Tuesday, 22 August 2017

The New Zealand threat brings sleepless nights for Julie Bishop


Sleepless night ahead for Julie Bishop as "the unworkable" NZ Labour Party dramatically narrows gap in election race and pundits declare Jacinta Arden a very real chance after Sunday's charismatic party launch.
Could be much kiwi Tutti frutti if Jacinta turns up in Canberra as PM of New Zealand!
Talk about Star Wars....The Beginning...........which side will Barnaby choose?......to be continued.......

Bill Shorten can sing Happy Go Lucky Me

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten reads about his unbeatable opinion poll lead, finds his denouncement of British citizenship document and discovers George Formby all in the one day



Join in the Owl's other political singalongs HERE

Sunday, 20 August 2017

Nick Xenophon can't tell his English from his Irish


Media Nick (accused Pommie) shows his distaste after ordering a "warm English beer" while media stunting at British Hotel (get it) Adelaide! Has he gone totally Irish?


Saturday, 19 August 2017

Friday, 18 August 2017

A song for Malcolm Turnbull thanks to Mike Carlton

Go here for other political singalongs

Malcolm Turnbull's government has finally defied fiction

Grattan on Friday:

File 20170817 28151 1bx73jn

With the eligibility of the Nationals’ leadership under question, Malcolm Turnbull has had a nightmarish week.
Mick Tsikas/AAP
Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

In a week belonging more appropriately to Shaun Micallef comedy than parliamentary reality, it’s arguable Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt wasn’t the most extraordinary thing that happened in Canberra.

Hanson has extreme beliefs and therefore it mightn’t be so surprising – though it is appalling – that she’s willing to use the parliament as a stage for extremely bad behaviour.

In donning the burqa purchased on eBay and entering the Senate chamber, she was as attention-seeking as the streaker who races naked across the football ground, though her motive was darker. Let’s call out her action, but not play into her cynical pursuit of mega publicity.

Entirely beyond imagination was the week being bookended by the Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, and his deputy, senator Fiona Nash, standing up in their respective houses to announce they were dual citizens (he a Kiwi, she a Brit).

Joyce and Nash are remaining in cabinet – unlike their Nationals colleague Matt Canavan – and in their leadership roles while the High Court determines the fate of all three, among the batch of cases involving dual citizenship. At issue is their eligibility under the Constitution’s Section 44, which bans dual nationals standing for parliament.

Australian Conservatives’ senator Cory Bernardi, formerly a Liberal, suggested on Thursday that parliament should be prorogued – that is, suspended – until citizenship questions and any subsequent byelections are sorted.

Bernardi claims that Joyce is not the only House of Representatives MP whose citizenship is in doubt. He says staffers have told him “that they know their member of parliament is not eligible to be here”.

But suspending parliament would disrupt the normal course of government business, delaying legislation and, crucially in political terms, signalling panic.

Joyce continues to participate in parliamentary votes, so the government retains its one-seat majority in the House of Representatives. By its own lights, what credible story could it advance to put parliament on hold? It would look the ultimate in desperation.

There is no doubt the Joyce affair presented the government with a crisis. It then became a matter of management and this was seriously bungled.

Once it took the decision to keep Joyce in cabinet and in the deputy prime ministership, the government was always destined to be vulnerable to a ferocious Labor attack.

But its shock and awe response, with the absurd notion of a “treacherous” Bill Shorten and a Labor conspiracy across the Tasman with New Zealand Labour, was deluded from the start.

First, it was a try-on. Both Labor here and Labour in NZ were somewhat apologetic for their roles in the affair, understandable at least for NZ Labour which is facing an election. But what exactly was the wrongdoing by Labor here? Is there anything inherently “treacherous” about a Labor staffer using contacts to check in NZ who is eligible to be a citizen of that country?

Second the tactic, played in stereo, opened the government to ridicule. In particular, her exaggerated performance raised questions about the judgement of the usually astute Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, just days after a laudatory article had asked why she wasn’t mentioned more often as a possible future leader.

