drunkill posted:

So, Turnbulls insults at Shorten about sucking up to Richard Pratt today in question time? Well, Pratt died a few years ago but guess which party his family has only donated to in the last financial year? Thats right, the Liberals.

Own goal President Trumble.

Comstar posted:

The Labour Shadow AG wrote to the AG asking if he's aware that a minister is breaking the constitution (for making money from the rental of a Post Office I think) and is thus ineligible for his seat. Meaning a by-election and the possible loss of majority government. Uh oh.

Comstar posted:

The Labour Shadow AG wrote to the AG asking if he's aware that a minister is breaking the constitution (for making money from the rental of a Post Office I think) and is thus ineligible for his seat. Meaning a by-election and the possible loss of majority government. Uh oh.

quote:

David Gillespie, a Turnbull government minister, under constitutional cloud



The future of one of Malcolm Turnbull's ministers is under a constitutional cloud, due to concerns one of his real estate arrangements could disqualify him from Federal Parliament.

In circumstances that echo the Bob Day case currently before the High Court, experts believe Assistant Health Minister David Gillespie could have an indirect financial interest in the Commonwealth - grounds for removal from federal office under section 44(v) of the constitution.

Dr Gillespie owns a small suburban shopping complex at Lighthouse Beach in Port Macquarie, on the NSW north coast. One of the shops is an outlet of Australia Post – a government-owned corporation.

The Nationals MP says he and his wife, through their company Goldenboot, lease the space to a local woman who is an Australia Post licensee – meaning he has no direct financial link to the postal service.

"I have no leases or deals with Australia Post," Dr Gillespie told Fairfax Media.

But UNSW constitutional law expert George Williams believes Dr Gillespie could still be in trouble – particularly if the High Court settles on a broad definition of "indirect pecuniary interest" in the Bob Day test case.

In that scenario the government should seek "urgent legal advice" about Dr Gillespie's eligibility, he says.

"This does raise questions, there's no doubt about that," Professor Williams said. "These arrangements could certainly constitute an indirect pecuniary interest. I think there is an arguable case here."

If Dr Gillespie was referred to the High Court and subsequently disqualified it would spark a byelection in his seat of Lyne.

The Nationals would be likely to retain the seat but it would still be an enormous political headache for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Labor's legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus has written to Attorney-General George Brandis about the situation, saying any doubts about Dr Gillespie's eligibility are "a very grave matter", given the finely-balanced Parliament.

"This would not only affect Mr Gillespie but would imperil the government's majority and further weaken the Prime Minister's grip on power," he said in the letter. "I seek your urgent confirmation as to whether you have sought any advice from the Solicitor-General about this highly concerning matter, which raises questions about the constitutional integrity of the government."

Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney, agrees the outcome of the Bob Day case will be critical in determining whether arrangements such as Dr Gillespie's are allowed.

"It will depend very much upon the principles the court applies," Professor Twomey said.

"For example, it might limit the application of the provision to cases where there is a risk of the government using the pecuniary interest to influence the member or where the member is using his or her office to obtain benefits from the government. We will not know until the Day case is decided."

However Professor Twomey says contracts that don't personally involve the MP are less likely to breach section 44(v) "as it would not be likely to fall within the mischief that the provision was directed at".

Section 44(v) of the constitution says any person who "has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than 25 persons shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives".

The section is an anti-corruption measure, designed to stop people sitting in Parliament and at the same time making money through contracts with the Commonwealth. But it's also imprecise, and the limits of what's meant by "indirect pecuniary interest" have never been tested by the full bench of the High Court.

The court is considering whether former Family First senator Bob Day was ineligible to be elected because he had an indirect financial interest over a taxpayer-funded electorate office leased to the Department of Finance. The government was given legal advice his arrangements could have breached the section.

The case returned to the High Court on Tuesday. Comment on Dr Gillespie's case has been sought from Attorney-General George Brandis.

quote:

Labor's legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus has written to Attorney-General George Brandis about the situation, saying any doubts about Dr Gillespie's eligibility are "a very grave matter", given the finely-balanced Parliament.

"This would not only affect Mr Gillespie but would imperil the government's majority and further weaken the Prime Minister's grip on power," he said in the letter. "I seek your urgent confirmation as to whether you have sought any advice from the Solicitor-General about this highly concerning matter, which raises questions about the constitutional integrity of the government."

NTRabbit posted:

Anidav posted:

The Liberal backbencher George Christensen has signalled he will break ranks with the Turnbull government to vote for a non-government bill calling for a commission of inquiry into the banking industry. The announcement from the outspoken conservative follows the defection of the Liberal senator Cory Bernardi this week.

The...hero...we...need?

Mad Katter posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YVydihI7XQ

The video of this is embarrassing and pathetic on several levels.

Shorten looks like a sad boy being chastised.

Zenithe posted:

He's just being difficult for the government. It just so happened that this is the first time his dissenting opinion is better than general LNP consensus (somehow)

Anidav posted:

Who was it even for? Question time is just for Journalists to laugh at, right?

I mean, Joe Slow wouldn't give a gently caress what Trumbles calls Shorten; his political opnion starts and ends with "I just wish they would get on with the job, ay?"

Comstar posted:

The Labour Shadow AG wrote to the AG asking if he's aware that a minister is breaking the constitution (for making money from the rental of a Post Office I think) and is thus ineligible for his seat. Meaning a by-election and the possible loss of majority government. Uh oh.

aejix posted:

Katherine Murphy sure is a complete loving hack

aejix posted:

Katherine Murphy sure is a complete loving hack

You Am I posted:

You can say that about 99% of the parliament press

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Pfffffft, ha ha ha

Hope the full quote is "I stand up to billionaires, then I kneel down to them, then I start pumping, pumping, pumping... uh, for Australian interest"

Lid posted:

A Coalition senator is threatening to oppose his own government's plan to axe the notorious Life Gold Pass – which gives former MPs free business-class travel on the taxpayer – saying it's time someone stood up for politicians.

Queensland backbencher Ian Macdonald says politicians work extremely hard and don't get paid particularly well for their efforts.

Senator Macdonald – who is paid a salary of $200,000 a year as a backbencher

Hilarious Hills To Die On for $400

Lid posted:

As I said in our party room the other day: I do not want to indicate what was said in the party room but these are my own thoughts, not the party room’s thoughts especially. It is about time our leaders – all of our leaders, and Senator Di Natale would be a good start – started emphasising how much work politicians do, how much commitment most of the people who sit in this parliament – most, I might add – have. They are here because they believe in Australia and they believe that they can make a contribution to Australia. By the standards in the community they do not get particularly well-paid, and there are hundreds of examples of that.

Someone has to stand up, rather than just Senator Ludlam joining the populist theme and denigrating by innuendo everybody in this chamber and the other chamber, and start arguing for politicians, arguing for parliamentarians, saying why they are there.

Most parliamentarians – or those on this side – would have done infinitely better financially staying in their legal practice, staying in their business, staying in their veterinary practice, staying in the jobs they had before. That is not why they have come into this chamber.

I will be talking on this again in another bill coming up, where I will be opposing my government and again moving amendments.