Michael Sukkar was preselected for Deakin for the 2013 election, as part of the Tony Abbott led "conservative resistance movement". The former Ashurst tax lawyer started his mission from God to impose his will on the Party. Someone in his own branch leaked to the media the now infamous "termite crushing" audio in 2018 allowing us to see the real "behind the scenes" Michael Sukkar. Not the version from his slick glossy pamphlets. Clearly not everyone is chums in the Liberal party with someone having audio leaked again, this time about Sukkar targeting sitting state and federal Liberals whom he doesn't like. He is leading the faction trying to drive the Liberal Party further towards the "right". Examples include lobbying heavily for the Menzies branch to retain Kevin Andrews (Keith Wolahan won comfortably) and supporting state Member for Kew, Tim Smith.

Thanks to an investigation by The Age and Nine's 60 Minutes, we now know of further attempts by Sukkar to gain more power within the party. It was reported that Michael Sukkar seemingly endorsed a memo that outlined a scheme to build a stronger Sukkar-controlled faction from inside the electoral office of Kevin Andrews. This was to be done by using electorate officers to engage in political recruiting activities. Activities that may have been in breach of federal laws. Electorate officers are funded by the taxpayer, and are not allowed to engage in party political activities in the office. Even though the inquiry by the Department of Finance cleared Sukkar, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

It was reported that emails from Sukkar's private parliamentary address showed that he was briefed several times about the scheme. Leaked messages are reported to have revealed how Sukkar and his office directed and endorsed the employment of party political staff. This staff was alleged to have been funded by the taxpayer in his own office and Kevin Andrews' office. Other leaked emails are reported to outline how Mr Sukkar sought work from a friend to design flyers to solicit donations to Sukkar's shady looking Deakin 200 club. A "club" which does not lodge financial disclosures on the basis that it says it isn’t an "associated entity" of a political party. This work was alleged to have been paid out of Sukkar's taxpayer funded office budget.

Corruption expert Geoffrey Watson, SC (a former counsel assisting for the NSW ICAC) is reported to have described the Bastiaan memo endorsed by Mr Sukkar as "prima facie evidence of the misuse of taxpayers' money".

"I very much doubt that Sukkar can or should remain a minister of the Crown. A minister is a position of real power and thus real trust and you cannot have it in the hands of people who abuse it."

Sukkar has denied being involved in branch-stacking or misusing taxpayer funds. However, he is trying to block the release of the report from the Department of Finance's inquiry.

In November 2021 it was reported that new material has come to light that suggests Mr Sukkar knew more then he originally said when interviewed in 2020.

Other Liberals have also expressed concern with the shady looking activities of Sukkar and his electoral office. A leaked email in 2017 by Victorian state Liberal upper house MP Beverly McArthur suggests knowledge of the use of taxpayer resources for Sukkar's political activities.

Is this why Josh Frydenberg wouldn't confirm his trust in Sukkar, because of his shady looking ways?

You would think that such serious allegations would warrant a serious and thorough investigation. After all, the alleged misuse of taxpayers money and the potential breaking of the law for a power grab is important to the integrity of the government.

The "investigation" by the Department of Finance was conducted by Ashurst. It did not interview key staff from the electoral offices of Deakin and Menzies. Even staff that volunteered to give statements to the inquiry were not interviewed.

Imagine a judge asks an alleged thief if they committed the crime and let the plaintiff go free based simply on the plea of "No", with no testimony of witnesses. Is it any wonder that Michael Sukkar has voted against a Federal ICAC?

Where is the justice for the taxpayers of Deakin?

To add insult to injury, taxpayers are footing the bill to have Sukkar defend against a defamation action; but we don't know who is suing him or why.

The people of Deakin deserve to know the truth about these shady looking backroom dealings. They need to know whether their money was misused against the law. We need a proper investigation that reveals the truth. But when Michael Sukkar implies he will take legal action against The Age, gags Parliament from forcing him to be accountable, and strongly resists the releasing of reports, the only thing we can do is to vote such a shady-looking, untrustworthy character out of office.

Read More

1. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/liberal-mp-michael-sukkar-pledges-to-crush-partys-left-termites/news-story/8e8392633ae048f0f2e924d29c331ea3
2. https://www.theage.com.au/national/sukkar-uses-taxpayer-budget-to-employ-friend-who-also-designed-smear-sheets-20200824-p55osu.html
3. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/factional-machinations-sukkar-plotted-to-block-liberal-colleague-s-career-20200828-p55qah.html
4. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/michael-sukkar-knew-of-scheme-that-misused-public-funds-to-boost-faction-20211104-p5960i.html
5. https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/10/27/michael-sukkar-taxpayers-paying-legal-fees/

It's been a long held view of conservative politicians that charities should be supported in their work. This helps reduce the burden on the state. Why then has for the last several years, Michael Sukkar been seeking to sabotage charities and prevent them from doing their work?

