From a writing that I published in 2015;
The state parliament of Western Australia, and, the federal parliament of Australia, do not provide democratic government, and the members of those parliaments, are not selected by democratic elections.
The only truly democratic (and, it also happens to be the simplest and most efficient) way of selecting members of parliaments, is for all members of each house of each parliament, to be selected by elections using only first past the post voting.
At present (as at September 2015), the method for selection of members of the lower house of each of these two parliaments, is by a corrupt and designed to be excessively complicated and excessively inefficient method of "election", where the winner is not the candidate who gets the most votes for the candidate, but is instead, the candidate who gets the least votes against the candidate. The method of "voting", in "elections", involves voting against people, rather than voting for people.
The way of selecting the members of the upper house of each of the state and federal parliaments, is simply too complicated to easily explain, and, too complicated for most people to understand. It is designed to prevent understanding, by the common people, so that the selection method can be rigged to install whoever the people in power, want installed, with the voting public, simply not understanding what is happening (apart from when thousands of ballot papers, get lost, then, when that is reported, we know that that has happened, and that yet another bodgy "election", has occurred).
And, of particular note, regarding the federal parliament of Australia, is the declaration by the then Chief Judge of the High Court Of Australia, Murray Gleeson, at The Ninth Lucinda Lecture, Monash University, 24 July 2001, "The Shape of Representative Democracy", where he said, of the Australian Constitution that the Constitution does not provide any right "that all voters can please themselves whether to vote and whom to vote for". So, as stated by the then Chief Judge of the High Court, the Australian people do not get to choose the members of the federal parliament of Australia. We do not get to elect them. We are prevented from having a democratically elected government.
And, as acknowledged by that Chief Judge of the High Court of Australia, regarding the "referendum" that gave "approval" for the Australian federal Constitution, women and Aborigines did not have suffrage - "bearing in mind the context in which the Constitution was framed. Most Australian women were not entitled to vote. No one was compelled to vote. Aboriginal Australians were not counted."
So, the Australian federal Constitution was not approved by a majority of the Australian people, by way of a referendum of all Australian people.
This, then, raises an interesting point.
Is the Australian Constitution legally valid?
A fundamental principle of law, applicable in Australia and in England, and, in the USA (upon the ideas of which, the Australian federal Constitution is claimed to be based), and, in many countries of the world, is the principle of natural justice, known as "audi alteram partem", which dates back over two thousand years, to a line in Seneca's Medea, which, translated, roughly means "If a decision is made, without hearing all of the parties to be affected by the decision, then, while the decision may have been right, the making of the decision, will not have been right", and, that principle has been applied, for hundreds of years, in courts in many countries, including constitutional courts, to rule decisions invalid in law.
So, as, clearly, the majority of the Australian people who would be affected by the Constitution, were not allowed to be heard (to vote either for or against), in the making of the decision as to whether the Constitution should be approved, the question arises; was the Australian federal Constitution, validly approved, and, therefore, is the Australian federal Constitution, legally valid?
If the legal validity of the Australian federal Constitution, is based on the premise that it was approved by a referendum of the Australian people, and, it was in fact, not approved by a majority of the Australian people, by a majority vote of the Australian people, then, the legal validity of the Australian federal Constitution, is questionable.
To be democratic, a parliament should comprise of a single chamber (or "house"), with only one member of that chamber, per electorate.
Therefore, neither the state parliament of Western Australia, nor the federal parliament of Australia, are democratic, nor are the members of each parliament, selected by democratic elections.
Neither can the voters sack either the member(s) of each parliament,
that are supposed to represent the constituencies of the voters, or,
the whole of each parliament, as is provided elsewhere, by means of Recall Elections (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
) ;
"
A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy and are a feature of several contemporary constitutions.
"
Neither do either the state parliament of the state of Western Australia, or, the federal parliament of the federation of Australia, via the respective constitutions, provide for Citizen Initiated Referenda, also known as Direct Citizens Initiatives. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative
;
"
In political science, an initiative (also known as a popular or citizens' initiative) is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote (plebiscite).
The initiative may take the form of a direct initiative or an indirect initiative. In a direct initiative, a measure is put directly to a vote after being submitted by a petition. In an indirect initiative, a measure is first referred to the legislature, and then put to a popular vote only if not enacted by the legislature.
The vote may be on a proposed statute, constitutional amendment, charter amendment or local ordinance, or to simply oblige the executive or legislature to consider the subject by submitting it to the order of the day. It is a form of direct democracy.
"
From http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/AustConstSec44.html , with that web page last updated 21 April; 2010;
"
Section 44 of The Australian Constitution, states:
Section 44 -
"44. Any person who -
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. "
Thus, Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution Act, excludes people holding dual citizenship, from being elected to the federal parliament.
Is that an electoral fraud - forcing people to vote, in elections in which we are ineligible to nominate?
It is certainly, anti-democratic, as there is no way that we are represented in the federal parliament, for which we are forbidden from nominating.
Think about it...
