The Katters

One thing that one can say about Australian politics is that although ‘characters’ aren’t all that common, when we come up with one we have the tendency to come up with some rippers – for good or bad.

On the States and Territories: Bob Katter believes the map should be redrawn to dramatically change the borders of the Northern Territory and Queensland – WA would lose the Kimberley and Broome, which would become part of the NT. Mr Katter suggested that the NT should be renamed the state of North-Western Australia. This idea prompted former WA Labor Attorney-General Jim McGinty to remark, “Bob Katter is as silly as a cut snake.”

On the Murray-Darling: “The Murray-Darling is 21 million megalitres of water. Just one of my rivers in north Queensland has 22 million megalitres of water. So heaven’s sake why are you trying to do the farming where there’s no water.”

On Australian citizenship: Infamously supported National Bob Burgess’s characterisation of the ceremony as “dewogging” by calling Burgess’s critics as “little slanty-eyed idealogues who persecute ordinary average Australians”.

On homosexuality and gay marriage: Katter claimed that he would “…walk to Bourke backwards if the poof population of Kennedy was more than 0.001 per cent”. Katter also voted against the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act, 1994, which decriminalised homosexuality in Tasmania.

“Truly this proposition (marriage equality) deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. It doesn’t serve any serious treatment,” he said to cheers and thunderous applause.

As has been widely reported Katter’s half brother Carl Katter has offered his own opinions via an interview with George Negus.

Carl said whenever he saw his brother on the news he turned him off, but the comments he had made were “hurtfull.”

“It’s dangerous, it’s damaging and it’s really inappropriate,” Carl said, “[He] doesn’t give any support to his argument by perpetuating hate.”

“He doesn’t seem to represent the whole of his community and he denies the fact that there are a lot of gay people in his community.”

“People may assume that we’ve made some leaps and bounds in terms of equality really but we haven’t.”

“I don’t know how he can target a minority and persecute them in the way he has.”

“His gross generalisations are just inappropriate in today’s society. I can’t believe that I’m actually here in 2011 talking about this.”

When asked by Negus if he planned to get married one day himself, Carl said, “Pretty much like everyone, if the right person comes along and I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I would definitely like to marry them.”

Asked if he would invite Bob to the wedding, he said, “I don’t think he’d come and I have a lot more important people and valuable people in my life that I’d want to involve.”

One cannot help but ponder as to why Bob Katter having a gay brother has so little empathy, surely B. Katter must have seen the homophobia towards his brother while they were growing up. One despairs at people’s attitudes at times.

UPDATE: Link courtesy of Erin. Heathen scripture

If you’re like me, you’ve been wondering with trepidation what will happen when the Gaypocalypse finally strikes. Are fudge-packers, nancy-boys, and pillow-biters all names for the same thing, or do they signify a hierarchy of types and sizes, like orcs? Which are most dangerous? Do bull dykes breed with bull queers? That seems anti-intuitive. And where do the Poohole Pirates come in? Are they like the Men of Harad? What about elephants? Will there be elephants? Will they be pink? Will we be forced to toil in underground sequin mines while Freddy Mercury lashes us with moustachioed falsetto arpeggios? And dear God, why didn’t we listen to Fred Nile?

231 comments on “The Katters

  1. That is the problem most people faced, that there is very few families that do not have gay members in them.

    The debate is on this morning.

    It is interesting that Mr. Abbott is playing games with parliament, in relation to Mr. Thomson, demanding he addresses the House.

    Mr. Abbott has denied the PM a pair to attend official business.

    He is demanding that she sack Mr. Thomson from the party and parliament.

    I doubt she has the power alone to expel Mr. Thomson from the party.

    The PM does not have the power to expel him from parliament. Mainly because she did not elect him to parliament, the voters in his electorate did.

    Once again Mr. Abbott is demanding the PM take action that she has no ability to take.

    I think it is time that Mr. Abbott sat down and read the Constitution. It might prevent him from from footing his foot in his mouth so often.

