(Miscellaneous debris)

[dedja]

Mark Latham … the gift that keeps on giving.

[stan]

Mark Latham … the gift that keeps on giving.

It's great hearing about his sex life.

[dedja]

Mark Latham … the gift that keeps on giving.

It's great hearing about his sex life.

[dedja]

Way to go Clive!

Is a billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars to win no seats at elections, but doesn’t stump up a few shekels on cyber security measures to keep data safe.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5mfvz.html

Clive Palmer’s political parties hacked in major breach

Clive Palmer’s political party has been hacked in a ransomware cyberattack that the organisation fears has led to the theft of its emails, documents, and electronic records, threatening the personal data of all those who have been in contact with it.

In a statement published to the United Australia Party and Trumpet of Patriots websites yesterday, the parties revealed that on June 23 there had been “unauthorised access to our servers resulting in access to, and the possible exfiltration of, certain data records”.

According to the parties’ statement, the leak may “potentially include all emails to and from the political parties (including their attachments) and documents and records created and or held electronically by the political parties at any time in the past”.

The parties also said the personal information of people who had communicated with them, including email addresses, phone numbers, banking records, employment history and confidential documents, may have been leaked.

Given the breadth of the leak and the fact that the parties do not keep a record of those whose information is stored on their server, the parties “determined it is impracticable to notify individuals” who may have been affected.

While the parties are yet to ascertain the specific data that had been stolen, they cautioned those in communication with the parties to “assume that any information you have provided would have been stored on the server”, and therefore compromised.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner says that in the event of a high-level data breach, where one or more individuals may be seriously harmed by the unauthorised access of data, both the affected individuals and the commissioner must be notified.

Organisations can be held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised access, with a maximum penalty of $50 million. Fines were increased in 2022 following hacks at Optus and Medibank.

Registered political parties are exempt from the Privacy Act 1988, which covers data breaches; however, the United Australia Party has not been a registered party since 2022.

The 2022 Medibank hack saw 520GB of data extracted from the private health fund’s internal systems and the publication of personal details belonging to 9.7 million current and former customers on the dark web.

The same year, the contact details, names and addresses of 9.8 million Optus customers were hacked, including 3 million customers’ passports.
Earlier this month, 5.7 million Qantas customers had their data hacked, including names, addresses, frequent flyer details, and membership status to the airline’s exclusive Chairman’s Lounge.

Between July and December last year, the commissioner received 595 notifications of data breaches, up 15 per cent from the previous six months. Malicious or criminal attacks were responsible for 69 per cent of the breaches.

When asked about the 24-day delay between the cyberattack and yesterday’s announcement, vice president of cybersecurity firm Darktrace Tony Jarvis said: “Best practice would be for the parties to notify the public as soon as possible, and to make a concerted and sustained effort to notify affected individuals and provide ongoing support.”

“The ransomware group appears to have gained comprehensive access to both organisations’ entire networks. That means people’s bank records, identity records, employment history, and documents subject to confidentiality agreements with registered political parties are potentially in the hands of cyber criminals,” he said.

United Australia Party and Trumpet of Patriots recommended that those potentially affected review all communications between themselves and the party to find out what information may have been leaked, and “carefully consider whether you need to take any action in response to the data breach on the assumption that the hackers may have accessed your data”.

The United Australia Party was a registered political party from 2013 to 2017, and from December 2018 to September 2022, but failed in a High Court bid to re-register before the last election. The Trumpet of Patriots was established to contest the 2025 federal election but failed to win a seat.

Clive Palmer was contacted for comment.

[stan]

Way to go Clive!

Is a billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars to win no seats at elections, but doesn’t stump up a few shekels on cyber security measures to keep data safe.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5mfvz.html

Clive Palmer’s political parties hacked in major breach

Clive Palmer’s political party has been hacked in a ransomware cyberattack that the organisation fears has led to the theft of its emails, documents, and electronic records, threatening the personal data of all those who have been in contact with it.

In a statement published to the United Australia Party and Trumpet of Patriots websites yesterday, the parties revealed that on June 23 there had been “unauthorised access to our servers resulting in access to, and the possible exfiltration of, certain data records”.

According to the parties’ statement, the leak may “potentially include all emails to and from the political parties (including their attachments) and documents and records created and or held electronically by the political parties at any time in the past”.

The parties also said the personal information of people who had communicated with them, including email addresses, phone numbers, banking records, employment history and confidential documents, may have been leaked.

Given the breadth of the leak and the fact that the parties do not keep a record of those whose information is stored on their server, the parties “determined it is impracticable to notify individuals” who may have been affected.

While the parties are yet to ascertain the specific data that had been stolen, they cautioned those in communication with the parties to “assume that any information you have provided would have been stored on the server”, and therefore compromised.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner says that in the event of a high-level data breach, where one or more individuals may be seriously harmed by the unauthorised access of data, both the affected individuals and the commissioner must be notified.

Organisations can be held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised access, with a maximum penalty of $50 million. Fines were increased in 2022 following hacks at Optus and Medibank.

Registered political parties are exempt from the Privacy Act 1988, which covers data breaches; however, the United Australia Party has not been a registered party since 2022.

The 2022 Medibank hack saw 520GB of data extracted from the private health fund’s internal systems and the publication of personal details belonging to 9.7 million current and former customers on the dark web.

The same year, the contact details, names and addresses of 9.8 million Optus customers were hacked, including 3 million customers’ passports.
Earlier this month, 5.7 million Qantas customers had their data hacked, including names, addresses, frequent flyer details, and membership status to the airline’s exclusive Chairman’s Lounge.

Between July and December last year, the commissioner received 595 notifications of data breaches, up 15 per cent from the previous six months. Malicious or criminal attacks were responsible for 69 per cent of the breaches.

When asked about the 24-day delay between the cyberattack and yesterday’s announcement, vice president of cybersecurity firm Darktrace Tony Jarvis said: “Best practice would be for the parties to notify the public as soon as possible, and to make a concerted and sustained effort to notify affected individuals and provide ongoing support.”

“The ransomware group appears to have gained comprehensive access to both organisations’ entire networks. That means people’s bank records, identity records, employment history, and documents subject to confidentiality agreements with registered political parties are potentially in the hands of cyber criminals,” he said.

United Australia Party and Trumpet of Patriots recommended that those potentially affected review all communications between themselves and the party to find out what information may have been leaked, and “carefully consider whether you need to take any action in response to the data breach on the assumption that the hackers may have accessed your data”.

The United Australia Party was a registered political party from 2013 to 2017, and from December 2018 to September 2022, but failed in a High Court bid to re-register before the last election. The Trumpet of Patriots was established to contest the 2025 federal election but failed to win a seat.

Clive Palmer was contacted for comment.

Communications between them and the party???

Like unsolicited ******* sms?

[Corona Man]

Can’t say I’ve ever been a huge fan of De Bortoli wines. Fair to say I won’t even consider them now as I wander through the aisles of Dans. WAFDH.

[Jimmy_041]

Can’t say I’ve ever been a huge fan of De Bortoli wines. Fair to say I won’t even consider them now as I wander through the aisles of Dans. WAFDH.

Their sticky is the only thing I buy

[dedja]

So after inflicting another Tasmanian election that didn’t change a thing with Jeremy Rockwell again sworn in as Premier, Labor leader, Dean Winter, promises another no confidence motion in the Premier when parliament resumes.

[mighty_tiger_79]

So after inflicting another Tasmanian election that didn’t change a thing with Jeremy Rockwell again sworn in as Premier, Labor leader, Dean Winter, promises another no confidence motion in the Premier when parliament resumes.

Does he want to wipe out his party?

[dedja]

So after inflicting another Tasmanian election that didn’t change a thing with Jeremy Rockwell again sworn in as Premier, Labor leader, Dean Winter, promises another no confidence motion in the Premier when parliament resumes.

Does he want to wipe out his party?

Sounds like it.

[RB]

So after inflicting another Tasmanian election that didn’t change a thing with Jeremy Rockwell again sworn in as Premier, Labor leader, Dean Winter, promises another no confidence motion in the Premier when parliament resumes.

Does he want to wipe out his party?

There's a decent chance Winter is premier in two weeks.

[dedja]

How so? … Labor have 10 seats and refuse to do a deal with the Greens.

[RB]

When Labor say that they will refuse to do any 'deals' with the Greens, what they mean is that they will not give them anything in exchange for their support to form government (whether that be cabinet positions, or agreements on policy, etc.).

Labor have been careful though not to rule out forming government with the implicit support of the Greens, for instance, where the Greens support a motion of no confidence in Rockliff, and a motion of confidence in Winter, but where there is no quid pro quo for doing so.

The Greens' clear preference is for a Labor government and Labor would be calculating, correctly in my view, that Greens MPs would not be willing to incur the wrath of their supporters by ultimately making it difficult or impossible for Labor to govern (let alone siding with the Liberals). Labor could ignore the Greens during the term of parliament, to a certain extent, on the assumption that the latter are unlikely to kick Labor out. I suppose the key here is that a minority government doesn't really need a positive affirmation of support from the cross bench - so long as they retain confidence and supply.

Labor probably would be willing to consider an actual 'deal' involving confidence and supply with non-Greens cross benchers, although the inverse applies in that case - the folks that Labor are more willing to work with, seem less amenable to entering into formal agreements of any sort. The real negotiation that Labor will be involved in over the next few days will be with the five independents and one SFF member they will hope to secure the support of.

Or not - Labor did not bother trying to form government last time when the maths was the same. I don't think it would be a great time to assume office in Tassie and having only 10 members will make things hard (although they could approach independents in the Upper House offering ministerial positions if they are really concerned about lack of talent downstairs). Still, it appears that Winter is going to have a crack this time.

Really Labor are caught between a rock and a hard place having played a big part in bringing on the election. They know how embarrassing it would be not to be seen to making a real attempt to form government. The path of least resistance may, actually, be simply to form government!!

[dedja]

Winter is an idiot who created this whole mess.

The sensible solution would be for the independents to provide the Libs confidence in the house and nothing else … you’re right, the Greens could help Labor, but why would they for nothing in return? Then the only real alternative is another election, which would be insane.

Labor, whilst retaining the same number of seats, 10, bled 3% of their vote in the election. I just don’t see what bargaining position they have.

If the Libs seemingly can’t govern with 14 seats then how in the hell can Labor form a stable minority with only 10 … it doesn’t make any sense.

The no confidence motion which forced the election was 18-17, so marginal at best.

What a stinking mess.

[RB]

The sensible solution would be for the independents to provide the Libs confidence in the house and nothing else

May be so, but the independents have their own mandates, and my sense is that they mainly share a fair bit of common ground with Labor (albeit with wildly differing views on the stadium). Hence why I think there's a decent - say 50% - chance that they support a change in government in sufficient numbers.

… you’re right, the Greens could help Labor, but why would they for nothing in return?

Basically the Greens would give next to nothing (implicit support in the form of not bringing down a Labor government), and get next to nothing (a Labor government, which they definitely prefer over the Liberals, albeit they'll not be part of it).

Perhaps another way of looking at it is, why would the Greens support the Liberals to remain in office? I see the Greens 'helping' the Liberals as being the most unlikely outcome.

[RB]

What a stinking mess.

Indeed.

I think it's explained in part by the fact that in 2PP terms - especially irrelevant to the outcome in terms of seats in Hare Clarke parliaments of course - this election would have been quite close. The estimate I saw (I don't think there was too much exhaust) was I think about 51-49 to the Liberals.

Further, the major parties received a pretty meagre share of the vote by historical standards. To top that off, the quota is 12.5%.

I think there's a lot to like about proportional systems, but always a recipe for a big old mess under current circumstances in Tasmania.

[dedja]

The sensible solution would be for the independents to provide the Libs confidence in the house and nothing else

May be so, but the independents have their own mandates, and my sense is that they mainly share a fair bit of common ground with Labor (albeit with wildly differing views on the stadium). Hence why I think there's a decent - say 50% - chance that they support a change in government in sufficient numbers.

… you’re right, the Greens could help Labor, but why would they for nothing in return?

Basically the Greens would give next to nothing (implicit support in the form of not bringing down a Labor government), and get next to nothing (a Labor government, which they definitely prefer over the Liberals, albeit they'll not be part of it).

Perhaps another way of looking at it is, why would the Greens support the Liberals to remain in office? I see the Greens 'helping' the Liberals as being the most unlikely outcome.

I hear what you’re saying, but … reporting from, albeit Tuesday, so things can change quickly …

Labor has said it will be "stepping up" negotiations with the crossbench because the Liberals haven't shown how they can reach the 18 seats they need to form government in Tasmania.

However, Labor says it will only work with the six crossbenchers — ruling out further discussions with the Greens as part of its process.

This plan also leaves Labor short of 18 seats.

This Libs need 4 of the 6 independents, Labor need all the 5 Greens plus 3 independents.

That said, 19 of the 35 MPs are left of centre, with one independent, Craig Garland already stating that he’ll support a no-confidence motion.

This is the classic definition of a clusterfaark.

[dedja]

What a stinking mess.

Indeed.

I think it's explained in part by the fact that in 2PP terms - especially irrelevant to the outcome in terms of seats in Hare Clarke parliaments of course - this election would have been quite close. The estimate I saw (I don't think there was too much exhaust) was I think about 51-49 to the Liberals.

Further, the major parties received a pretty meagre share of the vote by historical standards. To top that off, the quota is 12.5%.

I think there's a lot to like about proportional systems, but always a recipe for a big old mess under current circumstances in Tasmania.

Thanks, I hadn’t seen that analysis comparing HC to 2PP.

[dedja]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-07/ ... /105621130

The aggressive courting of Tasmania's crossbench MPs is heating up with two weeks until fresh no-confidence motion

After weeks of uncertainty, Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff's bid to be recommissioned for another term was endorsed by the state's governor on Wednesday morning.

The decision led to bookmakers paying out on bets for the election, and plenty of big grins from Mr Rockliff.

And he's been hard at work finalising a shake-up to his cabinet that could be announced as soon as Thursday morning.

But things aren't as finite as they seem.

In just two weeks, state parliament will be recalled.

And Labor leader Dean Winter has confirmed Mr Rockliff's government will face a motion of no-confidence when that happens, barely two months after a successful no-confidence motion triggered July 19's snap state election.

So how can it be the case that after an election that was supposed to resolve all the uncertainty, we're back here again?

Firstly, the 2025 election no-one really wanted delivered an eerily similar parliament to the one elected a year before.

In 2024, there were 14 Liberals, 10 Labor MPs, five Greens and six other crossbenchers — three Jacqui Lambie Network MPs and three independents.

This time around, there were again 14 Liberals, 10 from Labor and five from the Greens, and six others on the crossbench. The only real change is that there are five independents, and one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP.

The Liberals are still in minority and the tensions that existed before the election — about a lack of transparency from the government, concerns about its handling of big projects and the budget — are still very live.

Also, unlike last year's election, where Mr Rockliff's reaction to winning just 14 seats was to immediately move to secure four confidence and supply agreements in a bid to deliver stability, this time he hasn't tried.

He's argued the agreements are good, but not necessary.

Then there's the matter that at least 19 of the 35 lower house MPs are either Labor MPs or from the progressive side of politics — the five Greens and independents David O'Byrne, Peter George, Kristie Johnston and Craig Garland.

That, plus the lack of confidence and supply agreements, has opened the door for Labor, who didn't try to govern after the last election in 2024 or two months ago following the successful no-confidence motion it moved to step up negotiations with the crossbench.

That's the other huge difference to what unfolded two months ago. Labor is actively trying to form a minority government of its own, despite winning just 10 seats.

To do that, it needs the support of the Greens, plus at least three other crossbenchers.

So there are two parties trying to win over the six non-Green members of the crossbench, and only one of them has picked a side, with independent MP Craig Garland saying he'll vote for a no-confidence motion and support the formation of a Labor government.

It means those five other crossbenchers — including three entirely new to parliament in independents Peter George and George Razay and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Carlo Di Falco — have less than two weeks to decide if they want to depose Mr Rockliff and install a government led by Mr Winter instead.

They're all being aggressively courted by the Liberals and Labor, who will meet with all six on Thursday.

So, given all that, why did the governor re-commission Mr Rockliff?

In her decision published on the Government House website, Governor Baker said Mr Rockliff's incumbency meant he had the right to remain in office until parliament decided whether it had confidence in him.

And with Tasmania's constitution requiring premiers and ministers to be commissioned within seven days of the election writs being delivered, Governor Baker says she could not afford to wait for a parliamentary vote.

"I consider myself bound to make an appointment within that period, because the state must not be without a government," Governor Baker said.

But the return date of August 19, much sooner than some were expecting, means that the political uncertainty won't last for too much longer.

Within two weeks, Tasmanians will have an answer to the question an election couldn't solve: Who's going to be the state's next long-term premier?

Both sides have mounted arguments about why it should be them.

But the biggest task now sits with Mr Winter, who sat at the helm while his party suffered a 3.1 per cent statewide swing against it and failed to win a quota in his own right in the seat of Franklin.

He's got to make Tasmanians understand why the parliament is again debating kicking out a premier who received more than two quotas in his seat of Braddon.

And convince people that this time, a no-confidence motion is a positive move to install a Labor government, not a negative tactic to oust a popular premier when he's got no plan to lead the state himself.

And he's got to convince the crossbench, including a Greens party he's at least publicly ignoring, that he's the right man to lead the state, despite his party being rejected at the election.

And convince them to risk facing public backlash and support a no-confidence motion, knowing full well all the commentary that doing so will lead to.

Despite the governor's decision, Tasmanian politics is still extremely turbulent.

And there will be huge consequences for the party, and the leader, caught on the wrong side of the power play that's still got weeks to unfold.

[dedja]

What an absolute disgrace this person is …

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/ ... 19b4ca9c26

Rapist MP Gareth Ward resigns moments before historic vote in NSW parliament

Disgraced MP and convicted rapist Gareth Ward has resigned moments before historic vote to expel him in NSW parliament.

Disgraced MP and convicted rapist Gareth Ward has resigned moments before historic vote to expel him from the NSW parliament.

Labor was expected to forward the motion to expel Ward in the Legislative Assembly on Friday morning, after a legal challenge at the Court of Appeal was shot down on Thursday.

Instead, Ward resigned hours before the vote was due to get underway.

Speaker of the house Greg Piper confirmed he had received a letter on Friday from Ward informing him of his resignation.

“I advise the house that, in accordance with Section 33 of the Constitution Act, resignation of the member for Kiama took effect immediately upon my receipt of his letter of resignation at 9:08am,” Mr Piper said.

“I further inform the House that I intend to issue a writ for a by-election to be held on a date to be determined.”

Leader of the house Ron Hoenig confirmed the motion to expel Ward had been withdrawn.

“Not in 107 years has this house been required to expel a member,” he said.

“The fact that we were about to make such a determination is a pretty shameful exercise, and should have been done following the verdict by the jury.”

Mr Hoenig said Ward had sown a “lack of respect” for the jury, the house, and for the people of Kiama.

“People of Kiama put their trust in the member for Kiama, knowing that he was charged with these offences,” he said.

“They trusted his assertions of his innocence. They gave him the presumption of innocence, and they did what ... I thought was extraordinary in entrusting him to represent them in a way in which he could do so with integrity.

“The verdict of the jury has ensured that whatever assertions he made to the people of Kiama to enable him to be elected was certainly dishonest and certainly took them for a ride.”

Addressing the media later, Mr Hoenig confirmed the state government would be pursuing a costs order against Ward for the legal challenge.

He also noted plans to refer Ward’s legal representation to the bar association over allegations they mislead a Supreme Court justice when applying for the injunction.