As stated in the New Zealand Electoral Act 1993, as shown at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM307519.html?search=ts_act_electoral_resel&sr=1 ;
Section 47;
"47 Registered electors may be members, unless disqualified
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament, whether for that electoral district, any other electoral district or as a consequence of the inclusion of that person's name in a party list submitted pursuant to section 127.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), if a person is disqualified for registration as an elector, that person shall not be qualified to be a candidate or to be elected.
(3) Regardless of anything in subsection (1), a person is not qualified to be a candidate or to be elected unless he or she is a New Zealand citizen.
Compare: 1956 No 107 s 25; 1981 No 120 s 9(1)
Section 47(3): substituted, on 1 February 2003, by section 8(1) of the Electoral Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 1)."
Section 55AA;
Despite section 55(1)(b) and (c), the seat of a member of Parliament does not become vacant by reason only of the member-
(a) becoming a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power, or entitled to the rights, privileges, or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power, by reason only of the member's-
(i) country or place of birth; or
(ii) descent; or
(b) renewing a passport or travel document that was issued to him or her by a foreign State or Power before the member took office.
Section 55AA: inserted, on 18 September 2005, by section 6 of the Electoral Amendment Act 2004 (2004 No 99)."
Thus, the New Zealand Electoral Act 1993, allows people holding dual citizenship to be elected to parliament, and, to hold office as a member of parliament, unless the person takes out additional foreign citizenship whilst a member of parliament, with some exceptions where the taking out of additional foreign citizenship while a member of parliament, is allowed.
It is simple - the Australian Constitution is racist, and violates human rights (which is the policy of the major parties in the Australian parliaments), and, New Zealand has the simple solution.
This is just one of the reasons that Australia needs a Declaration Of Human Rights, to which ALL Australian legislation, including the Australian Constitution is subject.
"
At
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Media Release12014-15
(on the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site)
as viewed on 12 July 2016, was
"
The proportion of Australians who were born overseas has hit its highest point in over 120 years, with 28 per cent of Australia's population born overseas, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
"Australia has traditionally had a high proportion of migrants, but we've now hit a peak not seen since the late 1800s," said Beidar Cho from the ABS.
The percentage of Australian residents born overseas has increased every year for the last 15 years.
"
Now, that shows a couple of quite significant aspects; the first, is that the composition of Australians, has changed considerably, since federation (when the Australian federal constitution was first implemented), and so, the Australian federal constitution needs to be amended, to provide for the changing composition of Australians, secondly, that the composition of Australians, has changed considerably, in "the last 15 years", and, therefore, since the recommendation of the committee below, and, therefore, thirdly, that at least 28%, with the proportion progressively increasing, of Australian citizens, are being deliberately made victims of discrimination, and, being deliberately denied representation in the federal parliament, by the self-absorbed and self-centred, closed shop members of the Australian federal parliament, as shown in the part that follows, regarding the parliamentary committee's review of the applicable section of the Australian federal Constitution.
This is added on 2019-02-25, due to a significant aspect, which aggravates the problem. A person having or being entitled to dual citizenship, is not limited to the person being born outside Australia; a person having or being entitled to dual citizenship, includes people who have one or more parents and/or grandparents, who have citizenship other than Australian. A simple example, is, I believe that Irish citizenship is automatic, for any person who has at least one grandparent, who has Irish citizenship.
So, the big question, in this regard, is; how many Australian citizens have additional overseas citizenship(s), due, not only to the case of being born overseas, but, also, in the cases where citizenship and/or entitlement to foreign citizenship, is hereditary?
It is less that 60% of Australian citizens?
Therefore, what is the small (less than half) proportion of Australians, who are allowed by the constitution, to stand for, and, be, members of the federal parliament (apart from the frauds, who nominate and take up office in the parliament, knowing that they are not elgible, and, that they can get away with it)?
This is critical information, that needs to be quamtified as soon as possible.
And, in the course of the 2016 Australian federal parliamentary election campaign, when asked about the prospect of the Australian federal Constitution being changed to allow people with dual citizenship, to stand for, and hold, office in the Australian federal parliament, the campaign manager for a local Labor Party candidate, told me that people with dual citizenship, should not be allowed to vote, let alone stand for the parliament, which policy statement was upheld by the federal headquarters of the Australian Labor Party.
At
http://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm
as viewed on 12 June 2016, was
"
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was given a reference in late 1996 to inquire into and report on the operation of subsections 44(i) and (iv) of the Constitution, including the exceptions to subsection 44(iv). The Committee was also asked to inquire into and report on action to address any identified problems, including constitutional amendment, legislative change and administrative action.
The Committee received 37 written submissions, including two from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and conducted seven public hearings in, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, over a period of two months. The Report, entitled "Aspects of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution" was tabled on 25 August 1997 in the House of Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Kevin Andrews MP.
"
and
"
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that a referendum be held to make the following changes to the constitution:
delete subsection 44(i).
insert a new provision requiring candidates and members of parliament to be Australian citizens.
"
The response to that committee's recommendation, by the self-serving members of the Australian federal parliament, has been to deliberately prevent a significant proportion of Australians, from being represented in the Australian federal parliament.
