Hi both, and I'll CC (and BCC) others concerned about democracy and the law. Also I realise that many (most) readers will be too busy, or not familiar enough with the subject of this message, to even read it all. So I'll keep this short, but invite you to acquiesce, or to respond to this e-mail. By acquiescencing you will be silently consenting to the receipt and the message contents. For example the High Court has recently 'suggested' (and former Justice Minister, Amanda Vanstone has concurred) that "the Constitution is now binding because the Australian people continue to acquiesce in it." Notice there is no suggestion that Australian governments continue to acquiesce, even though the Constitution was specifically intended to bind them! So until I get a contrary response from a recepient (just click reply if you want no more), I'll take it he/she is acquiescencing, and I can follow this e-mail with more information. OK? Last January we exchanged e-mails on the subject of Chief Justice Murray Gleesen's final Boyer lecture 'the ultimate test of our judiciary'. Joe pointed out that "Courts uphold establishment dictates even when the dictates are repugnant to the Constitution". Justice Wilcox showed this, when on 30 Sep 1998, he agreed with the illiterate proposition by Commonwealth Solicitor General, David Bennett QC, to replace the word "between" with "for" (in Sec 168(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act), which is repugnant to the English language, let alone the Constitution!. It will take a brave group of judges (and ex-judges?) to say "Enough is Enough". The challenge for credible leaders is to act instead of acquiesce. Will His Excellency, Major General Arnison, Governor of Queensland, who has both hard evidence of rigged elections, and the authority, be the first to act or will he acquiesce? So far he's only acquiescencing to messages like the attached e-mail. If you read it and its attachments, you can consider whether he is doing his sworn duty (not under the Constitution, but under Bob Hawke's equally binding, letters patent of 14 Feb 1986). What should he do before he's expected to swear in MLAs who got fewer votes than required by democracy, and by law? Finally, I've removed one of the original attachments to the "Resend of 'Lawful Process of Elections or Disenfranchisement of Voters' and request for acknowledgement" e-mail, but included its message as the Kawana count web page, which should make His Excellency's situation easier to grasp. It also suggests things you can do to express your reaction to its evidence of ECQ contempt for democracy and the law.
It is nearly two weeks since I first e-mailed and faxed the attached document (according to law), intended for His Excellency, Major General Peter Arnison, Governor of Queensland, but I've heard nothing since. I understand the issues I raised require proper consideration, particularly since Mr O'Shea has now returned the Writ, showing eighty-nine 'winners', confirming that he is a knowing, and apparently willing party to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. In fact I expect proper action is already happening, but in the absence of responses from either Mr O'Shea or the Governor's office, I am concerned. Despite the e-mail and faxed versions, His Excellency may have not even seen my first submission, or may still be deceived, as are most electors, after years of indoctrination, to accept that 'winners' are inevitable, rather than the democratic truth reflected in the fact that second counts must take place where no candidates get majorities of first preference votes. In Kawana the 2nd count was needed BECAUSE no candidate had 11,807 votes, and that is still true. NO candidate has the 11,807 votes needed by law, for a democratic majority after the 2nd (and final) count! The attached 'Notes to help readers of the deceptive ‘Copy of the official results for Kawana electorate’ in 2001' (hard evidence.doc) is to be circulated to as many as we can, and I hope it will help His Excellency. Please note point 10 opens with "It is possible the evidence is being withheld from him (His Excellency)" and of course I would rather not include this if it is clearly untrue by tomorrow evening, but will CC this to the now silent Antony Green. His Excellency may also be interested to know that until my e-mail (RE: ABC Duty to Inform Electorates & RE: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea) to Mr Green, the ABC's electoral expert persisted in defending the disenfranchisement, and even asserted that my efforts were "vilification of the way the Queensland count has been conducted"! Since then his, and the ABC's, acquiescence have echoed Mr O’ Shea’s silent consent to the democratic truth. As you'll notice, I invited Mr Green to assist the ABC in its duty to inform electorates by public debate promoting Chief Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." Without such informed electorates, there is NO democratic and lawful means of securing change. That needs to change as soon as possible, because thanks to the ECQ, thats where we are right now in Queensland! Even though most electorates did produce democratic and lawful majorities, we had, and have, 89 electorates misinformed about the very system of voting used to return MLAs! I told Antony, if still in doubt, to take this up with His Honour, and perhaps His Excellency will too, if he has not already. Once again, I hope His Excellency's intervention will prevent the conclusion reached by the ECQ reaching the 2080 voters before they get justifiably outraged when they learn the truth. Also, if His Excellency does not open his e-mail, please print the attached Word files (and these e-mails) for his urgent attention. Finally, I will endevour to get my original submission, and other evidence of ECQ corruption, to His Excellency with the original submission, but have yet to discover how to do this. From experience talking with various partisan candidates and supporters, reading messages like these are far less helpful than conferring, and I hope His Excellency will soon involve me more directly in his efforts to bring to account those responsible for deceiving us all, and soon issue new writs to a more trustworthy officer. This could also be discussed when my submissions are acknowledged. Thankyou for your attention, and for getting these documents to His Excellency James Stewart 24 Moorbell Street TARRAGINDI, 4121 Phone:+617 3411 7646 Mobile: 04 1427 4420 (voice-mail)
