Jump to content
wendybr

Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 **** :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, theseeker said:

Broke no law.

 

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

Edited by sonar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ossified said:

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

Hmm. Seems a little strange that two left wing publications the SMH and the Age would publish something untrue damaging to the Greens. As I understand it the Press Council didn't say it was untrue but that reasonable steps were not taken to ensure it's accuracy etc. Seems there is a subtle difference but it is what it is.But you don't mention the farm non-disclosure of the family farm, Oh , of course , understandable oversight.

Now just on " Dick's Farm " i believe he keeps cows.And on a photo in the SMH article it purports to show a herd of cows on his farm.

Now the Greens are obviously big on emissions.

But , but don't cows through "gas"  and burping  release massive amounts of methane which is quoted to be 25-100 times more harmful than carbon dioxide ?. Not to mention cow's methane rich manure. Or is that wrong too.

Don't know why but i seem to recall words like high morals , low bars and high bars , doing the right thing  and other moralistic stuff but also recall one of mine , hypocrisy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good riddance to the tree tory leader. Bob Brown's idiotic (and hypocritical) Adani caravan stunt cost Labor the election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burztur said:

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

Thought I answered your question yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GlobalWarning said:

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

Was good wasn't it?

Andrew Constance looked shattered...I was worried for him.

Good to see a serving politician showing  his raw humanity.

Fancy living through what he and his community is living through, and realising that you are on the wrong side.

Jim Molem is an idiot...although he made a few concessions.

US scientist's quip about not being so open minded that your brain falls out was the only moment of comic relief.

Hamish is a great replacement for TJ.

 

Good to have it back on air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theseeker said:

Thought I answered your question yesterday.

I don't see it. Please state it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wendybr said:

Was good wasn't it?

Andrew Constance looked shattered...I was worried for him.

Good to see a serving politician showing  his raw humanity.

Fancy living through what he and his community is living through, and realising that you are on the wrong side.

Jim Molem is an idiot...although he made a few concessions.

US scientist's quip about not being so open minded that your brain falls out was the only moment of comic relief.

Hamish is a great replacement for TJ.

 

Good to have it back on air.

i felt sorry for Andrew, hell in a way i felt sorry for Jim even though he is stupid, imagine having to try to defend scott morrison :P but yes he wasnt very good, that was a funny moment but also when Jim said he doesnt use evidence to make up his mind or something was funny as hell even though it wasnt meant to be :P

do not like hamish because of how much association he has with the project however i'll let him prove himself and give him a go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Burztur , this was my answer. If you want more details read the papers or check the internet news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GlobalWarning said:

i felt sorry for Andrew, hell in a way i felt sorry for Jim even though he is stupid, imagine having to try to defend scott morrison :P but yes he wasnt very good, that was a funny moment but also when Jim said he doesnt use evidence to make up his mind or something was funny as hell even though it wasnt meant to be :P

do not like hamish because of how much association he has with the project however i'll let him prove himself and give him a go

Agree with all that, except for the Hamish comment.

I don't understand why you wouldn't like him, with or without the Project.

He often hosts an ABC breakfast radio program, and is  excellent!!

He was based on the South Coast during the wirst of the fires...ans was excellent.

He's a real talent.

The Project is a breath of fresh air compared to the other commercial TV "current affairs", even if it's often lightweight.

PS Don't be too influenced by your Friendly Jordies guy. I like him....a lot.

But he doesn't get everything right (I know he disapproves of the Project, even tho I haven't watched that episode).

PS Yes....fancy having to stick by the govt's inaction....and Morrison's inaction and his slimey words.

How do we deserve a govt of these imbeciles?

How does our country deserve 2 more years of them?

What will be left worth having??

And Barnaby's potentially on the way back. FMD.

 

😭😭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul01 said:

A dinosaur who should be buried under a strata of granite

'I'm not relying on evidence': Molan's frank admission over climate scepticism rocks Q&A http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-04/jim-molan-under-fire-for-climate-change-admission-on-q&a/11925750

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain open to be convinced but I don’t rely on evidence 

beautiful 

still he hasn’t done anything illegal so is therefore a perfectly acceptable minister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wendybr said:

Agree with all that, except for the Hamish comment.

I don't understand why you wouldn't like him, with or without the Project.

He often hosts an ABC breakfast radio program, and is  excellent!!

He was based on the South Coast during the wirst of the fires...ans was excellent.

He's a real talent.

The Project is a breath of fresh air compared to the other commercial TV "current affairs", even if it's often lightweight.

PS Don't be too influenced by your Friendly Jordies guy. I like him....a lot.

But he doesn't get everything right (I know he disapproves of the Project, even tho I haven't watched that episode).

PS Yes....fancy having to stick by the govt's inaction....and Morrison's inaction and his slimey words.

How do we deserve a govt of these imbeciles?

How does our country deserve 2 more years of them?

What will be left worth having??

And Barnaby's potentially on the way back. FMD.

 

😭😭

oh i hated the project way before i was watching jordies :P

 

to be fair our country voted for these morons :P

 

i am glad good old barnaby might be back, i hate the guy but this is a huge negative for the coalition, pretty much no one likes barnabey and he will cause issues for the coalition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

 

 

Question... the government appoint an independent body to access needs... and they ask that body to rank them in order... the government say publicly they will follow the recommendations of their independent body... as always minsters have a last right of refusal or overrule... rarely applied.. 

The government then largely ignore the appointed independent body recommendations ..... 

The government then say all accepted applications met the requirements...

The minister then totally ignores the independent body they set up and makes its own chooses... 

Those chosen mostly happen to be in key marginal seats weeks out before an election.

The government claim as all applicants on the list met requirements and minsters can over rule the independent body they appointed they have broken no laws...

In a strictly legal sense that is correct... under parliamentary law ... but in the equity courts they would loose... 

Hand on heart, not the other thing, if you believe that is acceptable ministerial behaviour then I would be amazed .

BTW two laws have been broken...

Law 1..... The don't get caught law ...

Law 2 ... The law of unintended consequences ...   

There is a thing called public trust... and its hiding behind narrow rules that destroy peoples trust in government and when someone finally says something half decent no one believes them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...