It is conspicuous that the Australian federal parliament, in keeping itself as a closed shop, being "government by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful", and, keeping people who are required to vote in federal elections, from nominating as candidates in federal elections, has not, after 19 years, put a question to the Australian voters, by referendum, as to whether section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, should be deleted or modified.
I believe that the federal parliament is under an obligation to the Australian voting public, to put to the Australian voters, by way of a constitutional referendum, the question:
"Should section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, be changed from
"Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power: or"
to
"Who applies for and/or obtains citizenship of any foreign power after nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or who otherwise pledges allegiance to any foreign power after nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or otherwise applies for or holds any citizenship that is not declared on the person's nomination as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or who has an undetermined application for citizenship of any foreign power as at the time of nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or"
thus allowing people who have dual citizenship, providing all citizenships held, are declared at the the time of nominating as a candidate in a federal election, to nominate as candidates in federal elections, and to hold office as members of the parliament, if elected, but, prohibiting applying for or taking on, any additional citizenships, after nominating as a candidate, and, if elected, while holding office as a member of the federal parliament.
If people are not allowed to vote in elections for a parliament, or, are not allowed to stand as candidates in elections for the parliament, then they are not represented in the parliament. Both entitlements are required, to ensure representation in the legislature.
And, as the proverb says, "Taxation without representation, is tyranny".
At
http://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm
as viewed on 12 June 2016, was
"
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was given a reference in late 1996 to inquire into and report on the operation of subsections 44(i) and (iv) of the Constitution, including the exceptions to subsection 44(iv). The Committee was also asked to inquire into and report on action to address any identified problems, including constitutional amendment, legislative change and administrative action.
The Committee received 37 written submissions, including two from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and conducted seven public hearings in, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, over a period of two months. The Report, entitled "Aspects of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution" was tabled on 25 August 1997 in the House of Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Kevin Andrews MP.
"
and
"
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that a referendum be held to make the following changes to the constitution:
delete subsection 44(i).
insert a new provision requiring candidates and members of parliament to be Australian citizens.
"
It is conspicuous that the Australian federal parliament, in keeping itself as a closed shop, being "government by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful", and, keeping people who are required to vote in federal elections, from nominating as candidates in federal elections, has not, after 19 years, put a question to the Australian voters, by referendum, as to whether section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, should be deleted or modified.
I believe that the federal parliament is under an obligation to the Australian voting public, to put to the Australian voters, by way of a constitutional referendum, the question:
"Should section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, be changed from
"Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power: or"
to
"Who applies for and/or obtains citizenship of any foreign power after nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or who otherwise pledges allegiance to any foreign power after nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or otherwise applies for or holds any citizenship that is not declared on the person's nomination as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or who has an undetermined application for citizenship of any foreign power as at the time of nominating as a candidate in the election in which the person seeks office as a member of the parliament, or"
thus allowing people who have dual citizenship, providing all citizenships held, are declared at the the time of nominating as a candidate in a federal election, to nominate as candidates in federal elections, and to hold office as members of the parliament, if elected, but, prohibiting applying for or taking on, any additional citizenships, after nominating as a candidate, and, if elected, while holding office as a member of the federal parliament.
Searching the World Wide Web, using the term "Taxation without representation is tyranny", produces, amongst the results, the result
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
which included, as viewed at 1340WST (UTC+0800) on 2017-10-05,
"
"No Taxation Without Representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed that, as they were not directly represented in the distant British Parliament, any laws it passed affecting the colonists (such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act) were illegal under the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.
Jonathan Mayhew, Old West Church's second Congregational pastor, used the phrase, "No Taxation Without Representation" in a sermon in 1750. The phrase revives a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War following the refusal of parliamentarian John Hampden to pay ship money tax. "No Taxation Without Representation," in the context of British American Colonial taxation, appeared for the first time in the February 1768 London Magazine headline, on page 89, in the printing of Lord Camden's "Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies."
Prior to the American Revolution
The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660. By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament initially contended that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea "found little support on either side of the Atlantic". John Dunmore Lang wrote in 1852, "The person who first suggested the idea [of Parliamentary representation for the colonies] appears to have been Oldmixon, an American annalist of the era of Queen Anne or George I. It was afterwards put forward with approbation by the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, and advocated for a time, but afterwards rejected and strongly opposed, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin."
The eloquent 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance objecting to taxation, written by the Virginia House of Burgesses and endorsed by every other Colony, was sent to the British Government, which seems to have ignored it.
American Revolution
Main article: American Revolution
The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland. By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750-1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, taxation, self-governance and representation.
Representative proposals before 1776
In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.
"
So, we, the Australians who have citizenship(s) in addition to Australian citizenship, regarded as being at least a quarter of the population of Australia, in being prohibited from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, are clearly, not represented in the Australia federal parliament, and, as stated above, "taxation without representation is tyranny.".
And, from the above article;
"
The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660. By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.
"
comes the interesting question - on that basis, since Australian federal taxes apply also to Australians who have citizenship(s) in addition to Australian citizenship, who have no representation in the Australian federal parliament, is s44(i) of the Australia federal Constitution, legal, without exempting every Australian citizen who is disqualified from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, from all federal taxes?
