ewe2 posted:

Pfft Naomi Robinson did her own hair and makeup at Beaconsfield, suck it up princesses.

quote:

Ministers ordered to stop talking about same-sex marriage


The Turnbull ministry has been ordered to put a lid on talk of moves to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage, with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce yesterday reading the riot act to colleagues.

The Australian has learned that the Nationals leader addressed a meeting of the frontbench yesterday before a return to parliament today, warning that continued discussion of fringe issues such as marriage equality would be the government’s road to ruin.

A Liberal frontbench source in the meeting confirmed Mr Joyce told the room MPs had to stop talking about issues that appealed to Sydney’s inner-city “Oxford Street”.

“It was a spray,” one Liberal frontbencher said.

“He said if we continue to be distracted by issues which only appeal to people in George Street and Oxford Street but not in the outer suburbs and the regions, things will not improve,” another said.

“He then specifically raised gay marriage as an example.”

Malcolm Turnbull was said to have nodded in agreement as Mr Joyce addressed colleagues, in a clear signal to moderate MPs agitating for a shift in policy to a free vote on same-sex marriage there would be no deviation from the Coalition policy of a plebiscite. “The mood of the room was clearly anger that the agenda we tried to set last week had been derailed by a few MPs trying to push the issue again,” another source in the meeting said.

They said there were several ministers prepared to resign if there was any contemplation of shifting on the policy of a plebiscite to decide the issue.

It has been reported that several moderate MPs among the Prime Minister’s support base were agitating to bring the issue back to the Coalition partyroom within the next two weeks. They want Mr Turnbull to dump the ­national plebiscite, which would allow the people to decide the outcome, in favour of the Labor policy of a free vote in the parliament under which MPs would not be bound by party policy.

Mr Turnbull has insisted there will be no change of policy and blamed Labor for its refusal to ­support the plebiscite as the ­reason the issue had not been ­resolved.

Newly elected Victorian MP Tim Wilson is among those leading the charge and has argued that he had honoured a commitment to vote for the plebiscite in accordance with party policy when it was introduced and defeated late last year. This, he suggested, had freed him from his obligations and now allowed him to push for a free vote.

Other MPs named as behind the push included West Australians Dean Smith and Melissa Price, Trent Zimmerman, a first-term MP from NSW, and Queenslanders Warren Entsch and Trevor Price. Colleagues of cabinet minister Christopher Pyne had accused him of encouraging the move.

Mr Pyne said yesterday a ­national vote could have been held this Saturday had Labor not blocked the plebiscite.

“Labor defeated the plebiscite bill for marriage equality last year in a very ‘cutting-off-one’s-nose-to-spite-one’s-face’ move,” he said.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

Graic Gabtar posted:

Been Warnie's Twitter all day. Still nothing.

Graic Gabtar posted:

Marshal of the drone air force, Ahmed Fahour is worth a pretty penny...

http://www.theage.com.au/business/senate-committee-denies-australia-post-attempt-to-keep-ahmed-fahours-salary-secret-20170207-gu7n05.html
That's a fair bit of coin whoring for eBay.

A very weird cat is good old Ahmed. Leaves you wondering why he would be trusted with a burnt match let alone a bank/postal service.

Graic Gabtar posted:

Blame people in safety vests laughing at your package.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwtM-kSpPrI

You would think they are defusing a loving bomb.

open24hours posted:

I wonder if he'll ever realise how weak this burn is.

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.

NTRabbit posted:

Synthbuttrange posted:

Is that what they mean by change from within?

Urcher posted:

Word cloud for January:



2017: J

2016: JFMAMJJASOND

2015: JFMAMJJASOND

2014: JFMAMJJASOND

2013: AMJJASOND

Highlights from last month's thread:

Anidav posted:

MORE than 43,000 full-time employees – the equivalent of almost a capacity crowd at Suncorp Stadium

hooman posted:

Lifejackets while rock fishing.

gay picnic defence posted:

The CGT discount exists for a good reason, I guess they're happy to sacrifice that as long as they get to keep their precious negative gearing though

Concatenation posted:

hahahaha





what, me worry?

gay picnic defence posted:

Because it is intended to ensure people aren't taxed for gains arising from inflation. Even if you don't agree with it, at least there is some rationale unlike negative gearing which exists purely because some cunts in suits want more money