Home Archives Profile Subscribe Search
Previous month:
November 2018
Next month:
January 2019

December 2018

AEC announces changes to election funding and financial disclosure

Friday, 21 December 2018

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 1.34.18 pm

Changes to election funding and financial disclosure

The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 (the FAD Reform Act) received Royal Assent on 30 November 2018. Some changes have already come into effect while others will come into effect on 1 January 2019.

The FAD Reform Act introduces new laws that affect political parties, their associated entities and other non-party political actors.  In summary the FAD Reform Act:
 

a.     Establishes a Transparency Register, which is intended to be a new ‘one-stop-shop’ for publicly available information about political parties, associated entities and other non-party political actors;

b.     Prohibits donations from foreign governments and state-owned enterprises being used to finance public debate;

c.     Requires political actors to verify that certain donations come from:

                      i.        an organisation incorporated in Australia, or with its head office or principal place of activity in Australia; or

                     ii.        an Australian citizen or permanent resident, Commonwealth elector or a New Zealand citizen who holds a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa;

d.     Prohibits other political actors from using donations from foreign sources to fund electoral expenditure;

e.     Limits public election funding to demonstrated election spending;

f.      Defines what activities of entities engaged in public debate will be captured by a requirement to register with the AEC and/or provide annual disclosure returns; and

g.     Modernises the enforcement and compliance regime for political finance regulation.

 
The FAD Reform Act represents the most significant change to funding and disclosure legislation in some time. The AEC is in the process of preparing and updating guidance material to support these changes and to ensure that those with obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 are aware of their requirements.
 
Refer to the AEC website for further information relating to these changes and direct any enquiries to[email protected], or alternatively call the Funding and Disclosure help desk on (02) 6271 4552.


AEC MEDIA TEAM                              
02 6271 4419
[email protected]u

i

Posted at 05:39 PM | | Comments (16)

|

Why didn't Australia vote against UN's Global Compact for Migration?

Friday, 21 December 2018

Why the hell did we abstain from voting against this monstrous agreement, now ratified by the UN General Assembly?

This from the UN's press release:

The United Nations General Assembly officially endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on Wednesday, a non-binding agreement adopted in Marrakech on 10 December by 164 Member States, and described by UN chief António Guterres as a “roadmap to prevent suffering and chaos”.

The UN Secretary-General explained in a statement released after the vote that the document “reaffirms the foundational principles of our global community, including national sovereignty and universal human rights, while pointing the way toward humane and sensible action to benefit countries of origin, transit and destination as well as migrants themselves”.

Mr. Guterres stressed that the Compact “calls for greater solidarity with migrants in situations of appalling vulnerability and abuse,” that it “underscores the need to anticipate future trends”, and that it “highlights the imperative of devising more legal pathways for migration.”

Louise Arbour, UN Special Representative for International Migration, who led the conference deliberations over the Compact in the Moroccan city of Marrakech last week, said that he formal endorsement “represents a resounding commitment to an international migration framework based on fact, not myth, and to an understanding that national migration policies are best implemented through cooperation not in isolation.”

The document, the first-ever negotiated global framework on a common approach to international migration in all its dimensions, was adopted by the General Assembly with 152 votes in favour, 12 abstentions, and five votes against, namely by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and the United States of America. An additional 24 Member States were not present to take part in the vote.

Though non-legally binding, the Compact is the outcome of a long negotiation process and provides a strong platform for cooperation on migration, drawing on best practice and international law.

Thanking all those who “helped to bring this landmark step to fruition,” including civil society, migrants, diaspora communities, the private sector, trade unions, academic experts and municipal leaders, the UN chief said he hoped the “countries that have chosen to remain outside the process will come to see the Compact’s value and join this venture”.

In statements explaining their decisions, countries that voted for the document stated often stressed the fact that this document is only a first step and that its realization will be where the work really starts. The sentiment was echoed by the UN chief who said that “leadership will be crucial in bringing the Compact to life, and in avoiding the myths and disparaging discourse that have become all too frequent”. 

The UN Secretary-General noted that the United Nations, through the newly established UN Migration Network, stands ready to support Member States and all partners "to make migration work for all.”

ENDS

So why didn't we vote NO?

Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face.

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 6.03.52 am

Posted at 10:03 AM | | Comments (70)

|

Clinton/Podesta linked Sunrise Project donates $500,000 to GetUp

Friday, 21 December 2018

Brad Norington writing in The Australian today.

Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 4.19.23 am

The left-leaning GetUp activist group has ­received a $500,000 donation from an Australian-based charity with foreign funding links that will be used to help make climate change a hot button issue in next year’s federal election.

Less than a fortnight before new federal laws take ­effect on January 1 to ban political donations from foreign interests, GetUp has confirmed receiving $495,000 from the Sunrise ­Project.

Sunrise, which campaigns for 100 per cent renewable energy, refused to disclose the source of the donation yesterday, but ­insisted all funds it redirected from other donors were “from Aus­tralian sources”.

The group is known to receive international funding, following documents aired by WikiLeaks, from the US-based Sandler and Tides foundations that were ­directed at the anti-Adani coalmine campaign.

GetUp national director Paul Oosting confirmed yesterday that funds from the $495,000 Sunrise Project donation would be used in the lead-up to the federal election expected in May.

GetUp plans to campaign against the Morrison government, and hand out how-to-vote cards for Labor or the Greens.

Mr Oosting said “all funds” ­received from the Sunrise Project came from Australian sources, but declined to say where it had accessed the $495,000 donation.

ENDS

Here's some background on the Sunrise Project from a piece we published in January 2017.