    Mr. Turnbull has notified the Greens that he will not be available today to address the Gay Marriage issue.

    Does that mean that Mr. Turnbull not attending parliament will allow the PM to attend to official business.

    Mr. Abbott is prepared to let the PM out of the parliament to attend ceremonial welcoming but she needs to be in parliament for important business, that is what he considers important business, the persecution of Mr. Thomson.

    Should not the Opposition respect the police and WorkChoice investigations being carried out.

    Have we dismissed the rules that undermine our democracy, that one is innocence until proven guilty, that one has the right to silence. Do we have the right to keep on pressing allegations while investigations are under way.

    Mr. Thomson has stood down from the Finance Committee. That is sad but the right thing too do.

    If I was Mr. Thomson, I would think of resigning from the Labor Party but remaining in Parliament.

    I believe the Independents are likely to support the suspensions of standing order’s debate by Mr. Abbott.

    The alleged that the union members are the victims. How come, there is no money missing. The alleged money spent at the brothel was replaced.

  2. I wonder what happens to Mr. Rudd’s pair.

    As Deborah said on 702, who has their daughters 21st on a week day when parliament is sitting. I wonder if your son’s 21st is different.

    Today should be interesting in parliament. Shame I have to go out.

  3. The thing about Thomson is that he is yet to be convicted of anything. The parliamentary system would be unworkable if a person who has not been convicted should have to stand down..clearly opens itself up to all sorts of false and frivolous accusations.

  4. I think the fact that there are enquiries on carried the day. Mr. Abbott killed himself by letting Mr. Brandis take the action he did. Suspending pairs did not help him either. The vote was found in the positive but not with big enough margin.

    Mr. Abbott will just have to wait like all other Opposition leaders had too for his election.

    Labor gave them plenty of examples from the Howard era to remind them that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    I wonder what QT will involve. Will the Coalition lay off Mr. Thomson. I do not think Mr. Abbott has the brains to do so.

    I would like to give my condolences for the eleven, mostly children who lost their lives in that house fire in Queensland.

  5. Pyne is saying that the vote is a ‘moral victory’. I think not given that Kevin Rudd is on sick leave and that Tony Abbott refused to honor his agreement regarding pairing. Where’s the moral victory there.

  6. From Erin:

    I especially like the analogy with breakfast: “The argument, it seems, is that by eating something else, other people compromise Barnaby Joyce’s fundamental concept of breakfast. Joyce & Co. have an idea of what breakfast is – toast, cereal, glass of orange juice, perhaps – and different configurations, however remote, threaten its very breakfastness”

  7. Mr. Abbott does not give up.. He is once again at it again, moving for the suspension of standing orders. He moves this motion with great reluctance.

    He is concerned about jobs. He is complaining that time is taken up with discussion of Mr. Thomson. Has someone told Mr. Abbott, he is the one prolonging the debate.

    At least he is moving the motion this time himself.

    The PM has wisely left the chamber again. This makes Mr. Abbott very angry. What should someone sit and listen to abuse, when they have the choice of leaving.

    What about being innocence to proven guilty.

  8. Well Mr. Abbott lost his motion as expected. He sat there like a stunned mullet when the PM bought QT to an end.

    I question is all that occurred today.

    The union is taking the Mr. Thomson matter to the police. Surely that will shut the Opposition up.

  9. Most of today has been wasted with Mr. Abbott’s dummy spit.

    It has given the government the chance to remind all of how Mr. Howard dealt with the many Ministers and Parliamentary Secretary’s he had to defend.

    The list was very long.

  10. CU, clearly the Opposition’s aim is to ‘bring down the government’ but it is unfair, unreasonable and in a parliamentary situation unworkable that an accusation of any kind or indeed charges referred are anywhere near enough to cause a by-election. As you say, innocent until proven guilty – that is the way the law works in Australia and indeed in all Common Law countries. Go to France and it’s guilty until proven innocent.

