open24hours posted:

What happens if the guy actually is ineligible?

open24hours posted:

What happens if the guy actually is ineligible?

norp posted:

It would be absolutely hilarious if the wa Libs decided to put a liberal senator in instead as their parting blow before the state election.

MiniSune posted:

Nah ever since that whole 1975 thing, they have to be from the same party.

Gorbash posted:

Via @pollytics, I give you Senator Elect Malcolm Roberts:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25780781/from-what-i-malcolm-ieuan-roberts-have-seen-galileo-movement

It's going to be a long three to six years

Gorbash posted:

Via @pollytics, I give you Senator Elect Malcolm Roberts:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25780781/from-what-i-malcolm-ieuan-roberts-have-seen-galileo-movement

It's going to be a long three to six years

Solemn Sloth posted:

Was this actually made into law?

Gorbash posted:

Via @pollytics, I give you Senator Elect Malcolm Roberts:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25780781/from-what-i-malcolm-ieuan-roberts-have-seen-galileo-movement

It's going to be a long three to six years

Zenithe posted:

Can someone explain what is going on, or is it all just pages of just as crazy.

Zenithe posted:

Can someone explain what is going on, or is it all just pages of just as crazy.

MissEchelon posted:

Today was also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children's Day, so good job Bill Leak you Murdoch toady.

Here's Pope's response:

SMH posted:

When Malcolm Turnbull made his stirring not-victory speech on the night of the election, he made very, very, very clear that changing the senate ballot immediately before calling a double dissolution election was absolutely not intended in any way to clear out the senate crossbench about which he'd been complaining for the previous eight months.

"Now, I want to also address a matter that I know has been raised earlier today or this evening about the calling of the double-dissolution election," he explained not-at-all defensively. "That was not a political tactic. It was not designed to remove senators or get a new Senate because new senators are better than old senators or whatever."

And it's a good thing too, because otherwise it would look as though he'd made a near-catastrophic tactical error by actually making things a lot worse. Phew!

That's because the new-look Senate has been finally confirmed, with the final upperhousepeople in WA, Queensland and NSW determined on the basis of which had the largest pile of vote-sweepings, having come nowhere near actually getting a quota in their own right.

And the final result for the 76 seats is as follows: the Coalition have 30 seats, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation four, Nick Xenophon Team three, with four independents: Derryn Hinch for his Justice Party, Jacqui Lambie for her Network, Bob Day for Family First, and David Leyonhjelm for the Liberal Democrats.

You might recall that in the last Parliament Malcolm Turnbull and his predecessor-slash-victim Tony Abbott liked to moan about how gosh-darn unfair it was that they had to rely on seducing five votes from an eight-member crossbench. Well, those miserable days are finally gone!

Now the government merely needs to win nine votes from an 11-member crossbench! Also, just to add some extra spice to that already-sizzling legislative curry, that will require both One Nation and NXT to both support the government on any legislation for which Labor and the Greens do not care. In order to pass through the Senate a piece of legislation needs 39 of the 76 votes. Labor and the Greens have 35 between them; the Coalition has 30.

So one fun question to ponder is "what sort of legislation is the centrist, decide-things-on-their-merits NXT going to support which also ticks all the boxes for the hard-right, deeply protectionist, the-Muslims-is-coming One Nation?" Another is "how well-disposed to the government are Lambie and Leyonhjelm likely to be feeling, since they seemed to correctly interpret Turnbull's double dissolution as a personal insult?"

Meanwhile, as the constant torrent of leaks from the cabinet room about whether or not the PM did or did not support Kevin Rudd's nomination for UN Secretary has reminded us, the vibe within the Coalition isn't as grateful-to-still-have-their-jobs as you might expect it would be after the narrowest possible victory. They're probably not going to be pushing for a lot of jolly bipartisanship right at the moment.

So, what are Turnbull's options?

1. Go super-hard right. Turnbull might just assume that Labor and the Greens will block stuff like the still-unpassed higher education cuts, the same sex marriage plebiscite legislation, and pretty much all of the non-supply elements of the budget and pander to prejudices of One Nation/Leyonhjelm/Lambie and hope that NXT fall into line. Of course, since the majority of voters for One Nation and (especially) NXT were unhappy Coalition voters, why would either party want to be seen to do what Malcolm tells them?

Likely outcome: stalemate, which puts Turnbull's leadership at risk.

2. Only produce legislation that Labor are likely to support. After all, there's a fair bit of crossover between the parties and such a deal would help prevent any grudging Labor-Greens coalition having a chance to congeal against a common foe. Of course, that would allow Labor to claim that the government were adopting their agenda, which isn't a good look, and galvanise the still-seething conservative elements of the party into finding themselves a suitable leadership alternative.

Likely outcome: centrist progress, which will give his right wing a panicked reason to move against him.

3. Wait for NXT and/or One Nation to fall apart. As Palmer United have demonstrated, small parties led by a pushy leader with their name in the title have a tendency to implode around the same time that their senators realise that if they quit the party they can keep their jobs, get wined and dined by the government and never have to be yelled at in the party room ever again.

Likely outcome: High - the two decade history of One Nation is basically a series of interconnected tantrums - but it'll take at least a year, and that isn't time Turnbull has to achieve nothing.

4. Build up some triggers and call another Double Dissolution. After all, most of our DDs have been followed by another one fairly shortly thereafter. Then again, governments are seldom rewarded for failing so badly at their jobs that they need to force the public to intervene.

Likely outcome: political suicide.

5. Engineer a Wentwethxit. It would be unconventional, sure, but no doubt the PM who knew he could get the Governor-General to prorogue parliament would have some cunning method of declaring his own electorate an independent nation, right? That way Turnbull can remain PM of Wentworth and simultaneously avoid having to deal with the mess he's created via the election.

6. Call barleys! Are we certain that the PM didn't have his finger crossed when the polls closed? Because then it doesn't count. Fact

Zenithe posted:

Can someone explain what is going on, or is it all just pages of just as crazy.

quote:

This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

V for Vegas posted:

Sovereign citizens - batshit crazy people who think there is a magic form of legal words that exempts them from the operation of normal laws (including putting weird punctuation in your name like "Malcom-Ieuan: Roberts", and arguing that all courts are Admiralty courts and have no jurisdiction on land - which is why they call themselves 'freemen on the land') . There is a Canadian case from a few years ago where the judge goes through the whole thing and demolishes it.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

wayne curr posted:

so, we elected a Freemen-on-the-land to the senate?

Cory Bernardi posted:

South Australian senator Cory Bernardi responded to Scullion’s comments in a statement to the ABC, saying there were “too many Je suis Charlie hypocrites”, a reference to the millions of tweets posted after the attack on the Paris magazine, Charlie Hebdo in January 2015.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

V for Vegas posted:

Bill Leak's response. Checkmate SJWs.

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Yaaaaaaaaay people are actually calling out Bill Leak for his shittiness. And bonus - they're also asking "how could this have been published"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/04/bill-leak-accused-of-racism-in-insulting-cartoon-on-indigenous-parenting

But don't worry, people who really know what racism is have Bill's back!


With CB behind you, you can't go wrong!

Amoeba102 posted:

Getting killed in a terrorist attack is equivalent to criticism for being racist. Got it.

open24hours posted:

Weren't same sort of people were bending over backwards to explain why Charlie Hebdo was actually racist at the time? I don't remember it getting a lot of support from the crowd Leak is mocking in his second cartoon.