Antony, my apologies for returning after my 'last' message You say the problem with my whole argument is about optional preferential voting. I though I was as clear as is possible in written dialogue, that "The debate is not really about what the law says, but whether it is lawful, or a massive fraud on those who believe in democracy, and that formal ballots DO AND MUST "remain in the count", rather than be removed from final counts. You wrote "The law is a very conservative body of documents based on past practice and precedent, and not prone to radical re-interpretation." Yet, as you should know, on 30 September 1998, Justice Wilcox 'decided' that "for" means "between"! This bit of judicial illiteracy was prompted by Solicitor-General David Bennett QC, who held not only the Federal Court in contempt, but the English language! Maybe the law is a very conservative body of documents, but what about such lawyers! This is why the issues need public, not judicial debate to promote Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." So far I am sure a majority of electors in the 89 Queensland electorates believe, as we expect for democratic elections, that if a majority of the first preference votes is not for 1 candidate, then a second count must take place. Read that again carefully. A second count must take place if a majority of the first preference votes is not for 1 candidate. So the reason for second (and subsequent) count(s) is that a majority of the first preference votes is not for 1 candidate. That is what you could call a keystone of our "very conservative body of documents". But if after final counts, a majority of the first and lower preference votes is still not for 1 candidate, do a majority of electors in each of the 89 Queensland electorates believe that voters who did not mark a preference for the remaining candidates, have their ballots/votes declared 'invalid', and that winners are declared, who have less than the majority of the first preference votes needed to win on first preferences? Or do they believe Premier Beattie's advice to just vote [1] was good (even conservative) advice? If a majority of electors in each of the 89 Queensland electorates do not believe that voters who did not mark a preference for the remaining candidates, have their ballots/votes declared 'invalid', and that winners are declared, who have less than the majority of the first preference votes needed to win on first preferences, they are being defrauded. Thats a lot of Queenslanders! In fact its likely to be a majority of all electors. Hence the importance of public debate to promote Justice Murray Gleesen's cause, that: "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." With out such informed electorates, there is NO democratic and lawful means of securing change. That where we are right now in Queensland! If still in doubt, Antony, please take this up with His Honour. After his Boyer lectures (you should hear them all) he should be most willing to help you and the many Queenslanders still misled by the ECQ fraud! Regards, and good luck Jim -----Original Message----- From: Antony Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 5 March 2001 12:07 To: Jim Stewart Subject: Re: ABC Duty to Inform Electorates & RE: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more than help Mr O'Shea Jim, Look, the problem with your whole argument is that optional preferential voting was deliberately introduced to allow people not to express preferences. Under compulsory preferential voting, voters are forced to express preferences for candidates they do not wish to vote for. The only alternative is to cast an informal vote. At least with optional preferential voting, voters can cast a vote for candidates they want, without having to vote for candidates they do want. Now on your argument, the 2080 One Nation voters in Kawana who did not want to choose between the Labor and National Party candidate suddenly have more rights than the 18,000 voters who did. Under your argument, where elections are voided if no one receives 50% of the formal vote, then any minority group in a close electorate could deny the result of an election. George Bush is President of the USA with less than 50% of the vote. So was Bill Clinton. And in terms of the total voters rather than those who voted, their minoroty is even smaller (if that usage makes sense.) Margaret Thatcher never got close to a majority in the electorate. In the recent Queensland election, under your reasoning, I suspect Labor would have more than 50 seats, the National Party 1 definate, maybe a couple of extras, and I suspect no other non-Labor candidate would have been elected. There were that many voters who chose not to make a choice. Your recipe for repeated elections is a recipe for uncertainty, as the minority who do not chose between the highest vote candidates constantly prevent an election being decided. And as I continue to say to you, and I have said for over two years, the concept of a "failed election" as you interpret it does not exist. It only exists in the Commonwealth electoral act, and is merely a provision to allow an automatic by-election if for the reason of missing ballot papers, a majority of the formal votes cannot be achieved. Again this is only for compulsory preferential voting, and again, is merely a means for an automatic by-election instead of a court of disputed returns to be lodged. I have in front of