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.

quote:

The Australian Sovereignty Party is offering to the Australian community the gift of unprecedented wealth and prosperity. By promising to implement our simple tax and monetary system that has been lauded by leading international economists and monetary experts (like award winning author and documentary film maker Bill Still) we will completely reset and rewrite the existing onerous tax policy, a policy that for too long has economically stifled and enslaved the public!

Our economic model is one that will see the abolition of about 125 existing federal, state and local taxes, fees, rates and levies. The 8000+ pages of taxation code will be torn up. There will no longer be a need for time consuming and costly tax compliance. Prosperity, wealth and freedom will become so pervasive; Australian’s will quickly become the wealthiest and happiest people on the planet.

A Single Fair 2% Tax.

We will implement a Debit Tax at a flat rate of 2%. This new tax will replace all existing taxes - such as the income tax, the GST, council rates, fuel-excise etc... The Debit Tax is not only fair, but it is easy to understand and to implement. Best of all – we can generate over $320 Billion a year more than is currently generated through the existing complicated and burdensome tax system. Be advised; do not be quick to dismiss this claim until you have read our policy in full. To date, no one in academia has been able to comprehensively disprove that our policy works using official stats and figures!

Honest Money.

We will implement an Honest Money system. This will allow the government to "create and spend into circulation on infrastructure" all forms of our national currency (i.e. notes, coins and digital currency). Presently, only notes and coins are created for the benefit of the government. By implementing this policy alone, even if you kept the existing tax system - GDP will increase by 10%, government debt will be eliminated, personal debts can be reduced and taxes could be cut. The $120 billion+ of additional annual revenue that is generated from this policy will be in the form of seigniorage, and will be earmarked exclusively for infrastructure developments.

Ricky Muir posted:

Malcolm Roberts from One Nation has been elected to the Senate with 77 below the line primary votes. Naturally there is an uproar from aspects of the media, political commentators and the public. I have noted this with great interest and frustration all in one.

The 2016 electoral reforms which were rammed through the parliament would not have been possible without the Greens siding with the Government to get the numbers to pass the Senate. Remember, the Greens and their supporters repetitively stated that this was the Greens policy for many years and will make the system democratic.
Many used my 2013 below the line first preference (479) as justification for the changes.

Now that the changes have been enacted and we have had our first election under them, lets look at some of the Victorian results.

We will start with how many below the line first preferences I received, then I will highlight in order below how many Victorian Senators got elected on less than I received.

NOT ELECTED:
Ricky Muir (AMEP) 10,632.

ELECTED:
Jacinta Collins (ALP) 3,185
Stephen Conroy (ALP) 3,106
Bridget McKenzie (NATS) 2,360
Janet Rice (GREENS) 1,998
James Paterson (LIB) 1,467
Scott Ryan (LIB) 1,261
Gavin Marshall (ALP) 1,167

This happens because of above the line voting. Parties still get to chose who their candidates are above the line and in what order they appear on the ballot paper, yep, the Libs and Greens, despite stating that they were giving the power back to the people as to where their preference goes, dictate who and in what order their preference go to.
This results in candidates being elected with little to no public support, but apparently it is O.K, as their party gets to choose who that is in their group, not the voter.
Sound familiar?

Isn't that why they rammed electoral reform through?

To ultimately give the power of the preference back to the voter I suggested many changes during the electoral reform debate, including complete removal of above the line voting, introducing the Hare-Clarke system and/or introducing a Robson Rotation.

All the above would have returned Senate voting back to our constitution of candidate based voting where a candidate would have had to of had public support to be elected, the LNP and GREENS rejected this and continued to say that the system that they were introducing was democratic.

In short, Malcolm Roberts got elected because One Nation received enough of a primary vote above the line to keep him in the game long enough.

These are the the rules that were implemented as the Greens "long term policy". There is plenty on the public record where the Greens quote over and over that the new system is democratic, and this is the result of their policy.

On that note, every candidate who is currently elected is democratically elected under the current electoral laws. The voters have spoken and we have three years to decide whether we are content with their performance on not.

Anidav posted:

People on Facebook are saying a DDOS attack is happening on the abs site atm.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Looks like Labor and the Coalition are going to screw over the Greens and the crossbench on the 6 year senate terms.

Seagull posted:

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Who wants to be a captain of a sinking ship?

Anidav posted:

I just checked out ghostwhovotes:

GhostWhoVotes ‏@GhostWhoVotes

#ReachTEL Poll NSW Preferred Premier: Baird LIB 48.7 Foley ALP 51.3 #nswpol #auspol

GhostWhoVotes ‏@GhostWhoVotes

#ReachTEL Poll NSW State 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 50 (-4.3 since election) ALP 50 (+4.3) #nswpol #auspol

quote:

Beware Sleepergate.

If this radical “Inside (really inside) the Senate” weekly epistle is going to be the real deal, then I must face the most — shock! horror! — incident in one of the truly biggest moments in my life this week.

As I said on the Justice Party Facebook page:

“I tweeted from inside the Senate (note to self: Find out if that’s legal): ‘It’s official. Now sworn in as Senator for Victoria in 45th Parliament. Now it begins.'”

