Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 26,247
- 40,272
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #51
Doesn't Murdoch tell you what you need to know?
Play Nice Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 6 - Prosperity Theology, The Coal Man + His Bootlickers
- Thread starter QuietB
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Doesn't Murdoch tell you what you need to know?
We have laws, inconvenient as that may be, they are the rules of the game & known to all. As I often point out, Mark Dreyfus is one of our brightest legal minds & could bring a private members bill on any issue including blind trusts.
You reaction to laws that dont suit your political purpose: It is pathetic and weak
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Just play this on repeat
And the fact he hasn’t is evidence of what?
Don't go down the rabbit hole.....
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,429
- 20,472
- AFL Club
- Carlton
no Argument.
but they’d be right about the PMO. Of course the campaigners backgrounding.
I'm suggesting it is not a priority & you can only ask yourself why?
Me, I guess he doesnt consider it to be an issue, you should make up your own mind.
Mr Dreyfus is familiar with Trusts: file:///home/chronos/u-4a43efda51c07dd3590d7c4e94aa715902307074/MyFiles/Downloads/Dreyfus_46P.pdf
Because he doesn’t have the numbers to pass the bill?
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,429
- 20,472
- AFL Club
- Carlton
reality, logic and principles of law and ethics regularly collide calamitously with K-man’s constructs.
he just doesn’t notice
He was A/G under Gillard/Rudd.
The desire to ignore the rules around blind trusts is the political inconvenience around Porter.
- Nov 25, 2015
- 19,073
- 65,186
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond VFL Richmond VFLW AFLW
Grace will make a great PM if she takes it on
So he should have foreseen Porter’s accepting donations via a trust 8 years ago?
Who was doing this before or during his tenure as AG?
What the feck are you going on about?
Another 'whataboutism' line of obfuscation reasoning?
This time to deflect attention from the real and specific issue at hand of a Senior Cabinet Minister and former Attorney General setting up a slush fund of personal funds gifted from secret donors and refusing to identify those donors (or any other details of the fund such as how it is administered, its purpose, who established it and the amount it contains) that violates the accepted and agreed principle of disclosure that already exist within Parliament.
The facts of this matter are that the Government's own Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee as a matter of possible 'misconduct and contempt' 'after careful consideration' as outlined under the detailed Parliamentary Practices Rule as detailed here:
Manner of dealing with privilege and contempt
Manner of dealing with privilege and contempt Raising of matter A Member may raise a matter of privilege at any time during a sitting. The Member raising a matter must be prepared to move without notice, immediately or subsequently, a motion declaring that a contempt or breach
For the first time since Federation a Government has ignored the ruling of its own Speaker on a matter of referral for investigation on a matter of fundamental importance to the operation of our Parliament as outlined in the Rules of Practice for the Australian Parliament.
Any intelligent person would ask...WHY?. Why have the rules, protocols and principles of Parliament been trashed on this specific matter by this Prime Minister and this Government? Why is the Government blocking the recommendation of its own Speaker to have the matter investigated under the Rules of Parliament?
That is the specific matter of debate and discussion here because, as those with an understanding of the Australian Constitutional and Parliamentary history and practices know and understand full well, the existence of and adherence to a wide range of Parliamentary and Constitutional conventions plays a fundamental role in our system of responsible government. It is why those principles and conventions are codified under standing orders and the practices rulings I linked above.
That you are now making some ridiculous reference to an MP who is not in government developing and presenting an unspecified private members bill that has zero chance of passing the the House of Representatives let alone becoming law demonstrates that it is a matter and an issue of principle and fact that you are simply unwilling or unable to face.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #64
We also have long standing conventions. These are not law.
We have ministerial standards. Also not law.
We have due process and an expectation of transparency. Also not law.
But you choose as long as it is legal then it is ok. As long as it is technically legal the Liberals can have free reign to do as they please. And so long as there is no ICAC then there is no one even checking if half the stuff they do is legal or not.
The Liberals can shit all over democracy and the Westminster system, they can ignore their own ministerial standards whenever they please, they can bury whatever investigations are convenient, they can ignore the FOI system or any other attempts at transparency so long as it is “legal”.
Like I said, you choose the Liberals ahead of democracy.
Pathetic and weak.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,398
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Forget it, in Kwality's convoluted brand of pretzel logic, anything and everything is OK unless Dreyfus brings a private member's bill against it.
The point is it was never an issue until this inconvenient .... & many simply choose to ignore the law of the land.
The Speaker determined there was enough prima facile evidence to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee, to which the Government then closed ranks and defeated the motion, I am unsure what planet you are on, but after that it’s irrelevant what Dreyfus or anyone else does.
Just another “look over there” diversion.
I think you might also find I pointed out the rights of the donor, the family .... not the mob.
You are delusional
Nope, it reflects the planet on which those who want to pick & choose what laws apply, to suit their own political bent.
If you are the full quid, maybe I am.
They are your own words, it’s interesting those that parrot “rule of law” then us every trick in the book to prevent that from happening
You'd know whether this version of being referred to the Privileges Committee has precedence.
Porter stepped down from the Ministry.
Does he still sit in Parliament?
- Status
