DOCSLIB.ORG

Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS — GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT Matter of Public Interest THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): Today I received within the prescribed time a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the following terms — I wish to raise the following as a matter of public interest today. That this house condemns the Barnett government for mishandling projects thereby exposing taxpayers to millions of dollars in extra compensation and damages, including the new Perth Stadium, the nib Stadium redevelopment, Elizabeth Quay and the Balmoral South Iron Ore Project. The matter appears to be in order. [At least five members rose in their places.] The SPEAKER: The matter can proceed, but before it does, I call to order for the first time the members for Perth and Carine. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [3.38 pm]: I move the motion. This is an important subject matter because we are dealing with the appropriate and proper handling of public money. We all know that every single government in the history of this state has built projects and provided approvals; indeed, that is what governments do. It is standard practice on the part of governments in Western Australia. All the public facilities around this state are testament to that, as is every single mining and construction project in Western Australia over the last 180 years or so. It is very important that, as much as possible, public money is not wasted. It is also very important that these projects have smooth and transparent approvals processes. Any person in Western Australia who wishes to make an investment and receive an approval should have the right to the understanding that the processes are transparent and fair—transparent and fair for all applicants—and that approvals are not based on favouritism or prejudice. That is the way the business environment in this state should operate. However, we have seen examples historically of it not operating that way. We do not wish to see those incidents repeated in Western Australia. This motion is not about blowouts. Indeed, if it were about blowouts, we could talk about the $300 million blowout of Fiona Stanley Hospital, the $200 million blowout of Perth Children’s Hospital, the $3 billion worth of blowouts identified by the Auditor General or other financial disasters, such as the loss of goods and services tax revenue because of the hopeless deal that was signed in 1999 that has so penalised this state and that will continue to penalise it into the future. I could talk about all those things, and we have talked about all those things in the past. This motion is about the failure of process and lack of transparency and prejudice in decision-making. Today it was revealed that, as a consequence of the budget, a $4.7 million payment will be made to Golfwest not to operate a golf course. The Premier told us that there would be no additional cost for government land in relation to the stadium. A few weeks ago it was revealed that Allia Venue Management, the company operating nib Stadium, was being paid in excess of $8 million not to operate a stadium. It does not have to worry about all the costs and expenses and aggravation of operating a facility; it gets paid not to do it! We saw the Grand Palace Chinese restaurant paid not to make fried rice, sweet and sour pork or Szechuan beef. A total of $7.25 million was given to this small proprietary limited company so it cannot operate a Chinese restaurant and not have all the aggravation from this government in the future. We have seen Serco, the government’s favourite company, paid $118 million to operate a hospital without patients. If a company wants to do business in Western Australia under this government, it is far better off not doing that business and getting paid for it by the government because it gets a far better deal. That is how it works in Western Australia today. Companies do not have to do the work; they just collect the money under this government. There are four examples of it. We saw the $30 million discount for land purchased at Crown Perth. Crown got a $30 million discount without any justification provided to this Parliament. We saw $30 million worth of land at Elizabeth Quay given away to Ritz-Carlton a few weeks ago. Mr J.H.D. Day: What’s your evidence for that? Mr M. McGOWAN: The minister said that. He gave the land to that company. We now see $1.6 million worth of land on the Albany foreshore being given away. We saw a $15 million royalty holiday given to Karara Mining to take our iron ore and not pay a fee for it. Then we saw Mr Sage, a well-known donor to the government, receive a significant benefit, for which no justification has been provided. This government has given away more than $200 million of taxpayers’ money without transparency, in my view, and often without a public benefit. We might argue about the land at Elizabeth Quay, saying that a hotel will be built there. Hotels are being built around Western Australia at the moment — [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson Mr C.J. Barnett: Not for 25 years. Mr M. McGOWAN: I opened one at Crown Perth in 2005. The Westin hotels chain is establishing hotels in Western Australia but it has to buy the land. If a business happens to be favoured, it gets the land for nothing. That is what we are saying. Where is the transparency? Where is the process? Why were others not able to compete? That brings me to the issue of the moment, which is the Balmoral South iron ore mine. How can it be that Western Australian taxpayers are now liable for damages to Mr Clive Palmer? Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they’re not. Mr M. McGOWAN: I hear the Premier say that they are not. He always mutters these things across the chamber. I want to quote page 50 of the arbitration judgement of a former High Court judge, Mr Michael McHugh, one of the most respected jurists in the country. His judgement, which is binding on the state, states — The failure of the Minister to give a decision within that time means that he is in breach of the State Agreement and is liable in damages for any damage that the Applicants may have suffered as the result of the breach. That is what he had to say in his judgement, which emerged last Friday. It is as clear as crystal that the state government will be liable in damages because of the failure of the minister to make a decision. The Minister for State Development, the Premier, may not like Mr Palmer. He may have a personal vendetta against him or a personal dislike for him. He has expressed it in this place before. He has expressed it publicly. That may be the case, and many people may agree with him, but that is no reason to prejudice the interests of the people of Western Australia in his decision-making. Today he said in question time that he rejected the application. There was no capacity for him to do that under the state agreement act. Mr McHugh, in his judgement, has made that plain. Thereby, the taxpayers of Western Australia are liable in damages as a consequence. The Premier might have that personal view of Mr Palmer. Admittedly, not so long ago—in 2010—Mr Palmer was over here addressing The 500 Club fundraising events for the Liberal Party. He was introduced by Mr Norman Moore at those events with some absolutely laudatory commentary about Mr Palmer. Mr Palmer offered to fly National Party members around the state campaigning. All the documents are here. I have the photographs of the special, very close relationship between the Liberal and National Parties and Mr Palmer. Admittedly, at that point he was saying that I, the humble member for Rockingham, should be expelled from the Parliament of Western Australia. In fact, if I recall correctly, he called me an idiot, and I think he put out a press release to that effect. The Premier asks why I am doing the bidding of Clive Palmer and says that I have this very special relationship with Clive Palmer. I have never even seen the bloke. I have never spoken to him. I have seen him on the television. I have seen him emerging from his vehicles. That is the extent of it, apart from him demanding that I be expelled from the Western Australian Parliament. If the Premier thinks that is a close relationship, maybe he should reconsider that line of attack and maybe he should answer the questions. What is the liability for Western Australia? Will he table the advice that he received, which he claimed said that he rejected the application? We have heard the Premier say these things before, as he might recall. We have had debates in this place about these things in which the Premier has had to apologise to this house for misleading it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Palmer Puts Climate in the Centre AUTHOR
    TITLE: Palmer puts climate in the centre AUTHOR: Richard Denniss PUBLICATION: Australian Financial Review PUBLICATION DATE: 1/07/14 LINK: http://www.afr.com The day after Clive Palmer announced he would oppose the Abbott government’s efforts to abolish the 20 per cent renewable energy target, the price of market-traded renewable energy certificates jumped 27 per cent. The same day shares in Infigen, a company with a big portfolio of renewable energy generation, jumped 16 per cent. The next day, as the news sunk in, the shares rose another 2 per cent. But while the renewable energy end of the sharemarket reacted favourably to Clive’s big announcement with Al Gore, some reacted with pessimism and hostility. The Greens and Labor have every right to defend their now identical approach that abandons the carbon tax in favour of an immediate ETS. But the Palmer United Party’s plans to protect the RET, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority need to be encouraged or risk being unwound. Symbolism is important in politics. Al Gore’s endorsement was clearly valuable to Clive Palmer. But Al Gore’s objectives were more than symbolic. He wanted to help achieve real outcomes. By sharing a stage with Palmer, he helped reshape Australian politics. Had he done a press conference with Christine Milne, he’d have simply locked in politics as usual. Tony Abbott’s hostility to carbon pricing is entirely symbolic. We know it’s not a deeply held view, as he has confessed to being a “weather vane” on the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Australian Financial Review Article
