Hi, Jim.
You must be aware that the JSCEM has little more than a propaganda power.
As with JSCOT (the treaties committee), the Government can simply ignore
any recommendations. I recall that this was the case with JSCEM's
recommendations in ?1989 about electoral free time in electronic media.
(I'm proud to claim it was MY suggestion that the report be entitled "Who
Pays the Piper Calls the Tune". Amazingly, it was adopted!)
Also, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about injustices, etc, to One
Nation when (as I've always said) the party was never rigorously
constituted on a democratic basis by its members - and was therefore
always headed for disastrous infighting and easy pickings by the major
parties. Here's something I wrote to StopMAI colleagues in June 1998:
>The Mandurah person who phoned me in April, expressing support and
inability to attend our [StopMAI] public meeting, was Mr Athol Chester.
He said that his One Nation crew also held meetings on Tuesdays and that
they usually had about 50 along. (He was also worried about some sort of
factional activity at the time.)
>I read on page one of yesterday's 'West Australian' (6/6/98): "Athol
Chester, of Mandurah, was expelled with a colleague after they contacted a
member interstate for details of other WA branches."
>A Mr Ettridge, explaining the expulsions, said the State Council knew
where all the State branches were.. "Athol has totally ignored our
carefully written security policy. . .Branches are isolated by
electorate."
>I had not heard of anything so undemocratic (outside Burma and Indonesia)
since my last attendance at a National Executive meeting of the Australian
Democrats in Queensland, July, 1993. Which of the Australian political
parties can cast the first stone? (With acknowledgement to Kerrie
Christian for the thought.)
Sympathetic regards
Brian Jenkins
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Albert. Langer@neither. apana. org. au
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neither Newsgroup
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000 10:13
Subject: BRW QUICK POLL - help stop the GST and eventually restore the
'rule of law'
|Here's a quick way to help stop the GST, and even restore the 'rule of
law'!
|
|So far the GST is winning (>50% polled) the BRW QUICK POLL: "Which is the
|biggest threat to the success of the tax reform process?" (News Corp is
3rd
|on about 20%!) Its at the following site, and given the Fairfax (and
|Murdoch) campaigns against Canberra since they were screwed by Canberra
when
|Kerry Packer beat them in the digital TV deal, this must be a good chance
to
|keep it going, and spread the truth. Lets see if we can get the GST to
poll
|> 2/3 (66.7%). Next time you are on-line, just visit the site, click
"GST
|complexity", and forward this to your own lists.
|http://www.brw.com.au/
|
|Of course the really big threats to the success of any tax reform process
|are Canberra's incompetent but arrogant mandarins, and Bernie Fraser's
|'dickhead ministers'. The former include the Australian Electoral
|Commissioners (AEC), whose disregard for the 'rule of law' corrupts
|elections so that a dozen or more MHR candidates who 'won' in 1998, were
not
|freely and directly elected, but returned by blackmail and bribery. This
|resulted in a million or more fraudulent votes for Liberal (and Labor)
|candidates. If the Electoral Commissioners had followed and applied the
|law, new writs (and candidates) for new elections would have been issued
in
|seats like Mayo, Moreton, Dickson, and Petrie. Meanwhile the GST can be
no
|more binding on us than the Commonwealth Electoral Act has been binding
the
|AEC!
|
|The evidence for the above is with the Joint Standing Committee,
Electoral
|Matters (JSCEM). Its inquiry into the 1998 election has been going for a
|year and its report is due soon, but on present indications, the truth
will
|be suppressed unless the JSCEM 'sees the light'. Voters want MPs who
will
|confront Canberra's incompetent lawbreakers, not party hacks whose
loyalty
|to party leaders betrays the people they swear to serve. The AEC's
|'worst-past-the-post' prevents such democratic results and their
|accountability!
|
|To help the JSCEM find the courage to do its duty, call (02 6277 2374) or
|e-mail its secretariat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] and ask for both the
report
|plus the 234 submissions (2/3 objecting to compulsory preferences) and
|transcript. Both the latter should be at
|http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect98/
|
|You could also e-mail its Chairman Gary Nairn
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Gary's opposition to '1st-past-the-post' at the Brisbane hearing was so
|genuine and encouraging that I know he would really like to announce the
|truth of 'Oztracism', and expose the perpetrators of the 'Canberra
Dodge',
|rather than join his 'dickhead ministers' in history's dust bin.
|
|If you haven't heard of them before, there are 3 simple but vital points
to
|grasp about 'Oztracism' and the 'Canberra Dodge'. After they are clear,
the
|AEC propaganda and treason are exposed forever. From its argument before
|the Federal Court in September 1998, and is sustained refusal to deny
|accusations put to the 1998 election inquiry, the AEC clearly knew, and
|knows, its 'Canberra Dodge' breaks numerous laws as described to various
|submissions to the inquiry into the 1998 election.
|
|1. VOTERS' INTENTIONS PREVAIL OVER PARLIAMENT'S - if elections are free!
|Section 268(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states: "... A
ballot-paper
|shall not be informal for any reason other than the reasons specified in
|this section, but shall be given effect to according to the voter's
|intention so far as that intention is clear."
|
|The key phrases here are, "for any reason other than the reasons
specified
|in this section" i.e.. Section 268; "voter's intention", which puts the
|people's intentions above the parliament's; and "so far as that intention
is
|clear", which also recognises that formal votes can 'exhaust'.
|
|2. EXHAUSTED BALLOTS CAN PRODUCE ABSOLUTE MAJORITIES AGAINST ALL
CANDIDATES
|Once there are at least three candidates it is inevitable that unless
|'exhausted' ballots are ILLEGALLY removed from the final count, it is
|possible that neither of the last two left will get the 'absolute'
majority
|required for election, and a new writ for another election is needed!
|
|The Act is clear about this, but electors were, and are, deliberately
|deceived by the AEC, as documented in undenied submissions and
transcripts
|of the suppressed inquiry into the 1998 election. At least a million
|(mostly One Nation) votes were corrupted by this deception in October
1998,
|and maybe $1.5 million of taxpayers' money was used to 'bribe' One Nation
|officials.
|
|3. MANY CANDIDATES RETURNED IN OCTOBER 1998 WERE NOT ELECTED LEGALLY
|The AEC has for decades betrayed its duty is to: "promote public
awareness
|of electoral and Parliamentary matters by means of the conduct of
education
|and information programs and by other means" by saying it doesn't count
|(Langer) votes with their clear intention of voting against two or more
|candidates, even though its Scrutineers Handbook says: "A House of
|Representatives ballot-paper is formal if a first preference is shown by
the
|presence of the figure 1 in the square opposite the name of one, and only
|one, candidate, and if there are numbers (any numbers) in all the other
|squares on the ballot-paper, or in all but one square, which is left
blank".
|
|These deceptions and bribes are ILLEGAL under various laws, most
explicitly
|sub-section 329(1)of the Act, which despite its near emasculation by the
|High Court (in Evans v Crighton-Brown) still outlaws "misleading or
|deceptive information about obtaining and MARKING and depositing a vote
in
|the ballot box."
|
|People interested in both stopping the GST, and in helping others to
|understand that it is the result if an ILLEGAL parliament, can get
further
|details by emailing mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also the people at
|"Neither", who advertised the legal facts in September 1998 (the advert
was
|headlined 'Who cares when they impose a GST?'), can be contacted at
|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or
|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
