Mubarak v Australian Electoral Commission [2018] FCA 1089

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mubarak v Australian Electoral Commission [2018] FCA 1089

File number:
WAD 312 of 2018
Judge:
BARKER J
Date of judgment:
16 July 2018
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – urgent application to have name included on ballot paper and list of nominated candidates for by-election – where less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate was nominated signed nomination form – where no substantial compliance under s 172(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – application dismissed – no order as to costs
Legislation:
Cases cited:
Noah v Campbell [2007] FMCA 2128
Date of hearing:
16 July 2018
Registry:
Western Australia
Division:
General Division
National Practice Area:
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:
Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:
42
Counsel for the Applicant:
The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr PR Macliver
Solicitor for the Respondents:
Australian Government Solicitor

 

ORDERS

WAD 312 of 2018

BETWEEN:
KIM MUBARAK
Applicant
AND:
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
First Respondent
MANDIE CUEVAS
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BARKER J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JULY 2018

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The applicant’s name be formally amended to be “Kim Mubarak”.
  2. The first respondent’s name be formally amended to be the “Australian Electoral Commission”.
  3. Mandie Cuevas be added as second respondent.
  4. The application be dismissed.
  5. No order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BARKER J:

  1. These are my reasons given orally on 16 July 2018, and slightly edited, for dismissing the applicant’s application for orders against the respondents.
  2. The applicant, Mr Kim Mubarak, is aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to include his name on the ballot paper for the forthcoming by-election in the Division of Perth. This byelection is to be held on 28 July 2018, a short time away from now. This application, as a result, has been brought on urgently, and I have heard from the parties today and now deliver this ex tempore judgment.
  3. Mr Mubarak has made a number of submissions as to why he considers the refusal of the respondents to accept his nomination and declare him a nominated candidate for this byelection to be unlawful or, to put it another way, to be legally wrong.
  4. Mr Mubarak has also made a number of submissions about how the nomination process works and whether or not it is fair or, as he put it, discriminatory against a person like him who is not endorsed by a political party, as well as about the way the nomination system worked out in this particular case.
  5. I should make some preliminary observations. It is accepted by the parties that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), as amended, relevantly governs the nomination of persons who are otherwise qualified to seek election to nominate for the byelection. In effect, a person who has reached the age of 18 years, is an Australian citizen, and otherwise is an elector entitled to vote, in this case, at a House of Representatives election, or a person qualified to become such an elector, can put their name forward for election.
  6. But the Commonwealth Electoral Act then proceeds to set out in Pt XIV a number of requirements governing nominations of persons for election as members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Here, we are dealing with Mr Mubarak’s desire to be declared as a candidate for election as a member of the House of Representatives.
  7. Section 162 provides no person shall be capable of being elected as a member of the House of Representatives unless duly nominated.
  8. Section 166 provides, in effect, that, unless at the time of nomination the person is a sitting independent in the previous Parliament, or has filed the appropriate nomination form and set out their name, place of residence and occupation, and obtained the signatures of not less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated, their nomination cannot be accepted.
  9. Section 170 provides that the nomination paper for the House of Representatives election is to be given to the Australian Electoral Officer or the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO), as the case may be, after the issue of the writ for the election and before “the hour of nomination”, together with a deposit in the sum of $1,000 (either in legal tender or in a cheque drawn by a bank or other financial institution on itself).
  10. Section 172(1) then goes on to provide:

Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), the nomination shall be rejected by the officer to whom it is made if, and only if, the provisions of section 166, 167, 170 or 171 have not been complied with in relation to the nomination.

  1. Subsection (1A) is not presently relevant to the application before me, but in the course of submissions, particularly by Mr Mubarak, subs (2) has been made the key issue on this application. It provides:

No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 had been substantially complied with.

  1. I pause here to remark, insofar as this dispensing power is concerned, that it is: (1) to be exercised by the officer to whom the nomination has been directed, that is, on the facts before me, by the DRO; and (2) the officer has to be satisfied that, in the event of any formal defect or error, the relevant provisions have been substantially complied with.
  2. So, in effect, the application made by Mr Mubarak before me primarily alleges in substance that in deciding that there has not been substantial compliance the DRO either misdirected herself as to the appropriate substantial compliance test or made some other legal error in the exercise of that statutory dispensary power or discretion.
  3. Before I go any further, I should state what the facts of the case are going to the substantial compliance issues. Mr Mubarak has supported his application with his account of what happened in [1] to [5] of his affidavit, as follows (attachments not included):
    1. I am the applicant and authorised in my capacity as Independent Candidate to make this affidavit on the matter of my nomination to campaign.
    2. On 4th July, 2018, submitted my nomination forms annexure KM1-EFO60/MK2-EFO60, Nomination by 100 electors KM3-EFO60-C1/KM3-EFO60-C21 and Single Nomination of unendorsed check KM4-EFO60-C all checked and received by Officers of the AEC at address: Level 13/200 St.Georges Terrace WA 6000.

(a) Late in the Evening received a call from the Officer asking me to submit more 38 electors tomorrow before 12:00pm closing time.

  1. On the 5th July, 2018, Complied and submitted a form with 38 electors in time before 12:00 pm.I asked the officer if she needed more names? Her response was no.I left the office after a while an officer of the AEC rang me to come back and pay the fees of $1000 for my nomination. Annexure AEC Receipt KM5 was issued in time before 12:00 pm closure of nominations. Everything was received and signed in time. Annexure KM2-EFO60. I stand my position on substantial compliance.
  2. At a later stage about 2:00 pm after the closing of the nominations, was informed by DRO and her staff that I won’t be allowed to campaign because they have just discovered from the 133 names of electors submitted to the AEC only 4 of them are not electors of Perth. ‘I was wrongly rejected’, and had no choice rather than giving them my objection in writing.Annexture KM6-1/KM6-2.I believe that, I had complied with the Australian Electoral Commission act 1918, sec.170.sec.171, sec.167 and sec.166 on substantial compliance before 12:00 pm.
  3. I pray to this Honourable Court to Order the Australian Electoral Commission include my name ‘KIM MUBARAK’ on a ballot Paper and in the list of nominated Candidates Federal House of Representatives for the by-election of the seat of Perth, election due on 28 July, 2018.So I pray your Honour.
  4. In short, he says that he made an initial attempt to finalise his nomination on 4 July 2018. He received advice that he was 38 elector signatures short. The next day, 5 July 2018, he attempted to overcome the deficiency and provided additional electors’ names and signatures and paid the nomination deposit of $1,000. He says he was subsequently advised that he was four electors’ signatures short of the 100 required and so his nomination was not accepted.
  5. I should here note formal matters which govern an understanding of how the Commonwealth Electoral Act operates in this case. 5 July 2018 becomes important for the following reasons. On 15 June 2018, the Speaker of the House of Representatives issued a writ for the byelection in the Division of Perth with polling to take place on Saturday, 28 July 2018. The writ specified that the close of nominations was on 5 July 2018. By reason of the operation of s 175 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the hour of nomination to which I referred earlier is specified to be 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination. So that was the relevant cut-off date and time for nominations – 12 o’clock at noon on 5 July 2018.
  6. The process that Mr Mubarak explains he adopted is confirmed in substance by the affidavit of Ms June Ann Bell made 16 July 2018, filed on behalf of the respondents. Ms Bell is the Western Australian site manager and nominations project manager for the Australian Electoral Commission. At [6] to [15] of her affidavit (attachments not included) she states:
    1. The applicant sought to be nominated for the Division of Perth and attended the Commission on 4 July 2018 with a nomination form that comprised 15 pages with a total of 95 names. Copies of those pages are marked as pages 1-15 of annexure ‘KM3-EF060-c’ to the applicant’s affidavit in this matter affirmed on 10 July 2018 (the applicant’s affidavit).
    2. I instructed 2 staff of the Commission to go through the names and addresses in the applicant’s form which resulted in 62 being identified as being on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth.
    3. On 4 July 2018 at approximately 5.00 pm I advised the applicant that he had insufficient eligible electors as only 62 names were on the electoral roll for the Division of Perth and entitled to vote.
    4. The applicant returned to the Commission on 5 July 2018 at approximately 11.38 am with a further 6 pages with a total of 38 names. Copies of those pages are marked as pages 16-21 of annexure ‘KM3-EF060-c’ to the applicant’s affidavit.
    5. The additional 38 names and addresses were checked by staff of the Commission who identified only 31 as being on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth. Ms Mandie Cuevas, the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Perth and I then went through and checked all the names who could not be found on the electoral roll for the Division of Perth and found that 3 names from the original 15 pages were on the electoral roll. The combined total of electors eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth who signed the applicant’s nomination totalled 96 (65 plus 31) which was less than the 100 electors required by s 166(1)(b)(i) of the Electoral Act.
    6. Ms Cuevas and I then advised the applicant in the afternoon of 5 July 2018 that his nomination did not meet the requirement that it be signed by not less than 100 electors entitled to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth and, therefore, his nomination had to be rejected.
    7. The applicant then wrote a letter of objection dated 5 July 2018, a copy of which is annexed to the applicant’s affidavit and marked ‘KM6-1/KM6-2’.
    8. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-2’ is a copy of the email sent by Mr Paul Pirani, Chief Legal Officer of the Commission, to the applicant on 6 July 2018 in response to his letter dated 5 July 2018.
    9. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-3’ is a copy of the file record that I made on 5 July 2018 in relation to this matter. I affirm that the contents of my file record are true and correct.
    10. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-4′ is a copy of the file record that was made on 5 July 2018 by Ms Cuevas in relation to this matter. I affirm that the contents of Ms Cuevas’ file record are true and correct to the extent that it refers to matters where I was also present. In relation to events where I was not present, the file record is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
  7. In essence, by way of confirmation of what Mr Mubarak has said, she explains that on 4 July 2018, Mr Mubarak attended at the Perth office of the Australian Electoral Commission with a nomination form that comprised 15 pages. She instructed staff to go through the names and addresses of the electors whose signatures appeared on it. This resulted in 62 being identified as being on the electoral roll and eligible to vote at the by-election for the Division of Perth.
  8. I interpolate here to observe that it is not just any group of people who can elect members of Parliament throughout the Commonwealth of Australia whose signatures are required to support a nomination, but, by virtue of s 93(2) and the requirements of s 166, those electors who sign must be entitled to vote at the election in which the candidate is nominated with their names appearing on the electoral roll; that is to say, in this case, eligible to vote in the byelection for the Division of Perth.
  9. Ms Bell instructed her staff to go through the names to see if they were electors in Perth. It resulted in only 62 being identified as eligible to vote on that basis. She says that on 4 July 2018 at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, she advised Mr Mubarak that he had insufficient eligible electors and that only 62 were on the electoral roll.
  10. Mr Mubarak then returned to the Commission on 5 July 2018 at about 11.38 am with a further six pages and a total of 38 names. Ms Bell confirms the documents then received at the Commission by reference to some of those attached to Mr Mubarak’s affidavit. Mr Mubarak paid his $1,000 deposit at about the same time. The receipt for the $1,000 attached to Mr Mubarak’s affidavit is marked as 11.56 am, four minutes before the 12 o’clock noon cutoff time.
  11. I infer from the evidence, that what then happened was that, after 12 o’clock, the Commission staff, including the DRO, Ms Mandie Cuevas, went through a process of verifying the additional signatures as electors in Perth. What they discovered was that only 31 of the additional 38 signatures were people who were eligible to vote in the Division of Perth byelection. However, they took a further step. They again went through the signatures previously provided and were able to identify three other persons who were in fact eligible to vote, but who had earlier been discounted.
  12. But, unfortunately, from Mr Mubarak’s point of view, the combined total of all the electors eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth who had signed his nomination on 4 and 5 July 2018, fell short of the 100 because they only totalled 96. I accept and find that that was the case on the evidence before me.
  13. As a result of this count and recount, I infer that Ms Cuevas decided, as the DRO, that she could not be satisfied that there had been substantial compliance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act requirement that not less than 100 electors entitled to vote in Perth had given their support to Mr Mubarak’s nomination.
  14. Mr Mubarak wrote a letter of objection the next day, and that is annexed to his affidavit. There was a response from the Chief Legal Officer of the Commission as to the legal requirements surrounding the nomination process, discussing the facts and the substantial compliance test.
  15. I will deal with issues that have been raised by Mr Mubarak today. At a more general level, Mr Mubarak has complained that there are different rules in the Commonwealth Electoral Act governing the nomination process for people who are endorsed by political parties and people who are unendorsed or independent candidates, like him. That is correct. But there would appear to be policy reasons for the differences. Some of them, I believe, are to be found express or implied in the parliamentary record relating to the amendments made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 2012-2013.
  16. The Second Reading Speech on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 (Cth) touches on some of those. At p 8159, of the House of Representatives Hansard, the Minister (the Honourable Gary Gray MP at material times) on 27 June 2012 said:

