bus, you’re just collateral damage.
This will not only turn Australia into a bigger surveillance state, but it will make the government the enemy of Australians.
Do you really want to live in a country where the government controls every online account you have?
by HARRY PALMER
Any government suggesting control of pensioners spending their inadequate pension payment is one step short of inciting the wrath of god, not mentioning political suicide.
Labor campaigns suggesting the Morrison government if re-elected will introduce pensioners a cashless debit card will invoke a grey power vote avalanche removing LNP from government.
Social Services Minister Anne Ruston has flatly rejected the allegations, saying “the government would never take such a move”. History taught us never accept allegations directed at politician or political parties as factual until they are officially denied.
Promulgated legislation rarely is revoked in Australian parliaments. With a cashless debit card in existence, the threat is only awaiting government rubber stamping locking pensioners to the government chain gang.
Either non-accountable duopoly party in office will run this debit card agenda. Eliminate the problem, remove the source, VOTE INDEPENDENT.
First published on CairnsNews September 2013, today “Kevin07 never for heaven”
Kevin Rudd is a real sleazbag. Just ask any Qld. public servant from the 1990’s. He earned the name Dr Death. Then he had the gall to use his position, as Wayne Goss’s chief of staff, to push his wife’s then small business, Work Directions. No wonder it has grown into such a mega business. It was no accident – it received some almighty help. The career, of one very decent and honest public servant, was flushed down the toilet, so uncle Kev could promote the business. He was not the only one, many others suffered the same fate.
The next issue, which has not been covered by the media, are his house deals, which are just as sleazy. There are three properties involved.
You see Kev and his wife sold his house at Philip St., Hawthorne, in April, 1994 and immediately signed a lease to lease back the property. They then went out and purchased another property at Dilkera St. Balmoral. This property was purchased in May, 1994 but was not settled until the end of June, 1994. The purchase price of the property was $240,000. Uncle Kev and his missus put the Dilkera St. property back on the market, after only a very short period. A young lady was interested in the property.
It so happened, that she had a boyfriend, who worked for a major firm of solicitors. From the stamped document, the amount of stamp duty paid, when Kev and the missus purchased the property ($2,400), it was obvious, that they had declared to the Qld. Office of State Revenue, that they had intended to live in the property, for the required period (6 months within 12 months of purchase). A partner in the firm of solicitors, where the boyfriend of the young lady, who was interested in purchasing the property, worked, actually contacted Kev and pointed out to him that he did not qualify for the stamp duty exemption (PPR rate). Kev told the solicitor that he had fixed it up, but the solicitor knew he hadn’t and passed the information on (first lie Kev!). Then uncle Kev did something very strange or was it?. The house had a room air conditioner and uncle Kev left it running for 24 hours a day, in a vacant house
The next door neighbours complained about the noise and contacted uncle Kev. Kev went and contacted the original owner, a Mr Allen, who gave Kev instructions on how to work the air conditioner time clock…. INTERESTED? click below to READ MORE !!
World leaders per capita, Australia’s 25M population supports 54 spy agencies watching and listening everyday. All sanctioned by late night government bills passing in the name of national security without accountability.
Dutton is our Ian Flemming’s “M” (MORON) licensed dill.
Dictatorship in disguise is alive and well. If it were not factual one could be forgiven for assuming it was a full colour academy awarded Walt Disney comedy production.
Touching but the surface referencing your privacy and freedom violation by corrupt government, take heed of the following information, ask your self the question – “am I feeding votes to a political machine destroying my freedom”?.
Information from “Sydney Criminal Lawyers” Australia’s Leading Criminal Defence firm
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been absent from the media spotlight in recent times, ever since he contracted coronavirus.
And many are asking where the man at the helm of curtailing civil liberties on a federal level has been in the midst of the current pandemic.
The man at the helm of the surveillance state
Mr Dutton has been credited with proposing a wide range of laws designed to increase the power of authorities at the expense of individual liberties.
Among these, are proposed laws which would result in prison time for those who fail or refuse to hand over their passwords or PINs when requested to do so by authorities.
Peter Dutton says these types of laws are needed to help police catch criminals who are hiding behind encryption technology – a line we have heard many times before as the country’s law makers put in place draconian measures to grant police and other authorities surveillance powers that encroach upon our privacy.
Under the proposals, people who are not even suspected of a crime would face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years’ imprisonment for declining to provide a password to their smartphone, computer or other electronic devices.
Furthermore, anyone (an IT professional, for example) who refuses to help the authorities crack a computer system when ordered will face up to five years in prison. If the crime being investigated is terrorism-related then the penalty for non-compliance increases to 10 years in prison and/or a $126,000 fine.
Tech companies who refuse to assist authorities to crack encryption when asked to do so, will face up to $10 million in fines. What’s more, if any employee of the company tells anyone else they have been told to do this, they will face up to five years in gaol.
Under the legislation, foreign countries can also ask Australia’s Attorney General for police to access data in your computer to help them investigate law-breaking overseas.
Australia’s hyper-legislative response to September 11
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the Australian parliament has responded to the threat of terrorism here and overseas by enacting more than 80 new laws and amending existing laws – many of them with wide-reaching consequences, such as the terrorism laws used to conduct raids on journalist Annika Smethurst’s home and the ABC’s head offices, as well as charge former military lawyer and whistleblower David Mc Bride with offences that could see him spending the rest of his life in gaol.
Controversial metadata laws too, introduced in 2015, seriously impact our personal privacy requiring telecommunications companies to retain metadata including information on who you call or text, where you make calls from, and who you send emails to.