Although the circumstances are different, the hyperbolic accusation of “treachery” carries a remote echo from Turnbull’s book The Spy Catcher Trial, about the British government’s attempt to stop the Australian publication of a book by a former UK intelligence officer.

Turnbull, whose successful appearance in the high profile case gave an early boost to his reputation, wrote that then UK opposition leader Neil Kinnock – whom he pressed to “humiliate” the UK attorney-general in the British parliament – “was vigorously attacked in the House of Commons for ‘treacherous’ conduct”, in discussing the case with him.

If Turnbull were prone to bad dreams, his nightmares for the next few months would go something like this.

The government would lose the High Court case challenging the postal ballot on same-sex marriage, or win it and the ballot would return a “no” result.

It would lose Joyce’s citizenship case – and Nash and Canavan would be knocked out as well.

It would then lose the byelection in Joyce’s New England seat, with goodness knows what consequences in the resulting hung parliament.

Oh, and there would be a bruising battle within the government over energy policy, resulting in a much-criticised, wishy-washy outcome that gave no certainty for future investment.

But Turnbull is an optimist, or so he always tells us, and he’ll be looking at how things could all work out for the best in the best of worlds.

He’s predicted in the most unequivocal terms that Joyce will be vindicated in the High Court.

If things went well, the postal vote would sail through the legal challenge, and return a yes vote by a convincing margin with a substantial turnout, making the ballot beyond reasonable reproach, whatever the gripes of the losers. That would lead to parliament changing the law to deliver same-sex marriage by Christmas.

Energy policy would be hard fought within the government’s ranks, but the resulting compromise would be one that was seen as credible and welcomed by business.

The optimistic scenario – we might as well include in it at least one 50-50 Newspoll – would leave the government with a hope of regrouping, after an end-of-year ministerial reshuffle.

Which scenario, or what mixture of them, will come to pass is unforeseeable. But given how life goes for this government, some might regard the prospects for anything like the optimistic one as being in near-miracle territory.

Meanwhile, things are presently so grim they recall vividly some of the blackest times of the Gillard government.

Monday’s Joyce bombshell drove the same-sex marriage battle somewhat into the background, while both sides gear up for intense campaigns and questions remain about the postal ballot.

One of these is, I think, particularly interesting – that is, the argument that the result won’t be a true one because young people especially will be under-represented. The young are, collectively, more in favour of same-sex marriage than older people but less likely to be on the roll, to have a fixed address, or to be familiar with the post.

While this is a problem, I will be a bit contrarian. I think this both demeans the young and lets them off too lightly. They are supposed to enrol for elections anyway; if they have a view on the marriage issue there is both the incentive and opportunity to do so for this ballot.

A week is left – the rolls close August 24. The mobility challenge applies for general elections – it’s a hassle, but not insurmountable.

As for not using the post – well, that is like saying older people weren’t brought up with computers. Sorry, but one has to move with the times – even if, in this case, it’s moving backwards.

Young people are highly savvy with technology – I just don’t accept they can’t come to grips with posting a letter. If in doubt, they can always ask their grandmothers.

The ConversationThe nation is considering an important social issue – young Australians should get on the roll and vote.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Thursday, 17 August 2017