me a publication called "Elections Queensland" which provides a detailed example of an optional preferential count, complete with detail of how the number of votes remaining in the count declines with exhausted votes set aside during the distribution of preferences. This is educational material given to students or members of the public interested in the process of Queensland elections. In other words, nothing has been hidden in the process of the count. It was published in Auguast 1995 and I understand has been their standard material since then. Exhausted preferences have now been dealt with this way at 4 Queensland elections. They have been dealt with this way at 6 NSW elections. When "Langer voting" was allowed at Federal elections, they were dealt with that way. In Western Australia, where "Langer" voting is still allowed, these exhausted votes are also set aside and the majority determined by the number of votes remaining in the count. Where Hare-Clark style proportional representation is used, in Tasmania, the ACT and the NSW upper house, optional preferential voting is also used. In each of these cases, votes with no further preferences are set aside as exhausted in the count, and play no part in the determination of the final vacancies to be filled. The special category of Senate votes that exhaust is also dealt with this way. In other words, what the Queensland electoral commission is doing is according to law, and according to precedent and accepted practice. Given they have actually also released educational material explaining this method of counting, possibly the only complaint is they haven't explained the method enough. In other words, if you want to change the method of election, you either have to win enough seats to change the law, or get a party to agree with your policy positions. But above all, YOU have to define the method of counting you want turned into law. With no precedent in Australian electoral history for your method, you have absolutely no hope of having any court re-interpreting the law to match what you believe it should be. If you think an election should fail if no candidate gets 50% of the primary vote under optional preferential voting, then you need the law to be changed, because that is not what it says now. And you won't get it changed by continuing to highlight the Kawana case. The One Nation candidate finished third in a field of three, and even under compulsory preferences would have been defeated. If you want to change the law, you will have to campaign to get it changed. But you will get nowhere by just trying to use semantics to have the current law re-interpreted when it is backed by so much intent, practice and educational material. I have spent a lot of time trying to explain this problem, both to you and to others interested in the issue. The law is a very conservative body of documents based on past practice and precedent, and not prone to radical re-interpretation. For every Mabo or "Implied rights of free-speech" judgement, there are thousands that just continue to re-inforce past judgements. Campaign to change the law to what you want. But the vilification of the way the Queensland count has been conducted will get you nowhere. Antony Green
Hard Evidence.docTitle: COPY OF THE OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR KAWANA ELECTORATE
COPY
OF THE OFFICIAL RESULTS FOR KAWANA ELECTORATE.
As at 23/02/2001 signed by the Kawana returning officer M P
Stubbins
|
|
The
Electoral Commissioner, Mr O’Shea was alerted on 12 February, to the absence
of any authority for this ‘Optional Final Counting’, but has yet to
respond.
The
deceptive words “remaining in the count” in Section 119(8) in the
Electoral Act, 1992 Qld) imply ‘Optional Final Counting’ of ballots of
voters who voted just [1], is authorised, but there is no authority.
Mr O’Shea’s failure to respond indicates acquiescence to this fact.
Disenfranchising
voters after their ‘valid’ votes are included in a ‘first’ count, to
deceive the Governor of Queensland, and thousands of Queensland voters, into
believing ECQ ‘winners’ have democratic majorities, is clearly not
democratic. Nor is it, or can it ever be, lawful.
One
authority for saying Commissioner O’Shea’s actions are not lawful is Chief
Justice of the High Court, His Honour Murray Gleesen, who said on ABC radio
last November: "The democratic and lawful means of
securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an
informed electorate." Electorates deceived about “Optional
Final Counting” are misinformed, NOT informed electorates!
Another
authority for saying the Electoral Commissioner’s actions are not lawful is
the Anti Discrimination Act 1991, Section 101, which provides that
discrimination in any government program whatsoever is unlawful.
Discrimination by deceitfully removing ballots after the first count, and
because voters do not give 2nd preferences to remaining candidates, is more
than just unlawful. It is criminally corrupt, and Commissioner O’Shea’s
acquiescence to challenges to his authority, implies he also knows this. It is
mischief, fraud, and probably treason!
This
evidence of election rigging has already been provided to the office of the
Governor of Queensland, but is so far not being acknowledged. When he
learns what is happening, he must do his sworn duty. Clearly the right thing
is to promptly issue new writs for Kawana and other such electorates,
and bring to account those responsible for deceiving us all.
Many
of those responsible are probably outside the ECQ, but it at least is
accountable to the CJC, as well as the Governor.
There
are many things you can do to express your reaction to this evidence of ECQ
corruption, but please start by sharing it with others, like Jim Stewart, the
author of these notes (07 3411 7646, or 04 1427 4420) and the Governor of
Queensland. The e-mail address
and fax of office of the Governor are [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and 07 3858 5701.
