#Jacqui Lambie

[davidwontstopwritingsongs]

Nina Oyama: I partied too hard and I lost my gift for the bassoon. Joel Creasey: Actually, what is a bassoon? Nina Oyama: Um, actually, that is a great question...

Would I Lie To You Australia S02 E02

Bonus:

[nando161mando]

"Jacqui Lambie is a laughable imbecile.

She was a laughable imbecile when Palmer bought her place in the senate, she’s a laughable imbecile now.

As a senator, in our senate, it’s time Lambie actually did some useful work. Being a shouty, angsty, constantly close to tears imbecile is not work."

[reasonsforhope]

"The South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, has announced plans to ban political donations from state elections, paving the way for nation-leading electoral reforms.

The state’s electoral amendment bill announced on Wednesday [June 12, 2024] night will ban electoral donations and gifts to registered political parties, members of parliament and candidates. The state will provide funding to allow parties and candidates to contest elections, run campaigns and promote political ideas.

Malinauskas said his bill would put South Australia on the “cusp of becoming a world leader in ending the nexus between money and political power”.

“We want money out of politics. We know this is not easy. These reforms may well face legal challenge,” Malinauskas said.

“But we are determined to deliver them, with this bill to be introduced in the parliament in the near future.”

In a subtle challenge to his federal and state counterparts, the premier told Guardian Australia he thought it was “something that democracies everywhere should be pursuing”.

The Albanese government pledged to introduce spending and donation caps, and truth in political advertising laws, as revealed by Guardian Australia after the 2022 federal election and confirmed by a parliamentary inquiry that reported last July.

The special minister of state, Don Farrell, said last month an agreement between the major parties and the crossbench had not yet been reached. An amendment bill is still expected by the middle of the year.

In order to level the playing field for newly created parties and independent candidates, the South Australia bill will allow candidates to receive donations up to $2,700, although they will remain subject to campaign spending caps.

Those spending caps have been set at $100,000, multiplied by the number of candidates up to a maximum of $500,000.

If the bill is passed, a registered political party will be entitled to a one-off payment of $200,000 before 31 August 2026. Whichever is lower out of $700,000 or the number of party members of parliament multiplied by $47,000 will also be given to parties for operational funding.

Membership fees will be allowed to continue but will be capped at $100 or less a year.

To deter attempts to circumvent the proposed changes, a maximum penalty of $50,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment will apply.

The guide acknowledges the proposal would lead to a rise in the cost of South Australia’s electoral system, but says a tightening of expenditure and party registration rules will keep costs to a minimum.

The Albanese government is under crossbench pressure to introduce electoral reforms before the next federal election.

Lower house independents, including Kate Chaney, Zali Steggall, the Greens, David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and the Jacqui Lambie Network, joined forces to introduce a bill for fair and transparent elections in March [2024].

The bill contained a suite of reforms including truth-in-political advertising, a ban on donations from socially harmful industries including fossil fuels, and tightening the definition of gifts to capture major party fundraisers, including dinners and business forums."

-via The Guardian, March 18, 2024

[sleepymccoy]

Is Musk vs Australia getting airtime in other countries? Are the USAians experiencing Jacqui Lambie for the first time?

[soup-mother]

my grandpa was executed by a Jacquie Lambie Network political commissar for retreating :/

[warningsine]

Taipei/Sydney, Aug. 22 (CNA) The Australian Senate passed an "urgency motion" Wednesday in support of Taiwan's sovereignty and participation in international organizations.

Senators agreed by vote to move the motion: "That United Nations (U.N.) Resolution 2758 of 25th October 1971 does not establish the People's Republic of China's (PRC) sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the United Nations, nor Taiwanese participation in U.N. agencies or international organizations."

Supported by lawmakers from across the political spectrum, the motion was co-sponsored by Senators David Fawcett of South Australia and Deborah O'Neill of New South Wales, both of whom visited Taiwan last month to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China's (IPAC) annual conference.