How career politicians now dominate our Parliament

I have been pottering along for a while now on my recollections of 50 plus years observing and playing politics. One day I might even end up with a flimsy document that people think worth reading. Whatever. One of the things that intrigues me is the way that the kind of people who have become federal politicians has changed since I came to Canberra in 1966 and today.
That's a subject that two former Prime Ministers - Bob Hawke and John Howard - touched on at an event at the old Parliament House this week. Both men, according to an ABC report, warned that these day career politicians without enough life experience are letting the public down.
Both men were asked to reflect on the state of Australian democracy in a discussion with Annabel Crabb on Wednesday night at the National Press Club, where they said both major parties were becoming less representative of the people who usually voted for them.
"My advice consistently to every young person who comes and asks me about [entering politics] is to make a life first," Mr Hawke said.
"I detest seeing a young bloke or lady go into a trade union office, or a politician's office, and spending a good deal of their time organising numbers in the branches."
Mr Howard said all political parties needed to do a better job "filtering" candidates to make sure they were from diverse backgrounds.
"We have too many people who enter Parliament now, particularly at state level, who have had no experience in life other than politics," he said.
"They've gone from school to university to the trade union, then to a politician's office.
"If you're on my side, they skip the trade union and they go to the politicians.
"We have too many now and I think it's part of the problem we face."
 The two old PM's have certainly got it right. The change in 50 years is considerable. Career politicians are now dominating political life. Back in 1966 when I came to Canberra trade union officials, political staffers, party officials and former MPs (state and federal) were less than a quarter of MHRs and Senators. At the start of this year they made up 54% of the total.

-->
OCCUPATION NO. % NO. %
1966 2017
Union Officials 31 16% 31 14%
Political staffers/party officials 5 3% 74 33%
State/Federal MPs  10 5% 16 7%
Farmers 37 19% 8 4%
Lawyers 19 10% 22 10%
Business people 45 23% 42 19%
    journalists 7 4
    medical practitioners 4 4
    policemen 2 3
    public servants 7 6
    teachers 11 2
    university lecturers 2 4
    community service workers 2 4
    farmworker 1
    veterinarian 1 1
    clergyman 1
    dentist 1
    optometrist 1
    military officer 1 3
    pharmacist 1 1
    cyclist 1
    seaman 1
    pilot 1
    lobbyist 1
Others 45 23% 33 15%
192 226

Does this woman have the answer to the Section 44 problem?

Maybe that annoying TV woman who nearly fell off the chair could solve MP's dual nationality problems once and for all.

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

No, it wasn’t a conspiracy that caused Barnaby’s problem – it was himself

File 20170815 18355 1qoxyfx

Barnaby Joyce has now renounced his New Zealand citizenship but his future is yet to be determined.
Mick Tsikas/AAP



Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Let’s get one point straight. The crisis around Barnaby Joyce has been caused by one simple oversight by one person. Joyce was careless in not properly checking whether he complied with the citizenship requirement of the Australian Constitution.

He was not landed into this pickle by Bill Shorten, the New Zealand Labour Party, the media, or anyone or anything else. If he had acted years ago with abundant caution – or his party had – he wouldn’t have had a problem.

And the government’s over-the-top efforts on Tuesday to find a conspiracy begs the question: does it think an MP’s alleged breach of the Constitution, if suspected, should be just ignored?

At the extreme, wouldn’t there be a risk that, in such circumstances, an MP could be open to an attempt to compromise them?

A few weeks ago the Greens’ Scott Ludlam resigned when he found he was a citizen of New Zealand, which he left as a child. His dual citizenship came to his attention when a barrister started poking around. Ludlam accepted the situation with grace.

Of course much more is at stake politically with Joyce. It’s unsurprising and entirely appropriate that the government fights for him in the High Court – although it is another matter that he is not standing aside from the ministry.

But the government’s attempt to paint this as a “treacherous” Shorten executing a dark deed involving a foreign power is desperate distraction politics. After a bizarre attack by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on the New Zealand Labour Party, it morphed into a diplomatic own goal.

Joyce’s dual citizenship came to light after two lines of inquiry in New Zealand: questions from Fairfax Media, and a blogger, to the Department of Internal Affairs, and questions on notice from Labour MP Chris Hipkins, following his conversation with Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s chief-of-staff Marcus Ganley, who’s a Kiwi.

Bishop’s accusations and language at Tuesday’s news conference were extraordinary for a foreign minister, although they were just at the extreme end of the script used throughout the day by Malcolm Turnbull and others in the government.

“The New Zealand Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern has revealed that Bill Shorten sought to use the New Zealand parliament to undermine the Australian government,” Bishop claimed.