The problem is that once these kinds of extraordinarily heavy-handed powers are legislated, they are very seldom retracted or rescinded. In many cases, over time, they are expanded. Australia’s oversight body the Australian Law Reform Commission can review laws that are already in place, but it has limited powers which only enable the commission to make recommendations for change, not to actually change the laws themselves.
Police already have the power to seize a phone or laptop if you have been arrested.
Border Force has even more extensive seize and search powers.
The extensive powers of border force
In 2018, Border Force made headlines after intercepting an British-Australian citizen travelling through Sydney airport seizing his devices.
Nathan Hague, a software developer was not told what would be done with his devices, why they were being inspected or whether his digital data was being copied and stored. He believes his laptop password was cracked.
Australian Border Forces have extensive powers to search people’s baggage at Australian airports. These are contained in section 186 of Customs Act 1901 (Cth). These include opening baggage, reading documents, and using an X-ray or detection dog to search baggage.
The Customs Act allows officers to retain an electronic device for up to 14 days if there is no content on the device which renders it subject to seizure. And if it is subject to seizure, the device may be withheld for a longer period.
ABF officers have the power to copy a document if they’re satisfied it may contain information relevant to prohibited goods, to certain security matters or an offence against the Customs Act. A document includes information on phones, SIM cards, laptops, recording devices and computers.
Source: The New Daily – by Bruce Guthrie
Anyone who doubts Rupert Murdoch’s role in the political chaos that has played out in recent days has never worked for him at a senior level.
Murdoch’s annual visits to Australia invariably trigger seismic events both in and outside News Corp, the company he’s presided over for decades.
So is it any surprise that Malcolm Turnbull has lost his job less than a fortnight after Murdoch arrived here? Of course it isn’t.
Murdoch flew in on August 10 and set about doing what he always does: he attended the annual News Awards, which fete the company’s best and brightest journalists, conducted one-on-ones with his editors and then signed off on the inevitable promotions, demotions and executions of the company’s most senior staff.
(I once endured all three on one of his visits – surviving a relatively benign one-on-one with Murdoch, accepting a News Award and then getting sacked, all in a matter of days.)
For good measure Murdoch also attended the 75th birthday of the Institute of Public Affairs on Monday night and was interviewed on stage with former Liberal PM, John Howard, by one of the media tycoon’s preferred columnists, Janet Albrechtsen.
Throughout all this he would have been forming a view that Turnbull’s time was up – in fact, he probably arrived with that view – and then imparted that message to his editors.
He wouldn’t have had to tell his columnists or his TV commentators because they arrived at that view months ago and have been preaching it ad nauseum. Foremost here have been Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Peta Credlin.
They have been aided by an army of Sydney shock jocks, notably Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Paul Murray.
In the end it took just 11 days after Murdoch’s arrival to bring about a party room spill. It played out less than 24 hours after that IPA appearance.
While much of Tuesday’s party room drama was driven by Tony Abbott and his ultra-conservative cohorts, there were plenty of willing executioners within News Corp, its various arms and Sydney’s blowhard broadcasters.
Turnbull alluded to these internal and external agents of regime change at his extraordinary press conference on Thursday afternoon in Canberra.
“A minority in the party room, supported by others outside the parliament, have sought to bully, intimidate others into making this change of leadership,” he said.
He avoided specifics, but it was clear who he was referring to.
Channel Nine political editor Chris Uhlmann had made the same point on Thursday morning, telling Today viewers hours before the Turnbull press conference that “everyone from the PM down has pointed out to me that they believe there has been a campaign waged against them”.
Uhlmann went on: “We are talking about The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, tabloid newspapers around the country, 2GB in Sydney led by Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, and Sky News in particular with its evening line-up, are waging a war against the prime minister of Australia.”
He’s right, of course.
Predictably, the News Corp backlash was swift, with various operatives condemning Uhlmann’s comments as “disgusting” and “outrageous”. They should get out more often.
Journalists traditionally tread a fine line in leadership contests, forced to sift through leaks, whispers and background conversations when reporting a fast-moving story. On this occasion though, too many appeared to cross it. And most of those work for News Corp or its entities.
Their willingness to insert themselves into the story was a long, long way from traditional journalism’s demands of objectivity, fairness, balance and a genuine search for truth. I fear it won’t be a one-off either.
The front pages of the company’s tabloids were also firmly against Turnbull, the Herald Sun branding him “Dead Mal Walking” and the Courier-Mail welcoming candidate Dutton with “The Pete Is On”.
The choir was pretty clearly singing from the same song sheet. This is not entirely unexpected. As many have observed on this and other continents, Rupert has form in this regard.
Time and again it’s been shown that he likes to meddle in the politics of the countries his outlets operate in. Just last month The Washington Post reported that he talks with US President Donald Trump every day.
This week’s events and Murdoch’s role in them were another reminder that recent law changes have created media monsters that even prime ministers have reason to fear.
Turnbull has now paid with his job because on some level he failed Murdoch and his minions. The simplest explanation is he was perceived as just too liberal.
The real beneficiary of all this is Bill Shorten. But he shouldn’t dwell on his good fortune for too long.
That’s because the treatment of Turnbull by News Corp inevitably throws up this question: If Murdoch and Co will go to such lengths to oust a Liberal leader, what will they do to keep Labor from power?
Bruce Guthrie is co-founder of The New Daily and a former editor-in-chief of News Corp’s Melbourne newspaper, the Herald Sun.