Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

June 12th, 2017

Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. rog
    June 12th, 2017 at 21:28 | #1

    Michael West is digging into Murdoch’s tax arrangements

    2. Please explain the financial arrangements between The Australian, News Ltd and the oil and gas industry.

    https://www.michaelwest.com.au/small-journalism-business-grateful-for-swipe-by-foreign-media-giant/

  2. Harbhajan Singh
    June 13th, 2017 at 11:22 | #2

    Annastacia Palaszczuk has appointed her senior AWU factional colleague David Barbagallo as her chief of staff. This is the first time I have heard of a monkey appointing an organgrinder.

  3. Andrew Symons
    June 13th, 2017 at 12:13 | #3

    @Harbhajan Singh

    Again with the monkey reference?

  4. Harbhajan Singh
    June 13th, 2017 at 15:53 | #4

    Don’t tell Mike Procter about any of this, will you?

  5. Ernestine Gross
    June 14th, 2017 at 13:39 | #5

    @rog

    Thanks for your post, rog. I’ve been wondering where Michael West has gone. Good to discover he is still on the job of flashing out corporate tax issues.

  6. Svante
    June 15th, 2017 at 10:47 | #6

    @Harbhajan Singh

    Re the AWU, monkeys, and organ grinders…

    Adani Bill’s Alternative Liberal Party sided with the government to pass Brandis’ Native Title amendments yesterday.

  7. Collin Street
    June 15th, 2017 at 19:39 | #7

    So it looks like Brandis, at least, has realised that they could all be out of a job tomorrow morning.

    [in the gap between conviction and sentencing, a person is “under sentence”, even if it’s for thirty seconds: the seat’s being vacated is an instantaneous action. If you’re eventually sentenced to less than a year, the disqualifying condition is removed, but that doesn’t undo the consequences of there having been a disqualifying condition: a seat once vacated has to be filled by the constitutionally-mandated process.]

    Of course, Greg Hunt et al are as guilty as f**k; if they’re not convicted it’ll only be as a result of a commitment to ideology over the law. No doubts the SG will try “you’ll bring down the government if you do this” anyway.

  8. david
    June 19th, 2017 at 07:05 | #8

    DPP v Hunt, Sukkar Tudge.
    Gentleman please stand up !
    You have been found guilty by this Court of contempt of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal.
    Your offending is aggravated by your publicly funded and professed qualifications including being admitted as solicitors of the Victorian Supreme Court and your failure each to apologise to the Court for your calculated, and I am sure you will now accept, misinformed contemptuous conduct.
    I must not consider what many say are your less than stellar political performances but may consider these as motivation for your ill-considered conduct.
    I must accept the public humiliation you have and will continue to suffer as to both your personal situations and the fact you have effectively brought ltdown your own government in a badly miscalculated “own goal”.
    By way of deterrence to others who may consider such damaging conduct in the future I must impose a penalty which unequivocally conveys that message.
    I have been referred to similar offending in the matters of Hinch and Mr. Norman Gallagher each resulting in periods of actual imprisonment and feel that to impose any lesser penalty would bring this court into disrepute which I am sure you understand by now cannot be entertained.
    I sentence you to each X months jail – Mr. Officer please take them down !

  9. Vince
    June 19th, 2017 at 08:08 | #9

    @david
    Well said David.

    Whilst these three ministers might have law degrees, one wonders whether they actually remembered the very clear basis of the Australian System of government. viz the Doctrine of separation of powers. Which basically means that there is an independent Judiciary and an independent Executive. It is the Parliament that makes the Laws and the Judiciary which upholds them and where unclear interprets them.

    It appears what we have in this government is a plethora of very bad Lawyers and a plethora of extremely right wing Law making.

    Is this a Question of the failure of the political Class? I tend to think so. But, even though slow, the Australian electorate have this Government’s timbre in it’s sights. They are finally waking up to the Plethora of mistakes they have made and it’s showing in the Polls.

    Let us hop that your prediction above comes to fruition and we get rid of this very bad government.

  10. Paul Norton
    June 19th, 2017 at 09:40 | #10

    I fear that I may be about to inadvertantly prompt a conspiracy theory to the effect that Google is photoshopping Google Earth to exaggerate the number of Australian homes that have rooftop solar panels.

  11. david
    June 24th, 2017 at 10:29 | #11

    For all of the lawyers consider whether the 3 idiots can still be charged by eg. The Victorian AG.

    The hiatus between Friday the 6/6/207 and before their “apology” in absentia per the SG at taxpayers’ expense yesterday means we had notionally a parliament where 3 members should have been ineligible to sit under s. 44 of the Constitution as being under sentence of an offence carrying 2 months or more as the Common law jurisdiction for contempt has no defined maximum penalty which definitely includes imprisonment.

    As the Victorian Chief Justice found their contempt prior to purging was appalling behaviour. The VCA ruling relates to the issue of referral only having found overwhelming evidence a contempt exists.

    I have noticed Tudge has been sitting in the “naughty Chair” in the HoR which was earlier occupied by Broughie in the weeks prior to his painful demise and ALSO by Stuart Robert prior to relinquishing his portfolio.

    The nexus between Murdoch, The LNP/IPA needs further examnation .

  12. Collin Street
    June 24th, 2017 at 10:52 | #12

    @David: the supreme court said, “we think you’re guilty”, but they didn’t find them guilty; that requires a formal “trial” process, where the judges might change their minds.

    [“finding” is “after the formal process, we think X”. Mere thinking without the formal process — that might lead you to change your mind — isn’t a “finding”]

    Racing Rules of Sailing, M3.4, “recommendations for protest committees”: “Base the decision on the facts found (if you cannot, find some more facts).”

  13. david
    June 24th, 2017 at 16:35 | #13

    Collin I gather you feel some other organ like the Vic. AG still may effect a prosecution.
    What a great way to bring down a government like a legitimate “Dismissal”.
    Your reference to no finding emphasises the inapplicability of the doctrine of issue estoppel for a contempt prosecution still to proceed.
    PS. I apologise for my original error in that it was the 16/6/7 when the 3 did not apologise.

Comments are closed.