“Bill Shorten has sought to use a foreign political party to raise serious allegations in a foreign parliament designed to undermine confidence in the Australian government.

"This is highly unethical, at least, but more importantly, puts at risk the relationship between the Australian government and the New Zealand government,” she said.

According to the NZ minister for internal affairs, Peter Dunne, it wasn’t the Labour questions that set the ball rolling to the outing of Joyce’s NZ citizenship.

Dunne tweeted:




But when this was put to Bishop, she said dismissively: “I don’t accept that”. That is, she rejected the word of a minister in a fraternal government.

Further, “New Zealand is facing an election. Should there be a change of government, I would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia,” Bishop said.

And again: “I would find it very difficult to build trust with members of a political party that had been used by the Australian Labor Party to seek to undermine the Australian government”.

Here’s Australia’s foreign minister, in a fit of collective government pique, saying before the NZ election she’d have problems with the possible winners.

This was egregious on several fronts. It is both harmful and offensive. The Australian and New Zealand governments, of whatever complexion, should and need to be close. Bishop’s sweeping claims go well beyond what seems to have happened. And her attack on NZ Labour buys right into the electoral contest – her accusation of foreign interference in our politics could be turned back and levelled at her.

Ardern met Australian High Commissioner Peter Woolcott – soon to take up the role of Turnbull’s chief-of-staff – to express her disappointment at Bishop’s remarks, but also to stress the importance she attached to the Australian relationship.

In very measured remarks, contrasting with Bishop’s tone, Ardern told a news conference she first knew of the situation when it broke in the media on Monday.

When she saw the reference to the NZ Labour Party she’d immediately inquired and learned Hipkins had asked two questions. Hipkins shouldn’t have done so, she said, a point she’d made that “absolutely clear” to him, and he’d acknowledged.

Hipkins had told her that when an ALP acquaintance had called him asking about citizenship “he had no context for who the question might relate to”.

Ardern said she would be happy to talk directly with Bishop (not that she had her phone number).

“The relationship between the New Zealand Labour Party and the Australian government is too important for politics to get in the way,” Ardern said. “Australian domestic politics is for them, not for us. We should not be involved.”

Later, Wong said her staffer had “informal discussions with New Zealand friends” about the Section 44 debate.

“At no point did he make any request to raise the issue of dual citizenship in parliament … In fact, neither I, nor my staff member, had any knowledge the question had even been asked until after the story broke.”

It was a day in which the Turnbull government looked more than a little unhinged. It caused a lot of angst across the ditch, got into an absurd barney with New Zealand Labour, and even had the New Zealand conservative government correct it.

In its attempt to throw mud at Shorten, the Turnbull government managed to do itself more harm.

The ConversationAnd at the end of it all Joyce, who has now renounced his New Zealand citizenship, still must have his future determined. It was announced that his case will come up on August 24 for a directions hearing, together with the two senators and two former senators also caught on the sticky paper of Section 44 (i).

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Monday, 14 August 2017

Kevin and Tony the cycling mates - not married but ...

Kevin Andrews MP :
I have a relationship with my cycling mates, but the law has no place in that relationship

video

Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott keeping their affectionate relationship on the road.


Could it be Footrot Flats for Barnaby with a dark moon shining over his horizon?

A singalong for today.

Thursday, 10 August 2017

A song for a strong political leader

So here we have it. Malcolm Turnbull on the way to decide whether same sex marriage should be legal:
PRIME MINISTER: Strong leaders carry out their promises. Weak leaders break them.
I'm a strong leader.
 So Singalong as Malcolm leads the way.