Addressing Parliament House in Canberra, Fawcett, of the main opposition Liberal Party, said the motion was "urgent" because of the "growing risk to the security and stability in the Indo-Pacific."

"It's important not just for the human rights of the 23.5 million people in the democracy that is Taiwan," Fawcett said, "but for the impact that a decrease in security and a conflict there would have on the rules-based order that underpins peace and security around the world, as well as for the global economic impact, which Australia would not escape."

O'Neill followed Fawcett's remarks by saying that "the resolution does not mention Taiwan or address its political status."

"Despite this fact, there is an ongoing and egregious campaign currently underway from the PRC to reinterpret the resolution and misrepresent what the resolution actually does," she said, referring to China's attempts to minimize Taiwan's participation in the international community.

O'Neill, of the ruling Labor Party, said it was "not in the interest of the international community to have 24 million Taiwanese excluded" from critical bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Organization.

Senator Jacqui Lambie of Tasmania said that "the people of Taiwan continuously reject reunification with the Chinese Communist Party, with less than 5 percent of support for the reunification in Taiwan."

"The Chinese Communist Party has no business in destroying democracy in Taiwan," she said. "Australia must stand up against the Chinese Communist Party and back the more than 22 million people of Taiwan who choose democracy and freedom over the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)," she added.

Senator Raff Ciccone of Victoria, who is also deputy government whip in the Senate, said that Australia's economic, trade and cultural interests with Taiwan "cannot be understated."

Pledging to continue energy cooperation and support Taiwan's transition to renewable energies, Ciccone told the house that Australia was currently Taiwan's largest energy supplier, contributing "around two-thirds of Taiwan's coal and almost half of its natural gas."

Senator Pauline Hanson of Queensland voiced her view that Australia and the rest of the world "should recognize Taiwan for the independent sovereign nation it has effectively been since the 1950s."

"[The CCP] regime's highest priority is to capture Taiwan -- most likely by force -- and turn that beautiful island nation of 24 million free people into another oppressed, polluted, communist hellhole," she added.

Rebuking former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, who recently said that the whole world agreed with Beijing's position on Taiwan, Chandler described his claim as "false."

"I think there are questions to be asked about why Australians should pay to support private office for a former official who consistently pushes a false narrative about Australia's policy, especially when that false narrative aligns with that being pushed by foreign regimes such as the CCP," Chandler said.

Finally, Senator Linda Reynolds of Western Australia said Beijing had been "gaslighting" Taiwan and warned that China had formed an "axis of dictatorship and authoritarianism" with Russia, Iran and North Korea.

On Thursday, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) welcomed the Australian senators' pro-Taiwan motion, describing it as "just."

"MOFA strongly affirms the Australian parliament's firm support for Taiwan's international participation and thanks Australia and IPAC for speaking out for Taiwan," the ministry told CNA.

"We also call on the international community to jointly counter China's misinterpretation of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2758 and China's attempts to make false connections between the resolution and the so-called 'One China' principle."

"We will continue to cooperate with partners like Australia and other countries to jointly defend the core values shared by the global democratic camp and maintain regional peace, stability and prosperity," the ministry added.

The PRC claims Taiwan as a part of its territory and has ramped up threats to use military force to annex the country in recent years. Since assuming China's seat in the U.N. following Resolution 2758 in 1971, the government in Beijing has continually pressured other countries to exclude Taiwan from international organizations.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Michael Shellenberger

Published: Apr 25, 2024

American–born Julie Inman Grant is a key architect of the multigovernmental “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to censor the speech that politicians and government bureaucrats fear.

X owner Elon Musk should be thrown in prison, said a senator in Australia yesterday, because he refuses to delete a video of a recent stabbing from X globally. “Whatever Elon Musk is on,” said Senator Jacqui Lambie, “it’s disgusting behavior. Quite frankly, the bloke should be jailed and the key thrown away.”

But what’s truly disgusting behavior is calling for the incarceration of someone for refusing to censor the entire global Internet on behalf of a single nation. It is not the right of any nation to decide what should be on the Internet around the world. “No president, prime minister, or judge,” responded Musk on X, “has authority over all of Earth!” He’s right.

