Don Dongington posted:

Apparently the UWA Dean of Business was just spotted on ABC pretending to be a pensioner, and thanking Turnbull for the company tax cut and pensioner power bill assistance.

Oil; Guillotine; Etc.

Anidav posted:

Did anyone else get mass robocalled by Bill Shorten in QLD?

Bogan King posted:

https://twitter.com/DaisyCousens/status/848440753256677376

quote:

Labor has gained ground against the Coalition to post another clear lead in the latest Newspoll.

Full story to follow at 9.50pm AEST ...

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Hot take:

https://twitter.com/NewsProperDan/status/848502311634616320

Ora Tzo posted:

Shorten's gonna overtake as preferred leader at some point? Any takers on when?

Bogan King posted:

The fact that it has to brag about $1m in VC from 'major vc investors' is loving laughable so it's likely it won't take off in the slightest - who am I kidding we're doomed.

Bogan King posted:

Starshark posted:

Something I don't get - Latham tried saying that he didn't mean 'gay' as a pejorative when he got fired, but with the launch of his new... whatever... he's using gay as a pejorative a few times. Can anyone explain what appears to be an inconsistency in his behaviour?

JBP posted:

Complaints box:

Telstra made a mistake by sending me two handsets, received one back and then disconnected my month old service without contacting me. Isn't that unlawful?

quote:

High Court to give decision on Bob Day


The question of how to fill the long-vacant South Australian Senate seat left empty by Bob Day could be answered within days as the High Court hands down its decision.

Senate President Stephen Parry told parliament on Thursday the Court of Disputed Returns would hand down its decision on Wednesday at 10.15am.

The seat has been vacant since last year after the Family First senator resigned to deal with his collapsing building business, but there are questions about whether he was validly elected in the first place, and how the vacancy should be filled.

Mr Day's eligibility is being challenged on the grounds he may have directly or indirectly benefited from the commonwealth through a lease arrangement relating to his Adelaide electoral office.

Under section 44 of the constitution, a member or senator can be disqualified where there is "any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the public service of the commonwealth".

Former Labor senator Anne McEwen, who lost her seat at the July federal election, is a party to the case, given it could open the door for her return to parliament if he is disqualified.

quote:

High Court finds former Family First senator Bob Day was not validly elected

quote:

Bob Day's election ruled invalid by High Court

Former Family First senator Bob Day was not validly elected at last year's federal poll, the High Court has found.

The court was asked to decide whether the leasing arrangements for his electorate office had breached section 44 of the Constitution.

The court has ordered a special recount of South Australian ballot papers in order to determine his replacement.

More to come.

quote:

IN THE MATTER OF QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS PURSUANT TO SECTION 376 OF THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 (CTH) CONCERNING MR ROBERT JOHN DAY AO
[2017] HCA 14


Today the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, unanimously held that Mr Robert John Day AO was a person who had an "indirect pecuniary interest" in an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth prior to and at the time of the 2016 federal election, and was therefore incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator by reason of s 44(v) of the Constitution.

On 9 May 2016, the 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth was dissolved and a general election was subsequently held. Mr Day's nomination for the 2016 federal election was declared on 10 June 2016. On 4 August 2016, he was declared re-elected as a senator for South Australia.

On 1 December 2015, the Commonwealth entered into a lease agreement with Fullarton Investments Pty Ltd ("Fullarton Investments"), the registered proprietor of premises at 77 Fullarton Road, Kent Town in South Australia ("the Fullarton Road property"), for use by Mr Day as his electorate office. The commencement date of the lease was 1 July 2015. Under the lease, Fullarton Investments was entitled to direct the Commonwealth to pay rent to any person. On 26 February 2016, it directed that rental payments be made to a bank account owned by Mr Day.

The Fullarton Road property was previously owned by B & B Day Pty Ltd ("B & B Day") as trustee for the Day Family Trust, a discretionary trust of which Mr Day and his wife were beneficiaries. On 24 April 2014, Fullarton Investments purchased the Fullarton Road property from B & B Day on a vendor finance basis. Fullarton Investments was the trustee of the Fullarton Road Trust, a discretionary trust of which the Day Family Trust was a beneficiary. There was also a loan facility provided by a bank to B & B Day, and loan facilities provided to companies associated with Mr Day. Each loan facility was secured by, among other things, a guarantee given by Mr Day and a mortgage over the Fullarton Road property. Payment of rent by the Commonwealth would facilitate repayment of the purchase price of the Fullarton Road property by Fullarton Investments to B & B Day, which would in turn facilitate repayment by B & B Day of the loan facility, thereby reducing the extent of Mr Day's contingent liability to the bank as guarantor. If the Commonwealth did not pay rent, Fullarton Investments had no other significant source of revenue.

On 8 November 2016, the President of the Senate referred five questions to the Court of Disputed Returns. The principal question was whether Mr Day was incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator by reason of s 44(v) of the Constitution. The Senate's reference also asked how the resulting vacancy should be filled if Mr Day were found to have been incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator.

The Court held by majority that there was no requirement that a "pecuniary interest" be a legally enforceable interest, and it was unanimously held that the financial benefit which Mr Day stood to obtain from the Commonwealth performing its obligations to pay rent pursuant to the lease constituted an "indirect pecuniary interest" within the meaning of s 44(v) of the Constitution. By virtue of the direction that the rent be paid into a bank account owned by him, Mr Day was to receive rent directly from the Commonwealth. Therefore he had an expectation of a pecuniary benefit from the lease. A majority of the Court held he was incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator from no later than 26 February 2016, when the direction was made. The Court unanimously held that the resulting vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers.
• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.