Click HERE to go to YouTube for a musical accopaniment 

Following the leader, the leader, the leader
We're following the leader
Wherever he may go
Tee dum, tee dee, a teedle ee do tee day
Tee dum, tee dee it's part of the game we play
Tee dum, tee dee, the words are easy to say
Just a teedle ee dum a teedle ee do tee day
Tee dum, tee dee, a teedle ee do tee dum
We're one for all, and all of us out for fun
We march in line and follow the other one
With a teedle ee do a teedle ee do tee dum
Following the leader, the leader, the leader
We're following the leader
Wherever he may go
We're out to fight the injuns, the injuns, the injuns
We're out to fight the injuns
Because he told us so
Tee dum, tee dee a teedle ee do tee day
We march along and these are the words we say
Tee dum, tee dee, a teedle teedle ee
Oh, a teedle ee dum a teedl ee dum tee day
Oh, a teedle ee dum a teedl ee dum tee day

Tuesday, 8 August 2017

Let's hope Senator Malcolm Roberts can represent himself in the High Court because that surely would be fun

The prospect of the Senate sending Senator Malcolm Roberts' election to the High Court must be thrilling legal scholars. A previous legal effort by the good Senator showed a unique grasp of juriprudence.
See for yourself at this earlier post by the Owl :
The wily legal wits of One Nation's Malcolm Roberts shown in a previous encounter

Some political marriage music

Malcolm pines while watching the same sex marriage debate being driven into an uncertain political eternity......



Listen to other political singalong choices HERE

Monday, 7 August 2017

The great shrinking of the vote for Australia's major political parties

Not much joy for the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party in today's political research news. In The Australian Newspoll had the two parties share of the vote at just 72%. That's five percentage points down on the share at the last election. And in The Sydney Morning Herald a report on what focus groups have found about the current feeling of voters towards the big two had this to say:
The distaste for both major parties did seem to create an opportunity for the minor parties; One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and independent senator Derryn Hinch were praised for speaking their minds. Some voters named the Greens as a potential alternative yet none could name the party leader, Richard Di Natale, nor his predecessor.
No hint there of a change in the long-term trend that has seen a steady shrinking of the support for Australia's major parties.


Major party first preference votes
(House of Representatives)
PeriodNumber of electionsAverage major party vote
1950s494.2
1960s490.5
1970s492.4
1980s492.2
1990s484.4
2000s383.6
2010s379.1

The decline is even more pronounced in Senate voting figures.

Major party first preference votes
(Senate)
PeriodNumber of electionsAverage major party vote
1940s195.3
1950s492.0
1960s388.3
1970s486.7
1980s484.4
1990s480.5
2000s378.8
2010s368.9

Monday, 31 July 2017

When politicians lie because it helps win an election it gets harder to remember what it's like to tell the truth

Paul Krugman in today's New York Times was writing about America's Republicans but the view strikes me as being applicable to a broad spectrum of Australian politics.
A key moment came in the 1970s, when Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, embraced supply-side economics — the claim, refuted by all available evidence and experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting economic growth. Writing years later, he actually boasted about valuing political expediency over intellectual integrity: “I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities.” In another essay, he cheerfully conceded to having had a “cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit,” because it was all about creating a Republican majority — so “political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”
The problem is that once you accept the principle that it’s O.K. to lie if it helps you win elections, it gets ever harder to limit the extent of the lying — or even to remember what it’s like to seek the truth.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

The anti-Muslim emphasis of the Australian Conservatives

Not much doubt about a major theme of the new Australian Conservatives when an election does come.

Fine those ineligible MPs $200 a day

If, like me, you find all this discussion of what Section 44 of the Constitution actually means a bit confusing, Background Paper Number 29 Dual·Citizenship, Foreign Allegiance and s.44(i) of the Australian Constitution,prepared back in 1993 for the Parliamentary Research Service might help The author Sarah O'Brien brings together what the High Court has said about the section along with a summary of what our founding fathers had in mind.
Just a couple of snippets that I found of interest. The idea floated by Christopher Pyne of an evil foreign dictator bestowing foreign citizenship on all MPs has been considered by the Court. In one judgment Brennan J stated that as a matter of international law and public policy the Court would not recognise the conferring of nationality by a foreign power which exceded the jurisdiction of the foreign country or which was not based on a bona fide relationship with the person in question.
To take an extreme example, if a foreign power were mischievously to confer its nationality on members of the Parliament so as to disqualify them all, it would be absurd to recognise the foreign law conferring nationality.
I was also intrigued by a reference to this Act:

COMMON INFORMERS (PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS) ACT 1975 - SECT 3

Penalty for sitting when disqualified
             (1)  Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:
                     (a)  $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and
                     (b)  $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.
             (2)  A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.