It’s true that violent content online can be disturbing. I think platforms should put warning labels on them and find some way to prevent minors from seeing it. I also think there are real privacy concerns that should be addressed.

But violence is not the only thing the Australian government has told X to remove. It has also targeted political speech. And nothing can justify the Australian government censoring the entire global Internet of content it does not like.

Many of us, myself included, have long suspected that government censors in Ireland, Scotland, and the European Union would attempt to censor the whole of the Internet, not just in their own countries. With Brazil and now Australia demanding the power to censor the whole internet, it’s clear that our fears were more than justified.

And now, Public has learned that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network,” which Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, who enjoys the right to free and unfettered speech courtesy of the Fist Amendment but would deny it to others, described at World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.

But before getting to that, it’s first important to understand just how powerful she is. Here is Julie Inman Grant, boasting of her extraordinary censorship powers (emphasis added):

Yes, we do regulate the platforms. We have a big stick that we can use when we want to …. They’re going to be regulated in ways that they don’t want to be regulated.

In a different video, Inman Grant said,

We also have some pretty significant ISP blocking powers. We just had some new powers given to us… in addition to be able to compel that takedown, to be able to fine perpetrators as a deterrent effect, and fine content hosts that don’t take down this content, um, we can, um, We also have something in this new legislation called the basic online safety expectations.

She goes on to say that she is already working with Ireland, the UK, France, and other governments around the world.

We use the tools that we have, and we can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go much further, um, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe … with the U. K. With Ireland and with Fiji in November 2022, we launched the global online safety regulators network that has now grown to seven independent regulators, including France, South Korea, South Africa and a number of countries are serving as observers.

At the World Economic Forum, Inman Grant said she had launched a global censorship body called “the Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to unify governments around censorship “So that we could have a form to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that. But also make sure that what we’re going to have differences in our regulatory schemes, there would be common values that drive us together.”

This global censorship body gives governments extraordinary power to invade privacy, explained Inman-Grant:

What this legislation will give us is the ability to compel basic device information and account information. And more and more and more social media companies are starting to collect phone numbers and email addresses so that our investigators can at least find a place to issue a notice or a takedown notice or infringement notice of some sort.

Inman Grant may be working with other governments to create identity requirements and to stamp out Virtual Private Networks, which millions of people in China and other totalitarian societies use to access the free Internet. “You can use VPNs, you can use burner phones,” she said, “different SIM cards every day. So it’s going to be a challenge for a long time because, again, the internet’s global. If there is no such thing as a kind of global identity system or even a piece of identity everybody can agree with, you know, should we all be sharing our driver’s license or our passports?”

At that same World Economic Forum meeting, one of the European Union’s top censors, Věra Jourová, called for censorship to avoid “events like January 6”, and to fight hate speech.

“The same thing, uh, reaction on the 6th of January, 2020. So, in Europe, of course, we have our history. We had to take action against hate speech. Because what it is, anti-Semitism, racism, LGBT, the menu is always the same.”

Jourva explains that the EU and Australia intend to pressure social media companies to implement global censorship to simplify things.

Who is Jourova? Why she’s the same person that public caught spreading disinformation about a new Russiagate hoax two weeks ago.

[cstewart8]

Funding of a major sports venue

In the previous months there has been a debate of funding for a stadium in both the AFL and the NRL. 12 months ago, the AFL announced the 19th team to be placed in Tasmania, however, there has been one talking point when it comes to the new team is who is paying for the stadium and how much will it cost the government and public in Tasmania. (Siegfried & Zimbalist, 2000) stated “local sport venue will give benefits to local fans and residents and give them a worth to their own community.” The media turned the new Tasmania stadium into a massive debate between the labour and liberal government and also the community of Tasmania and the AFL in general and lead to a premier election in which Labor did win.

