Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

General Social Discussion
User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10445
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld
Has liked: 98 times
Been liked: 75 times

Re: Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Unread post by Tiger Watto » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:30 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:15 am
Everything above and beyond their parliamentary wage and base superannuation (9.5%,) should be paid back IMO. They should get no pension either.

There's a provision in the constitution isn't there that they can be taken for damages to the tune of 100 pounds per day they have illegally sat in office, isn't there? Surprised no opportunist has jumped on that yet.
Some lifelong academic will surely take up the opportunity... The problem is, have they 'illegally' sat in office?

The HC ruling determining they are ineligible effectively means if they stay in office any longer past the ruling date deems it illegal. Prior to that, the majority of these politicians where seeking clarification if the constitution covered uncle grubers budgie being born in Afghanistan can make them a citizen of another country without making application for such citizenship in that country.
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017


User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:32 am

Tiger Watto wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:30 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:15 am
Everything above and beyond their parliamentary wage and base superannuation (9.5%,) should be paid back IMO. They should get no pension either.

There's a provision in the constitution isn't there that they can be taken for damages to the tune of 100 pounds per day they have illegally sat in office, isn't there? Surprised no opportunist has jumped on that yet.
Some lifelong academic will surely take up the opportunity... The problem is, have they 'illegally' sat in office?

The HC ruling determining they are ineligible effectively means if they stay in office any longer past the ruling date deems it illegal. Prior to that, the majority of these politicians where seeking clarification if the constitution covered uncle grubers budgie being born in Afghanistan can make them a citizen of another country without making application for such citizenship in that country.
Well the High Court has ruled they were ineligible to be elected into the position, so yeah they have illegally sat in office as they didn't meet the eligibility to be elected in the first place. Section 44 is very black and white, the pollies were trying to introduce a grey area by way of talking about conferring citizenship without one knowing. Whether they knew or not, they were still dual citizens and there's no provision that I've read about in Section 44 that absolves them in that scenario.

Again, going back to the speeding analogy if I don't know I'm speeding but I pass a speed camera and I get booked, I can't argue that I didn't know.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10445
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld
Has liked: 98 times
Been liked: 75 times

Unread post by Tiger Watto » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:37 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:32 am
Tiger Watto wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:30 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:15 am
Everything above and beyond their parliamentary wage and base superannuation (9.5%,) should be paid back IMO. They should get no pension either.

There's a provision in the constitution isn't there that they can be taken for damages to the tune of 100 pounds per day they have illegally sat in office, isn't there? Surprised no opportunist has jumped on that yet.
Some lifelong academic will surely take up the opportunity... The problem is, have they 'illegally' sat in office?

The HC ruling determining they are ineligible effectively means if they stay in office any longer past the ruling date deems it illegal. Prior to that, the majority of these politicians where seeking clarification if the constitution covered uncle grubers budgie being born in Afghanistan can make them a citizen of another country without making application for such citizenship in that country.
Well the High Court has ruled they were ineligible to be elected into the position, so yeah they have illegally sat in office as they didn't meet the eligibility to be elected in the first place. Section 44 is very black and white, the pollies were trying to introduce a grey area.

Again, going back to the speeding analogy if I don't know I'm speeding but I pass a speed camera and I get booked, I can't argue that I didn't know.
Your probably right... Its obvious in the HC black & white decision on this subject they dont have the balls to apply interpretation to the relevance of such citizenship.

Lets get class action going!
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:45 am

Tiger Watto wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:37 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:32 am
Tiger Watto wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:30 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:15 am
Everything above and beyond their parliamentary wage and base superannuation (9.5%,) should be paid back IMO. They should get no pension either.

There's a provision in the constitution isn't there that they can be taken for damages to the tune of 100 pounds per day they have illegally sat in office, isn't there? Surprised no opportunist has jumped on that yet.
Some lifelong academic will surely take up the opportunity... The problem is, have they 'illegally' sat in office?

The HC ruling determining they are ineligible effectively means if they stay in office any longer past the ruling date deems it illegal. Prior to that, the majority of these politicians where seeking clarification if the constitution covered uncle grubers budgie being born in Afghanistan can make them a citizen of another country without making application for such citizenship in that country.
Well the High Court has ruled they were ineligible to be elected into the position, so yeah they have illegally sat in office as they didn't meet the eligibility to be elected in the first place. Section 44 is very black and white, the pollies were trying to introduce a grey area.

Again, going back to the speeding analogy if I don't know I'm speeding but I pass a speed camera and I get booked, I can't argue that I didn't know.
Your probably right... Its obvious in the HC black & white decision on this subject they dont have the balls to apply interpretation to the relevance of such citizenship.

Lets get class action going!
As much as I dislike the bloke if there was any room for interpretation, Joyce would and should have been the first pollie in question absolved. A class example of another country's laws inadvertently influencing Australian politics, which incidentally was what Section 44 was written to prevent!
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:53 am

It's also amazing how some politicians have a world class ability to rort and abuse the system where it suits them (so much so that Nick Politis would be proud,) but seem to lack the basic ability to make sure that they're eligible to sit for parliament.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.


Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm
Been liked: 54 times

Unread post by Pawsandclaws » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:27 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:53 am
It's also amazing how some politicians have a world class ability to rort and abuse the system where it suits them (so much so that Nick Politis would be proud,) but seem to lack the basic ability to make sure that they're eligible to sit for parliament.
And then we have Di Natale on the ABC calling for a full audit, trying to make out S44 is some arcane process which pollies can easily fall foul of. How about they don't sign the stat dec unless they meet requirements of S44?