Under the Abbott government the Liberals restarted attacking charities. The foreign aid budget was repeatedly gutted. Money was abruptly pulled from programs that funded community legal centres and women’s shelters. Even with domestic violence on the rise. Funding for Indigenous programs has been a yoyo.

When Sukkar became the minister responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), he refused to meet with, or reappoint the then head of the ACNC Susan Pascoe. Instead Sukkar appointed Gary Johns, a known hater of charities to the role.

Johns, a former IPA fellow is on the record calling low income and Aboriginal woman "cash cows"[1]. He has also called for the ACNC to be abolished, along with the Charities Act. This would mean Australia would no longer have any charities!

Why would Sukkar appoint such an inappropriate person to be the head of the ACNC? Chief Executive of the Community Council for Australia David Crosbie sums it up well

"Sukkar and others are opposed to charities being involved in advocacy, but the reality is hundreds of thousands of people in Australia give to charity to support exactly that."[2]

To make matters worse Sukkar wants charities to be deregistered for thought crimes[3] . Under Sukkar's proposed rules, if the ACNC, headed by a Sukkar appointed charity hater, thinks a charity will commit a crime, it can be deregistered. This is Minority Report levels of scary, authoritarian government overreach. Charities have estimated that the cost of complying with the new rules could cost up to $150 million in their first year. So much for cutting red tape.

Sukkar's colleagues are even concerned about the legality of the proposed legislation. A Liberal-chaired Parliamentary committee has even recommended the Bill be scrapped entirely!

Charities are concerned about who Sukkar will target. Will it be Anglicare, St Vinnies, Amnesty International, Oxfam Australia, Tearfund Australia, Sacred Heart or any of the charities that you support?

This is all an attempt to stifle criticism of Sukkar and government policy. Whether it's Sukkar refusing to meet with charities addressing homelessness, or other attempts by charities to advocate for causes that you might believe in - and donate money to supporting - the so-called "champions of free speech" sure don't want public debate.

Did you know about what was going on with charities and the ACNC? Or the government's new legislation? This is how Shady Sukkar likes to work, behind the scenes and not in your interests.

To protect our charities, their staff, and those that need them most - Sukkar needs to go!

Read More

1. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/08/19/nobbling-the-charities/15030648005086
2. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/12/16/the-gary-johns-appointment/15133428005650
3. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/25/charities-slam-government-plan-to-deregister-organisations-that-may-commit-crimes
4. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/28/australian-government-crackdown-on-charities-will-stifle-political-advocacy-experts-say

Looking to buy a house in Deakin is tough. A two bedroom place is ~$750,000 or more in 2022. Wages haven't risen in over a decade, so it's harder and harder to get a deposit and service the mortgage. Even at record low interest rates that won't last forever on a 30 year (or more) mortgage. If you're 35 or younger, you may never own your own home!! The 'Bank of Mum and Dad' is now the FIFTH largest lender in the country. The Reserve Bank of Australia has admitted, if your parents don't own their home - there's little hope. There is a housing crises in Australia and growing homelessness.

What's the solution to housing affordability from the Minister for Housing Michael Sukkar?

Get a better paying job

Sound familiar?!

Sukkar echoed the same line by former Treasurer Joe Hockey. Because the Liberals haven't had a new idea on housing affordability in years. They have no ideas and offer no real solutions, even though there's plenty of options to tackle demand side pressures on housing.

Even the "First Home Whatever" grants that Sukkar is touting is an insult to the people of Deakin. What good is a grant with a cap of $700,000 when houses sell for over a million dollars. It turns out that all the schemes have likely contributed to increased prices and inflation, making housing more expensive for the average Aussie. It's just deceiving people into thinking the Liberals are doing anything about housing affordability. Sukkar and the Liberals are trying it again for the 2022 election, expanding their schemes which experts predict will only make housing even MORE unaffordable.

No wonder Sukkar was the worst housing minister we've had.

What if you don't have rich parents? Then you'll have to live with mum and dad for a bit longer.

What if you can't afford to help your kids? Then you'll be having the kids staying around.

What if your family doesn't own their own home? What hope is there for you?

What if you're a single mum on the average income of $45,000 and even on a 2% deposit won't be able to service a mortgage for a $750,000+ loan? That's the false hope that Sukkar is peddling so the Liberals can pretend to care about poor people and woman given their hopeless record.

All their policies have done is help people who were already going to get onto the property ladder anyway. Not those who are actually struggling to get started.