             (3)  The High Court shall refuse to make an order in a suit under this Act that would, in the opinion of the Court, cause the person against whom it was made to be penalized more than once in respect of any period or day of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.





Friday, 28 July 2017

The wily legal wits of One Nation's Malcolm Roberts shown in a previous encounter


The letter below shows that the High Court could be in for the ride of its legal life if it were to come up against the wily wits of One Nation's Malcom Roberts and his perplexing citizenship issues. A movie along the lines of Chauncey Gardner meets Atticus Finch could be in the offing?

Friday, 23rd September, 2011
Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.
Beneficiary, Administrator for
MALCOM IEUAN ROBERTS
180 Haven Road,
Pullenvale QLD 4069
The Woman, Julia-Eileen: Gillard., acting as The Honourable JULIA EILEEN GILLARD
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall
Notice to principle is Notice to agent. Notice to agent is Notice to principle.
I, commonly addressed by the name Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., in my correct capacity as beneficiary to the original jurisdiction, being majority in age, competent to testify, a self realised and free sentient man upon the land, my yes be yes, my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge, true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading, so help me God.
Preamble: From what I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., have seen and in my experience, on the topic of human causation of global warming, also known as global ‘climate change’, people across Australia express a range of feelings including confusion, fear, guilt, frustration, resentment, anger, apathy and doubt. As a result of this and of political inconsistencies since 2006, people across Australia say their needs for truth, understanding, reassurance, security, confidence, hope and clarity are not being met. I share these unmet needs and after four years reading and researching claims of human causation of global warming, and after communicating directly with many politicians of all major Australian political parties I feel deeply concerned. It appears that politicians and associated advocates, particularly those receiving funding from government, appear to be failing their duty of care to the people of Australia. My concern is that our nation is divided and especially that unfounded political action is leading to serious, needless and avoidable damage to Australia’s sovereignty, governance, morals, science, natural environment and economy and to serious harm to the people of Australia individually and as a nation and to their communities, freedoms, property rights, livelihood, wealth, welfare, ease, efficiency, comfort, safety and security.
I come to you in good faith and want remedy for my situation. In doing so I am presenting and making a contract that is fair, equitable and responsible.