The amendments made by schedule 2 to the bill seek to address concerns arising from the increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections. They are proposed as a means of discouraging candidates who are not seriously in contention for election and thereby would reduce the number of candidates on ballot papers.

  1. To some extent, that might have been addressed only to the Senate, but it is capable of being read more broadly. Towards the end of that page, the Minister added:

Schedule 2 to the bill will also address the number of electors required to nominate an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors. Unendorsed candidates are candidates who either are not endorsed by a registered political party or are not a sitting Independent candidate.

  1. And over the page at p 8160, the Minister said:

The amendments to increase the required nomination deposit and to increase the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates seek to strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for all eligible citizens to stand for parliament while at the same time putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates must meet; thresholds that will contribute to ensuring the effectiveness of the electoral process.

  1. I note those parliamentary comments because they help to provide some policy rationale for why these provisions exist. One can infer from this record that the Parliament accepts that where a person who nominates has the endorsement of a political party, there has been some broader process of community endorsement of the nomination, but where they do not have political party endorsement, there ought to be a reasonable threshold of electors as their nominators and that 100 is considered by the Parliament of Australia to be the appropriate number. The broad attack on the fairness of that policy, which Mr Mubarak has raised, is not something, in any event, that aids the resolution of the legal issue now before me. I have not understood his objection to be one challenging the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, only its policy basis.
  2. The real questions are (1) whether there was, in fact, compliance with the 100 eligible elector signature requirement; or (2) whether it can be said the DRO applied a wrong test in deciding there was not substantial compliance with that requirement.
  3. There is no doubt every other nomination requirement was met by Mr Mubarak. The respondents’ counsel does not suggest otherwise.
  4. As I have already indicated, to the extent that Mr Mubarak argues that he provided 100 or more elector signatures, that is not good enough because the signatures need to be those of persons eligible to vote in the Division of Perth by-election. I accept the evidence put on by the respondents and, in particular, the information provided in the affidavit of Ms Bell which states that, in the end, there were only 96 such signatures on the nomination form, not the required 100.
  5. The remaining question is the key question, namely, whether s 172(2) was misapplied by the DRO in rejecting the nomination. As noted earlier, that provision states:

No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 have been substantially complied with.

  1. In this case, it is s 166(1)(b)(i) that is relevant, because that is the requirement that the nomination in the requisite form be signed by not less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated. There is a question whether you can have substantial compliance with a provision in those terms. I have already emphasised that s 172(1) makes it clear that a nomination shall be rejected if there is not compliance, and I have found that there was not compliance. The question is whether it was open to the DRO to find there had been substantial compliance with that provision.
  2. One submission put to me by the respondents is that the failure to have 100 signatures but to have supplied 96 cannot be described as a “formal defect” or a “formal error” in the nomination. Depending on what one considers to be a “defect” or an “error” in a nomination, it is possible to say that a failure to comply with the 100 signature requirement is a defect or an error. I am inclined to think, however that the failure to obtain the 100 signatures is neither a defect nor an error in the nomination. Rather it is a failure to satisfy a mandatory requirement in the nominating process.
  3. Consistent with the decision of Noah v Campbell [2007] FMCA 2128, which has been cited to me on behalf of the respondents, I consider that the signatures requirement can only be substantially complied with if the 100 number is reached. There is a good reason why that should be so, because if substantial compliance can be demonstrated by a fewer number than 100, then exactly what is the relevant number? The Parliament has decreed at least 100 are required. The requirement is not for “about 100” or “nearly 100”, or a number that in the discretion of the relevant officer is thought to be sufficient to demonstrate some general community support for the person who wishes to campaign. It has to be “not less than 100”.
  4. Thus, I do not consider that the substantial compliance provision in s 172(2) has been incorrectly interpreted or applied by the officer in this instance.
  5. The result is that I do not consider that this is an occasion in which the Court should make any orders which would have the effect of requiring the DRO to reconsider her decision not to accept Mr Mubarak’s nomination for Perth or to require his name to be placed on the ballot paper.
  6. Finally, I would note that I do not doubt that the Court has full jurisdiction to determine this matter. It is a matter arising under an Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Court has full jurisdiction to compel the performance of the duty or to correct an error made by a Commonwealth officer in the present circumstances.
  7. For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for relief.
  8. In the circumstances, I would not make any order for costs against Mr Mubarak.

 

I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker.

Associate:

Dated: 20 July 2018
Last Updated: 23 July 2018

Here, The above order can be downloaded  and its filling affidivit form can be also downloaded as well.

KIM MUBARAK V AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION FEDERAL COURT ORDER.

THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN DEALING WITH THE CASE AGAINST THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION.
(a)JUSTICE BARKER OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT LIED IN HIS JUDGEMENT STATEMENT NO.(25) THAT I WROTE MY LETTER OF OBJECTION THE NEXT DAY WHICH IS NOT TRUE.”I WROTE THAT LETTER IMMEDIATELY WHEN I WAS STILL IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION’S OFFICE IN PERTH ON THE 5th JULY,2018,UNDER CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Ms. June AND Ms.CUEVAS (DRO) CHASING ME OUT OF THE OFFICE THAT MY LETTER WONT CHANGE THEIR DECISSION.SUCH BEHAVIER’S WHICH I CONSIDER AS ABUSE OF THEIR CODE OF CONDUCT AS REQUIRED BY LAW TO TREAT CANDIDATES WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT.THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT ME ALONE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM SO THAT I DEAL WITH MY LETTER PEACEFULLY.WHEN YOU LOOK AT “JAB 3” PAGE 12,PARAGRAPH SEVEN,Ms.BELL’S COMMENTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT MY LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON THAT VERY DAY THE 5 JULY,2018,NOT THE NEXT DAY.SHE ALSO LIED THAT IT TOOK ME 45 MINUTES WRITING MY LETTER.WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
(b)WHEN YOU LOOK AT “JAB 4” PAGE 16,PARAGRAPH FOUR AND FIVE CLUEVAS (DRO)’S STATEMENT AFFIRMED Ms. BELL’S STATEMENT AS EXPLAINED BEFORE,NOT NEXT DAY AS JUSTICE BARKER’S STATEMENT ON NO.(25).THEY ALSO REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH MY DEMANDS THAT THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF MUST BE INFORMRD ABOUT THE MATTER SO THAT A FAIR DECISSION IS DETERMINED AS FAR AS THE SITUATION IS CONCERNED.
(c)WHEN YOU LOOK AT “JAB 2” AT THE WORD AEC FROM Mr. PAUL’S LETTER BELOW Dear Mubarak, and quote; “I refer to your letter of 5 June, 2018” end of quote. THAT IS ALSO ANOTHER LIE FROM THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT, I SENT HIM A LETTER ON THAT DATE.
(d)WHEN YOU LOOK AT JUSTICE BARKER’S ORDER PAGE -3- NUMBER 4.HE QUOTED FROM MY AFFIDAVIT THAT MY LETTER OF OBJECTION IS DATED THE 5th JULY, 2018, MARKED “KM6/KM6-2, WHICH IS CORRECT BUT NOT THE NEXT DAY AS PER HIS STATEMENT.
(e) I STAND ON MY GROUNDS THAT THE DECISSION MADE BY THE DIVISIONAL RETURNING OFFICER AND JUSTICE BARKER IS UNJUST AND BIAS IN FAVOUR OF HIS FELLOW EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.THERE IS NO SECTION IN THE COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 WHICH EMPOWERS THE DIVISIONAL RETURNING OFFICER TO REJECT NOMINATIONS AFTER RECEIVING THE FEE BEFORE 12:00 noon, AND AFTER TWO HOUR’S CLOSE OF NOMINATIONS.I COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE 12:00 noon, I GAVE THEM MORE THAN 132 SIGNITURES,NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT EVEN JUSTICE BARKER MENTIONED IT IN HIS STATEMENT.THERE IS NO WORD FUNDAMENTAL OR FAILURE IN THE ELECTORAL ACT AS FAR AS MY SITUATION IS CONCERNED.
I GAVE JUSTICE BARKER MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS, FROM ELECTORAL ACT AND ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO EXPLAIN ALL THAT IN HIS JUDGEMENT.JUSTICE BARKER CONCUR WITH ME IN HIS STATEMENT THAT I WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY,WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW AND THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION CODE OF CONDUCT, BUT DID NOT TAKE ACTION IN HIS ORDER AGAINST THAT BAD CULTURE.HE HAD MORE POWERS TO REVERSE THE DECISION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC,BUT HE CHOSE TO BE BIAS AND LIED IN HIS JUDGEMENT AGAINST MY WILL SUPPORTING ONE INDIVIDUAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH AGAINST THE PUBLIC.
THE DIVISIONAL RETURNING OFFICER AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT DID NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ALL THE 15 CANDIDATES HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ELECTORAL COMMISIONS BY PROVIDING SIGNATURES OF THOSE WHO ARE ELECTORS AND ENROLLED TO VOTE FOR THE SEAT OF PERTH.THEY DID NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ALL POLITICAL PARTIE’S 500 SIGNATURES PER EACH PARTY ARE ELECTORS FOR THE SEAT OF PERTH. TO MAKE THE MATTER WORSE, ON 6 JULY, 2018, Mr. Justin Director Civil Law Legal Aid WA GAVE ME A WRONG FORM BY THE TIME I WANTED TO LODGE AN INJUNCTION STOP THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION FROM ANNOINCING NOMINATED CANDIDATES WITHOUT MY NAMES AND UNTIL THE MATTER OF MY NOMINATION IS RESOLVED.LEGAL AID SENT ME AN EMAIL and quote; IS UNABLE TO ASSIST ME FURTHER THAT, I SHOULD TRY TO APPLY AT THE SUPREME COURT.THE EMAIL WAS MISLEADING ADVISE BECOUSE THE MATTER FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH COURT NOT THE STATE.
I RECOMMEND THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE IN THE LEGAL AID MUST BE LAW GRADUATES OR LAWYERS BECOUSE SOME OFFICERS IN THAT OFFICE MOST OF THE TIME THEY DONT KNOW ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS.EVEN THE LAW ACCESS SENT ME AN EMAIL and quote; unfortunately this is a matter that the Law Society of WA or Law Access is able to assist you with as it falls outside our referral criteria. End of quote. I CONSIDER SUCH RESPONSE AS A FAILURE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND A DUTY OF CARE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. ABUSE TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.AT THE SAME TIME TREATING OUR BELOVED BOSSES THE PUBLIC AND “TAX PAYERS” WITH CONTEMPT.THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.

SEE ORDER BELOW:-

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mubarak v Australian Electoral Commission [2018] FCA 1089

File number: WAD 312 of 2018

Judge: BARKER J

Date of judgment: 16 July 2018

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – urgent application to have name included on ballot paper and list of nominated candidates for by-election – where less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate was nominated signed nomination form – where no substantial compliance under s 172(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – application dismissed – no order as to costs

Legislation: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) Pt XIV, ss 93(2), 162, 166, 170, 172, 175, 176
Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 (Cth)

Cases cited: Noah v Campbell [2007] FMCA 2128

Date of hearing: 16 July 2018

Registry: Western Australia

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 42

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr PR Macliver

Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS
WAD 312 of 2018

BETWEEN: KIM MUBARAK
Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
First Respondent

MANDIE CUEVAS
Second Respondent

JUDGE: BARKER J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 JULY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant’s name be formally amended to be “Kim Mubarak”.
2. The first respondent’s name be formally amended to be the “Australian Electoral Commission”.
3. Mandie Cuevas be added as second respondent.
4. The application be dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/aucases/cth/FCA/2018/1089.html