It's a joke that Michael Sukkar can't even represent his own electorate on the issue of housing. With rising homelessness in Deakin, and the rest of Australia, Michal Sukkar can't even be bothered to meet with peak bodies such as National Shelter or Homelessness Australia. When you see the amount of homeless people around Eastland, Costco, Ringwood Lake Park, you have to ask why Sukkar can't even pretend to care about this issue. Maybe he is too busy trying to take over the Victorian Liberals to do his taxpayer funded job?

All people like Sukkar seem interested in is protecting their rich mates. Whenever housing is brought up he just likes to talk about "taxes". While he and his donors care about their multiple investment properties, it does nothing for the people of Deakin who want to buy their castle and who have been forced to swallow a bitter pill.

Read More

1. https://www.realestate.com.au/news/bank-of-mum-and-dad-is-fifth-biggest-lender-in-country/
2. https://singlemum.com.au/homebuyer-deposit-discount-for-single-parents
3. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/homelessness-sector-unable-to-secure-meeting-with-minister/13330778
4. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/soaring-house-prices-an-economic-threat-eating-away-the-future-20210614-p580s2.html

The seat of Deakin was considered a key seat for the 2019 election. With polls swinging away from the Liberals, a heated contest got under way.

What's a good way to save your bacon when you might lose your job? Pork Barrelling. Promise things that didn't have merit and that you never plan to deliver. With flashy Facebook announcements - that have since been deleted.

Well it turns out the much promised car parks in Deakin were just another undelivered promise from Michael Sukkar without merit designed to buy votes. Unsurprisingly Sukkar's word is worth no more than a press release.

Michael Sukkar promised 5 car parks in Deakin from the $660 million Commuter Car Park Projects fund. However, one has been cancelled and the rest are barely underway. Sukkar claimed in Parliament that work had started, and that they were fully funded - which may have been a porkie.

An investigation by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) into the car parks found that

“The department’s approach to identifying and selecting commuter car park projects for funding commitment was not appropriate. It was not designed to be open or transparent”[2]

Or as one Liberal insider is reported to have said

... the spending was designed to sandbag MPs — including Mr Frydenberg and ministerial colleagues Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar — who the party feared were at risk of defeat in 2019.[3]

It was designed to fail from the start as the ANAO report also found that

"The department did not engage with state governments and councils, which increased the risk that selected projects would not deliver the desired outcomes at the expected cost to the Australian government.”[2]

As far as rorting goes, this has to be one of the most incompetent and blatant attempts with Sukkar looking very shady, and possibly in breach of ministerial standards. A former Judge has even labelled the fund as "corruption"

Deakin taxpayers haven't even gotten value for our money with barely any work done, cost blowouts and Sukkar handing $42 million up front with no proper assessments of the works of what our money was paying for. Hardly responsible money management from the Assistant Treasurer.

When added to sports rorts, Building Better Regions rorts, female change room rorts, what's one more rorting of taxpayer dollars for Sukkar or the Liberals political benefit? Shame that it's our money. Is there any wonder why the Liberals don't want a federal anti corruption body

Read More

1. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/five-commuter-car-park-projects-scrapped-by-morrison-government/news-story/8d64a740ff8d702819384497e226a7e4
2. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/06/28/car-park-rorts-government/
3. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/pain-for-melbourne-commuters-as-morrison-governments-station-pledge-in-disarray/news-story/87bf1075511c5b3db0061dfa71e5fdc2
4. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2021/07/13/carporks-carparkrorts/
5. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/former-judge-labels-660-million-car-park-fund-corruption-20210721-p58bo3.html

The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey to ask Australian's opinions on whether the Marriage Act should be changed was always going to be passionate. For some MP's there was a clear moral position. Some MPs like Andrew Hastie always said they would never vote for the bill; regardless of the outcome of the survey.

Michael Sukkar however went on the record to say that he would put his personal views aside and vote in Parliament "in accordance with the majority view of Australians" following the announcement of the postal survey results.

"Australians have had their say and, of course, the parliament should respect the result.

As I have publicly stated, I will vote in the parliament in accordance with the majority view of Australians."[1]

Deakin returned a 66% Yes result for the Marriage Law Postal Survey yet when the bill was to be voted on, Michael Sukkar abstained. He instead followed his political master Tony Abbott out of the House of Representatives. That's not voting for the law to be changed in accordance with the majority view of Australians.

The issue is not about whether the law should have been changed.

The issue is that Michael Sukkar said he'd do something then didn't. He has even said he didn't making the commitment on the radio (~15:45)

We live in a representative democracy. The point of elections and voting for a candidate is to have the people's will reflected in the actions of our government. By not respecting Deakin's clear majority vote, Sukkar once again showed disdain for the will of his constituents. What's more he has lied about it and tried to cover it up. He's tried to make it "no big deal".