Bishop's collusion with the Clintons takes on something of a more sinister hue when we consider adjacent events.  HIV/Aids isn't the only profit centre exploited by the Clintons.  Climate change is another lucrative earner.

Clinton's May invitation came as Tony Abbott's leadership was being whiteanted and as you'll see, Tony Abbott had many global environmental and Leftist groups who wanted to help kick that process along.

This report from the AFR in February 2015 sets the scene:

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 10.32.27 am

A federal MP has emailed colleagues pleading for calm as Tony Abbott ’s hold on the leadership became increasingly tenuous after Julie Bishop refused to give the Prime Minister an assurance she would not challenge.

A day after his National Press Club address, in which he appeared to buy some respite from his leadership woes, Sky News reported that at a meeting on Sunday, Ms Bishop had declined to give Mr Abbott an assurance when he sought one.

The Australian Financial Review previously reported that at the meeting, Ms Bishop confronted Mr Abbott with the concerns of the backbench to which she had been talking all week and she sought from him an answer as to how he planned to turn things around.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/julie-bishop-leaves-open-challenge-to-pm-20150202-134i65#ixzz4X1GFJOzZ

The New York Times also took an interest, publishing a story under the headline"Australian Leader Alters Course After Losing State Vote".

In the lead-up to the Clinton Foundation's retreat in May the extent of the network of Abbott enemies was becoming crystal clear.

Here's a grab of The Sunrise Project's website http://sunriseproject.org.au/

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 10.50.03 am

Sunrise was then engaged in a whatever it takes battle to stop the Adani coal mine in Queensland.  With Labor back in power in Queensland they had a bit of wind in their sails - however Tony Abbott was still their major concern.

On 25 May 2015 John Hepburn, the Executive Director of Sunrise sent this email to a select group of 'discrete' funders and controllers including John Podesta and the Clinton Foundation. 

....the Abbott Government has established a Parliamentary Inquiry to examine the activities of environmental charities. It is part of an anti-environmental agenda that has been building for a few years now and is being pushed in large part by the mining industry as well as by various right wing think tanks and far-right members of the Liberal Party.

 I have attached a word document with a series of articles that ran in the Australian Financial Review and The Australian last week, including one in which the head of the Minerals Council called for The Sunrise Project to have it's charitable status removed. We posted a blog on our website saying that fossil fuels in the Galilee Basin should stay in the ground, and the next day the head of the most powerful industry group in the country is in the paper calling for our charity status to be revoked.

 The long and the short of it is that

    1. There is a reasonable likelihood that Sunrise will be called to testify to the inquiry;
    2. It is a House of Representatives Committee that has very strong coercive powers to summon witnesses and to call for documents to be tabled;
    3. This could potentially include board minutes, grant agreements etc
    4. If I refuse, the maximum penalty is 6 months in jail. If I didn't have children I'd be happy to tell them where to go (on principle) but it isn't really an option;
    5. This potentially creates a situation where we may need to disclose our funding and grant agreements;

Next steps: We have a strategy session with our lawyers and board on Thursday to plan out our response. As part of this we are seeking advice on steps we might take to avoid disclosure, challenge and limit disclosure, or to ensure that any disclosure is limited to the committee members and is not made public.

I  have concerns about the potential PR impact of disclosure of both our funding and grantees - should that eventuate.

John

The next significant contribution came from Ken Roth, the Executive Director ofHuman Rights Watch.  Roth is writing to Herb Sandler of the Sandler Foundation  - with Podesta/Hillary and the CF all copied in unashamedly on the note:

Dear Herb,

I’ll ask our new Australia office to look into this. As I mentioned in your office, Australia has a ridiculously narrow concept of a charity which does NOT include advocacy.

This is not uncommon in the Commonwealth. For example, in the UK, HRW had to establish a charitable trust which funds only our research, not our advocacy. We tried something similar in Australia but the tax authorities rejected us, so after a 4-year struggle, we ended up going to parliament in the waning days of the Labor government and got it to give us charitable status by special parliamentary bill.

So far the Liberals haven’t played with that...themining companies seem to own the Liberals, and they play very dirty. Please keep me informed of what more happens in this case, and I’ll let you know if our Australia office has anything to add.

Warm regards, Ken

That same day the Podestas started taking a great interest in East Timor and George Soros funding to crank up the litigation pressure on Australia as this email from 24 May 2015 shows https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32358

We reported the end result of that matter a couple of weeks ago:

Julie Bishop gives in to Soros et al and gives up on our border with East Timor

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

24 May, 2015.  Email John Podesta to Hillary Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta under the heading 

        Do you know who cares about East Timor?

"Rumor is soros, The Australian government got the East Timor government to give up their coastal waters to Australia Hence oil Might someone fund/support East Timor government efforts to reclaim just boundaries Australian friend working on this Let me know if u know anything or care? Thanks much Tony (sic)"

Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at 4.29.55 am

Our boundary with East Timor is based on the geography of our Continental Shelf.  It's the same basis for our maritime border with Indonesia.

The Treaty that describes (or should I say described) the Timor/Australia border was jointly agreed in 2006.  Regardless of the geography, the treaty provided that East Timorese would receive a 50% share of the oil and gas revenues generated in the maritime region.

But that wasn't enough.

As we reported to you in October last year, The Clintons, Podesta and Soros have been at work trying to diminish Australia's sovereignty (particularly under the Abbott Government).

ENDS

There are many more examples of the climate lobby, the "progressives network", environmental activist funding groups and others working jointly with Clinton/Podesta to target Tony Abbott.

And who did Clinton hand-pick to take part in his internal annual strategy planning day on 29 May 2015?

Screen Shot 2017-01-28 at 11.26.26 am

More here.

Posted at 08:29 AM | | Comments (28)

|

Previous MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE