Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

[StringerBellend]

2 hours ago, theseeker said:

........where is my violin again. So no more low bar again ?

We should have kept Babbel and Gombau they didn’t do anything illegal 

[sonar]

6 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

We should have kept Babbel and Gombau they didn’t do anything illegal 

.....are crimes against football legal now ?......

[theseeker]

14 hours ago, wendybr said:

Add in "Climate Criminals" to label the lot of them - I  think from one if The Greens?

I hope it sticks.

"Climate Criminals" I am just stunned at the amazing originality and diamond cut brilliance to come up with this. I mean maybe a team of Zegna suited , slick haired , ponytailed Marketing gurus employed by the Watermelons have burned the midnight oil to come up with this.

See the  problem I have with the Watermelon Greens is that they want to create the (almost) emission free days of the Fred Flinstone cartoons. You know foot powered cars , living stone huts , no internet , electricity and so on.

But to create , you first must destroy.

Maybe , just maybe .  the label " Destructive Criminals" could apply to Watermelons.

Edited February 2, 2020 by theseeker

[wendybr]

If you say so! 

But the alliteration of "Climate Criminals" has a more catchy ring to it! 

 

[mack]

Imagine using whataboutism to defend an obvious corrupt rort when the ALP haven't been in power in 7 years.

[theseeker]

14 minutes ago, mack said:

Imagine using whataboutism to defend an obvious corrupt rort when the ALP haven't been in power in 7 years.

You know you don't have to be in power to be corrupt political rort merchants.

NSW Labor not in power but full of corrupt rorters , cash filled Aldi bags of Chinese money and on and on.

[mack]

But moooooooooooooooooooom he was being corrupt first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sonar]

Chinese money anyone.....?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/foreign-minister-julie-bishops-links-to-chinese-political-donors-20160823-gqzauy.html

https://www.afr.com/politics/julie-bishops-attack-on-labor-over-chinese-donations-backfires-20170614-gwqzg0

https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/the_meeting_place/post/julie-bishop-chinese-donations-link

Edited February 2, 2020 by sonar

[theseeker]

3 minutes ago, mack said:

But moooooooooooooooooooom he was being corrupt first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better  off sticking  to the match summaries , old son.

[mack]

Labor and the union movement have had multiple royal commissions aimed at it, and the NSW ICAC is run on behalf of the Liberal party. You talk about Obeid as if he wasn't jailed for years for his offences.

Whataboutism is not a defence against the current corruption taking place with the Federal Government.

[marron]

1 hour ago, theseeker said:

"Climate Criminals" I am just stunned at the amazing originality and diamond cut brilliance to come up with this. I mean maybe a team of Zegna suited , slick haired , ponytailed Marketing gurus employed by the Watermelons have burned the midnight oil to come up with this.

See the  problem I have with the Watermelon Greens is that they want to create the (almost) emission free days of the Fred Flinstone cartoons. You know foot powered cars , living stone huts , no internet , electricity and so on.

But to create , you first must destroy.

Maybe , just maybe .  the label " Destructive Criminals" could apply to Watermelons.

One lot want to make money for big business and use taxpayer's money to retain power.

One lot want to literally go back to a stone age existence.

Which one of these is more credible and supported by evidence?

Bored yet?

[Unlimited]

This just in during half time: Bridget McKenzie has resigned.

 

Now what will happen to the Deputy National leader position? Will Barnaby come back to usurp McCormack?

[Paul01]

19 minutes ago, Unlimited said:

This just in during half time: Bridget McKenzie has resigned.

 

Now what will happen to the Deputy National leader position? Will Barnaby come back to usurp McCormack?

First of many rats jumping off a sinking ship

Edited February 2, 2020 by Paul01
Correction

[Burztur]

The Seeker, what is your views on this resignation by Bridget McKenzie?

1. Did she do nothing wrong? 

2. Did she do something wrong? 

[theseeker]

1 hour ago, Burztur said:

The Seeker, what is your views on this resignation by Bridget McKenzie?

1. Did she do nothing wrong? 

2. Did she do something wrong? 

Glad you asked the question. My contention all along was that no law was broken and that remains  very much the case .There was some pork barreling but it ts a thing that both parties have indulged in. And no party in power , despite being easy to do have not  enacted laws to outlaw it. So it's massive hypocrisy.

But anyway congratulations to all who wanted her out. you can now open the champagne that was left unopened upon losing the unlosable election. Hope it hasn't turned to vinegar by now. 

In greater scheme of things the Government hasn't lost much skin. 99.99% of Aussies couldn't give a stuff this , they have other things going on. Bit like beating the Mariners , big deal.

There will be a new Minister appointed , doesn't affect the numbers in the House and will be a non -issue at the next election.

 

 

[marron]

If it's all like you say, the means to the end is a-ok, which means there is no frigging way she resigns with 99% of the population  not giving a ****

[mack]

And here I was thinking we should hold the highest members of the Federal Government to a better standard than "just don't break the law".

[Paul01]

Scumbo and his ministers are going to be held to account and about f****** time

Scott Morrison wants the sports rorts mess to be over with McKenzie's exit. It won't be https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/02/scott-morrison-wants-the-sports-rorts-mess-to-be-over-with-mckenzies-exit-it-wont-be?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Cynth]

2 hours ago, theseeker said:

Glad you asked the question. My contention all along was that no law was broken and that remains  very much the case .There was some pork barreling but it ts a thing that both parties have indulged in. And no party in power , despite being easy to do have not  enacted laws to outlaw it. So it's massive hypocrisy.

But anyway congratulations to all who wanted her out. you can now open the champagne that was left unopened upon losing the unlosable election. Hope it hasn't turned to vinegar by now. 

In greater scheme of things the Government hasn't lost much skin. 99.99% of Aussies couldn't give a stuff this , they have other things going on. Bit like beating the Mariners , big deal.

There will be a new Minister appointed , doesn't affect the numbers in the House and will be a non -issue at the next election.

 

 

Ah yes the pragmatism response as opposed to the moral one. The answer to “did she do something wrong?” is answered by the seriousness of the political hit taken. Got rid of her, nothing to see here, oh look here’s a shiny new bauble. See? No-one remembers. 

The morality, the right and wrong, the fairness and the honesty of the issue are irrelevant. Only the political damage matters. 

[Paul01]

McKenzie broke the law

Opinion: McKenzie had no discretion to break the rules http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-02/bridget-mckenzie-sport-grants-minister-rules/11922152

[theseeker]

1 hour ago, Paul01 said:

McKenzie broke the law

Opinion: McKenzie had no discretion to break the rules http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-02/bridget-mckenzie-sport-grants-minister-rules/11922152

Broke no law.

Quote me the relevant law she broke , name of the the Act , section and penalties under that section. For ( made up ) example Crimes Act 1984 , section 13, 5 years jail. 

And to all the selective high moralists , i remind of the real morals of the ruthless game of politics. Labor man Graham Richardson's book " Whatever It Takes "

[Paul01]

12 minutes ago, theseeker said:

Broke no law.

Quote me the relevant law she broke , name of the the Act , section and penalties under that section. For ( made up ) example Crimes Act 1984 , section 13, 5 years jail. 

And to all the selective high moralists , i remind of the real morals of the ruthless game of politics. Labor man Graham Richardson's book " Whatever It Takes "

With class actions looming the article gives you the legal basis on how the law was broken. The article was written by a constitutional lawyer.

First, section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 says that a Minister must not approve expenditure of public money unless satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that the expenditure would be a "proper use" of the money. "Proper" is defined as meaning "efficient, effective, economical and ethical"

Second, the Minister would have to comply with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, which are imposed by a statutory instrument. They require that Ministers must not approve grants without first receiving written advice from officials on the merits of the proposed grants and must record, in writing, the basis for their approval, relative to the grant guidelines and the principle of achieving value for money. While Ministers may approve grants that are not recommended by officials, they must report to the Finance Minister on all such instances, including a statement of reasons, such as the basis of approval for each grant.

Third, the Minister is subject to administrative law in making decisions that involve the exercise of discretion. Ministers must not take into account any irrelevant considerations or act for an improper purpose or in an irrational manner. Ministers must take into account relevant considerations, such as meeting the criteria set out by the scheme's guidelines. Where a Minister is required to be satisfied of a fact before acting, the Minister must be able to point to the evidence relied upon to support the finding of fact. There also needs to be a logical relationship between the facts relied upon and any findings made by a Minister. So when a statute requires the Minister to be satisfied that expenditure is efficient, effective, economical and ethical, the Minister must be able to show the facts she relied upon and how they logically supported her reaching that conclusion.

Fourth, when it comes to the "ethical" decision-making required by statute, the Statement of Ministerial Standards gives guidance as to ethical ministerial behaviour. Ministers must act 'in the lawful and disinterested exercise of the statutory and other powers available to their office', rather than for party-political advantage. Official decisions must be "unaffected by bias or irrelevant considerations, such as considerations of private advantage or disadvantage".

[theseeker]

12 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

With class actions looming the article gives you the legal basis on how the law was broken. The article was written by a constitutional lawyer.

First, section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 says that a Minister must not approve expenditure of public money unless satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that the expenditure would be a "proper use" of the money. "Proper" is defined as meaning "efficient, effective, economical and ethical"

Second, the Minister would have to comply with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, which are imposed by a statutory instrument. They require that Ministers must not approve grants without first receiving written advice from officials on the merits of the proposed grants and must record, in writing, the basis for their approval, relative to the grant guidelines and the principle of achieving value for money. While Ministers may approve grants that are not recommended by officials, they must report to the Finance Minister on all such instances, including a statement of reasons, such as the basis of approval for each grant.

Third, the Minister is subject to administrative law in making decisions that involve the exercise of discretion. Ministers must not take into account any irrelevant considerations or act for an improper purpose or in an irrational manner. Ministers must take into account relevant considerations, such as meeting the criteria set out by the scheme's guidelines. Where a Minister is required to be satisfied of a fact before acting, the Minister must be able to point to the evidence relied upon to support the finding of fact. There also needs to be a logical relationship between the facts relied upon and any findings made by a Minister. So when a statute requires the Minister to be satisfied that expenditure is efficient, effective, economical and ethical, the Minister must be able to show the facts she relied upon and how they logically supported her reaching that conclusion.

Fourth, when it comes to the "ethical" decision-making required by statute, the Statement of Ministerial Standards gives guidance as to ethical ministerial behaviour. Ministers must act 'in the lawful and disinterested exercise of the statutory and other powers available to their office', rather than for party-political advantage. Official decisions must be "unaffected by bias or irrelevant considerations, such as considerations of private advantage or disadvantage".

Load of meaningless ducking and weaving. You could dredge up 50 "constitutional lawyers " and they would all give you different opinions depending on whose paying them.

Why haven't Labor referred this to the Federal Police I wonder , maybe they are worried this might rebound on them perhaps. And what are the penalties under this section 71 , loss of parliamentary canteen privileges ?

" Legal basis on how the Law was broken " She has broken the Law only when a Court has found her guilty so to date she has broken no Law.

[StringerBellend]

2 minutes ago, theseeker said:

Load of meaningless ducking and weaving. You could dredge up 50 "constitutional lawyers " and they would all give you different opinions depending on whose paying them.

Why haven't Labor referred this to the Federal Police I wonder , maybe they are worried this might rebound on them perhaps. And what are the penalties under this section 71 , loss of parliamentary canteen privileges ?

" Legal basis on how the Law was broken " She has broken the Law only when a Court has found her guilty so to date she has broken no Law.

Oh well that’s all right then 

[sonar]

55 minutes ago, theseeker said:

Broke no law.

 

She did nothing wrong............... but resigned anyway.............

Edited February 2, 2020 by sonar

[Neverbloom]

so Q+A is on tonight so ........yay

[theseeker]

i see where Watermelon Greens leader Richard Di Natale , whose party is a good ally of Labor has resigned.

Could this be the same Di Natale who in a 2016 SMH  ( you know the lefty paper )article was reported as breaching parliamentary rules by not declaring his farm in Victoria for 15 months , potentially causing a serious contempt of the Senate.

And also reported payment of three au pairs for his family at the rate of $3.75 an hour based on 40 week hour week , plus board and lodging. Just quoting the article , not my allegations and I believed he challenged the article but the complaint was only partially upheld, 

Surely not though , the paragons of virtue party ? 

Who is going to save the faarking planet now ? Has somebody got Bruce Willis's number.

 

[Legionista]

Pork barrelling is a skill that this Bridget Lass isn’t too good at, that’s why she lost her job.

If anything it’s a compliment.

She’s not a good crook. 

[Wobblies]

5 hours ago, theseeker said:

i see where Watermelon Greens leader Richard Di Natale , whose party is a good ally of Labor has resigned.

Could this be the same Di Natale who in a 2016 SMH  ( you know the lefty paper )article was reported as breaching parliamentary rules by not declaring his farm in Victoria for 15 months , potentially causing a serious contempt of the Senate.

And also reported payment of three au pairs for his family at the rate of $3.75 an hour based on 40 week hour week , plus board and lodging. Just quoting the article , not my allegations and I believed he challenged the article but the complaint was only partially upheld, 

Surely not though , the paragons of virtue party ? 

Who is going to save the faarking planet now ? Has somebody got Bruce Willis's number.

 

There was no reasonable basis for the publication to imply the au pairs may have worked a 40-hour week and, on this basis, may have been paid ‘as little as $150 a week after tax’,” the adjudication said.

In addition, the judgment noted The Age “could have contacted the au pairs to establish the nature of the employment arrangement but did not attempt to do so”.

The Press Council concluded The Age had breached General Principles 1 and 3 for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was “accurate and not misleading, and fair and balanced

[Burztur]

On 02/02/2020 at 7:49 PM, theseeker said:

Glad you asked the question. My contention all along was that no law was broken and that remains  very much the case .There was some pork barreling but it ts a thing that both parties have indulged in. And no party in power , despite being easy to do have not  enacted laws to outlaw it. So it's massive hypocrisy.

But anyway congratulations to all who wanted her out. you can now open the champagne that was left unopened upon losing the unlosable election. Hope it hasn't turned to vinegar by now. 

In greater scheme of things the Government hasn't lost much skin. 99.99% of Aussies couldn't give a stuff this , they have other things going on. Bit like beating the Mariners , big deal.

There will be a new Minister appointed , doesn't affect the numbers in the House and will be a non -issue at the next election.

 

 

If she did nothing wrong/broke no law, why did she resign?