  11. From Rob Oakeshott:

    THE presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a foundation of our democracy. There are investigations underway that need to be allowed to take place and resolved, and those resolutions will determine whether Parliament has a role to play in this matter.
    It is a very dangerous precedent for Parliament to call a member to explain allegations made against them, before proper process and natural justice have reached their conclusions, as this would blur the line between our parliamentary and judicial systems.
    Media contact: Sharon Fuller – 0429 787320

  12. It appears it is the first time the PM has been denied a pair to carry out official duties.

    No Federal representatives were at a state funeral.

    His actions were pure petty mindedness.

    Nothing is sacred to this man. His obsession is controlling the man. It has taken away what little judgement he has or had.

    The union has been forced to take action, they did not feel was necessary. The were happy with the investigation already under way.

    The NSW Police have been put under pressure by a politician to take action, they felt had no need to be involved in.

    The Fair Work investigation would have passed on any information to the police, if they found anything amiss.

    The PM is being asked to sack him from the parliament. She does not have this power.

  13. I think it is time that Mr. Abbott sat down and read the Constitution. It might prevent him from from footing his foot in his mouth so often.

    CU, Smuggles is well aware of the contents of the Constitution, as is Brandis, allegedly a Constitutional Lawyer. What is evident is that the LIEberals have no respect for our Constitution, nor the conventions of the Parliament, nor the Law, apparently.

    Of course, like the psycopaths they are, they assume that there will be no consequences for their actions. Wait for the squealing when have to deal with the dragon’s teeth they are busily sowing.

    Pyne is saying that the vote is a ‘moral victory’

    What would Whynne and the rest of that scum know about morals?.

    CU, the only job Smuggles cares about is getting his slimy paws on the PMship. He couldn’t give a toss about who or how many people lose their livelihood as long as Smuggles gets what he wants.

    No wonder Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie gave Gillard their support.

  14. Catching up, I’ve heard around the traps that Malcolm Turnbull also wanted to attend and so logically Crean and Turnbull could have cancelled each other out should both have attended. But if it was me I wouldn’t have trusted Abbott to keep his word in allowing Turnbull to attend.

    You are right of course, no PM can sack any parliamentarian because it’s not the PM who elected him in the first place it was the voters in his electorate.

  15. I believe that there are 3 families involved including children.

    Yes Min – very tragic indeed. Local information here is that there was a grandmother, her two daughters, and their seven children plus another child who was staying overnight at the house. One must really feel for the 3 men who did manage to get out as well – I hear it was the grandfather, and the husbands of the two daughters…

  16. Bacchus, I heard that there were 3 families living in the house. I’m wondering if it was rented..just from daughter Erin at UQ that landlords cram as many people as possible into rental properties. One 3br she was living in (she moved) the landlord wanted 8 people living in the house by dividing the lounge and partitioning off the hallway. The house had 1 loo.

    Dreadful stuff.

  17. AntonyG apparently Turnbull was a personal friend of Olley.

    Alabanese reply to Abbott was great.He noted that the senator, who has been charged by police and is to front the courts is not “only charged with shoplifting” but stopped from having in hansard that she is also on assault charges. He also said that although she had been charged in May the parliament didn’t hear about it to July and further she was still taking additional pay by remaining on senate committees.
    albo went onto note other hypocritical instances, when the vote was taken and Abbott lost, Gillard ended QT. the opposition front benches looked stunned.

    And by the way when abbott declared the no pairings I just wondered whether he may have just possibly jinxed himself.

  18. It was no moral victory. Mr. Abbott has shown he cannot win, even when he breaks the rules.

    The PM did attend her official duties this morning.

    He has had two attempts today, with what he believed the odds being in his favour and lost. He also missed out on QT.

    The parliament, if anyone chooses to tune in, will see is busy debating many important bills.

    He has wasted an hour or two. Some time was made up with the shortening of QT.

    Maybe the fact that Mr. Abbott and the Oppositions time is occupied with playing games, allows the government to get on with the business of governing.

    Mr. Abbott has shown, that no matter what, he has little or no chance stopping the price on carbon bills.

    As to Mr. Brandis example of what crime was committed, it sound like something that came out of the ancient Master and Servant Act.