ABC News

Jacqui Lambie in a media press conference stated, “Small business are just as important, however with this $715 million dollar stadium we risk losing the small business.” The media interpreted that the reason for all of the debate was because of how much the state and government would have to put into the stadium by the AFL. This is where it got messy because the governments were arguing each other on the issue it lost backing of the 19th AFL team in Tasmania not going forward, however now liberal and about government and the AFL have come to an agreement on how much the cost for the stadium and how much the government will need to put in.

(Jacqui Lambie Blasts Proposed AFL Stadium as a “Slap in the Face to Tasmanians,” n.d.)

Leichhardt oval has been part of the NRL since 1934 and moved from north of Sydney to west of Sydney to be the West Tigers home ground from 1980. This year however could be bittersweet for the Tigers fans because they want to upgrade the ground, but in order to get the ground redeveloped the tigers will need to fund it all of it without any backing from the New South Wales government. Swindell, D., & Rosentraub, M. S. (1998). Stated “Funding a stadium for upgrades will give joy to the fans and the club, however it effects everyone else because there is not enough funding for other important assets.”

ABC News.

Former West Tigers player Dene Halatau said on the ABC Sport’s Broadcast said, “It's not modern, it doesn't have all the trimmings, but when a fan comes to Leichhardt, they overlook a lot of the rest of that stuff." The West Tigers wanted $100 Million Dollar upgrade, however, was declined by the New South Wales government because of the government being $180 million dollars in debt. NSW premier Chris Minns stated, “We got to consider the hospital, education and public transport system before any redevelopment on sporting stadiums.” This is making the West Tigers more annoyed because their rivals Penrith Panthers are getting a $309 Million dollar stadium built and this is now making it a double standard.

References

Jacqui Lambie blasts proposed AFL stadium as a “slap in the face to Tasmanians.” (n.d.). Www.youtube.com. Retrieved May 15, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgkGXwgB18&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia

Lambie demands integrity measures, rethink on Tassie AFL stadium. (2024, March 24). Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/lambie-demands-integrity-measures-rethink-on-tassie-afl-stadium-20240325-p5fexe

Leichhardt Oval – Inner West Council. (n.d.). Www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved May 14, 2024, from https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/explore/parks-sport-and-recreation/sporting-grounds/leichhardt-oval

Liberals give big Hobart stadium idea from ex-Labor premier the boot. (2023, October 18). ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news / 2023-10-18/tas-new-afl-stadium-proposal-rejected-by-state-government/102989688   

‌NSW Premier rules out government funding upgrade to Wests Tigers’ Leichhardt Oval. (2024, March 26). ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-26/leichhardt-oval-upgrade-ruled-out-by-nsw-premier/103634124

Siegfried, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2000). The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their Communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.95

Swindell, D., & Rosentraub, M. S. (1998). Who benefits from the presence of professional sports teams? The implications for public funding of stadiums and arenas. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 11-20. https://login.ezproxy.holmesglen.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/who-benefits-presence-professional-sports-teams/docview/197169158/se-2

[kawanikismallcannon]

https://x.com/buckthegov/status/1782734975458037993?s=09

WATCH VIDEO!

Every fascist in a position of power has forfeited their job. Period. Remove them all and ban them from ever having power AGAIN!

Australian Senator Jacqui Lambie says @elonmusk should be jailed for allowing first amendment/free speech on X. The level of psychosis here is beyond staggering. This is nothing but an ongoing..

[usnewsper-politics]

Supermarket Giants Coles and Woolworths Accused of Price Gouging: What You Need to Know #Australiansupermarket #Coles #grocerymarket #pricegouging #Woolworths

[thestoriesofimmigration]

Will the Greens Support the Pacific Engagement Visa and With What Conditions?

The Pacific Engagement Visa or PEV is the most important Pacific policy initiative of the Labor government. Introduction of the new visa – which will provide 3,000 citizens of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste with permanent residency in Australia annually – requires the passage of two pieces of legislation: one to set up the lottery that will be used to select visa applicants (who will then have to find a job to obtain the visa), and one to set up a charge for the new lottery scheme.