It was an emotional moment. Walking alone down that glass-lined corridor on my way in, I felt the awe and responsibility of it all. As I went to sign the ancient senators’ book — the book, not the senators (apart from me) — I did get moist eyes when I looked up at the visitors’ gallery at my loyal crew (who started as volunteers for our fledgling Justice Party) and gave them a thumbs up.

It was a huge day. Started with Welcome to Country in the Great Hall, where Bill Shorten (who still thinks he won) spoke longer than the Prime Minister. Is that protocol cool?

I actually wore a suit and tie. The President of the Senate, Stephen Parry, had briefed us about appropriate attire and said it wasn’t compulsory, so I wore one of my own free will. Perverse, huh?

At that Do’s and Don’ts briefing from the Prez, all the newbies sat in the imposing Senate chamber for the first time. I happened to sit in Arthur Sinodinos’ seat. I must admit I opened his drawer. There was no cash in it.

At that dummy run, I realised that I couldn’t clearly see the Prez. And then I chipped a tooth.

So, back in Melbourne on the Saturday, I saw my loyal cosmetic dentist, Yvonne King, for an emergency veneer. Then my “senatorial sartorialist”, Kelly Casey, who cuts my hair and touches up my beard. And then my optometrist, Helen Robbins, for some tri-focals so I can see if Stephen Parry is frowning.

On Opening Day, I had green tea with the PM and got a hug from Julie Bishop and a pic with the Governor-General. Malcolm Turnbull has a stunning John Olsen on his wall. From his own collection — not from the National Gallery, Aladdin’s Cave, which senators get to borrow from.

I explained that Jacki Weaver and I owned an Olsen from the Lake Eyre collection but the bank thought they needed it more than we did. Like my Mt Macedon farm and vineyard. And a couple of properties in Hawaii.

That will make the pecuniary interests register pretty straightforward.

Cory Bernardi tracked me down in the Senate dining room, where I was lunching with my staff, to get my signature on a bill to remove “offend” and “insult” from 18C. That’s my fall-back position, but at least it will get it debated. Issue one.

(Fact check: the bottled water in the Senate dining room is halal-certified. Wonder if the Hanson knows? Will she dine there now? Question: how many waterfall throats do they cut and bleed out to get halal water?)

Issue two: I attacked Senate censorship and pounded out an iPad media release announcing my decision to support the press gallery and get the Senate to greenlight more media freedom and oppose archaic restrictions — which don’t apply in the lower house — on still photographers.

As I said:

“People have a right to see exactly what is happening on both sides of the Parliament. The media — and thus the public — should be able to see us in action, or photograph our inaction. If you get caught nibbling your ear wax, or counting your money or dozing: tough. We are here to represent the public, and we are paid a lot of money to do it. It is absurd that the media can’t effectively show the public exactly what we are up to.”

“This is not about publicity for me. It’s not about more exposure for my bearded mug — this is about the public being entitled to see the people who represent them representing them, even when we’re stuffing it up.”

And then came the gotcha moment. Sleepergate. Hinch caught with eyes closed during the GG’s speech.

I could claim sleep apnoea, from which I suffer. I’ve overnighted at the Epworth sleep clinic. Tried a CPAP machine. But bugger it … no excuses. I dozed off.

Other people did too as we listened to a re-hash of a long, boring speech spoken by a bloke in an ill-fitting suit that looked like a Nikita Khrushchev cast-off. Using other people’s words while he talked about “my government”. We’d heard it all in the marathon election campaign,

Bob Katter later told me that Wayne Swan had elbowed him three times and, on the other side, George Brandis and Christopher Pyne looked suspiciously somnolent.

Using the old Hinch program motto — if you are being run out of town, pretend it’s a parade and you’re leading it — I can see a silver lining.

It also focused attention on the fact that on any other day (because of an Opening Day exemption) the media could not have published that photo. And that is ludicrous censorship.

After the pic went so public I still introduced a motion to end that censorship.

Not bad after the old man of the seat had been the target of a nanna nap pap.

APH posted:

The House of Representatives Practice, states, on p. 318:

“It has been claimed that the loss of control of the business of the House is a matter over which Governments should resign ... During 1962 and 1963, when the Menzies Government had a floor majority of one, it suffered a number of defeats and, although it did not resign, its precarious majority was a factor which led to the early dissolution of the House.“

The votes lost by the Government in 1962 were:
• A closure motion on 21 August 1962 (Votes and Proceedings, p. 194)
• A closure motion on 3 October 1962 (Votes and Proceedings, p. 217)
• Opposition’s dissent from Chairman’s ruling on 27 November 1962 (Votes and Proceedings, p. 307-8)
• An Opposition amendment to the Repatriation (Special Overseas
Service) Bill 1962 on 5 December 1962 (Votes and Proceedings, p. 348-9)

In addition, five votes were lost by the newly-commissioned caretaker government on 11 November 1975. These were motions to adjourn, to suspend standing orders, to close the debate (twice) and a want of confidence motion moved by former Prime Minister Whitlam.

Anidav posted:

Lmao how the gently caress?

You need to be 18 to do most adult things but a 6 year old can buy a house?

Seagull posted:

if the september op isn't up by seven i'm copying my critically acclaimed last one