HIGH COURT COURTS CHAOS
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
If Malcolm Roberts is allowed to return to his Senate seat then so too should the other six, but it’s not likely the High Court will bring down a blanket judgment. Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, who was recently appointed by George Brandis, could make various rulings during next week’s sitting, and that should make for some fun and games.
Kiefel, who was an obligatory female appointment, does not appear to be up to this required level of subtle justice and has previously made some very curious and damaging decisions, in particular regarding the four kidnapped Italian girls a few years back.
In doing so she made no reference to the illegal complicity of Julie Bishop’s DFAT and its incompetent staff who assisted in the kidnapping and flight to Australia of the mother and four daughters.
The program 60 Minutes has since exposed the details and the mother’s and DFAT’s criminality… naturally nothing eventuated, despite Australia being a signatory to the Hague Convention.
DFAT, under Julie Bishop, has also refused to disclose how $60 million of Australian taxpayer funds is spent in Cambodia each year, with very little to show for it. And that’s just the notoriously corrupt Cambodia. DFAT still refuses to comment on $100 million donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Kiefel’s appointment was applauded by Fairfax and the ABC so that in itself should raise concerns.
And we shouldn't expect a Solomon type decision on the seven doubtfuls when any decision will require far more astute wisdom than that of mere Solomon.
The only important sloppy person is Barnaby Joyce. The rest don’t matter in a Parliamentary sense where Senators are simply replaced from the same Party. If the Court rules Joyce ineligible to sit, then a by election will follow but, as the Turnbull Government only rules by one seat, it puts all previous legislation under the spotlight.
Divisions in the House could be ruled out of order in retrospect. But how could legislation be recalled once gazetted? There is no precedent for that, not that the High Court needs to concern itself with precedent, as it makes its own precedents and sees no need to even follow them.
So the High Court is likely to put justice aside in the interest of government stability and declare that Barnaby is no bloody Kiwi.
The Senators, apart from One Nation's diminutive Malcolm Roberts, seem relatively safe.
But there must be some penalty for being in breach of Section 44 or the Constitution becomes violable. The High Court cannot, and will not, allow that to happen.
Upon application, the High Court is able to impose penalties on those who are in breach of Sec. 44, while allowing them to keep their Parliamentary status. But any fine needs to be substantial (at least $10,000) or Sec 44 could again be ignored.
Ignoring the Constitution is something the High Court will never tolerate.
If Barnaby is held to have been a bloody Kiwi, there is little doubt he would win a subsequent by-election in New England as his only serious opponent, the despised Tony Windsor, is part of the duo who gave us Gillard.
One thing is certain, there must be an updated interpretation of Sec 44 so that this farce is the last of them.
Huffington Post says that in fact, “Everyone is ineligible to sit in Parliament” and that is bullshit of course,
… but it does show the loose impurity of the Section.