  19. AntonyG

    It is my understanding that Mr. Turnbull told the Green MP that he was sorry he could npt talk on the gay Marriage issue as he was attending a funeral.

  20. Jane, the Lib/Nats of course know the Constitution very well – what they do is to rely on the rednecks’ ignorance of it.

    A moral victory? Well they certainly shot themselves in the foot with that one by refusing pairing in order that Crean attend the funeral of Margaret Olley.


  21. Catching up, then why did Turnbull not attend the funeral. I think that I smell a rat or at least Rodent Junior otherwise known as Tony Abbott giving orders that Turnbull was not to attend.

  22. He sure did, and being rat junior, I bet he enjoyed doing it.

    The stupid thing is that both Mr. Crean and Mr. Turnbull could have attended the service. They cancelled one another out.

    Just as Mr. Albanese said in parliament that Mr,. Abbott and the Opposition get great pleasure out of seeing people unemployed, that they can hardly contain their glee.

    The Opposition leader is showing he is an vindictive person.

  23. I’m wondering if it was rented.

    Local reports are saying that the house was owned by the grandparents. There were 14 people in the house last night. It was a highset house which had been extended at the back and enclosed underneath like many in the area.

    That house always had lots of people around – many kids visitors and celebrations. I asume it was a focal point for many Pacific Islander locals.

  24. I understand darling daughter in law is Torres Strait Islander. Sunday at Great Nanny Lyn’s is always flurry of people and it’s traditional that everyone brings a plate or fresh caught fish. There could easily be 20 people there every Sunday plus weeknights too.

  25. Probably a lot of cultural similarities ther Min – especially when it comes to the importance of family.

    This article is probably the most accurate information I’ve seen online so far.

  26. What ultimately brought down Whitlam was the bastardry with Senate vacancies. It’s about to get very nasty again. Deep breaths everyone because we may be submerged soon.

  27. Min, Sue & CU, well done to Albo. Those dragons teeth are starting to sprout. And the opposition’s hypocrisy is laid bare. Why hasn’t Fisher been forced to resign from those committees? After all, she has been charged with a crime, Thomson has not.To paraphrase another well worn saying: chickens-roosts.

    I have just rung Kate Ellis’, Tanya Plibersek’s & Albo’s offices to ask them to put the pressure on the PM to have the media ownership enquiry in response to

    I think there must have been quite a few calls. Anyway, their secretaries promised to pass the message along. Also rang Secker to exhort him to vote yes for gay marriage after signing the Get Up! petition.

    He’s a useless article, in thrall to Smuggles, so don’t expect him to take any notice.

    AntonyG @5.01pm, another cunning Rodent jr plan thwarted. That mob really are disgusting. Smuggles radiates rage, thwarted entitlement, spite and vindictiveness and so do the nutjobs who worship at his twisted altar. He has infected the libs with a virulent plague virus inherited appropriately from his Rodent political sire.

    Until an effective vaccination is developed, this is what we’re stuck with.

  28. I just watched Mr. Abbott effort again. If you get the chance, watch the faces behinf Mr. Abbott. None looked very happy.

  29. CU @5.06pm I think that you might have called it. WHY couldn’t both Turnbull and Crean have attended Margaret Olley’s funeral, because as you say they would have cancelled each other out.

    I think that I smell a rat..of the Junior Rodent kind.

    Given that T’bull was a personal friend of Olley’s why didn’t he go? If not, why not. Then Abbott refused pairing – of course going against his previous PROMISE on pairing. This meant that Crean couldn’t attend the funeral either.

    Was this yet another of Tony Abbott’s GAMES?

  30. Jane
    Mary Jo Fisher has been charged with shoplifting and ASSAULT yet tony and his mob forget that bit and keep saying poor thing she was depressed. Tell that to the victim of the assault. WHERE IS THE TELEGRAPH AND THE HERALD SUN, a Senator being charged with ASSAULT and shoplifting (a trolley full of groceries) and I haven’t seen the headlines.