    The Treasurer has literally lost the plot PUBLISHED: 07 MAR 2012 00:08:20 | UPDATED: 07 MAR 2012 04:06:14 THE AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW Where should Australia’s Treasurer be directing the national conversation right now? Perhaps he should be preparing Australians for a tough budget in May that will necessarily spread belt- tightening across the community while driving productivity-enhancing policy reforms to make the economy more flexible, to ease the painful adjustments of some industries to the high dollar and to encourage broader wealth generation as commodity export prices come off their peaks. Instead, Wayne Swan has spent the past few days indulging in a belligerent and almost incoherent rant against some of the entrepreneurs who are at the heart of the biggest mining boom in more than a century and who are helping drive the national income to unprecedented heights. Then yesterday he was put in the seemingly contradictory position of having to defend coalminers against attacks by Greenpeace and other environmental groups seeking funding from other wealthy entrepreneurs to disrupt and delay the new mines and infrastructure that would entrench this prosperity. Yet, with his rant against mining magnates Gina Rinehart, Clive Palmer and Andrew Forrest, wealth creation appears to have become, at least in Mr Swan’s eyes, a vice that runs against the grain of Australian society and which must therefore be fought against at all costs. Just two months before he hands down his fifth budget, this is a time when the Treasurer should be focused on trimming the fat from government spending and getting Australia’s budget out of deficit, particularly given the warning from our biggest export market that China is shaving its economic growth target.
    [Show full text]
  • State Revival the Role of the States in Australia’S COVID-19 Response and Beyond
    State revival The role of the states in Australia’s COVID-19 response and beyond Australia’s states and territories have taken the lead in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, supported by constitutional powers and popular mandates. With the states newly emboldened, further action on climate change, changes to federal–state financial arrangements and reform of National Cabinet could all be on the agenda. Discussion paper Bill Browne July 2021 ABOUT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra. It is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals and commissioned research. We barrack for ideas, not political parties or candidates. Since its launch in 1994, the Institute has carried out highly influential research on a broad range of economic, social and environmental issues. OUR PHILOSOPHY As we begin the 21st century, new dilemmas confront our society and our planet. Unprecedented levels of consumption co-exist with extreme poverty. Through new technology we are more connected than we have ever been, yet civic engagement is declining. Environmental neglect continues despite heightened ecological awareness. A better balance is urgently needed. The Australia Institute’s directors, staff and supporters represent a broad range of views and priorities. What unites us is a belief that through a combination of research and creativity we can promote new solutions and ways of thinking. OUR PURPOSE – ‘RESEARCH THAT MATTERS’ The Institute publishes research that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful society. Our goal is to gather, interpret and communicate evidence in order to both diagnose the problems we face and propose new solutions to tackle them.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound and Fury: the Resources Tax
    Sound and Fury: The Resources Tax Issue 12, August 2010 | Sarah Burnside Illustrating that this is an era of globalised politics, the ill-fated resources super profits tax (RSPT) is now invoked as a warning to other countries against ‘resource nationalism’. In a recent speech to mining executives in London, Rio Tinto chief executive Tom Albanese suggested that ‘policymakers around the world can learn a lesson when considering a new tax to plug a revenue gap, or play to local politics’1. Australia, presumably, has learned its lesson. However, debates over the amended minerals rent resource tax (MRRT) continue. Discussions regarding the proposed tax over the past few months have demonstrated not only the overabundance of acronyms in public life, but some of the inconsistencies in the Australian political discourse. The proposed tax, derived from the Henry Tax Review, was controversial from the outset. In June, The Australian’s editorial warned then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that ‘political leaders who appeal to noisy activists lose elections’2. The editorial criticised the RSPT, urging Rudd to ignore unions and environmentalists and embrace ‘the sensible centre’. The timing was somewhat ironic; mere days earlier West Australians had been treated to ‘noisy activists’ of another political stripe. The ‘billionaires’ rally’ on 8 June, organised by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC), saw magnates Gina Rhinehart and Andrew Forrest join other protesters in filling the Perth Esplanade with cries of ‘axe the tax’. There seemed to be some cognitive dissonance on the part of the national newspaper: those who were heckling Government ministers, taking to the streets and engaging in public protest (albeit with neat, correctly spelled placards) were not from the left.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Inquiry Question on Notice
    PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Health Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 Australian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 22 May 2020 PDR Number: IQ20-000246 Question Subject: TGA approved medicines Type of Question: Written Senator: Katy Gallagher Question: Have any medicines been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for the treatment of COVID-19. If so, which medicines. Answer: No medicines have been approved for the treatment of COVID-19 in Australia at this time. Some products have been provided to individual patients through unapproved products pathways, such as the Authorised Prescriber and Special Access Schemes. The Department of Health, through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), liaises closely with potential sponsors and international regulatory counterparts to monitor the intensive international research effort that is currently underway. The TGA will prioritise and expedite the evaluation of any applications from industry or research sponsors for the treatment of COVID-19 or vaccination against the SARS-CoV2 virus. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Health Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 Australian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 22 May 2020 PDR Number: IQ20-000248 Question Subject: Palmer Foundation hydroxychloroquine purchase Type of Question: Written Senator: Katy Gallagher Question: Is this claim by Mr Clive Palmer true: “Clive Palmer’s Palmer Foundation has bought over 32,900,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Millions of doses of the drug have already arrived in Australia. The Palmer Foundation has already paid for the drug in the form of tablets and bulk pharmaceuticals. The Palmer Foundation has donated the drug to the Australian Government to be placed on the National Medical Stockpile so it may be made available free to all Australians.” If so: (a) on what date/s did “million of doses of the drug” arrive in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • ^1^ Fmrrrm 4Tnail
    3/10/2021 Courier Mail, Saturday, February 27, 2021, pages from 3 to 3 < _________ zo/^/zz ^1^ Fmrrrm 4tnail SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 27.2021 $3.00 INCL GST If COURIERMAILCOMJ^U Within POWER. TREACHERY AND THE LNP ----------- A Peter Gleeson investigation <£o^ter4mail SUndayMaB EE3 news ^YOUKR POISON PEN & THE QUEENSLAND'S USELESS DEPUTY mUBER musEOFamos INSIDE A PDUTiCAl EXECUTION JflW-imOPRNG SECRET KHUnOIVRE THE CULTURE IS ROTTEN' https://metros.smedia.coin.au/thecouriermail/PrintPages.aspx?doc=NCCM/2021/02/27&from=3&to=3 1/1 3/10/2021 Courier Mail, Saturday, February 27, 2021, pages from 4 to 5 1 ’"WARjWithin Tim Nicholls, Jeff Seeney, former Premier Campbell Newman and former LNP Bixice McIver. MYSTERY POISON LETTER ALLEGEDMISCONDl^ Hierarchy’s bizarre bid to oust Seeney as part of a special in-depth in­ said to be in the letter - which LNP is in for a vary bleak fu­ sas-snatton Jolin-Paid wing during the Newman gov­ vestigation which has exposed was never shown to Seeney - ture,” he said. .Lao^wek when lie refesed to ernment era as “more stress­ extraordinacy dysfimctioo and the former deputy premier lite special joint investiga­ pt^ftfeise the 2011 fkxMfe: ful” than dealing with the THE LNP hierarchy tried to turmoil within the party over wrote to the LNP's state tion between The Saturday ■ Then premie? Anna RHgh Labor Opposition; push out its own deputy prem­ the past decade. executive and demanded that Courier-Mail, The Sunday rang Uito-state secrecy An- ■ Party sources say a grass- ier during the Newman era At the same time, then then party president Bruce Mail and Sky News reveals a thojty Cfeistioim and saW she rocds-led revolt is happening after receiving an anony­ deputy premier Jeff Seeney McIver resign.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Structures, the Veil and the Role of the Courts