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BARKER J:
1 These are my reasons given orally on 16 July 2018, and slightly edited, for dismissing the applicant’s application for orders against the respondents.
2 The applicant, Mr Kim Mubarak, is aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to include his name on the ballot paper for the forthcoming by-election in the Division of Perth. This by election is to be held on 28 July 2018, a short time away from now. This application, as a result, has been brought on urgently, and I have heard from the parties today and now deliver this ex tempore judgment.
3 Mr Mubarak has made a number of submissions as to why he considers the refusal of the respondents to accept his nomination and declare him a nominated candidate for this by election to be unlawful or, to put it another way, to be legally wrong.
4 Mr Mubarak has also made a number of submissions about how the nomination process works and whether or not it is fair or, as he put it, discriminatory against a person like him who is not endorsed by a political party, as well as about the way the nomination system worked out in this particular case.
5 I should make some preliminary observations. It is accepted by the parties that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), as amended, relevantly governs the nomination of persons who are otherwise qualified to seek election to nominate for the by election. In effect, a person who has reached the age of 18 years, is an Australian citizen, and otherwise is an elector entitled to vote, in this case, at a House of Representatives election, or a person qualified to become such an elector, can put their name forward for election.
6 But the Commonwealth Electoral Act then proceeds to set out in Pt XIV a number of requirements governing nominations of persons for election as members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Here, we are dealing with Mr Mubarak’s desire to be declared as a candidate for election as a member of the House of Representatives.
7 Section 162 provides no person shall be capable of being elected as a member of the House of Representatives unless duly nominated.
8 Section 166 provides, in effect, that, unless at the time of nomination the person is a sitting independent in the previous Parliament, or has filed the appropriate nomination form and set out their name, place of residence and occupation, and obtained the signatures of not less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated, their nomination cannot be accepted.
9 Section 170 provides that the nomination paper for the House of Representatives election is to be given to the Australian Electoral Officer or the Divisional Returning Officer (DRO), as the case may be, after the issue of the writ for the election and before “the hour of nomination”, together with a deposit in the sum of $1,000 (either in legal tender or in a cheque drawn by a bank or other financial institution on itself).
10 Section 172(1) then goes on to provide:
Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), the nomination shall be rejected by the officer to whom it is made if, and only if, the provisions of section 166, 167, 170 or 171 have not been complied with in relation to the nomination.
11 Subsection (1A) is not presently relevant to the application before me, but in the course of submissions, particularly by Mr Mubarak, subs (2) has been made the key issue on this application. It provides:
No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 had been substantially complied with.
12 I pause here to remark, insofar as this dispensing power is concerned, that it is: (1) to be exercised by the officer to whom the nomination has been directed, that is, on the facts before me, by the DRO; and (2) the officer has to be satisfied that, in the event of any formal defect or error, the relevant provisions have been substantially complied with.
13 So, in effect, the application made by Mr Mubarak before me primarily alleges in substance that in deciding that there has not been substantial compliance the DRO either misdirected herself as to the appropriate substantial compliance test or made some other legal error in the exercise of that statutory dispensary power or discretion.
14 Before I go any further, I should state what the facts of the case are going to the substantial compliance issues. Mr Mubarak has supported his application with his account of what happened in [1] to [5] of his affidavit, as follows (attachments not included):
1. I am the applicant and authorised in my capacity as Independent Candidate to make this affidavit on the matter of my nomination to campaign.
2. On 4th July, 2018, submitted my nomination forms annexure KM1-EFO60/MK2-EFO60, Nomination by 100 electors KM3-EFO60-C1/KM3-EFO60-C21 and Single Nomination of unendorsed check KM4-EFO60-C all checked and received by Officers of the AEC at address: Level 13/200 St.Georges Terrace WA 6000.
(a) Late in the Evening received a call from the Officer asking me to submit more 38 electors tomorrow before 12:00pm closing time.
3. On the 5th July, 2018, Complied and submitted a form with 38 electors in time before 12:00 pm.I asked the officer if she needed more names? Her response was no.I left the office after a while an officer of the AEC rang me to come back and pay the fees of $1000 for my nomination. Annexure AEC Receipt KM5 was issued in time before 12:00 pm closure of nominations. Everything was received and signed in time. Annexure KM2-EFO60. I stand my position on substantial compliance.
4. At a later stage about 2:00 pm after the closing of the nominations, was informed by DRO and her staff that I won’t be allowed to campaign because they have just discovered from the 133 names of electors submitted to the AEC only 4 of them are not electors of Perth. ‘I was wrongly rejected’, and had no choice rather than giving them my objection in writing.Annexture KM6-1/KM6-2.I believe that, I had complied with the Australian Electoral Commission act 1918, sec.170.sec.171, sec.167 and sec.166 on substantial compliance before 12:00 pm.
5. I pray to this Honourable Court to Order the Australian Electoral Commission include my name ‘KIM MUBARAK’ on a ballot Paper and in the list of nominated Candidates Federal House of Representatives for the by-election of the seat of Perth, election due on 28 July, 2018.So I pray your Honour.
15 In short, he says that he made an initial attempt to finalise his nomination on 4 July 2018. He received advice that he was 38 elector signatures short. The next day, 5 July 2018, he attempted to overcome the deficiency and provided additional electors’ names and signatures and paid the nomination deposit of $1,000. He says he was subsequently advised that he was four electors’ signatures short of the 100 required and so his nomination was not accepted.
16 I should here note formal matters which govern an understanding of how the Commonwealth Electoral Act operates in this case. 5 July 2018 becomes important for the following reasons. On 15 June 2018, the Speaker of the House of Representatives issued a writ for the by election in the Division of Perth with polling to take place on Saturday, 28 July 2018. The writ specified that the close of nominations was on 5 July 2018. By reason of the operation of s 175 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the hour of nomination to which I referred earlier is specified to be 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination. So that was the relevant cut-off date and time for nominations – 12 o’clock at noon on 5 July 2018.
17 The process that Mr Mubarak explains he adopted is confirmed in substance by the affidavit of Ms June Ann Bell made 16 July 2018, filed on behalf of the respondents. Ms Bell is the Western Australian site manager and nominations project manager for the Australian Electoral Commission. At [6] to [15] of her affidavit (attachments not included) she states:
6. The applicant sought to be nominated for the Division of Perth and attended the Commission on 4 July 2018 with a nomination form that comprised 15 pages with a total of 95 names. Copies of those pages are marked as pages 1-15 of annexure ‘KM3-EF060-c’ to the applicant’s affidavit in this matter affirmed on 10 July 2018 (the applicant’s affidavit).
7. I instructed 2 staff of the Commission to go through the names and addresses in the applicant’s form which resulted in 62 being identified as being on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth.
8. On 4 July 2018 at approximately 5.00 pm I advised the applicant that he had insufficient eligible electors as only 62 names were on the electoral roll for the Division of Perth and entitled to vote.
9. The applicant returned to the Commission on 5 July 2018 at approximately 11.38 am with a further 6 pages with a total of 38 names. Copies of those pages are marked as pages 16-21 of annexure ‘KM3-EF060-c’ to the applicant’s affidavit.
10. The additional 38 names and addresses were checked by staff of the Commission who identified only 31 as being on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth. Ms Mandie Cuevas, the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Perth and I then went through and checked all the names who could not be found on the electoral roll for the Division of Perth and found that 3 names from the original 15 pages were on the electoral roll. The combined total of electors eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth who signed the applicant’s nomination totalled 96 (65 plus 31) which was less than the 100 electors required by s 166(1)(b)(i) of the Electoral Act.
11. Ms Cuevas and I then advised the applicant in the afternoon of 5 July 2018 that his nomination did not meet the requirement that it be signed by not less than 100 electors entitled to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth and, therefore, his nomination had to be rejected.
12. The applicant then wrote a letter of objection dated 5 July 2018, a copy of which is annexed to the applicant’s affidavit and marked ‘KM6-1/KM6-2’.
13. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-2’ is a copy of the email sent by Mr Paul Pirani, Chief Legal Officer of the Commission, to the applicant on 6 July 2018 in response to his letter dated 5 July 2018.
14. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-3’ is a copy of the file record that I made on 5 July 2018 in relation to this matter. I affirm that the contents of my file record are true and correct.
15. Annexed to this affidavit and marked ‘JAB-4′ is a copy of the file record that was made on 5 July 2018 by Ms Cuevas in relation to this matter. I affirm that the contents of Ms Cuevas’ file record are true and correct to the extent that it refers to matters where I was also present. In relation to events where I was not present, the file record is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
18 In essence, by way of confirmation of what Mr Mubarak has said, she explains that on 4 July 2018, Mr Mubarak attended at the Perth office of the Australian Electoral Commission with a nomination form that comprised 15 pages. She instructed staff to go through the names and addresses of the electors whose signatures appeared on it. This resulted in 62 being identified as being on the electoral roll and eligible to vote at the by-election for the Division of Perth.
19 I interpolate here to observe that it is not just any group of people who can elect members of Parliament throughout the Commonwealth of Australia whose signatures are required to support a nomination, but, by virtue of s 93(2) and the requirements of s 166, those electors who sign must be entitled to vote at the election in which the candidate is nominated with their names appearing on the electoral roll; that is to say, in this case, eligible to vote in the by election for the Division of Perth.
20 Ms Bell instructed her staff to go through the names to see if they were electors in Perth. It resulted in only 62 being identified as eligible to vote on that basis. She says that on 4 July 2018 at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, she advised Mr Mubarak that he had insufficient eligible electors and that only 62 were on the electoral roll.
21 Mr Mubarak then returned to the Commission on 5 July 2018 at about 11.38 am with a further six pages and a total of 38 names. Ms Bell confirms the documents then received at the Commission by reference to some of those attached to Mr Mubarak’s affidavit. Mr Mubarak paid his $1,000 deposit at about the same time. The receipt for the $1,000 attached to Mr Mubarak’s affidavit is marked as 11.56 am, four minutes before the 12 o’clock noon cut off time.
22 I infer from the evidence, that what then happened was that, after 12 o’clock, the Commission staff, including the DRO, Ms Mandie Cuevas, went through a process of verifying the additional signatures as electors in Perth. What they discovered was that only 31 of the additional 38 signatures were people who were eligible to vote in the Division of Perth by election. However, they took a further step. They again went through the signatures previously provided and were able to identify three other persons who were in fact eligible to vote, but who had earlier been discounted.
23 But, unfortunately, from Mr Mubarak’s point of view, the combined total of all the electors eligible to vote in the by-election for the Division of Perth who had signed his nomination on 4 and 5 July 2018, fell short of the 100 because they only totalled 96. I accept and find that that was the case on the evidence before me.
24 As a result of this count and recount, I infer that Ms Cuevas decided, as the DRO, that she could not be satisfied that there had been substantial compliance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act requirement that not less than 100 electors entitled to vote in Perth had given their support to Mr Mubarak’s nomination.
25 Mr Mubarak wrote a letter of objection the next day, and that is annexed to his affidavit. There was a response from the Chief Legal Officer of the Commission as to the legal requirements surrounding the nomination process, discussing the facts and the substantial compliance test.
26 I will deal with issues that have been raised by Mr Mubarak today. At a more general level, Mr Mubarak has complained that there are different rules in the Commonwealth Electoral Act governing the nomination process for people who are endorsed by political parties and people who are unendorsed or independent candidates, like him. That is correct. But there would appear to be policy reasons for the differences. Some of them, I believe, are to be found express or implied in the parliamentary record relating to the amendments made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 2012-2013.
27 The Second Reading Speech on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 (Cth) touches on some of those. At p 8159, of the House of Representatives Hansard, the Minister (the Honourable Gary Gray MP at material times) on 27 June 2012 said:
The amendments made by schedule 2 to the bill seek to address concerns arising from the increasingly large number of Senate groups contesting elections. They are proposed as a means of discouraging candidates who are not seriously in contention for election and thereby would reduce the number of candidates on ballot papers.
28 To some extent, that might have been addressed only to the Senate, but it is capable of being read more broadly. Towards the end of that page, the Minister added:
Schedule 2 to the bill will also address the number of electors required to nominate an unendorsed candidate from 50 to 100 electors. Unendorsed candidates are candidates who either are not endorsed by a registered political party or are not a sitting Independent candidate.
29 And over the page at p 8160, the Minister said:
The amendments to increase the required nomination deposit and to increase the number of nominators required for unendorsed candidates seek to strike the right balance between providing the opportunity for all eligible citizens to stand for parliament while at the same time putting in place some reasonable thresholds that candidates must meet; thresholds that will contribute to ensuring the effectiveness of the electoral process.
30 I note those parliamentary comments because they help to provide some policy rationale for why these provisions exist. One can infer from this record that the Parliament accepts that where a person who nominates has the endorsement of a political party, there has been some broader process of community endorsement of the nomination, but where they do not have political party endorsement, there ought to be a reasonable threshold of electors as their nominators and that 100 is considered by the Parliament of Australia to be the appropriate number. The broad attack on the fairness of that policy, which Mr Mubarak has raised, is not something, in any event, that aids the resolution of the legal issue now before me. I have not understood his objection to be one challenging the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, only its policy basis.
31 The real questions are (1) whether there was, in fact, compliance with the 100 eligible elector signature requirement; or (2) whether it can be said the DRO applied a wrong test in deciding there was not substantial compliance with that requirement.
32 There is no doubt every other nomination requirement was met by Mr Mubarak. The respondents’ counsel does not suggest otherwise.
33 As I have already indicated, to the extent that Mr Mubarak argues that he provided 100 or more elector signatures, that is not good enough because the signatures need to be those of persons eligible to vote in the Division of Perth by-election. I accept the evidence put on by the respondents and, in particular, the information provided in the affidavit of Ms Bell which states that, in the end, there were only 96 such signatures on the nomination form, not the required 100.
34 The remaining question is the key question, namely, whether s 172(2) was misapplied by the DRO in rejecting the nomination. As noted earlier, that provision states:
No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 have been substantially complied with.
35 In this case, it is s 166(1)(b)(i) that is relevant, because that is the requirement that the nomination in the requisite form be signed by not less than 100 electors entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated. There is a question whether you can have substantial compliance with a provision in those terms. I have already emphasised that s 172(1) makes it clear that a nomination shall be rejected if there is not compliance, and I have found that there was not compliance. The question is whether it was open to the DRO to find there had been substantial compliance with that provision.
36 One submission put to me by the respondents is that the failure to have 100 signatures but to have supplied 96 cannot be described as a “formal defect” or a “formal error” in the nomination. Depending on what one considers to be a “defect” or an “error” in a nomination, it is possible to say that a failure to comply with the 100 signature requirement is a defect or an error. I am inclined to think, however that the failure to obtain the 100 signatures is neither a defect nor an error in the nomination. Rather it is a failure to satisfy a mandatory requirement in the nominating process.
37 Consistent with the decision of Noah v Campbell [2007] FMCA 2128, which has been cited to me on behalf of the respondents, I consider that the signatures requirement can only be substantially complied with if the 100 number is reached. There is a good reason why that should be so, because if substantial compliance can be demonstrated by a fewer number than 100, then exactly what is the relevant number? The Parliament has decreed at least 100 are required. The requirement is not for “about 100” or “nearly 100”, or a number that in the discretion of the relevant officer is thought to be sufficient to demonstrate some general community support for the person who wishes to campaign. It has to be “not less than 100”.
38 Thus, I do not consider that the substantial compliance provision in s 172(2) has been incorrectly interpreted or applied by the officer in this instance.
39 The result is that I do not consider that this is an occasion in which the Court should make any orders which would have the effect of requiring the DRO to reconsider her decision not to accept Mr Mubarak’s nomination for Perth or to require his name to be placed on the ballot paper.
40 Finally, I would note that I do not doubt that the Court has full jurisdiction to determine this matter. It is a matter arising under an Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Court has full jurisdiction to compel the performance of the duty or to correct an error made by a Commonwealth officer in the present circumstances.
41 For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for relief.
42 In the circumstances, I would not make any order for costs against Mr Mubarak.