    So I am just going to have to shout from the Cafe, apologies to other visitors.

  31. Sue, you are more than welcome to SHOUT. And LOUDLY!! It’s just the same as, drugs and rock & roll make headlines.

  32. Sue @7.03pm, they haven’t forgotten. They’re just shouting “Look over here!” and pointing at Craig Thomson, hoping everyone will be distracted and forget their dirty laundry bag.

    Fat chance. There are too many skeletons in the Coalition cupboard and people like Albo have very long memories. Good on him for rattling the bones! That’s the problem when you start this sort of mud slinging. Unless you’re squeaky clean yourself, don’t whinge when you cop a face full!

  33. Thanks Jane @ 6.48
    My local member just got an email with a list of suggestions for inquiries, Media, Iraq war, AWB and Anderson sale of shares, Downer’s daughter and the internship etc. I also thought it was time the Labor party used parliamentary privilege for a few disclosures.
    I have just watched bloody Uhlmann and I am glad Albo accused him of using the Liberal party spin on Mary Jo Fisher. U said her charge was shoplifting and Albo went U because U actually knows the full charge against the woman but would not say it. U said then said, you state it, but Albo declined. Albo just wanted U to know that he was part of the Liberal spin machine, disgusting.

  34. Sue @7.59pm what a good idea. Sending an email like yours to one’s local member is an especially good idea.If they’re Libs., They’ll soon realise that they’re not fooling anyone and it might bring them up short; I reckon I’ll do the same.

    It’s time Labor went on the offensive and exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of the Smuggles Set.

    Uhlmann is a disgrace, imo. I believe the ratings are abysmal,so with luck he’ll be given the flick.

  35. If Mr. Brandis was Mr. Thomson’s barrister, I wonder what legal advice he would give him.

    I imagine the advice would be is that he has a tight to silence and should exercise that right.

    The law says one has to be proved guilty. It does not say you have to prove your innocence.

    What Mr. Abbott and the Opposition is demanding is not reasonable.

  36. Min @ 6.54pm re Kevin @ 6.28pm,
    Kevin Rennie
    What ultimately brought down Whitlam was the bastardry with Senate vacancies. It’s about to get very nasty again. Deep breathes everyone because we may be submerged soon.

    [Kevin, not the long jump off a short jetty I hope ! ]

    Australian Federal Election
    May 18, 1974

    The 1974 Federal Election was held just 17 months after the election of the Whitlam Labor Government. An intense period of legislative action was met by sustained opposition from the coalition Liberal and National Country Parties, and the Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.
    Following an attempt by Whitlam to create an extra Senate vacancy in Queensland by appointing former DLP Leader, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambasssador to Ireland, the Opposition Leader, Bill Snedden, announced that the Opposition would block the government’s Supply Bills in the Senate.

    Whitlam responded by calling a double dissolution election for May 18. Click here to read the proclamation by the Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck.

    His government was returned to office with the loss of two seats, but still lacking a clear majority in the Senate.

    1975 The Whitlam Government and Casual Senate Vacancies

    Following the elections of 1974, the composition of the Senate was:
    Liberal/Country Party 30
    Australian Labor Party 29
    Independent 1 (usually voted with the ALP)
    On these figures, the Senate could not block the Budget, or other money bills, because the vote would be tied, and therefore defeated.
    In January 1975, the Government appointed the Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, to the High Court, creating a Senate vacancy in New South Wales.

    In June 1975, an ALP senator from Queensland, Bert Milliner, died, creating a Senate vacancy in that State.

    Because the Constitution (Section 15) requires State Parliaments to appoint replacements for Senate vacancies, without having a full statewide election, it had always been a convention that a member of the same party as the dead or resigned senator was appointed to fill the vacancy.