This legislation was delayed unexpectedly due to opposition from the Coalition, which says it supports the PEV but opposes a lottery. In fact, the lottery is the only way the PEV can be made to work. That said, it is clear that the Coalition is not going to compromise, so the government will have to seek support for the PEV from the cross benches. That task is proving much more difficult than expected, as this blog, the latest in our series of PEV updates, explains.

The Greens were represented on the Senate committee that examined the two bills by Senator Nick McKim, who joined with the majority of the committee in recommending that the two bills be passed. Senator McKim also added his own section of the report, in which he provided an additional recommendation, namely that the legislation establishing the PEV lottery should state either that a lottery is only to be used for the PEV, or at a minimum that a lottery is not to be used for the allocation of refugee visas.

These seem like reasonable suggestions. Since then, independent senators David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe have tabled amendments to this effect. The two Jacqui Lambie Network senators have also indicated their support for the lottery bill.

So, on the surface, it appears that there is solid cross-bench support for the bill. And yet, it still hasn’t passed. The bill was tabled for discussion first in June and then in July, but didn’t get to the floor in either session. The problem appears to lie with the Greens, who have refused to state whether they support the bill, saying only (in a recent SMH news article) that they are negotiating with Labor.

Negotiations between Labor and the Greens are not something new. Already in this parliament there have been deals over energy price cap legislation (where the Greens won additional support for renewable energy), over the climate change target legislation (a tighter cap on industrial emissions), and, most recently, housing legislation (additional funds for social housing).

So, given this track record, perhaps we should be confident that Labor and the Greens will find common ground on the PEV. The mystery is what the negotiations are about. It is difficult to believe that they are over the limiting of the lottery to this specific visa. The government might not want to do this, to retain executive flexibility, but it is not much of a price to pay.

The negotiations must be over something more substantial. Are the Greens asking for more than 3,000 visas? There is no suggestion of that in the Senate report. Or are the negotiations in relation to some other area of migration? Or in relation to some altogether different area of government policy?

Transparency is needed. A critical reform that greatly benefits the Pacific should not be delayed. The region’s economic ministers have all endorsed it. Fiji’s Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad has called on Australia to implement the PEV without further delay (it was originally to start on 1 July). The PEV has a strong climate justification. If the Greens are negotiating over the PEV, they should tell us about what. The Coalition has already lost credibility on the Pacific in relation to the PEV. One hopes the Greens don’t follow suit.

To get transparency, more media interest is required. I’m surprised that the ABC with its ever-growing Pacific coverage hasn’t reported more on this. The last time Pacific Beat covered the PEV was 3 July. Few Pacific issues have divided Australian politics on partisan lines, and I don’t know of any that have divided parliament.

Source: DEVPOLICY BLOG

[christinamac1]

Jacqui Lambie’s nuclear response to secret flights for submarine project

Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs. Samantha Maiden, news.com.au 7 Oct 23 Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has slammed the decision to slug taxpayers $630,000 a month in “secret” travel costs for bureaucrats working on Australia’s nuclear submarine project. Despite the fact that the first submarine won’t be…

[kookaburrabugle]

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE OFFICERS SAID TO BE LAWYERING UP AFTER LAMBIE LAMBASTES "ULTIMATE BOYS CLUB"

FROM OUR CORRESPONDENTS IN NUREMBERG AND THE HAGUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF the bloodied corpses of freshly strangled German war criminals are said to be doing the rounds in the Australian Defence Forces following Senator Jacqui Lambie’s declaration that the Ben Roberts Smith blame game needs to climb considerably higher in the ranks than corporal in what she said was the ultimate boys’ club. “Lambie…

[evamadeln]

Jacqui Lambie asks International Criminal Court to investigate Australian military leadership over alleged war crimes [Video]

[qudachuk]

Lambie tells Senate the Brereton report gave senior commanders a ‘free pass’ while soldiers were ‘thrown under the bus’Follow our Australia news live blog for the latest updatesGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news...

[gedoran]

The Jacqui Lambie picture...

These people are why this country is going to burn into cinders as we starve to death because the cost of living has long passed wages capacity to support the regular people.