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 213 times
Been liked: 70 times

Unread post by formerguest » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:31 am

I fully support the notion that there should be no ambiguity regarding a federally elected representative's allegiance and as such the single Australian citizenship requirement is valid. That said, the irony of having a few of our representatives removed for having British citizenship makes me chuckle, particularly so when all their colleagues have to swear allegiance to our head of state, being the British queen.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 11:10 am

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:27 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:53 am
It's also amazing how some politicians have a world class ability to rort and abuse the system where it suits them (so much so that Nick Politis would be proud,) but seem to lack the basic ability to make sure that they're eligible to sit for parliament.
And then we have Di Natale on the ABC calling for a full audit, trying to make out S44 is some arcane process which pollies can easily fall foul of. How about they don't sign the stat dec unless they meet requirements of S44?
The same Di Natale that forgot to declare a $2m residence? He's just as corrupt as the rest of them.

I do agree with you though.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2738
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 18 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 3:18 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:23 am
magpiecol wrote:
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 10:45 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 1:59 pm
ABC just discussing the lack of ethics of some in the press in attempting to cover up Cash misleading Parliament. Apparently it was well known Cash's Office had tipped off the press to the AWU raid yet press were happy to allow Cash to mislead Parliament five times before Buzzfeed News outed Cash's office.
ABC discussing ethics?

They would not know how to spell it.
Interesting that the ABC were not tipped off like the other media outlets which leads the observer to conclude there was political motivation to the exercise. Certainly the ABC made the point of highlighting this to the viewers. As for ethics, allowing a Minister to mislead Parliament and not be called to account for it is a new low in Australian Politics.
Most of the media are left wing, so why not the ABC?. They are so far left it's laughable

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 4:11 pm

Can't get any further left than Murdoch owned publications, eh Col?
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

Nelson
Member
Member
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat 31 Oct, 2015 11:17 am
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 69 times

Unread post by Nelson » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 7:25 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 8:15 am
Nelson wrote:
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 7:59 pm
goldcoast tiger wrote:
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 3:57 pm
hammertime wrote:
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm


Call me old fashioned GCT, but it's a very different story between

1) Not knowing that you were technically ineligible to serve government and working hard for a paycheck; to
2) Purposefully deceiving government for increased dole payments (and not working for that money).

Would anyone have voted any differently if they had known he had duel citizenship? No. of course they wouldn't.

We honestly have far more important issues to be talking about.
It's does my head in that we focus more on drama these days than what's going to better our lives.
True , but even if the people in the example were getting over paid without know ing they were getting more than they should. When found out, no matter how long it had been happening they'd have to pay ALL of the money back
You're contrasting people getting overpaid welfare payments i.e. payments they do nothing to earn with people getting paid to do a job. I may not particularly like most politicians but they do work very hard and many of them are forced to spend significant time away from their families. Making them pay back everything back and financially crippling their families seems pretty mean-spirited to me.
Everything above and beyond their parliamentary wage and base superannuation (9.5%,) should be paid back IMO. They should get no pension either.

There's a provision in the constitution isn't there that they can be taken for damages to the tune of 100 pounds per day they have illegally sat in office, isn't there? Surprised no opportunist has jumped on that yet.
It's s 46 of the Constitution but it has been displaced by this Act (and section):

COMMON INFORMERS (PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS) ACT 1975 - SECT 3
Penalty for sitting when disqualified

(1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:

(a) $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and

(b) $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.

(2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.

(3) The High Court shall refuse to make an order in a suit under this Act that would, in the opinion of the Court, cause the person against whom it was made to be penalized more than once in respect of any period or day of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2738
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 18 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:41 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 4:11 pm
Can't get any further left than Murdoch owned publications, eh Col?
:crazy :crazy

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 7:54 am

magpiecol wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:41 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 4:11 pm
Can't get any further left than Murdoch owned publications, eh Col?
:crazy :crazy
Indeed mate, you made the claim that virtually the whole media are leftist. Clearly you don't have Foxtel or read any of the dozens of the News: Limited owned publications.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2738
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 18 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:32 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 7:54 am
magpiecol wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:41 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 4:11 pm
Can't get any further left than Murdoch owned publications, eh Col?
:crazy :crazy
Indeed mate, you made the claim that virtually the whole media are leftist. Clearly you don't have Foxtel or read any of the dozens of the News: Limited owned publications.
Fair and Balanced as you well know.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16125
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 141 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:43 am

magpiecol wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:32 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 7:54 am
magpiecol wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:41 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 4:11 pm
Can't get any further left than Murdoch owned publications, eh Col?
:crazy :crazy
Indeed mate, you made the claim that virtually the whole media are leftist. Clearly you don't have Foxtel or read any of the dozens of the News: Limited owned publications.
Fair and Balanced as you well know.
Yep, can't get more fair and balanced than Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine :lol:
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 213 times
Been liked: 70 times

Unread post by formerguest » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:54 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:43 am
magpiecol wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 8:32 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 7:54 am
magpiecol wrote:
Wed 01 Nov, 2017 10:41 pm


:crazy :crazy
Indeed mate, you made the claim that virtually the whole media are leftist. Clearly you don't have Foxtel or read any of the dozens of the News: Limited owned publications.
Fair and Balanced as you well know.
Yep, can't get more fair and balanced than Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine :lol:
I raise you a Jones, Credlin, Dean, Cameron, .......................

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 46 times
Been liked: 49 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 11:56 am

I have only seen Credlin when I was hospitalised and she was for gay marriage - she must have escaped Tony Abbott's influence
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 2738
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 18 times

Unread post by magpiecol » Thu 02 Nov, 2017 1:49 pm

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Thu 02 Nov, 2017 11:56 am
I have only seen Credlin when I was hospitalised and she was for gay marriage - she must have escaped Tony Abbott's influence
She is entitled to her opinion. Mr Abbott is entitled to his. So do you and I and everyone else. There are no right or wrong opinions, there are just opinions.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”