    In the cases of Murphy and Milliner, however, the Liberal/Country Party government in NSW, led by Tom Lewis, and the Country/Liberal Party government in Queensland, led by Joh Bjelke-Petersen, chose to appoint non-Labor replacements. The numbers in the Senate thus became:

    Liberal/Country Party 30
    Australian Labor Party 27
    Independents 3 (only one voting with the ALP)
    This effectively gave control to the opposition parties. They did not have sufficient votes to pass their own motions, but they did have the requisite numbers to block the budget bills in October 1975.

    In 1977, a constitutional amendment proposed by the Fraser government was carried at a referendum which now requires that Senate vacancies be filled by members from the same party or political group as the departed senator.

    So Min and Kevin, we don’t have to be the proverbial rocket scientists to see that the rabbott is daily plotting ways to outnumber the minority government and grab the keys to the big house while he dreams of the Coalition ‘win’ in 1975 after they reneged on the gentlemen’s agreement on Senate vacancies.

    ***further reading – Google whitlam senate vacancies
    or whitlam dismissal dismissal

  37. I noticed the allegations are growing by the hour.

    I am surprised that Mr. Barnaby Joyce made many outlandish allegations outside the parliament.

    Who is supplying the information for these allegations.

    The thing that puzzles me, is why did Mr. Thomson take defamation action against SMH if he knew he was guilty.

    I am aware that some of the allegations being spread where raised in that action, causing Mr. Thomson to withdraw his case.

    Mr. Thomson has not denied the allegations but has consistently said he was not to blame.

    I get the impression that the card and maybe the phone were used by more than one person.

    The card and phone were in his name, as he was the head of the dept and responsible for overseeing the use of them.

    At this stage it is not up to the parliament or the PM to judge whether he is guilty of not. That is up to the Fair Work or the police and if charged with any crime the courts.

    Even if he is found guilty, it does not automatically follow that he will have to leave parliament.

    His crime could be one of negligence in carrying out his duties, or one of fraud or worse.

    He could be cleared of any wrong doing.

    It is common for allegations of this kind made by this Opposition, especially when they were in government to be false.

    Remember Mr. Haneef, the German lady and the poor Australian citizen they exiled to the Philippines. All innocent people.

    This Opposition has form in being loose with the truth. They are inclined to exaggerate everything that comes out of their mouths.

  38. Catching up, if George Brandis was “Special Counsel” to Craig Thomson, he would be advising him to plead a bad case of depression…….just like Senator Mary Jo Fisher is doing !

  39. Pip, you could well be correct.

    People are conveniently forgetting, politics is played hard in the union movement. That is why it is seen as a good training ground for becoming a MP.

    If you can rise up through and survive in the union movement, Federal politics is a piece of cake.

    Al the people making accusations against Mr Thomson , all have their own agendas.

    I am not saying he is innocence. At this stage I could not care less, as that is not what matters.

    The truth is that the legal process should and will take it’s course.

    When the matter is decided, parliamnet will then be in the positiion to decide his future.

    Mr. Abbott will just have to learn to wait, as he has to learn to wait for the next election. Both will come in good time.

    In the meantime the country will not explode, things will go on as usual.

  40. “just like Senator Mary Jo Fisher ”

    The trouble is that the lady probably does have a couple of screws loose, if her behaviour in the Senate is any indication. I am not only referring to that dance but her behaviour in general.

  41. Cu, Abbott continually announces that this government is a failure, can’t be trusted etc., but when we look at the track record of his crew I wonder how any of them can lie straight in bed

    It’s quite possible that Mr. Thomson withdrew from his Court case because of the expense.
    One reason for being kicked out of Parliament is bankruptcy which I think is why the Labor Party paid his legal fees. Makes sense to me.

    Brandis is a bit close to the wire re separation of powers and also the presumption of innocence, but being a ‘Special Counsel’ he knows exactly how far to push.

  42. Is this the way the Opposition respect and treat their supporters?

    What Mr. Pyne doesn’t understand is that a person only has one funeral.

    I am sure that WorkChoices might be the exception, to be resurrected and eventually buried again in the far off future.

    The debate yesterday could have been had at any time.

    The debate was only a matter of life and death for the Coalition and Mr. Abbott’s obsessive drive for power.