Hmmm... That could be an interesting question for constitutional law students to explore. After all, at the time of the Australian federal constitution being written, and, when the Australian federal Constitution was put to both the parliament of England and to the provisional federal parliament of Australia, "The English Bill of Rights 1689", would have applied, would it not? And, therefore, for Australia citizens disqualified from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, by virtue of s44, with "no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.", as, all Australians were "Englishmen", at the time of the creation and implementation of the Australian federal Constitution.
From the Australian federal Constitution Act, and the Australian Federal Electoral Act 1918, we have the following.
"
The term of service of a senator for a Territory commences on the day of his or her election and expires at the close of the day immediately before the polling day for the next general election.
"
(That should apply equally, to ALL members of the Australian federal senate, and, to ALL members of the Australian federal parliament)
"
An election of the senators for each Territory shall be held at the same time as each general election.
"
(That should also, apply equally, to ALL members of the Australian federal senate, and, to ALL members of the Australian federal parliament)
"
Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.
"
The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.
But until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate.
Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.
The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor to the Governor-General.
"
(s07 of the Constitution, significantly, does not provide for senators for the Northern Territory and for the Australian Capital Territory which, thence, have senators that are not authorised by the Constitution.)
"The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.
Times and places [ see Note 6]
The Parliament of a State may make laws for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.
"
As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of the third year three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of the sixth year six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.
The election to fill vacant places shall be made in the year at the expiration of which within one year before the places are to become vacant.
For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of January July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of January July preceding the day of his election.
"
(s13 of the Constitution makes quite clear, that the members of the senate, are not equal - the senators for the states, have "rotating" six year terms, whereas the senators for the NT and the ACT, are limited to, at most, three year terms, expiring with the term of the lower house, so indicating the people of the NT and the ACT, and, their senators, to be lower in class, than those of the states.)
"
Whenever the number of senators for a State is increased or diminished, the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make such provision for the vacating of the places of senators for the State as it deems necessary to maintain regularity in the rotation.
"
If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the State is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.
Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.
Where:
(a) in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and
(b) before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party (otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist);
he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one of this Constitution.
If the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State at the election of senators last held before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 became vacant before that commencement and, at that commencement, no person chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of the State, or appointed by the Governor of the State, in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, held office, this section applies as if the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had become vacant after that commencement.
A senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 , being a senator appointed by the Governor of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State, shall be deemed to have been appointed to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State that commenced or commences after he was appointed and further action under this section shall be taken as if the vacancy in the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had occurred after that commencement.
Subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office until the expiration of the term of service of the senator elected by the people of the State.
If, at or before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 , a law to alter the Constitution entitled " Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977 " came into operation, a senator holding office at the commencement of that law who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office:
(a) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight--until the expiration or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation; or
(b) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and eighty-one--until the expiration or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, until that dissolution.
"
Whenever a vacancy happens in the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall issue his writ for the election of a new member, or if there is no Speaker or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the Governor-General in Council may issue the writ.
"
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.
"
Subject to this Constitution, the Parliament may make laws for increasing or diminishing the number of the members of the House of Representatives.
"
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
"
Now, I contend that those sections of the Australian federal Constitution Act, should be changed, via referendum, as is required by the Constitution, so as to start to introduce a degree of democracy and accountability into the Australian federal parliament, and so should any affected other sections of the Constitution, be changed, and, other affected legislation, be changed, to accommodate the changes defined as follows.
(a) The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State and Territory, directly chosen by the people of the respective State or Territory.
(b) Each State and Territory shall be divided into senatorial divisions, with each senatorial division within each State or Territory, being of as close as practicably possible to the number of electors for each state or territory, divided by the number of senators for the respective state or territory, and each senatorial division of each state and territory shall elect one senator.
(c) Until otherwise provided by this Constitution, with such change being by way of amendment to this Constitution, there shall be twelve senators for each state, and, two senators for each of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory..
(d) The term of service of each senator commences on the day of his or her election and expires at the close of the day immediately before the polling day for the next general election.
"
The method of election of senators shall be the same as for members of the House Of Representatives.
"
Whenever a vacancy happens in the Senate, the President of the Senate shall issue his writ for the election of a new member, or if there is no President of the Senate or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the Governor-General in Council may issue the writ.
"
The number of members of the House of Representatives shall be changed only by Constitutional Amendment, the process for which, being as provided in this Constitution.
"
Any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the High Court of Australia, with that court sitting as the federal Court of Disputed Returns, in the case of a disputed election.
"
(a) Each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive a base salary of twice the median income for all residents in Australia who are of at least the voting age, the base salary to be reckoned from the day on which he or she takes his or her seat. The base salary rate shall be published and provided to each elector, at the commencement of each financial year.
(b) All ex-officio increments to the base salary, shall be indexed to the base salary, and the rates of the indexed increments shall be published and provided to each elector, at the commencement of each financial year.
