The payment to Porter

[Marty_d]

A senior politician, acting as a private citizen and off his own bat, sues the ABC and a reporter because they truthfully reported the facts.

 

Now his legal fees have been "partly covered" (part could equal 99%) by a blind trust.   These fees could be quite high as QC's are not for those on a budget.

 

Even his ex-PM Turnbull has compared that to someone in a mask giving him a bag full of cash.

 

His mates in the LNP are saying "nothing to see here, move along..."

 

WTF?

 

Am I the only one who thinks that politicians taking cash for personal expenses, without knowing who it's from or why they're giving it, is totally beyond the pale?

 

No wonder the LNP don't want an integrity commission of any kind.

[Yenn]

What else could you expect from the LNP. There have been a succession of rorts during the current governments time in office and it will continue as long as the electorate lets it go on.

They seem to think that it is all OK as long as nobody can prove it is illegal. No moral standing at all.

[facthunter]

Porter was the highest LAW officer in the land and should know the questionable nature of this arrangement. Now the Attorney General is Michaelia Cash.  Nev

[facthunter]

The issue here is IF this payment is made in your behalf what obligation to the undisclosed donor do you have in return?  Or are they the best politicians money  can buy?  Or is it a question of entitlement? I can have it so I will. Nev

[Dax]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

What else could you expect from the LNP. There have been a succession of rorts during the current governments time in office and it will continue as long as the electorate lets it go on.

You find it in all parties, because by definition they are corrupt and never represent the people in any way. The stack their branches with fake members, when the local branch picks a candidate, the vested interests step in and put their obedient clone in so they will control power within the party.

 

We also have to remember most of them are dedicated god nutters, so to them they can do no wrong as they are working with god on their side. They believe deceiving non believers and those of other factions of the cult, can be lied to without godly retribution if it advances their cause and in their warped minds, their personal causes are god causes and they are of the chosen ones. Porter seems to think he is immune to criticism and blame. No matter how many complain about this, when it comes to the next election, everyone will take the party road of preferential voting and nothing will change.

[facthunter]

Porter is from West Australia where the non Labor votes totalled 4 in the recent state election. Bullying by the Feds lead by Morrison have probably consolidated that position.. Porters reputation as a future star and PM preceded him before He even ran for a Federal seat..  It's possible he may not retain his seat and that will be the end of it. His handling of the court matter with the ABC wasn't exactly stellar either. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

The issue here is IF this payment is made in your behalf what obligation to the undisclosed donor do you have in return?  Or are they the best politicians money  can buy?…

 

[onetrack]

The whole setup stinks, what a piece of cockroach turd this bloke is - and the mob who back him and protect him, are little better. The Liberal Party was voted into virtual non-existence in the last W.A. election, where they only managed to get 2 seats.

 

Little wonder it happened - most people are heartily sick of this bunch, with their conniving tactics, throwing huge amounts of money at business mates, and generally acting as if they were born to rule.

 

I see where the pundits are predicting a flood of independents taking a heap of seats next time around, it can't come fast enough for mine.

 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/political-dynamite-jobkeeper-for-billionaires-a-campaign-wrecker-for-morrison-frydenberg/

[Old Koreelah]

Dax and others disenchanted with party politics might be pleased by this story about the rise of Independents; this quote says it all:

 

Ms Lock, a former nurse and public health researcher, once a Liberal who worked briefly for the former NSW senator Bill Heffernan, now says she doesn’t recognise the party and doesn’t know what it stands for. 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fresh-voices-rise-in-liberal-heartland-20210915-p58rqh.html

 

Our local state and federal electorates had good service from independents, but the deep pockets of the National Party machine (plus quite a bit of skulduggery) rolled them. That was the major reason I joined thousands of ordinary Australians who contribute to GetUp in its campaign to counter the disgusting corruption in Australian politics.

 

GetUp has been so successful they've been targeted by right-wing hate campaigns and efforts by governments to legally silence them (all while quietly accepting cash from rich lobbyists).

 

[facthunter]

Heffernan had an outrageous control over who was preselected. This is where the corruption starts. I don't mind the prospect of good independents getting in. A good one got the mad Monk out. I'm eternally grateful.  Nev

[Yenn]

If Porter doesn't know who paid him, how can he be expected to do what that person wants. I cannot believe that he doesn't know who he has to bow down to. I may be wrong, but he will definitely find out when his benefactor wants him to know.

The whole thing about this AB case was a farce. Porter took the ABC to court for publishing what someone else said. If that is not a way of gagging the press, what is? The real pity is that the ABC backed down and didn't fight the case.

[facthunter]

 Porter certainly has a good idea who he /they are. By a process of elimination it can provide a good guess. Many suspects have said it wasn't them and were quick to state it. Yenn, have you any idea of how much pressure has been/is put on the ABC? Nev

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

 …Yenn, have you any idea of how much pressure has been/is put on the ABC? Nev

Regular claims of a left-wing bias have in the past been dismissed by independent investigation, but in recent times I haven’t noticed the ABC going too hard on blatant LNP corruption. 
Is this because much of the ABC board and management were appointed by the LNP government, or are they running scared of even more funding cuts?

[kgwilson]

I always understood a trust had to be registered so therefore it must have a trustee so why can't they find out who it is?

[facthunter]

They will, don't worry. It wouldn't be tax deductible either.. Nev

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, Yenn said:

If Porter doesn't know who paid him, how can he be expected to do what that person wants. I cannot believe that he doesn't know who he has to bow down to. I may be wrong, but he will definitely find out when his benefactor wants him to know.

The whole thing about this AB case was a farce. Porter took the ABC to court for publishing what someone else said. If that is not a way of gagging the press, what is? The real pity is that the ABC backed down and didn't fight the case.

The ABC hasn't paid him, retracted or apologised.  Not quite sure how they've backed down.

[Old Koreelah]

Just in case people still think we have basic rights in Australia:

 

Court windows blacked out and security cameras taped up. 
That's how whistleblower Witness K was tried and it's how the lawyer who defended him is being tried right now.¹ 

This is the culture of secrecy that has flourished under Scott Morrison's government – where whistleblowers face the threat of jail for speaking out against injustice. And instead of protecting whistleblowers, this week the Morrison Government announced its intention to expand the very type of powers that silence them.² 

It leaves little hope for people like David McBride, who faces jail time for blowing the whistle on alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.³ Or Richard Boyle, who faces life in prison for revealing misconduct within the Australian Tax Office.⁴ Or Bernard Collaery – Witness K's lawyer – who stands trial for daring to protect whistleblowers.⁵ 

Whistleblowers are the antidote to coverup and secrecy. That's why governments are desperate to suppress the truth, and the stories of those who reveal it – of who they are and why they spoke up. And the Morrison Government knows all too well examples of courage inspire others to act and lights a fire for proper whistleblower protections. 

(from a recent update from GetUp)

[Jerry_Atrick]

Gents, I hate to say it, but it may come time to start getting active. If the Getup! assertions are correct, as well as those alleged of NSW (Barilaro et al), then you may have to get politically involved. Crying on these forums will not be enough, and sadly, Mr and Mrs Average Aussie is too busy keeping their heads above water and kids in every activity they can fill the waking day with to concern themselves with the nuances of an encroaching fascist state...

 

(OK - a little overboard, but you get the idea).

Edited September 16, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

It leaves little hope for people like  Bernard Collaery – Witness K's lawyer – who stands trial for daring to protect whistleblowers.

That's a blow at the very essence of our legal system. I always believed that an accused person had a right to engage a legal eagle to mount a defence based on testing the Crown evidence, or possibly raising an alternative proposition to explain the accepted facts, and to apply the precedents of legal history. Having been mixed up with many solicitors when I was prosecuting people I had arrested, I was aware that in the Court Room, they were doing a job, acting on instructions from their client. The solicitors ignored their personal opinions of whether the client was guilty or not.

 

So Collaery was just doing his job, exactly as the Crown Prosecutor and the Judge. So how can the government make laws that try to cut off one of the legs of the three-legged Legal stool? Does that mean that as the effects of this type of law trickle down through the system, a solicitor in a Local Court, defending a shoplifter could be charged as an accessory after the fact?

[Dax]

Unless the libs and labs are thrown out, our country will continue down the road to a fascist country and if the libs get back in, it will be very fast, they are so deluded and welded into the yahweh cult, all they can see is power and more and more suppression to force people down their path. Not different to the Taliban or any other deranged god nutter faction.

 

Have always wondered why the Aus and state constitutions aren't taught in schools, if they were, people would soon realise our entire political system is unconstitutional, as is our justice system.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Dax said:

our entire political system is unconstitutional, as is our justice system

I doubt if you can say that the systems are unconstitutional. The bedrock is in the constitution. It is the way that politicians have built on that bedrock for their own benefit that is the problem. Similarly, the legal system is based on solid foundations, but it is the practitioners who have milked it. How can anyone honestly justify fees in the thousands of dollars per hour when those who most need a competent mouthpiece to defend themselves don't earn anywhere near that hourly rate from the application of their skills and labour?

 

[Dax]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I doubt if you can say that the systems are unconstitutional. The bedrock is in the constitution. It is the way that politicians have built on that bedrock for their own benefit that is the problem.

Our constitution states categorically, representatives must be elected by direct vote. There is nothing in the constitution that allows for parties or preferential voting.

 

"Political parties are not mentioned in the Australian Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution does not cover all aspects of how Australia is governed. Many parts of our system of government, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, operate by tradition, similar to Britain. 

Political parties are also not defined by laws passed by the Australian Parliament."

 

https://questions.peo.gov.au/questions/are-political-parties-mentioned-or-written-in-the-australian-constitution/22

 

There is also no mention of tradition on reference to governance in the constitution, so our entire political system is unconstitutional.

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Similarly, the legal system is based on solid foundations, but it is the practitioners who have milked it.

The legal system is based on elitism, prejudice and discrimination, plus most of the laws come from centuries ago and have no relevance today. Legalese, is not a part of normal life, nor is it taught in schools. It's designed to disenfranchise those who don't know what legalese is or what it represents. It's a deceptive form of manipulating justice, with technicalities and never ending profit growth for the industry and 9 out of 10 times, those involved not of the legal profession lose out monetarily and in justice. Most don't have a clue what's happening or what's being said, so there's no chance of justice in any way and with the unlimited ability to appeal on technical grounds, the legal profession keeps making money, without justice, except for the rich who can afford the exorbitant unwarranted costs.

 

Look at the facts, most politicians are lawyers, lawyers write the laws and legislation. Lawyers act as defence one day and prosecution the next. Lawyers are the judges and the appeal judges, so the people can never understand the reams of legalese for contracts, laws, legislation or justice. What we need is plain Australian laws, which mean what they say and no room for technical rubbish, where rich crims get off because of a legalese technicality, or their bank account.

[Marty_d]

Don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that legalese is so wordy because lawyers in the old days used to be paid by the word for written work.  

Hence they never used one word where 10 would do.

[Jerry_Atrick]

We are going into thread drift, but:

2 hours ago, Dax said:

Our constitution states categorically, representatives must be elected by direct vote. There is nothing in the constitution that allows for parties or preferential voting.

is not an entirely accurate representation of the constitution (unless by "representatives", The House of Representatives is meant).

 

Under section 9 of the constitution, it is effectively up to the states about how senators for the state is elected (directly quoted from the constitution):

9. Method of election of senators

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 laws⁶ prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

Times and places

The Parliament of a State may make laws⁶ for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.

 

Section 24 deals with HoR:

24. Constitution of House of Representatives

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner:

 

In fact, there is nothing else on the matter said in the constitution. So, while the constitution does not explicitly make reference to proportional representation, it also doesn't make reference to first past the post - both methods are direct election - the vote passing that results in people like Fraser Anning getting in (and that bloke who lives in Bali) is exclusive to the senate, and framed by that state's laws, it would appear.

A quick search of section 24 of the commonwealth on Austlii didn't yield too much in the way of seminal cases, so I would expect, it is not a very contentious part of the constirution - you can be your bottom dollar if it were and it could make the difference of one party winning over the other in a slim majority - it would have been challenged. It has mainly been concerned with people who were barred from voting being tested - e.g. prisoners (see Roach v Electoral Commission).

 

Both proportional representation (which the allocation of votes received by one contender is passed to another is NOT) and preferential voting are considered a fair method of direct election that first past the post, when there is more than two contenders for a seat. Often in the UK, which is first past the post, a member is elected with well less than a majority - often around 30% of the vote. Both other methods take into account the totality of the wishes of the electors, which means if there is not one candidate that receives the majority, it goes to the candidate that has the highest "score", if you like.. which has to be fairer than when say only 1/3 of the electors what a person in.

 

As I recall, the elector still had to mark their voting card, although I understand you no longer need tt put a number against all house of reps candidates on the card. When the press say, Labour is giving its preferences to the Greens, they simply mean that is how they are printing the how to vote cards.. unless it has all changed..

 

[Yenn]

Don't quote the constitution. This government takes no notice of it unless they think they can gain an advantage. They were all over it when they tried to get Labor MPs  thrown out because they could be citizens of another state.