The 151 ballots that the NSW Liberals say should overturn the Bradfield result
Kapterian last week ended weeks of speculation and lodged a petition with the High Court, which sits as the Court of Dispute Returns to hear election challenges, in a bid to be declared victorious in Bradfield instead of teal MP-elect Nicolette Boele.
Boele, who will give her inaugural speech to federal parliament on July 28, won the once blue-ribbon Liberal seat after a recount of the northern Sydney seat in which she finished 26 votes ahead of Kapterian.
In her petition, Kapterian says the Australian electoral officer (AEO) – who is the electoral commission's manager in each state – 'wrongly rejected at least 56 of the reserved ballot papers, where those ballot papers indicated a preference, by the voter, for the petitioner ahead of the first respondent'. Boele is listed as the first respondent.
'In each such case the ballot paper was not informal and should not have been rejected,' the petition says, referencing examples such as the officer 'not being satisfied that the figure 1 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square'.
Kapterian has not seen the ballot papers, and her legal team will be provided with them once the AEC hands them to the court. However, her concerns were formed based on feedback and notes taken by scrutineers overseeing the final recount.
The AEO was tasked with reviewing and making rulings on 795 reserved ballot papers.
As well as the rejected ballots, Kapterian's petition says the AEO 'wrongly admitted at least 95 of the reserved ballot papers, where those ballot papers indicated a preference, by the voter, for the first respondent ahead of the petitioner'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
As Torres Strait battles rising seas, Canberra has been put on notice
To the beat of ancient drums, in the language of their ancestors, dancers from Australia's northernmost islands share a modern story. Outside the federal court in Cairns, Torres Strait Islander dancers wear grass skirts and the traditional headdresses of their warriors; their movements depict the rising of the seas and the strengthening of the currents. It's the story of climate change. Across the globe, outside the world's highest court in the Netherlands, our Pacific Island neighbours shared a similar dance about their culture and traditions. Together, they send a message to the world of what stands to be lost if leaders don't take serious action on climate change. Last week, the federal court found Australia does not owe a duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islander people and their culture from the impacts of climate change. In its wake, the International Court of Justice declared that states do have a "duty to cooperate" on addressing climate change or they risk breaching international law. It raises the question — will the Australian government heed the warning? Not many get to visit Australia's northernmost islands, but as one of the lucky ones, I witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts climate change is having on these small island communities, their livelihood, and culture. It is not a distant threat; it's happening now. Their loved ones' gravestones have been destroyed, beaches once used for camping eroded, and food is unable to be grown due to salty earth. Lead applicants for the case, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, explained how the seasons have changed and the migration of traditional food sources, turtles and dugongs, has shifted — generations of passed-down knowledge are being lost. As some of the lowest emitters contributing to the global carbon footprint, they are also amongst the most vulnerable to the impacts of the imposing climate frontline. Sea levels in the Strait are estimated to be rising at about twice the global average. Scientists predict that in 25 years, the islands will be uninhabitable. This is the reality we face as a nation — the severing of our connection to some of the world's oldest traditions and culture. Justice Michael Wigney accepted these facts in court last week but found the case failed not because it had no merit but because negligence law doesn't apply to 'core government policy', nor does it acknowledge the loss of culture. While sympathetic, he ultimately determined it was up to parliament to make decisions on climate policy, not the courts. "Until the law in Australia changes … the only real avenue for those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders involves public advocacy and protest or ultimately recourse via the ballot box," Justice Wigney said. This is little comfort for First Nations people who have been protesting environmental degradation and heritage destruction for decades, and are a minority at the ballot box. Three thousand kilometres away from the Torres Strait in Canberra, where the impacts of climate change are arguably not so visible, our leaders make the decisions on how Australia will participate in its global responsibility to address climate change. As Justice Wigney noted, "perhaps still are some climate change doubters and deniers among the politicians and bureaucrats." The landmark case put under the microscope the government's willingness to address the impacts of climate change and found that in the past, it hadn't been doing enough. The Commonwealth argued Australia was not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, at 1.3 per cent, and therefore has little impact on a global scale. But the Torres Strait Islanders argued Australia — a high-emitting country in per capita terms — was not contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce emissions, based on the best available science. If you include exports, Australia accounts for 4.5 per cent of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, with 80 per cent of those emissions from exports, according to the Climate Analytics Institute. Justice Wigney acknowledged the current Labor government has set "significantly higher and more ambitious goals" than the previous government. But Traditional Owners, environmental groups, and scientists were dismayed when it green-lit the controversial expansion of Woodside's Northwest Shelf gas project until 2070, despite their continued protests about the degradation of 50,000-year-old sacred rock art as well as its impact on emissions. Like the Torres Strait, our Pacific Island neighbours maintain ancient traditions and a deep connection to the land and sea. They are also on the climate change frontline. This week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that states have a legal obligation to address climate change, and if they don't, it may constitute "an internationally wrongful act". It was a campaign started in 2019 by students and youth organisations from Vanuatu, which is amongst the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. The 500-page opinion is not legally binding, but advocates and lawyers hope the world's highest court will hold some weight amongst the largest carbon emitters. Australia was one of 132 member states that requested the opinion in 2023, but in hearings, it argued that nations have no legal obligations on climate change beyond those in existing pacts like the Paris Agreement. This diverged from the views of the Pacific Islands and put into question Australia's role and responsibility as a key strategic partner in the Pacific. Could and should Australia be doing more to encourage other nations to do more to stop our neighbours from sinking beneath the tide? The historic ruling could pave the way for reparations for nations harmed by climate change and create a moral responsibility for Australia to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, as determined in the uncles' climate case, it will be up to the Commonwealth to decide whether it will listen to the international court, its Pacific neighbours, and its own people to do more. Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai fear their people will become Australia's first 'climate refugees', and it's a fear shared by Tuvaluans. Australia has already made a resettlement agreement with Tuvalu to take in their people as the seas rise. Tuvalu's former prime minister criticised the agreement as a way to "buy Tuvalu's silence over Australia's coal exports" in an opinion piece published by Radio New Zealand in 2023. In other words, planning for the worst rather than working to prevent it. Last year at Garma, I sat in the audience as Tuvalu's Minister for Climate Change Mania Talia spoke of the devastation his island nation faces from the rising seas. Something that stuck with me was his final comment expressing his admiration for the strength and resilience of First Nations people. "Despite all the difficulties, the problem that you're facing, you are able to dance and dancing in the face of despair is literally telling us that we have hope in the future," he said. "That's the message I'm going to take and tomorrow we'll also continue to dance our fidelity, our traditional dance, despite climate change." As the prime minister next week heads back to Garma, one of the country's largest Indigenous gatherings, will climate policy be on the agenda? The international court has made its decision, and vulnerable communities have made their plea, but will Australia act?
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Risk of higher US tariffs looms despite beef deal
Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Zero positives for Sussan Ley in the Coalition's net zero battle
There's no other way of looking at it: Sussan Ley faces a diabolical situation with the debate over whether the Coalition should abandon the 2050 net zero emissions target. The issue is a microcosm of her wider problems. The Nationals, the minor party in the Coalition, are determined to run their own race on most things. The Liberals have become akin to two parties, split between those eyeing urban seats and younger voters, and right-wingers reflecting the party's conservative grassroots. Nobody misses the contrast. The Albanese government is beset by a host of actual issues around the transition to a clean energy economy. The renewables rollout is not going as fast as desired and is meeting with resistance in some communities. Energy costs are high. But such problems are not putting any pressure on Labor's unity. At the same time, the opposition is fractured over an argument about a target that's a quarter of a century away, when who knows what the technological or political landscape will look like. For the opposition, the internal debate about net zero is about symbols and signals, rather than substance. The net zero debate exploded within the opposition this week with Barnaby Joyce's private member's bill to scrap Australia's commitment to it. The timing, in parliament's first week, was extraordinarily inconvenient for Ley. But if not now, it would have erupted later. On present indications, the Nationals appear likely to ditch the net zero commitment. David Littleproud, anxious to avoid the issue becoming a threat to his leadership, is reading the party room and positioning himself to be in the anticipated majority. Asked on Thursday whether he supported net zero, Littleproud told the ABC: "Well, I have real concerns about it, to be candid. What net zero has become is about trying to achieve the impossible, rather than doing what's sensible." But, he insisted, "we're not climate deniers". It is less clear how the debate will pan out in the Liberal Party, once the group under Shadow Energy Minister Dan Tehan produces its report on energy and emissions-reduction policy. Liberal sources say the issue is now being driven by the party's grassroots, rather than the parliamentary party. Branches are throwing up motions to get rid of the 2050 target. The Western Australian Liberal state council will debate a motion this weekend to drop the net zero commitment. The Queensland LNP organisation will consider its position next month. A few weeks ago, the South Australian Liberal state council rejected net zero. With a policy review underway, Ley and the parliamentary Liberals have left a vacuum on the issue. Some Liberals warn that parliamentarians risk being run over by the party outside parliament. Others point out that on policy, the parliamentarians are independent of the organisation, which often comes up with right-wing motions. How should Ley best handle the situation? By filling the vacuum with a position sooner rather than later. That means accelerating the Tehan report. Beyond that, ideally, she should be taking leadership on the issue herself. But is she in a strong enough position to do that? One idea being floated would be for the Liberals to retain the net zero target but extend the time frame. This wouldn't stop the criticism about the shift. Whether the Coalition could stay as one if its two parties had different positions on net zero may be an open question, but it certainly would be messy. On the other side of politics, the government is rapidly approaching a decision on another key target — the one Australia will put up internationally for cutting emissions by 2035. Inevitably, this will be contentious. This target must be submitted by September (it was conveniently delayed beyond the election). Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has yet to receive advice on the target from the Climate Change Authority (advice that will be published). The target is expected to be between 65 per cent and 75 per cent. The challenge will be to strike a target with sufficient ambition that doesn't alienate business and the regions. Next week, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Simon Stiell, will be in Canberra for talks. His comments will be carefully watched. Last year, he told the Sydney Morning Herald, "the world needs countries like Australia to take climate action and ambition to the next level, and it's firmly in the interests of every Australian that they do so". Climate and energy issues will have a place at next month's economic reform roundtable. Bowen is organising two preliminary roundtables — on electricity, with energy user stakeholders, and on climate adaptation. He told The Conversation's podcast that adaptation will "be an increasing focus of this government and future governments because, tragically, the world has left it too late to avoid the impacts of climate change". The government is waiting, somewhat impatiently, for the decision on whether Australia will be given the nod to host next year's UN climate conference. The COP meeting, which would be in Adelaide in November 2026, is an enormous event to put on, so the decision is becoming urgent. Bowen says Australia already has the numbers over Turkey, the other contender. But "one of the things about the process to decide COPs, I've learnt, is it's quite opaque and there's no particular timeline and no particular rules to the ballot. "It's meant to work on a consensus, sort of an old world, sort of gentlemanly sort of approach to say whoever loses will withdraw. That's not the way it's panning out. I've had multiple meetings with my Turkish counterpart to try to find a 'win-win' solution. We haven't been able to find that yet." Stiell's trip includes Turkey as well as Australia. Bowen will be hoping he may provide some clarity, when they meet, about how the "opaque" process of assigning the COP meeting is going. Bowen will be emphasising how important the proposed co-hosting COP with the Pacific is to the region, with climate change already an existential issue for many Pacific countries. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