    CRITIQUE AND COMMENT CORPORATE STRUCTURES, THE VEIL AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS T HE HON CHIEF JUSTICE M ARILYN WARREN AC* The topic of the corporate veil is one that has been long-discussed, but which remains the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty. This lecture will look at a few areas related to veil-piercing or lifting, used in a broad sense, which usefully highlight the tensions the courts have to grapple with when faced with corporate structures and the question of whether to look behind those structures to commercial realities. The topics canvassed are directors’ liability for corporate fault, limited liability and corporate groups, and direct liability of parent entities in tort. C ONTENTS I Preface: Professor Ford ............................................................................................ 658 II Introduction .............................................................................................................. 659 III Directors’ Liability.................................................................................................... 661 IV Limited Liability and Corporate Groups .............................................................. 668 V Direct Liability of Parent Entities .......................................................................... 673 A Chandler v Cape ........................................................................................... 674 B The Australian Cases ................................................................................... 677 C Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Election Campaign Offered Voters a Clear Ideological Choice
    5 IDEOLOGY AND POPULISM Carol Johnson1 The 2019 Australian federal election campaign offered voters a clear ideological choice. However, this was largely due to Labor’s ambitious agenda that sought to address issues of rising inequality and to increase government revenue to fund government services and benefits. The Liberal Party’s ‘small target’ strategy articulated its more neoliberal ideological position largely via critiquing Labor’s tax and spending policies. The election campaign also displayed elements of both left-wing and right- wing populism, in which ‘we the people’ are mobilised against a perceived predatory enemy: ‘them’. In a shift away from neoliberal ideological perspectives, Labor depicted itself as representing the people (particularly the working and middle classes) against the more economically privileged ‘top end of town’. Scott Morrison took a more neoliberal populist position, mobilising the people against big government by depicting himself as an ordinary bloke trying to stop Labor from ripping off and spending taxpayers’ money. Two minor right-wing parties displayed more fully blown populist agendas and were a significant source of preferences for the Coalition Government—namely, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP). 1 This chapter draws on some material from an Australian Research Council–funded project (DP140100168), ‘Expanding equality: A historical perspective on developments and dilemmas in contemporary Australian social democracy’. My thanks to the discussants (Frank Bongiorno and Mark Evans), the convenors and other participants at the 2019 federal election workshop for their feedback on the initial draft of this chapter. 91 MORRISON'S MIRACLE Given that much of the Liberals’ campaign was focused on critiquing Labor’s economic policy, this discussion will begin with an analysis of Labor’s position, before moving to an analysis of the Liberals’ position as the major party in the Coalition.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Members' Interests
    TWENTY-SIXTH REPORT ON THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Laid upon the Table of the House pursuant to s.11 of Schedule 2 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly 16 August 2013 REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS AS AT 16 AUGUST 2013 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS — KEY 1. Shareholdings or controlling interest in companies [7(2)(a)(i)] 2. Shareholdings of companies in other companies [7(2)(a)(ii)] 3. The investments or beneficial interests of private companies [7(2)(a)(iii) & 7(2)(a)(iv)(A) and (B)] 4. The investments or beneficial interest of subsidiary companies [7(2)(a)(iv)(C) and (D)] 5. Positions held as officer of company, including any subsidiary company [7(2)(b)] 6. Beneficial interests in family or business trusts, or nominee companies [7(2)(c)(i) to (iii)] 7. Investments or beneficial interests of any trust listed in (6) above [7(2)(c)(iv)] 8. Trustee of family or business trusts [7(2)(d)] 9. Trustee or director of private superannuation fund [7(2)(e)] 10. Interests in partnerships [7(2)(f)] 11. Interests in real estate [7(2)(g)] 12. Liabilities over $10,000 [7(2)(h)] 13. Debentures, managed funds, or similar investments [7(2)(i)] 14. Savings or investment accounts [7(2)(j)] 15. Gifts received valued at over $500 [7(2)(k)] 16. Sponsored travel or accommodation received [7(2)(l)] 17. The source of any other income over $500 per annum [7(2)(m)] 18. Other assets over $5,000 [7(2)(n)] 19. Membership of any political party, trade or professional organisation; or office holder; or financial contributor over $500 per annum [7(2)(o)] 20.