I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker.

Associate:

Dated: 20 July 2018

A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND FORMER INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE KIM MUBARAK DISAGREE WITH THE AEC RESULTS BY ELECTIONS FOR THE SEAT OF PERTH.

First and foremost, I would like to thank our beloved Bosses the Public Tax payers for the decision you took exercising your fundamental basic human rights to boycott the election. It was a vote of no confidence to the Australian Electoral Commissions Officer and political party’s bureaucracy. Fundamental basic human rights values, people’s sovereignty must be respected.

The people must have the final say in government decisions. That means one person, one vote “doctrine” according to our constitution. The Australian Electoral Commissions Officials and Political leaders must learn to accept that they are servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns-tax payers are our bosses who contributes a lot towards salaries and allowances to members of parliament and public servants.
The supreme authority vests in the people of Australia as electors or Voters. They decide how they should be governed, their will and aspiration must be respected.

A good number of people did not turn up to vote, how come the Australian Electoral Commission came to a conclusion announcing the winner for the seat of Perth in that environment?.

I refuse to be part of that bad history, electors made their personal decision not to participate in that election, their consent must be respected. Where did the Australian Electoral Commissions officials get the required votes and reach the conclusion to announce a winner?. It was evident on public Television that the Majority of electors did not turn up to cast their votes. The Commission officials must come out to explain before the courts of law.
I hereby announce my position in my capacity as a concerned citizen and former Independent Candidate for the seat of Perth that, I will be taking the Matter to the courts of law for the second time in the best interest of the community.

The Australian Commission must be sued in honour to our beloved bosses the public “tax Payers” of Western Australia. I demand that Australian Electoral Commission must provide evidence in court to prove that they don’t treat “Independent Candidates” differently during nominations.
(b) Must table evidence before me and the Court that all political Parties had lodged 500 signature’s electors who are enrolled to vote for the seat of Perth.
(c) Must provide before me and to the Court under oath voting registers from all polling stations about those who voted in this election for the seat of Perth and to be examined.
(d) Voters register must be made public so that those who did not vote should have a chance to verify their details.
(e) The Australian Post Office must be forced to provide documentary evidence before me and the court in regards to this by elections for the seat of Perth and to be examined under oath.
(f) All ballot papers casted informal and formal must be under the custody of the court to be checked by myself and the court in the best interest of the public.
(g) The Australian Electoral Commission must be forced to explain before me and the courts of Law under oath the way how they determine candidates vote and the percentages of 15 candidates vote for the seat of Perth. They must explain how the preferences of Labor Party were distributed to all 15 Candidates. Also must explain under oath about the Greens Party votes as how many votes were distributed to all 15 candidates and what was the remaining balance of votes for the Greens Party?.
(e) The Division returning Officer of Perth and all poling officers must appear before the courts of Law to explain the way how they counted the votes casted by electors and what number of the votes is legally required before coming to the conclusion and announce the winner for the seat of Perth.
All poling officers must appear before the Judges for examination and to explain under oath more details. More information will be provided before the courts of Law.
I reaffirmed my position and pledge that, I will fight for the public good until my last breathe. Common sense and people’s power must prevail. Australia needs people those who cares about the issues of concern in the community. Please don’t leave me to this revolution alone, join me lets fight this together as one family in the best interest of this great nations of ours; We must stop this discriminatory practice in the best interest of our Island Continent’s reputation.

My humble request to all Lawyers of good heart those who have Australian community at heart, Please join my revolution because a review in our electoral matters and the constitution is a must. Remember that we are a generation of the 21st Century. This is not a matter for “KIM MUBARAK” it’s a matter of public interest.
A revolution for national soverenty and above all to allow one person, one vote principle. Australian Electoral Commission is in contempt of the Australian Constitution. Australian Electoral Commission is bias against Independent Candidates “Electors” of this Country. Such bad behaviours must stop with immediate effect.

Under Constitutional Law protection;-The high court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the constitution.

The rights we have as Australian Citizens;-Part of core values is the constitutional government, respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of speech and religion, committed to the rule of law and allegiance to Australia and parliamentary democracy.

Based on those values that is the reason why I will never give up fighting in the best interest of the community and this great Island Continent of ours Australia. The same values is the reason why I am to sue the Australian Electoral Commission for the second time, so that some electoral laws and legislative act which conflicts with the Australian constitution must be declared null and void because they are unjust laws and unconstitutional. Australian Constitution doesn’t recognise the word “Head of state, Prime Minister nor political party”. A Judicial review and the constitution is a must to protect the integrity of the community and the reputation of this great sovereign Island Continent of ours Australia.

KIM MUBARAK V AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT.