(c) Upon termination of membership of either House of the Parliament, whether by resignation or otherwise, a member shall have the same entitlements relating to the base salary in effect at the time of the termination, as a member of the public, receiving the minimum wage, relative to the minimum wage, and, no more than that; unless the member was not eligible to have been a member of either House of the parliament, in which case, the member shall have no entitlements resulting from being a member of either House of the parliament.
"
In the lower house of the Australian federal parliament, and, in the lower house of most of the Australian subordinate parliaments (the states and territories), the members are "elected" by what is named "the two party preferential system".
This involves two corrupt and anti-democratic aspects.
The first such aspect, is that, in order to cast a valid vote, the victim/voter is required to mark all of the boxes; vote for ALL of the candidates, using sequential numbering. So, even if the victim/voter regards the candidates for the two major party coalitions, as absolute crooks, who should be summarily executed for their corruption, the victim/voter is required, by law, to vote for them, in order to cast a valid vote for a rival candidate. That requirement is corrupt, and, anti-democratic - forcing people to vote for candidates for whom they do not want to vote, in order to cast a valid vote for a candidate for whom they do want to vote. But, elections and parliaments and governments in Australia, are, by nature, corrupt, so that is just part of the corruption and the prohibition of democracy, and, that is why the elections, the parliaments, and, the governments, are run by gangsters.
The second such aspect, is that, however a victim/voter votes, the candidate who gets the most votes, does not necessarily win the election, due to the rigging. As a good example, in 2018, a by-election for the lower house federal seat of Wentworth, was held, due to the resignation from the parliament, of the ousted prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who had been the victim of a treacherous coup within his political party - The Day Of The Long Knives. On about 20 October 2018, was the polling day for the by-election. The final counts were published at
https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-22844-152.htm
and at
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-20/kerryn-phelps-wins-wentworth-by-election-in-historic-result/10400270
which both showed, as viewed at 0325WST (UTC+0800) on 2017-11-26,
that the Independent candidate Kerryn Phelps won the by-election, and that she defeated the Liberal Party candidate Dave Sharma, with the respective percentages of the "First Preferences" - in other words, the percentages of the vote, being 29.2% and 43.1%.
What that means, is that the candidate who won the most votes, lost to the person who got only (29.2/43.1 =) 67.7% as many votes. So, the loser got almost 50% more votes than the person who was declared the winner.
And, then, we have the exemplary case of Ricky Muir's election to the Australian federal senate.
At
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir
which showed, as viewed at 1650WST (UTC+0800) on 2017-11-26,
was
"
2013 election
Muir represented AMEP in Victoria at the 2013 federal election and won on a record-low primary vote of 0.51 percent or 17,122 first preferences (coming 13th out of 34 groups), getting to the 14.3 percent quota from 23 group voting ticket party preferences: Bank Reform Party, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, HEMP Party, Shooters and Fishers, Australian Stable Population Party, Senator Online, Building Australia Party, Family First Party, Bullet Train For Australia, Rise Up Australia Party, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, Citizens Electoral Council, Palmer United Party, Democratic Labour Party, Katter's Australian Party, Socialist Equality Party, Australian Sex Party, Australian Voice Party, Wikileaks Party, Drug Law Reform, Stop CSG, Animal Justice Party, and the Australian Independents Party. The previous record for the lowest successful primary Senate vote for a party's lead candidate was held by the Nuclear Disarmament Party's Robert Wood who polled 1.5 percent in New South Wales in 1987, a double dissolution election.
"
Gangster politics - elections run by gangsters, to put gangsters in power, to benefit gangsters, and, to represent only the interests of gangsters. Such is Australian government, and, Australian parliaments.
It is just more of the corruption that is government and elections in Australia, and, it is why First Past The Post voting in all elections, needs to be embedded in the constitution of each jurisdiction, as the only method of selecting every member of each legislature. And, the Australian federal constitution, and the constitution of each state and territory, needs to be approved by the voters of each respective jurisdiction, and, each constitution also needs to include that it can only be changed by a constitutional referendum of all of the voters in the respective constitution, unlike the corrupt Western Australian state constitution, which can be changed at the whim of the governing political party, with the public being the victims, and, being prohibited from having any say in the constitution to which they are subject.
Otherwise, as exists now, corruption prevails, at every level of government in Australia.
At
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-24/the-liberal-mps-that-sparked-the-spill/10161660
as viewed at 0402WST (UTC+0800)on 2017-11-26,
was the list of the treacherous federal Liberal Party members who stuck their knives in the back of the prime minister elected by the Australian voters;
"
1. Andrew Hastie
2. Tony Pasin
3. Sussan Ley
4. Craig Kelly
5. Michael Sukkar
6. Kevin Andrews
7. Tony Abbott
8. Ian Goodenough
9. Nicolle Flint
10. Peter Dutton
11. Amanda Stoker
12. Jonathon Duniam
13. David Bushby
14. James Paterson
15. Eric Abetz
16. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
17. James McGrath
18. Jim Molan
19. Slade Brockman
20. Dean Smith
21. Jane Hume
22. Mitch Fifield
23. John McVeigh
24. David Fawcett
25. Mathias Cormann
26. Michaelia Cash
27. Karen Andrews ("because this has to be resolved")
28. Greg Hunt
29. Steven Ciobo
30. Angus Taylor
31. Alan Tudge
32. Michael Keenan
33. Andrew Wallace
34. Scott Buchholz ("I support the office of the Prime Minister")
35. Jason Wood
36. Ross Vasta
37. Luke Howarth
38. Rick Wilson
39. Ted O'Brien
40. Zed Seselja
41. Andrew Laming
42. Ben Morton
43. Warren Entsch ("for Brendan Nelson")
"
Now, from that list, the senators for Western Australia, are
"
19. Slade Brockman
20. Dean Smith
25. Mathias Cormann
26. Michaelia Cash
"
who are four of the five Liberal Party senators for Western Australia (the fifth, is Linda Reynolds, who will probably lose her seat, because of what those four did, in their treachery).
Of those four senators, one; Slade Brockman, faces an election (he was not elected to his senate seat - due to the corruption in the way of government, he got the senate seat without having to face an election - part of the corruption of the parliament) before the end of May 2019 - his current term of office, expires 30 June 2019. But, the other three of those four treacherous senators, are safe in their jobs, until 30 June 2022 - another three years after June 2019.
Because the Australian federal constitution, with its anti-democratic nature (remember, it has NEVER been approved by the Australian people), does not provide for recall elections, we, the people, are prohibited from sacking delinquent members of the parliament, and, because of the shonky way that the terms of office, are designed, we can not even vote them out, at the next federal election. Corruption prevails, and, apart from being immune from the laws that apply to the common people, being a member of parliament, protects delinquents from being sacked by the people - the employer.
This is yet another justification, for both recall elections to be provided for all members of parliaments, so that the people can sack delinquent members of parliaments, and, yet another justification, for, as I have proposed above, Section 7 of the federal constitution of Australia, should be changed to incorporate the changed section 7(d) that I have proposed above.
The corruption and the lack of accountability, of members of the federal parliament of Australia, need to end.
And, the status of the Australian federal parliament, as the most powerful criminal organisation in Australia, needs to end
This involves the criminal acts committed in the treacherous coup against Malcolm Turnbull (apart from the act of treason).
This relates to the standover tactics, involving coercion, used by the Dutton conspiracy, against members of the government.
At
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-07/nasty-tactics-dutton-backers-liberal-spill-revealed/10212110
as viewed at 0430WST (UTC+0800)on 2017-11-26,
was
"
Fresh details have emerged about the "nasty" standover tactics employed by some of the Liberal "insurgents" as they tried to build support for Peter Dutton during their failed leadership coup last month.
Sources have told the ABC that during the "horrible, bruising week", Mr Dutton's backers would enter colleagues' offices uninvited, and sometimes first thing in the morning, and refuse to leave unless they signed the petition to bring on a spill.
One MP said it was only after a "terse exchange" that their colleague agreed to leave.
But that pressure continued on the floor of Parliament where Mr Dutton's supporters would target MPs during divisions and try and force them to add their name to the petition.
"
"
Some Liberal Party members were forced to show their secret ballots to prove which way they had voted
"
"
The ABC understands Liberals were also told their preselection would be at risk unless they backed Mr Dutton's challenge and, on the day of the spill, were pressured to show their - supposedly - secret ballot paper to another MP to prove which way they had voted.
One MP told the ABC that a specific colleague had been assigned to check their ballot inside the party-room meeting on the Friday.
"
"
In the fallout from the torrid affair, Victorian Liberal MP Julia Banks announced she would quit at the next election following the "bullying and intimidation" she faced, while her Upper House colleague Lucy Gichuhi has threatened to name and shame the worst of the culprits.
"
"
Other female MPs including Sarah Henderson and Linda Reynolds are also understood to have faced pressure during the tussle over the top job.
"
"
Adding some weight to the claims, Minister for Women Kelly O'Dwyer said she had spoken to both male and female MPs and that "it is clear to me that people were subject to threats and intimidation and bullying".
"
Now, in the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995, we have
"
139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:
(a) the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b) the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
(i) the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) any influence the official has in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) obtaining a gain; or
(ii) causing a loss; or
(iii) influencing another Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the other official's duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years.
"
and, in the Dictionary of that Criminal Code Act, is
"
"Commonwealth public official" means:
(a) the Governor-General; or
(b) a person appointed to administer the Government of the Commonwealth under section 4 of the Constitution; or
(c) a Minister; or
(d) a Parliamentary Secretary; or
(e) a member of either House of the Parliament; or
"
and, members of the current Australian federal government, used defined offences of s139.2, to overthrow a legal government of Australia, in an act or treason and terrorism, so, Australia has a federal government by terrorism and standover tactics, both used by members of the government, against members of the government, in acts of treason.
And, apart from the Dutton treachery conspiracy, we have the question of Dutton's eligibility to be a member of the federal parliament.
At
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-24/dutton-legal-advice-clears-path-for-pm-bid/10159702
as viewed at 1640WST (UTC+0800) on 2017-11-26,
was
"
Legal advice prepared by the Government's most senior lawyer has appeared to back Peter Dutton's eligibility to sit in Parliament - but it is not clear cut.
Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue's advice said Mr Dutton was "not incapable" of remaining in Parliament.
It states an "agreement" between childcare centres linked to Mr Dutton and the Commonwealth - which would be required to trigger a breach of the Constitution - does not exist.
However, the Solicitor-General also issued the warning that Mr Dutton's case was different to any case the High Court has heard before, that there may be further facts he has not been briefed on, and that the bench has differed on its interpretation of the constitution before.
"I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests," the advice states.
It also notes that the Solicitor-General had access to "very little factual information".
"
and
"
"While I consider the position summarised above to represent the better view, it is impossible to state the position with certainty," it reads.
"
and
"
Dean of law at the University of New South Wales and constitutional expert George Williams said it was likely Mr Dutton is eligible but the matter could only be resolved by the High Court.
"It is more likely that Peter Dutton is not disqualified, but this cannot be stated with certainty," he posted on Twitter.
"As the Solicitor-General says, there is a risk he is in breach of section 44.
"Only the High Court can resolve this cloud of doubt."
Earlier on Friday morning, Sydney University's Anne Twomey flagged that legal advice backing Mr Dutton's eligibility might not be enough to resolve the situation.
"
And at
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/06/peter-duttons-eligibility-in-doubt-over-special-needs-teacher-deal-labor-says
as viewed at 1650WST (UTC+0800) on 2017-11-26,
was
"On 23 August the House voted 69 votes to 68 not to refer Dutton to the court, despite four crossbench MPs Adam Bandt, Rebekha Sharkie, Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie voting with Labor to refer.",
so, with the LNP having lost Wentworth to Kerryn Phelps, what happens now?
Will the ALP put the question to the lower house, again, for referral to the High Court?
Or, will the lower house continue to protect its own, against the law?
And, if Dutton is ineligible to be a member of the federal parliament of Australia, does that make the coup, that overthrew the prime ministership of Malcolm Turnbull, invalid, thus resulting in Australia not having a legal prime minister?
And, does that make his malicious deportations that he did without due process of law, invalid?
Unfortunately, to protect the criminality of the Australian federal parliament, the High Court of Australia; the constitutional court of Australia, has effectively said "To hell with the constitution and the electoral laws - we give the federal government of the day, absolute power in determining whose eligibility to be a member of the parliament, gets challenged.".
So, the federal government of the day, and, its collaborators, get to protect their members from the law.
The constitution needs to be changed, so that the eligibility of members of the federal parliament, can be challenged in court, without their criminal membership of the parliament, being protected by the criminal houses of the parliament.
And, the constitution needs to be changed, so that people who are, and/or have been, members of the parliament, while being ineligible for membership of the parliament, are required to repay all benefits received as ineligible members of the parliament, and, treated the same as social security beneficiaries who obtain benefits from making false declarations - prosecuted, convicted, and, imprisoned, with all resultant assets, forfeited.
It is time that a criminal investigation of the actions of the federal government, is held, and, no member of the Australian federal parliament, should be, as they appear to now be, immune from the laws that apply to the common people, and, they especially, should no longer be, as they appear now to be, immune from responsibility and liability for their crimes that they commit while in office.
In the meantime, the federal parliament of Australia, is simply the most powerful criminal organisation in Australia, and, remains to be known as such.
Whereby the Treachery Party shows its true colours
After Malcolm Turnbull was deposed by his treacherous colleagues ("Yes, I support him. Here is the long knife I will stick in his back, when he feels safe"), a leadership ballot was held.
The Leadership ballot involved three contenders - Dutton, from Queensland - the assassin (remarkably like Voldemort - both in appearance and nature) ("We WILL deport Aborigines from Australia, to ensure the Master Race stays pure"), Morrison, from NSW - wishy-washy, erratic, and, an apparent member of the Dirty Dutton Gang, and, the White Australian Supremacist Bigot Fuehrer ("Any local government in Australian that refuses to celebrate the glorious invasion of Australia, and, the glorious attempt to exterminate Aborigines, by the local government not holding Australian citizenship ceremonies on Invasion Day, will be prohibited from holding any Australian citizenship ceremonies, as such local governments are clearly not honouring the Master Race"), and, Bishop - Julie Bishop from Western Australia - the most popular member of the feral parliamentary "Liberal" Party, and, the person most likely to win the upcoming feral election, if leading the "Liberal" Party.
At
https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Julie-Bishop-on-leadership-women-and-her-future
as viewed at 1930 (UTC+0800) on 2019-02-25, was
"
Ms Bishop said it had been 70 years since the country had had a Western Australian as prime minister, and that it was important for the state to have representation in the leadership team because it was the key driver of the national economy.
She said that people were still struggling to justify why former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was removed as leader.
"
However, it IS the Treachery Party.
Of the members from Western Australia, of the feral parliamentary "Liberal" party, the reports show that none supported Julie Bishop - the Western Australian members made it clear, that they opposed any Western Australian, from becoming prime minister, and, that they opposed any female from becoming prime minister, regardless of the merits of the person becoming prime minister. And, Julie Bishop was regarded as the one and only person, who could win an election and form a "Liberal" party feral government, if she would be leader of the party.