Affidavit of Notice of Standing and Further and Better Particulars and Proof of Claim.
1. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that man has not been created by something superior to all men, and believe that none exist.
2. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul have not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the creator of the universe does not own all that is in the heavens and earth and believe that none exist.
3. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that man is not a servant to the superior creator, and believe that none exist.
4. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that all men are not created equal, and believe that none exist.
5. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that man has not created government, and believe that none exist.
6. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the government is therefore not a servant to man, and believe that none exist.
7. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that government did not create corporations and believe that none exist.
8. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul have not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that governments are not superior to corporation and believe that none exist.
9. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul am not a beneficiary of the public trust, or evidence that the Australian Government is not a trustee in the public trust and believe that none exist.
10. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the Commonwealth of Australia CIK# 000805157 is not a corporation registered on the United States of America securities exchange, is not a society and is not a trustee in the public trust, and believe that none exist.
11. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that compels me, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul or any other free man to be a member of a society and believe that none exist.
12. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that compels me, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts,, the living soul to be an employee of any corporation and believes that none exist.
13. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul cannot resign from a society at any time and believe that none exist.
14. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that without full disclosure, clarity and agreement in memberships and contracts, are not null and void, and believe that none exist.
15. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that a notice is not an instrument and a written legal document, that defines rights, duties, entitlements, or liabilities and believe that none exist.
16. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that an unrebutted affidavit does not stand as truth in commerce and believe that none exist.
17. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that a government entity is not an instrumentality or agency of the Commonwealth, or of State or a local government, and believe that none exist.
18. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul must enjoin to be the corporation, entity, government employee/ servant/ agent or public employee/ servant/ agent, and believe that none exist.
19. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul am the birth certificate, and believe that none exist.
20. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the birth certificate is not an instrument that compels the entity on the birth certificate to perform in a capacity of a government employee/ servant/ agent, and believe that none exist.
21. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I am compelled to contract or perform under contract without full disclosure, agreement and consent, and believe that none exist.
22. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that acts, statutes, codes and by-laws do not only apply to corporation employees and public employees/ servants/ agents, and believe that none exist.
23. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that public employees/ servants/ agents are not there to serve man, and believe that none exist.
24. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul have not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that The Honourable JULIA EILEEN GILLARD is not a public servant, and/or an employee and/or is not there to faithfully serve man and/or does not receive an income and/or fee and/or financial support from the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA to that end and believes that none exist.
25. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that The Honourable JULIA EILEEN GILLARD therefore does not bear full commercial liability for damages or injuries caused by employees or agents for the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA in this matter, and believe that none exist.
26. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul am not living in a free and equal society or should pay for it in some further spurious tax levied supposedly on carbon dioxide, and believe that none exist.
27. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the corporation of government has not entered into contracts with advocates of the premise that humans cause global warming, to some predetermined end and believe none exists.
28. I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul have not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that corporations and/or agents cannot be sued for injury and damages and believe that none exist.

Notice of non-acceptance:
Definition of “Carbon Tax”: The term “Carbon Tax” represents the collection of the following nineteen (19) legislative bills currently before parliament:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
For these reasons I do not consent and cannot accept the “Carbon Tax” nor the terms and conditions as the bills imply as it is an issuance of a “false document” of “defective service”
1. For the reason of, is this not an unjustifiable imposition of costs on me?
2. For the reason of, is this not restricting my freedoms through arbitrary legislation?
3. For the reason of, has the government not reversed its responsibility of serving the people and instead determined the people must serve the government.
4. For the reason of, is this not injuring the people of the common wealth?
5. For the reason of, the government not having consent of the people, are the proposed\bills not an illegal and unlawful attempt to impose the tax?
I will only consent to and accept the terms and conditions as listed below.

Notice of terms and conditions:
1. If you refuse to comply with the terms and conditions, I give you notice now that you are engaged in wilful blindness and bad faith, and intentionally engaged in creating a controversy where none exist. And I require the full matter to be made public record by you.
2. You must provide full and accurate disclosure in answer to all the twenty eight (28) the points outlined in the affidavit above.
3. You must provide full and accurate answers of the nine (9) elements listed for proving up, below.
4. You must provide remedy in full. Failure to provide remedy in full, the schedule of fees listed below will apply.

Notice of Proof of Claim and Clarification:
I seek clarification and proof of claim of all nine (9) items listed below, each point requiring lawful response.
1) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that global atmospheric temperature has been rising during the past twelve (12) years since 1998 and is continuing to rise.
2) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that in the open atmosphere, global carbon dioxide level determines global atmospheric temperature.
3) Prove up and show material facts or evidence that human production of carbon dioxide determines global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
4) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that global atmospheric temperature rises are catastrophically harmful to humanity and to the Earth’s living natural environment comprising animal and plant species.
5) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is actually a scientific organisation.
6) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence contradicting statements in the body of the August, 2010 report from the Inter-Academy Council’s review of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change processes and procedures showing that those processes and procedures cannot be relied upon.
7) Prove up and show that the gas carbon dioxide, sometimes known as CO2, is a pollutant.
8) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the source of information for the current government’s climate policy and the basis of its quest to legislated a “Carbon Tax”.
9) Prove up and show all material facts or evidence that the Australian parliament has no need to convene an independent judicial inquiry into the science and politics of climate that is the basis of the “Carbon Tax” and that such inquiry should not require evidence be given under oath.