I report to our beloved “Boss” the public and tax payers about my statement in the Federal Court of Australia, KIM MUBARAK V AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISION. Unfortunately, the Court refused to give me a copy of my Transcript, I was asked to pay $ 50 after that sit in a small room and record notes derived from a 15 page court transcript. They don’t allow even complainants have copies of their own statements matters of public interest. I think someone should step in and change the rules. Urgent review of some Federal Court rules is very necessary particularly in dealing with matters of public interest. They should have published the entire hearing on their website so that our Bosses “tax payers” should have a chance to follow about this historical case.
On the 16th July, 2018, appeared before Justice Barker at Court room No.1, Level 7, Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Court, 1 Victoria Avenue, Perth, Western Australia.
Your Honour, My Names are Mubarak Kim.K, representing myself. I am here in this honourable court seeking for the justice of my cause. I do have trust in this Honourable court.
Your Honour, before I proceed to my application please allow me stress on these four points:-
(1) The definition of a candidate-is a person who is nominated for election or a person who is competing to get a job or to be elected for a public office.
(2) Independent Candidate-is an individual not affiliated to any political party.
(3) Political Party-is an alliance of like-minded people who work together to win elections and control to the government. Is also an organisation of group of people with similar political opinion.
(4) Vote-is to elect or choose someone to hold a public office or some other position by voting.
Your Honour, Political Parties are not Candidates nor Human beings. Australian Constitution doesn’t recognise Political Parties nor the word Prime Minister. Electors vote for Candidates as human beings to represent their views in Parliament. Parties don’t speak only people do.
Your Honour, The Australian Electoral Commission is not Independent in determining the election. The current system elections are determined by leaders of political parties who are in government of the day. They pass laws of elections in favour of their political interests against the Independent Candidates. The commission has been conniving with them or with a Party of the day executing discriminatory practices against Independent Candidates. The Australian Electoral Commission is bias against the Independents.
For Example:-During Nominations Independents are being forced to gather 100 signatures from electors.Suprisingly,Political Parties Candidates are not forced to do the same, when we are all Human beings vying for the same position wanting to represent people of the same areas. We pay the same fees for our Nominations to be qualified as Candidates, so that voters or electors can choose a person as a candidate to go and speak for them on their behalf or debate about issues which are in the best interest of the public.
Your Honour, I won’t go through all the wrongs committed by the Australian Electoral Commission. My focus today is about my Originating Application Form 15 rule 8.01(1) and my affidavit Form 59 rule 29.02(1).
Your Honour, First and foremost, I would like to thank this Honourable Court and the Staff I have been dealing with for their Professional approach in this historical matter, and for the urgency you have given me listing for this hearing. I thank you abundantly.
1-Your Honour, I am the applicant and authorised in my capacity as Independent Candidate to make this affidavit in the matter of my nomination to campaign.
2-On 4th July, 2018, Lodged my nomination forms annexure KM1-EFO60/KM2-EFO60, Nomination by 100 electors KM3-EFO60-C1/KM3-EFO60-C21 and single Nomination of unendorsed check KM4-EFO60-C all checked and received by officers of the AEC at address Level 13/200 St. Georges Terrace Perth, WA, 6000.
3-On the 5th July, 20018, Complied and lodged a form with 38 electors in time before 12:00pm.I asked the officer if she needed more names?. Her response was no.I left the office after a while an officer from the AEC rang me to come back and pay the fees of $ 1,000 for my nomination. Annexure AEC Receipt KM5 was issued in time before 12:00pm closure of nominations. Everything was received in time. Annexure KM2-EFO60.I stand my position on substantial compliance.
4-At a later stage about 2:00pm after the closing of the nominations, was informed by Divisional Returning Officer and her staff that I won’t be allowed to campaign because they have just discovered from the 133 names of electors submitted to the AEC only 4 of them are not electors of Perth. “I was wrongly rejected”, and had no choice rather than giving them my objection in writing. Annexure KM6-1/KM6-2.I believe that, I had complied with the Australian Electoral Commission act 1918, Sec.170, Sec, 171, Sec.167, Sec.166 on substantial compliance before 12:00pm.
5-I pray to this Honourable court to order the Australian Electoral Commission Include my Names “KIM MUBARAK” on a ballot paper and in the list of nominated Candidates Federal House of Representatives for the by-election of the seat of Perth, election due on 28 July, 2018.So I pray your Honour.
Your Honour, I paid my fees of $ 1,000 as Annexure:-AEC RECEIPT KM5.When you look at Annexure KM6-1/KM6-2 the second page KM6-2,starting from last second line, and quote;-Based on the reasons of my conerns,I therefore, demand that, the campaign must be put on hold until the matter is resolved by the Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission. I stressed that my rights as a citizen of this country must be respected.Discriminating me as an Independent Candidate is an offence, contrary to a fair go for all. It is in the best interest of Justice that my rights should be respected.
Your Honour, the DRO and the Manager Officer of Perth did not respect my humble request. When you look at annexure;-KM4-EFO60-C everything is checked and ticked by the Electoral Commission. A receipt is issued after receiving a fee of $1000 payable by cash for my nomination. When you look at Annexure:-KM-EFO60 (Nomination Form) of a Member of the House of Representatives, everything is filled in properly, my names, Address, Contact details and my date of birth. No issues and if you look at the second page KM2-EFO60, DRO received and signed. When you look at Annexure KM3-EFO60-C1, I gave them more than 133 signature’s a copy was received by Divisional Returning Officer and AEC Manager of Perth. I believe that “Substantial Compliance” was complied with.
Your Honour, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-Sec.172(2) states that, No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the Nomination if the officer to whom the Nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of section 166,167 and 171 have been Substantially Complied with.
Your Honour, the Divisional Returning Officer had the capacity to respect my letter and had the power to stop the campaign at any time in the support of the Australian Electoral Commissioner. No proceedings required for them to do so.Divisional Returning Officer did not comply with Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-Sec.170 (Roman three (b) subsection (3), Sec.167 (4) (a) (b) under Sec.170 in summary; Forthwith after a sum is deposited with the Australian Electoral Officer under Section 170, being a sum that is, or includes an amount, in respect of that candidate, that it was so deposited. The DRO also did not comply with Sec.170 (1) (b) to declare my candidacy after receiving everything in time before the closing time at 12:00 noon. Divisional Returning Officer received my Money and later decided to sabotage my campaign, segregate and discriminating me from my fellow Candidates.
Your Honour, I am not a Lawyer but my humble request to this Honourable Court is that, Please exercise your power under Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-Sec.379(C) ,Sec.383(b),Sec.360,Sec.363A,Sec.364(Real justice to be observed. The court shall be guided by the substantial merit and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities, or whether the evidence before it is in accordance with the law of evidence or not.
Please find any section or provision under your jurisdiction to order the Australian Electoral Commission include my names “KIM MUBARAK” on a ballot Paper and in the list of Nominated Candidates (Federal House of Representatives for the Seat of Perth. So that those who nominated for me by the time the weather was very bad when it was raining. Those who signed with a big smile and gave me blessings should be given a chance exercise their freedom and a chance to vote for their favourite candidates. Also the public should not be denied a chance to vote for me.So I pray your Honour.

The Divisional Returning Officer and the Manager Australian Electoral Commission-Officer for Perth, both did not turn up in court. Nevertheless, two senior Counsels represented them, but only one was talking and the second one was doing recording notes and advice to his mate. I was on my own fighting in the best interest of the community. Surprisingly, I was served with a 54 pages of their defence in court by the time I was about to start my statement-representing my case. I had no time to go through those documents. But I can assure you that I handled the Senior Executive Lawyer-Australian Government Solicitor very well. That day will always be in his memories. I was disappointed by the Hon. Justice Barker. He abused the will of the people particularly those more than 133 signature’s Tax Payers who endorsed me as their favourite candidate, by the time he dismissed my application.

After the Australian Government Solicitor’s presentation, this was my last statement appealing to the Judge to order the Australian Electoral Commission allow me proceed with my campaigns.

Your Honour, there is no provision in the act that I should gather signatures and put them in the computers. I am not allowed to do that. The only requirement is to provide 100 signatures’, I gave them more than 100.The checking of the names is none of my business. I complied substantially 100%.By the time they accepted to receive my money before the closing time of the nomination, which was automatically endorsing my candidacy. I was a candidate by then, I am still are. I consider myself a candidate because they have my money. I have a receipt to confirm that and the provision is very clear that if you receive someone’s money, Forthwith-Forthwith, there is no other way around, you can read that your Honour.
As I stated before the commissions current position is not Independent. Why do you force me Independent Candidate to gather 100 signatures whereby my fellow candidates of political Parties doesn’t provide none?. “That is discrimination”. We are all vying for the same position, for the same Seat of Perth by-election. We are all candidates and we are all human beings. Why do you single out Independents only to provide 100 signature’s and you don’t ask the same requirements from Political Parties Candidates?. “That’s black and white discrimination”.
So as I told you Your Honour, I am not a Lawyer, I do have faith in this Honourable Court. I kindly ask you to exercise your power within the sections that I have just mentioned. I kindly ask you to stress on section 364 look for any sections that will support the justice of my cause. To allow me participate in this election. This is the job I want to do. Discrimination is forbidden according to the law. When you read section 327(1) about discrimination and read more subsections in that act, you will find that, they don’t have any right stopping me from seeking employment. Stopping me or interferes with a person’s ability to freely participate in the electoral process. The right to stand for election and the right to support or oppose a candidate, group of candidates or political party.
Your Honour, this is employment and if elected, I will be earning a salary paid for by tax payer’s money. They are denying me that opportunity. They are discriminating those who worked very hard to sign for me.Gathering signature’s your honour is not a simple matter. Convincing people to sign for you and particularly where there is a requirement of giving date of birth, it’s not a simple matter. Some people don’t comply because they have issues with proving their date of birth. There is no any provision in the act that we should be asking people to provide date of birth. The people who endorsed me with big smile and who have much hope in me should have a chance, have a say and exercise their freedom rights as citizens of this country. So I pray your honour.
AFTER PRESENTING MY STATEMENT,THE HON.JUSTICE BARKER AGREED WITH MY CLAIM IN HIS WORDS HE FOUND THAT EVERY THING WAS IN MY FEVOUR AND THAT DRO COMMITTED MISTAKES.NEVERTHELESS,HE SLAPPED THE PUBLIC “TAX PAYERS” IN THE FACE WITH HIS ORDER THAT,APPLICATION DISMISSED.
Now it’s very clear that I won’t be on the ballot paper in this election. The decision is yours Judge them accordingly. It could be best if we start the revolution now before it’s too late. If you have a chance to boycott this election that may be a good start because that is the only voice we have to be honest. If we don’t wake up now fighting for our democracy, freedom, Justice and a fair go for all, this madness will never stop.
Any public officer enjoying tax payer’s money and who doesn’t recognise that, Independent candidates are being treated differently in this country, then, that person don’t deserve to be in that position. A culture of treating voters with contempt must cease with immediate effect. We are a generation of the 21st Century not any more to the 1901.
The discriminatory election Laws in this country is championed by The Hon.Gary Gray AO MP, Special Minister of State. Following the introduction of the Bill on 27 June 2012 it was referred to the joint standing committee on Electoral Matters. The committee considered the Bill and reported on 16 August, 2012.Mr Melham spoke to the Committee noting that the recommendations made in the Joint Standing Committee Electoral Matters Report were unanimous. I appeal to you my beloved electors that, those who participated in changing Electoral Procedure Bill 2012 must be dealt with accordingly, in the forth- coming General election May, 2019.They think that by controlling the Media will get away with it and peoples power cannot defeat them.

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION IS BEING SUED BY MUBARAK KIM -INDEPENDENT WA.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my beloved electors those who endorsed me with 141 signatures, though the electoral commission claims to have received 133 signatures, which is also above the commission’s requirement of 100 electors only. Some ignorant people told you not to sign for me, but you rejected their uncivilised attitude and decided to go-ahead, signed on my Nomination forms with a big smile and blessings by the time when the weather was very bad raining.
“I thank you abundantly for your support. If elected, rest assured that you will never be disappointed”.
I lodged everything including paying candidate nomination fee of
$ 1,000 for my nomination before 12:00noon the closing time. The Australian Electoral Commission officer in Perth accepted all the documents required by law, after ticking all the boxes a receipt of acknowledgement was issued.
I had complied with the Australian electoral act 1918, section-170, sec.171, sec.167 and sec.166 on substantial compliance before the closing of the nomination.
Unfortunately, almost two hours past the closing of nominations time, the same officer notified me that, I can’t be allowed to campaign. When I asked them the reason why?, they did not have a convincing answer.
During our meeting, I immediately rejected their verbal claims, I gave my official objection in writing and asked them to put on hold the entire process and “not” to declare nominated candidates until the matter is resolved by the Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission. In the same letter on the 5th July, 2018,I made it categorically very clear that, “I refuse to be segregated and discriminated” in this great Nation of ours; and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect as a citizen of this country.
The division Returning officer and Manager Australian Electoral Commission of Perth Western Australia all stubbornly refused to comply. Their behaviour’s left me with no choice rather than to sue the Australian Electoral Commission in the Federal Court fighting for the public good. I asked the Honourable Court to order the Commission include my Names “KIM MUBARAK “on a ballot paper and in the list of Nominated Candidates Federal House of Representatives for by election for the seat of Perth. I also asked the Honourable court that my application should be treated as a matter of “Extreme Urgency” because the election is due on the 28 July, 2018.
I am happy to inform you that the matter is listed for hearing next week on Monday the 16th July, 2018, at 2:15pm Western Australia time. I will be representing my self-fighting in the best interest of the community. I will never give up fighting for your happiness until my last breathe.
I appeal to my supporters and those who believe in “real change” to attend this historical day. Let’s fight together as one family to protect the integrity of our beloved Nation. The will of the people particularly those who endorsed my nomination must never be abused again. Common sense must prevail.