    What Mr. Pyne is ignoring that the Coalition was willing to use her funeral as an opportunity to gain power.

    Mr. Abbott is willing to trash the economy as we well know. Mr. Abbott is now willing to trash Australia’s good name and reputation in his quest.

    The question I would ask Mr. Abbott’s supporters:-

    What does Mr. Abbott have to offer for the well being of Australia?

    What kind of government is Mr. Abbott offering?

    Why would his government be better?

    “”….While Margaret Olley is a very significant Australian, and one for which the Opposition has the utmost respect – and I’d point out she was a self-declared Liberal supporter throughout her life – it is not appropriate for a funeral to take precedence over votes in the Parliament about the integrity of the Government,” he said.

    The Opposition says it will also refuse pairing arrangements for votes on the carbon tax….”

  43. ulman was his pathetic worst again last night on the 7.30 null. How low this show has sunk when interviewers need to be constantly corrected by the interviewee, not the other way around. You would assume that the interviewer had the facts before them, I mean, they are asking their own prepared questions. ulman appears to only get selective facts, and why is it always wrong when painting Labor in a bad light?

    CHRIS UHLMANN: Do you think that’s of a different order, though? That’s shoplifting; this is talking about $100,000 of uncredited credit card withdrawals.

    ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well it’s interesting that you use the Opposition spin there, Chris, of shoplifting. You know full well that the charges aren’t restricted to that against the Liberal senator.

    CHRIS UHLMANN: Detail them.

    Isn’t the interviewer supposed to know this? Albanese called his bs, and threw it back in his face. Yes, he knoew the charges. Why didn’t ulman? Or why didn’t ulman declare them?

    CHRIS UHLMANN: She’s standing down from that chair.

    ANTHONY ALBANESE: No, she stepped aside in terms of which is a different position from resigning. When you step aside, you retain the salary.

    It’s pretty simple facts like these that make ulman an embarrassment, and I think contribute largely to the decline in viewers. It’s not bad enough that they have Denialist as their lead correspondent, what’s worse is that he really cannot get his facts straight in most things he speaks on, and how he tries to couch everything in line with his world view, rather than in line with what is in fact transpiring.

    ANTHONY ALBANESE: We’re getting on with the job of providing good government. What Australians know is that if you compare our economic position, our position on jobs, with that of our counterparts in the industrialised world, there’s no country you’d rather be than Australia, that we’ve put in place those good economic management positions, that we’re putting in place national health reform. Last Friday’s COAG meeting had national transport regulators, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was advanced and national mental health reform. I think that’s what Australians are interested in. And over a period of time …

    CHRIS UHLMANN: (Inaudible) … in Parliament today, do you think that it lowers Parliament in the eyes of the people?

    He also is becoming adept at talking over his guests when they are answering a claim he has made and providing evidence against that charge. He really doesn’t like to have his talking points exposed for what they are does he? I’m also wondering why he didn’t want to hear about hte COAG meeting, as he cut him off a few times when Albanese brought it up. Wouldn’t that be news-worthy? Perhaps not to ulman, as it is good news for the government, and he is only concerned with bad, or what he can try and turn into bad.

    I wasn’t a real big fan of Albanese, but in this toxic environment, he really is able to throw it back in his antagonisers faces with pure facts and a dry wit to add to the sting.

    And ulman still is one of the worst ‘reporters’ around (a pretty admirable achievement considering the quality of media we have right now)

  44. I was going to put this up on the Media Watch thread the other day, but work just got away with me.

    It was in relation to a couple of links that had been put up, and how the voters ignorance of events is our fault, not theirs.

    But the government is trapped in a parallel universe. Such is the disconnect between it and the people, which at its core is caused by hostility over the carbon tax, there is no kudos for anything it achieves.

    As this week’s Essential Report illustrates, there is lukewarm support (36 per cent) for the deal driven by low awareness of the changes (only 8 per cent say they have heard a lot about them). More than half respondents either say they don’t know what they think or don’t have a view one way or the other.