What matters more to Sukkar is what he thinks, and his power instead of serving the people of Deakin.

If he breaks one promise, what other promises does he not intend on keeping?

Deakin deserves someone who goes through with their promises, who represents the people and who's word can be trusted.

Maybe there is a reason that Josh Frydenberg wouldn't confirm his trust in Sukkar

It's time Sukkar was shown the door!

Read More

1. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/deakin-mp-michael-sukkar-abstains-from-samesex-marriage-vote/news-story/f0b723b8b1550cd613bfab70834793cb

While being the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer - the first time - Michael Sukkar was a key player in the removal of Malcolm Turnbull. Sukkar was seeking to install Peter Dutton as PM.

As "the numbers man", Sukkar's job was to convince and corral members of the Liberal party room to vote for Dutton.

Unfortunately for Dutton, Sukkar couldn't count and they celebrated Dutton's "victory" prematurely. The day after their party, Scott Morrison then went on to win the leadership contest. Sukkar then resigned in disgrace.

Sukkar again failed as a "numbers man" by trying to rally support and influence the outcome when Keith Wolahan challenged Kevin Andrews for preselection in the seat of Menzies.

Given Michael likes to criticise others' use of calculators, perhaps he should take the log out of his own eye when it comes to doing basic sums.

This is just another example of the shady looking character Sukkar is. Hiding in the background, pulling the strings. Plotting against those he doesn't like, or who he wants to climb over for his own power. Is this why his own colleagues don't answer when asked if they trust him?

Deakin deserves a local member who is focused on representing them. Not playing power games in party politics to gain more power for his own aggrandisement.

Read More

1. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/michael-sukkar-faces-backlash-over-role-in-liberal-leadership-crisis-20180828-p5004y.html
2. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-texts-threats-and-lies-that-will-haunt-the-morrison-government-20180831-p500xr.html
3. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/changing-the-guard-inside-the-battle-for-prize-liberal-seat-of-menzies-20210126-p56wzo.html
4. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/factional-machinations-sukkar-plotted-to-block-liberal-colleague-s-career-20200828-p55qah.html

Michael Sukkar was part of the "Yarra 3", a group of ministers (including Greg Hunt and Alan Tudge) who launched an extraordinary attack on the Victorian judiciary. They claimed it was advocating lighter sentences for terrorists as part of 'ideological experiments'

The Yarra 3 were talking about a court case, which was being considered by the Victorian Court of Appeals. The court hadn't yet reached a decision on the case.

How can you bemoan a decision not yet made?! Better yet, how can you comment on a case and on the judges decisions when you haven't even read the transcripts as Sukkar admitted he hadn't done.

So not only did Michael Sukkar, a lawyer, shoot his mouth off about a matter before the courts - but he did so out of complete ignorance.

Does Deakin really want such a dill representing them in Parliament?

The three were then ordered to appear before the Victorian Supreme Court to explain why they shouldn't be charged with contempt of court. Sukkar (and the others) unsurprisingly then showed complete arrogance by not appearing at their hearing. Nor did he apologise for his misdeeds. He did find the time to delete tweets attacking Victorian judges.

It was only after the Victorian Supreme Court gave the three a second chance to apologise that they did. Perhaps not out of any genuine remorse - as they would have apologised straight away. But because of the realisation that if convicted they would lose their seats.

The government has recently touted the "rule of law" as an excuse to not have an inquiry into the allegations surrounding another minister. It is therefore arrogant and hypocritical of Michael Sukkar to think he is above the law and arrogantly ignore it for his own political purposes.

Michael Sukkar is not sorry, he just thinks he can get away with ignoring the law when it suits him.

His behaviour is unbecoming an MP, and he should no longer be in Parliament.

Read More

1. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-texts-that-could-cost-three-government-ministers-their-jobs-20170621-gwv6g3.html
2. https://www.afr.com/politics/greg-hunt-alan-tudge-michael-sukkar-face-contempt-charge-20170615-gwrf34
3. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/drive/rob-stary/8618480
4. https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/06/20/what-hunt-sukkar-and-tudges-sentencing-comments-reveal-about-conservatives/

There's more to come about what Michael Sukkar has been up to.

Are you a moderate Liberal who is deeply concerned about the direction of your party?

Are you someone who is sick of the daily grind who is watching Sukkar and his mates get richer?

Are you a woman angry at the lack of progress on affordable childcare, housing, sexual harassment, domestic violence and gender equity?

Are you concerned about Climate Change and that Sukkar always votes with the deniers in the Coalition?

Are you sick of the lies?

The people of Deakin need to put Shady Sukkar last at the coming federal election.

Please signup or follow on social media below to be notified of updates.