Notice of Contract; between MALCOLM IEUAN ROBERTS and JULIA EILEEN GILLARD, agent of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
JULIA EILEEN GILLARD, agent of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA will faithfully serve me, the living soul, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., and will make restitution for any damages caused by employees or agents of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA by the introduction of the, 19 bills listed above to legislate carbon dioxide, commonly and collectively known as the “Carbon Tax”.
JULIA EILEEN GILLARD, agent of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA will pay damages as per the enclosed compensation fee schedule to the living soul, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.
JULIA EILEEN GILLARD, agent of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA will supply the remedy.
Failure to address any or all of the points in this affidavit and Notice of clarification will leave
JULIA EILEEN GILLARD, agent of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, in default.
Failure to address any or all of the above points will be taken that COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA do not have the lawful or legal ability to impose charges, taxes, fees, registration, limits, and any other regulation, statute, act, code, law or by-laws upon me, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., or my corporate entity, MALCOM IEUAN ROBERTS.
Notice of Schedule of fees:
Failure to respond and clarify the terms listed as points above will result in personal damages for each point to which there is no adequate response.
You must provide full and accurate disclosure in answer to all twenty eight (28) points outlined in the affidavit above. Each point to which there is no adequate response, incurs a damage of ten thousand dollars $10,000.00AUD, per breach.
You must provide full and accurate answers to the nine (9) elements for proving up as listed above. Each point to which there is no full and complete response incurs a damage of ten thousand dollars $10,000.00AUD, per breach.
Furthermore, I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., claim and reserve the right to register a Commercial Lien on all transgressors’ properties and assets in order to obtain and secure payment of this Fee Schedule. And to garnish wages, salaries, personal assets or any other benefits for damages or injury caused by violation of this notice or any contract, from any person involved in such injury caused by violation of this notice or any contract.
Furthermore this applies to any and all persons acting for or on behalf of JULIA EILEEN GILLARD or Parent Corporation as public employees/ servants/ agents, government employees/ servants/ agents, until payment in full of any contract breach or default.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or to make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within Ten (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than Ten (10) days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service. Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence.
All parties who have been served proper notice of Affidavit of Notice of Standing and Further and Better Particulars and Proof of Claim, either directly or by association, and fail to discuss or dispute, within the allotted time and then infringe, violate or abrogate said rights, directly or through their agents, employees or proxies, agree they do so under full commercial liability and within my right to activate my Fee Schedule.
Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned Fee Schedule against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.
Place of claim of standing: A city commonly known as Brisbane, A State commonly known as Queensland, A land mass commonly known as Australia.
I claim the intent of my affidavit and notice is clear to you and prefer to settle this matter in a timely and honourable way so that no party is harmed and all parties maintain honour and integrity.
I thank you in advance for your honourable and timely attention to this matter.
I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., do state that the truths and facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge, true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading, so help me God.

Best Regards
Dated: _______________
Claimant ___________________________________
Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts. ©
Principal Creditor, Beneficiary and Administrator, all rights reserved
SAID BEFORE ME, at (Town), this ____________
Day of , 2011
KNOW all men that I, (Your private
Notary & Witness) of (Town), Queensland,
Australia, at the request of: Malcolm-Ieuan: of the family: Roberts, there being no notary public available, did on (day) , this (Date) Day of (Month) 2011 Anno Domini, at (Town), witness the signing of the document ‘Affidavit of Notice of Standing and Further and Better Particulars and Proof of Claim’ by the man commonly called:
Malcolm Ieuan: of the family: Roberts in the presence of
________________________ and ____________________________.
Yours Sincerely
By
Signed ……………………………………
__
(Name of Private Notary) In Own
Right
Verified by: .......................................................
Name: Date:
Verified by: .......................................................
Name: Date:

Under God I have inalienable Rights to be acted upon as an equal