At
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/26/julie-bishops-leadership-bid-scuppered-by-colleagues-messages-show
as viewed at 1930 (UTC+0800) on 2019-02-25, was
"
Julie Bishop's attempt to become leader of the federal Liberal party during last week's leadership spill was deliberately thwarted by her colleagues.
"
At
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/wa-mps-ignore-julie-bishop-bid-for-leadership-as-majority-backed-peter-dutton-ng-b88938997z
as viewed at 1930 (UTC+0800) on 2019-02-25, was
"
Julie Bishop believes not a single WA Liberal MP backed her bid to become the State's first prime minister since John Curtin.
Most of the WA branch's Federal representatives voted to elevate former Queensland cop Peter Dutton to the party's leadership, while the rest are believed to have thrown their support behind Scott Morrison.
"
and, on that web page, was
Now, of all of the WA senators listed, only one (Linda Reynolds - "Undisclosed"), is not shown as having voted for Voldemort (Dutton). But, it is not shown that she voted for Julie Bishop, so, she appears likely to have voted for Morrison, in the first round, having voted for him in the second round.
Of the Dirty Dutton Gang of WA senators, three - the most rabid two - Cash and Corman, are protected from backlash from WA voters, for their treachery (and, their otherwise gross misconduct, including corruption), as they are protected in their jobs, for at least another three years, as they are not due to face another election, until 2022.
So, crooked senators are protected from accountability to their electorate.
This is one of the reasons that the bodgy federal constitution needs to be changed, to protect the voting public, from dodgy members of the senate, by making the term of office of all members of the senate, expire when the terms of office, of the members of the lower house of the feral parliament expire, like the senators for the ACT and the NT, as mentioned above.
And, it is also why, when members of the parliament maliciously and deliberately, act against the interests and wishes of their constituents, provision should be available, in the constitution, for the people who are supposed to be the employers of the members of the legislature, to dismiss them, by way of recall elections.
Which is why the bodgy federal constitution of Australia (remember - it has NEVER been approved by the people of Australia) needs to be changed, so that it is a constitution to provide government of the people, BY the people, and, no longer, government by gangsters - the most powerful crooks in Australia.
Note - regarding the rabid opposition of Australia's LNP, to having a female prime minister;
AtAnd, if you read this web page, before you vote in the 2019 Australian federal election, ask yourself whether it is better to vote for a party that has the nature of slitting throats while people sleep, believing themselves to be safe in their beds, or, for a candidate (if you can find one), that stands for a clean, safe, and, healthy, future, for you, and your relatives, and their descendants (if the LNP has not killed everyone).
At
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-25/roc-staffer-gives-evidence-to-awu-hearing/10846572
as viewed at 2220 (UTC+0800) on 2019-02-25, was
"
A former media adviser to the Registered Organisations Commission (ROC) has denied he was the source of a leak about police raids on the Australian Workers' Union in October 2017.
Mark Lee is giving evidence on the seventh day of a civil case brought by the union seeking to stop an investigation into donations made by the union to GetUp! in 2006, when Opposition Leader Bill Shorten headed the AWU.
The court has heard the media was tipped off to the raids by the office of then employment minister Michaelia Cash, and were waiting for the AFP to arrive at the AWU's offices in Sydney and Melbourne at around 4:00pm on October 24, 2017.
Last week Senator Cash's former chief of staff Ben Davies named Mr Lee as the source of the information about the raids.
But today Mr Lee repeatedly denied he was responsible and told the court he did not talk to anyone in Senator Cash's office about the raid.
"I didn't know the warrants were going to be issued. I didn't know the raids were imminent," Mr Lee told the court.
"It couldn't have been me."
Lee rejected job in minister's office after raids
The week before the raids Mr Lee had accepted a job as media adviser in Senator Cash's office.
The court was taken through telephone records and emails between Mr Lee and members of Senator Cash's office.
"
and
"
The court heard after he was referred to in Senate estimates as being involved, he decide not to take up the position.
"I felt I was already part of the story," Mr Lee said.
"The next part of the story would be amplified if I was to take the position in the minister's office."
The union is seeking to stop the investigation into 2006 donations to GetUp!, claiming the probe was politically motivated.
"We contend the Registered Organisations Commission was involved in furthering the political purpose of the minister," AWUs lawyer Herman Borenstein, QC, said.
"
Corruption, corruption, and, more corruption.
So, why can we, the electorate, not dismiss delinquent members of the parliament, with the dismissals for misconduct, involving forfeiture of benefits, in the same way that employers in the private sector, can dismiss employees for misconduct, with loss of benefits?
Because corruption prevails, and, the members of the parliament, are protected from accountability.
So, we need the proposed changes to the constitution, to end the corruption, and, to start Australia on its way to democracy - "government of the people, by the people, for the people"; NOT government by gangsters, for gangsters.
This web page is authorised and published by Bret Busby, 2 Pelham Street, Armadale, Western Australia.
I can be contacted by email, regarding this web page by clicking on the link at Bret
This web page was last updated on 25 February, 2019.