    [Show full text]
  • 17. the Minor Parties
    17 THE MINOR PARTIES Glenn Kefford The 2019 federal election is noteworthy for many reasons. One of the defining stories should be that the ALP and the Liberal–National Coalition have been unable to draw voters back from the minor parties and Independents. Put simply, the long-term trend is away from the major parties. In this election, there was a small nationwide increase in the vote for minor parties and Independents in the House of Representatives, while in the Senate there was a modest decline. The State-level results are more varied. The Coalition lost ground in some places and maintained its vote in others. The ALP vote, in contrast, was demolished in Tasmania and in Queensland. Almost one in three Queenslanders and Tasmanians decided to support a party or candidate in the House other than the ALP or the Coalition. Across the entire country, this was around one in four (see Figure 17.1). In the Senate, Queensland and Tasmania again had the largest non–major party vote. These results are dissected in greater detail in other chapters in this volume, but they suggest that supply-side opportunities remain for parties and candidates expressing anti–major party sentiments. Put simply, the political environment remains fertile for minor party insurgents. 343 MORRISON'S MIRACLE 40 35 35.55 33.65 32.2 30 26.2 25 25 25.09 23.8 23.47 21.1 20.4 20 19.9 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.2 18.3 18.4 17.7 17.1 15.7 15.1 15 14.6 14.3 14 14.5 13.2 13.5 12 12.2 10.7 10.7 10.8 10 10 8.8 8.6 7.7 8.1 7.3 7 7.4 5 4.7 5 3.9 4.4 4.1 2.1 0 1949 1951 1955 1958 1961 1974 1975 1977 1980 1983 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 House S ena te Figure 17.1 First‑preference votes for minor parties and Independents Source: Compiled with data kindly provided by Antony Green and from Australian Electoral Commission (2016 and 2019) .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Fair Go: Nationhood, Australian National Identity & Democracy A
    The Fair Go: Nationhood, Australian National Identity & Democracy A submission to the Committee Secretary, for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee … from … Jon Cocks I am a retired teacher, a writer and podcaster. What follows are my opinions alone. This submission addresses the Australian ‘Fair Go’ primarily on: Democracy, in relation to the rights and obligations of citizenship Responsibility of the state to its citizens Social cohesion and cultural identity in the nation state, along with Contemporary notions of cultural identity and regionalism This submission takes issue with Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s conditional interpretation of what constitutes a Fair Go, but it offers a way forward. In Australia, the Fair Go purports to be part of our culture, but is it truly a democratic and egalitarian ethos for our nation at this moment in time? Australian leaders have a moral obligation to pay forward the Fair Go for the majority of the population. This submission reminds Parliament that high office is a sacred calling, and not some prize at the end of a long, bloody struggle. It proposes a major Parliamentary culture shift away from what is widely perceived in the electorate as entitlement and self-centred bombast. Those in high office are privileged to serve. High office is not a personal reward for graft and ambition. This submission argues that, as demonstrated by the credibility gap between the rhetoric of our elected leaders and their actions, the traditional notion of the Fair Go no longer exists. It puts historical perspective on it and offers suggestions as to how we might revisit the Fair Go and enshrine its values in our national consciousness.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Application for Registration As a Political Party
    NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A POLITICAL PARTY The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has received the following application for registration as a political party under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- name of party: United Australia Party abbreviation of party name: UAP proposed registered officer: Clive Palmer proposed registered officer’s address: Level 17, 240 Queen Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 the image displayed here is the proposed registered party logo for the United Australia Party: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may lodge an objection if you believe that the application by the Party above should not succeed because, under the Electoral Act: the application does not relate to an eligible political party; or the application is not in accordance with section 126 of the Electoral Act; or the Electoral Commission should refuse to enter the name or enter the abbreviation of the party in the Register under section 129 the Electoral Commission should refuse to change or enter the logo of the party in the Register under section 129A. Objections must be received by the AEC by 30 September 2018, must address the relevant criteria above and be in writing and include your name, street address, signature and the grounds for your objection. Objections can be sent to: Email Post [email protected] Funding and Disclosure Australian Electoral Commission Locked Bag 4007 Canberra ACT 2601 For more detailed information on objecting to an application from a registered political party, please consult the AEC website at the link provided below, or contact the AEC by email at [email protected] or by phone on 02 6271 4552.
    [Show full text]