KIM MUBARAK INDEPENDENT FEDERAL SEAT OF PERTH.”GAME ON”.

Mubarak Kim, Professor of Common sense, 5 Star Uber Partner, Founder/Managing Director of Matooke Project in Australia and Champion of reform. A man of Unity, Justice, Peace, Reconciliation and Independent Western Australia.
I acknowledge the traditional owners the first people of the land on which we all share. I pay my full respect to their culture and to their elders both past and present.
I personally reaffirm my position as the first young politician recognising them in our constitution and “say yes to the treaty” because that is the right thing to do if we truly believe in justice. I also reaffirm my position as the first young politician to recognise the State of Palestine. I challenge all political parties to follow suit. The labor Party, the Green Party and Christian Party have been discriminating me all the time. They have been lying at the same time bullying Australian people with empty promises. If they truly believe in what they say as God fearing people about supporting Refugees for the better future, opportunities for all and respect,then,should stop lying again and show the public by giving me first preferences so that we work and share ideas together as one family in the best interest of the community and our nation’s economy. Keep fighting me all the time is not a solution. Whether they like it or not, I am here to stay.
I would like to thank each one in your respected communities for the votes you have been giving me during my previous elections. This will be my “six time standing as an Independent candidate” fighting for the justice of your cause. I want you to know that every successful person in business has ever fallen. Failure is one step towards success. Please never give up on your dreams and never give up voting for me.
Stand up firm to earn and protect your rights based on common sense and never allow to be dictated by these political parties. Please give me the opportunity to represent you for happiness and a better future. It is now time for new revolution to reclaim our fundamental human basic rights from these bad Major Political parties.
What I will do if elected is to legislate to “EMPOWER THE COMMUNITY” so that they have a say in their own affairs, determine for their own destiny not to be dictated by major political party’s bureaucracy. I will make sure that we develop a sense of community Parliament. My job will be to represent in Parliament what we have agreed upon at community level.
To legislate so that we have “Independent Electoral Commission” empowered to determine for elections, and the issue of a writ should never be decided by politicians nor the speaker of parliament who is serving the party and government of the day. To ensure that a game of preference system is abolished because our lives and democracy is not for sale. To ensure that mechanism is put in place for “TERM LIMIT” so that our young generation should have a chance to participate and share contribution of fresh ideas to this great nation of ours. Those who have been in politics for so long should go.
To legislate and ensure that change of the current 1901 Constitution and a bill of rights is a must. Those who are found guilty of Dual Citizenships contrary to section. 44 of the Australian Constitution are banned from participating again and should pay back the money received during the period of seating in Parliament. All bills supported and passed by those criminals should be rescinded with immediate effect. We must all accept that the current government is unconstitutional as far as our current Constitution is concerned. All major political Parties are guilt of that crime. This election should be a referendum against their guilt so that we reclaim the reputation of this great nation of ours.
To legislate so that we become Australia Republic and protect our Independent Sovereign State. To advocate for our Muslim community to have a day off on the end of Ramadan. This will give them the opportunity to enjoy the fruit of impartiality and a fair go for all as they spend time with their families.
I stand for Employment better pay rise, Teacher’s pay rise, Nurses, more money to Hospitals, Schools, and Universities, Colleges both Private and Government. For example, a College in Mirrabooka that caters to and for communities from all walks of life that have benefited a lot from child care Courses, aged care and other disciplines in the best interest of the community. As your representative, I would make sure more money is given to Nursing homes, Aged care, Child care, Women Rights, Baby bonus $ 10, 000, Environment, and to ensure that, all Pensioner’s on Centrelink are paid $ 1,000 fortnightly and to protect family values.
I will legislate so that Western Australia 100% GST remains the revenue of the State in the best interest of the people of Western Australia and above all funding the infrastructure and other important Projects. Canberra should desist from stealing hard working tax payer’s money of Western Australia. Since CHOGM of 2011, our State Budget has never recovered simply because all the money was spent on that Colonial Commonwealth project. The people of Western Australia did not benefit from that gathering apart from losing all our money meant to deal with our economy.
In this year alone, Canberra have spent more than a billion Australian Dollars towards the world richest British Monarchy’s visits without the consent of tax payers. I wonder why those Highnesses can’t facilitate their own trips or the British government where they come from. If it’s true that they are the champions of Charity, then, why are they stealing from hard working Australian’s who are struggling with bills and to put food on the table for their families?
Australia is an Independent sovereign State, giving away such huge amount of money to the British Monarchy which is a “foreign power” is an insult to Australian tax payers at the same time, abuse of our current constitution and those concerned must apologise and resign with immediate effect.
If elected, I will make sure that the British government reimburse all the billions spent on Royal Highnesses trips to Australia, must be paid back to the people of Australia so that, can be of a better use to our Infrastructures and those who are struggling with mental health, disability and depression. We are here crying for parental help seeking financial assistance so that we can continue our businesses to employ our people in the best interest of our nation’s economy and job creation, Unfortunately, our leaders have never supported our humble requests but have the carriage to spend all the billions on the richest people in the world, which is a pity and must never be tolerated.
I will table a bill to ensure that some Commissions, CCC, Tribunals, Ombudsman, Bias Legal Aid, Australia Law Society and the current bias judicial courts are abolished. To ensure that Dual Citizenships Judiciary officers are not allowed to serve in the Australian Judicial system. To ensure that mechanism is put in place for Independent Concerned Citizen’s Court (ICCC) which will be dealing with serious misconduct, Corruption, Appeals and all matters of Civil, Criminal and Community grievances on a free fee lodgement. That community court should be funded unconditionally. We must come out with a fair Legal Aid System determined by Community Parliament debate.
I am very determined to change our Parliamentary attitude for the better in the best interest of the community. Major Political Party’s which doesn’t treat pensioners with dignity and respect don’t deserve your votes. Don’t ever allow these selfish leaders, greed and bullies to dictate your God given rights. A vote to such people is a loss to your future and children’s success.
I will make sure that Centrelink food voucher card system is abolished, and $ 1,000 fortnightly is a must to ease protect the integrity of our people who are struggling. To ensure that the Federal government provides unconditional funds to governments and private colleges who are dealing with skills training for job opportunities to our people.
I consider all major political party manifesto’s as expired. They have all along been singing the same old songs on issues which should have been fixed fifty years ago.
I will legislate so that those who have been studying and working in Australia for a period of one year and want to call Australia a home must have Australian citizenship automatically without any strings attached. The same should apply to those who have been in detention centres. To ensure that our people pay $ 150 Aus. dollars only for the Australian passport.
To ensure that the British Monarchy must respect our Immigration Laws provide their Passports at the entry to be stamped when entering Australia like any other Foreign Visitors. To ensure that Australian government provide more funds and support the “UNHCR” programmes ease settle people who are in war conflicts a situation caused by allies of Western super powers. More money will be recovered as explained before from the British Monarchy expenses, from Members of Parliament who are guilt of Dual citizenship, reduced salary, allowances and travel expenses from Members of Parliament.
Also saved amount reduce from Defence expenditure. I believe that if we recover tax payer’s billions from those areas as mentioned above, we will be able to purchase Nuclear Personal Protective Equipment’s which should be provided to the community deter hazards in case of a nuclear warfare. We have leaders who have neither plan whatsoever nor be prepared in how to save our people from a nuclear attack. If elected, that will be part of my priority to make sure that our people are safe from such hazards.
I will legislate to abolish foreign Banks and pave the way to empower our people set up Local Banks owned and run by Australian Citizens protected by Australian Laws. To ensure that funding our local communities who have good ideas to run their own businesses with no strings attached is a must, so that they employ our people, stimulate local investment at the same time reduce expenditure redirect the money to the poor people who are struggling and jobless in the best interest of our nation’s economy.
I will legislate to abolish a culture of Telecommunication companies violating people’s privacy for example; Telstra, Optus and others who are selling our personal details overseas in the name of saving money. If they cannot open customer services here in Australia, then, their licenses to operate should be cancelled. It is very wrong Australian citizens being dictated to by foreigners who are overseas demanding for your date of birth. Once you lose your date of birth to strangers whom you can’t monitor and control, I guarantee you that, you are finished. If elected, those companies must be dragged to the Independent Concerned Citizens Court (ICCC) to defend themselves from such abuse.
I will legislate to ensure that Motor Vehicle Insurance Commission is also dealt with accordingly. A culture of psychologically torturing victims of car accidents in the name of saving money must cease. To ensure that all public servant’s including judicial officers, Parliamentarians legal immunity is abolished. We must be all equal in the eyes of the Law. No public officer no matter who you are if you are paid by tax payer’s money should be above the Law.
I will legislate to reform our electoral code of conduct to ensure that Australian community should have more powers against members of parliament who are public servants paid by tax payers money. If the majority get tired of their behaviours when in parliament, then, voters should be at liberty lodging a complaint to the Electoral Commission for that member to be removed. The commission must organise for immediate by- elections in that regard. The same should apply to those who want to join other parties or to become an Independent member from a political party. The current system whereby members are running away from their respected parties and continue serving in parliament without conducting fresh election is a fraud. Note that those members were elected by their political party’s supporters but not the other way around. If elected such fraud should be a history to protect the integrity of our parliamentary system. I will make sure that funds for the Electoral Commission is unconditionally to protect the integrity of our electoral system.

H.E.Mr.KIDIMA MUBARAK A SPECIAL ENVOY IS LOSING PETIENCE.(ENOUGH IS ENOUGH).

On the 6th April 2015, I was appointed as a Special Envoy In-charge of External Co-ordination and mobilisation to represent Rwenzururu Kingdom in Africa. A copy of my appointment was handed in by myself and received by officers at the office of Australia Foreign Affairs in Western Australia on the 23 May, 2015.I have been involved with community groups as an elder especially working very hard to unite the African community in Western Australia in my capacity as a special Envoy. It is regrettable that Australian Government to date has not facilitated my office nor provide security as they normally do to other Kingdom representatives or Monarchy, despite the fact recognising me through letters of correspondences could have sufficed on my claim as far as my appointment is concerned.
I am very disappointed, feel humiliated, Embarrassed and discriminated against by the Australian Government’s both State and Federal.” If they can do that to your representative, why should you give them a red carpet?”.
Part of my assignment as a Special Envoy is to co-ordinate through many forms and more importantly to reflect ideas of efficient interaction between multiple parties work together to achieve a common goal in the best interest of the people of Uganda and Australia. As a diplomat formally representing the Kingdom Constitutionally recognised by the Uganda government and the international community, it is my duty to negotiate in order to keep peace,unity,developments and establish good relationships with the government’s and the kingdom based on mutual respect and her culture.
Despite Australian government’s bully by ignoring to support and facilitate my office, that did not deter me from sending letters of request lobbying for my projects to the Australian government and other foreign countries in my capacity as a special Envoy seeking assistance for the betterment of Kasese and Uganda government.
In 2015, had sent letters of request from the Australian government,Qatar,UAE and Russia to help the people of Rwenzururu kingdom with Tractors for farming, build a cargo airport ,Re-construct L.Katwe salt project,Kilembe mines,Nyamwamba bridge, Expand of power dams and Hundreds of computers, Soccer balls, sport equipments,Solar energy and Water Management.
More importantly, seeking help in Agriculture, Integrated infrastructure, Telecommunication, Hospitals, Scholarships in science and Technology, Mining and Engineering, Build International airport in Kasese as a golden chance to boost trade opportunities, Television Channels and above all to establish bilateral relationship with those countries in the best interest of job creation and the Nation’s economy.
“I personally believe that if we develop a sense of treating the indigenous people with dignity and respect, poverty must be history in the Rwenzori region, Uganda and Africa at large”.
In September, 2017,I sent a letter to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Uganda seeking urgent audience with him to discuss about a dialogue between him and the King,business,peace and unity in the Rwenzori Region. To set up a Factory of “GONJA”sweet plantain in Kasese to be exported into Australia.
In addition to make sure that together we make a follow up about the projects as mentioned before in the best interest of the community. I am now losing patience with the President’s delay to consider my humble request as a matter of urgency based on the sensitivity to the matter. I hope that he responds very quickly in the best interest of the people of Kasese and National Interest.
I have observed many times that, if people feel safe and are not judged, they open up and positive changes are possible. There is no doubt that Australian and the Nation at large have benefited a lot from my strong ideas. The information which is in the public domain and “Pandora Archive-National Library of Australia” that illustrates very clearly my ability to change things in the best interest of the community.

FACTS ABOUT MY HUMBLE REQUEST SEEKING FOR FINANCIAL HELP.

I would like to inform you with great disappointment that since the 26 June,2017 to-date the 15th November,2017,when I published on my website at the same time distributed flyers to some houses seeking for humble help, it’s now more than four months no single contribution has ever been deposited to my account.
Australian population is estimated to be “24,735,540 million” by March, 2017 and the 52nd populous country in the world. Western Australia where I reside the population in the year March, 2017 is estimated at “2,576,000 million” mixed up with the British, white south African, European’s, Asian, and Middle eastern origin as the most populous people in the State and the most successful with plenty of opportunities enjoying themselves.
The state of Western Australia has around 270 mines and Petroleum products and other businesses; the main supplier of various wares like;-jewels, alumina and mineral sands; more importantly our economy is driven by various trade in the shops,Factories,Restaurants,private schools, Land business and properties, motor vehicles trade, Farm output,grain,sheep’s and beef.
The most beneficiaries from our resources are politicians enjoying huge amount of money in travel expenses at the same time from parliamentary benefits which most of them are intentionally stealing from the powerless people and marginalised despite to the fact knowing very well that they are Dual Citizens. These are same law makers who have been imposing bad laws against the poor and the disadvantaged making our lives miserable, rather than supporting our programmes for the better future. We are dealing with some bunch of thieves who don’t care about those who are in need as long as their families are happy. I demand that the Governor-General and State Governors should suspend the current governments and all Members of parliament must be independently audited in the best interest of Tax payer’s money. We don’t have a legitimate government,” urgent fresh election’s is a must”.
In October, 2012 the federal government stole my money equivalent to $11,502.83 by force from the state insurance which was supposed to cater for further treatment as a result of a car accident. The same institution has refused to reimburse my money equivalent to more than $6,280.80 which was illegally taken away from me in September, 2015, when knowing that I needed food and medicine as far as my injuries are concerned. Further complaints were submitted to the Federal and State Speakers of Parliament Ref: KM3/2014 crying for help, both state and federal governments are all aware about my demands as mentioned before but have never complied the action which I consider as abuse of power and a grave breach of a duty of care.
The challenges we face in this country is simply because the legal system is very expensive and bias protecting the same criminals of “Dual citizenship” who make laws to protect themselves and colonial interests. We have legal aid and Law society system occupied by clever racism tactics.
Be informed that my decision appealing to the public seeking help was from the Almighty God through my dream. It is up to you the “public” to show the world your true colour when someone is struggling wanting to save people’s lives, job creation and to promote our nation’s economy.
“Up to now it is still a puzzle to me why these successful people can’t help me”. They are quick helping drug smugglers oversea but very discriminatory in support of my humble request to allow me re-start my own business to pave the way of employing our people, contributing towards our nation’s economy and a chance to save lives by providing food to the community. We should all accept that, “Charity begins at home”.
Some people have been spending a lot of time looking for issues rather than supporting my cause, behaving in a manner suspected to be like racist and jealousy. Others have been concerned blaming others why I can’t be helped rather than contributing on their own. Please don’t blame others just do it by yourself showing a good example that you do care, so that the rest should follow your enthusiasm.
A culture of bias and hypocrisy in this country must cease if we truly want to create jobs for our people in the best interest of our nation’s economy. I have been telling you all along that “nothing can be achieved from being selfish”. Even the almighty God doesn’t tolerate a culture of being selfish.
I don’t see any reason why each person can’t contribute $ 5 dollars towards my humble request of $ 50,000 Dollars supporting my cause for the better future. The amount which can be collected from Ten thousand people only.
For example:-Western Australia is benefiting billions and billions from African minerals resources. Why are you against my success all the time?. Why are you a shaming Australia?.

A HUMBLE REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC, PLEASE HELP

Header

A HUMBLE REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC, PLEASE HELP.

RE: PUBLIC APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF $500,000 TO RE-START MY BUSINESS OF ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS.

First and foremost, I would like to thank those who have been there for me, particularly the “Females” in your respected capacities fighting to protect me from those who don’t wish me well. I have nothing to give you except asking the Almighty God our creator to reward you the most in this world.

You have all witnessed the agony I am going through despite the fact that I have been fighting for the justice of your cause; a situation caused by bad leaders based on bias, jealousy and discrimination against me. I am very frustrated by inept bureaucracy and bias from our banking system.

Therefore, I am humbly seeking your urgent contribution of $500,000 as mentioned above to resume my organic fresh food products business which was founded by myself back in 2008 in the best interest of job creation and a chance to contribute towards our nation’s economy.

I have been let down by our politicians, Banks and the British Monarchy blocking all my opportunities when trying very hard for a better future. I always hear that Australians are the most generous people in the whole world. Please help me so that my dreams of success becomes a reality. I believe that with community power, everything is possible.

Our politicians hate me so much simply because of my bravery and strong advocacy towards the recognition of the indigenous people in our constitution, the Palestinian community, women empowerment for a fair go for all, and also the courageous efforts of fighting for our beloved veterans so that they can live happily and to die with dignity.

Due to my political advocacy, you have benefited a lot and your success makes me feel very proud, though the situation is still left wanting.

You should have never allowed the agony I am going through on your watch. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Be informed that starting my business won’t deter me from the Uber Eat Partnership. Services will continue as additional income.

Now it’s your turn to make sure that those who may want to sabotage my goals are being dealt with amicably because their attitudes are not of civilized people. Please lobby and contribute the little you have as a token of appreciation so that my dreams become a reality.

I kindly appeal to the public to rescue me from this unnecessary embarrassment. Your contribution will be a game changer for my life and a better future. Rest assured that you will be notified every week about what we have collected. Please donate to this account below:-

Account: Mubarak Kidima
ANZ Account No: 281692663
BSB: 016080

Please spread the message as much as you can. If you want to contribute in person, don’t hesitate to give me a call or send me an email.

May the Almighty God bless you all.

Many thanks,

signature

Kidima Mubarak