    Considering that people get their news through the lens of a corporation whose agenda is clear (we get every failure, perceived failure, and success dressed up as failure, amplified and perpetuated until all we hear is failure) it’s not surprising that these things are missed. But everyone knows Thompson has a credit card.

    And the media shuffle their feet, heads down, and point to their readers, blaming them for not being informed. WTF?

  45. Thank you for that link Tom, much appreciated. It’s nonsensical..Albanese provided a list of the government’s recent achievements and Ulhmann’s response was:

    in Parliament today, do you think that it lowers Parliament in the eyes of the people?

  46. He really is a one trick Pony. He picks his line of attack, and sticks to it, not matter how much it unravels in the course of the ‘interview’.

  47. Tom re: at its core is caused by hostility over the carbon tax.

    And why is there such ‘hostility’ over the carbon tax..because the MSM decided that there should be. It’s just the same old game that they play, the BER was a ‘rort’ or a ‘fiasco’ and now the carbon tax causes a hostile reaction.

    Just imagine if Tony Abbott’s Direct Action Plan received the same constant negative publicity with suitable adjectives such as ‘fiasco’, I wonder then if he would be travelling nearly as well in the polls.

  48. Tony Abbott continues to hrp on about the Poink Batts and tragic death of 4 people during this programme and disgracefully blaming the government instead of the businesses that did not ensure compliance with workplace safety.

    Under Tony Abbotts rule we need to hold the coalition responsible for the 16 Deaths in the building of the Sydney Harbour Bridge plus the deaths of 121 Workers in the Snowy Mounatins scheme as both were commissioned and commenced during coalition governments.

    The government needs to realise they have a toxic and venemous opposition leader who will use any means, fair or foul, to become leader of the country even if for a day. It should be gloves off, no more pairing and the tearing up of any agreements between the two parties.

    While I would not normally advocate this type of action I believe the time has come to stop the niceties and use the same disgraceful tactrics of Tony Abbott and start talking abpout and questioning the integrity of Coalition members as well. They could start with Peter Slipper.

  49. Tom R your post is a very good example of why we need an investigation into the media. Could I suggest you send it to a few MPs asking for their support for Bob Brown’s call for an inquiry.
    I watched QT on Monday where Albanese was explaining the benefits of the reform to Transport rules as agreed at COAG. He had as example 4 large folders of Road transport rules that a haulage company from SA supplies to all its vehicle. Another example A had previously given was on train signals, in one state red light over green light meant proceed with caution in another it meant full speed ahead. Yet these initiatives of good governance are not reported on. The only thing reported from COAG was O’Farrells dodgy climate assumptions.

  50. Please excuse my typing, ever since I upgraded to Adobe 10 there seems to be issues with the placing of my details and the link buttons which are usually below the reply box being over the typing area.

  51. I think that Malcolm Farr has summarised the situation quite nicely.

    But spare me the latter-day hand-wringing of the Opposition.

    The Opposition turned up for this debate long after most others. The Health Service Union and reporters have been testing the allegations and following due process for years.

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott now is leading the Opposition’s outrage, despite not showing it back in 2009 when the allegations against Mr Thomson first appeared, or during the 2010 election.

  52. The manager of Opposition Business is at it again. Attempting to trash agreements made for private members bills and business.

    Mr. Pyne has attempted to make amendments to Mr. Albanese motion to suspend standing orders to allow private members business which is decided at an regular selection committee.

    Mr. Albanese pointed out that the only hindrance to the government getting on with government business is the actions of the Opposition.

    The Independents are pointing out that the Opposition in attempting to water down agreements made.

    Mr Pyne is once again making an hash of it. Another hour has been wasted.

    It was pointed out by Mr. Oakeshott that there is a watering down of all agreements. He noted that he matter of urgency is a matter that has been around for more than thee years.

    The leader of the house has been warn that Evey vote counts. The speaker indicating that he is in danger of being ejected.

    By the way, the Opposition opposed the plain packaging bill after saying they would support of it. The tobacco money won.

    I do not think this action of Mr. Pyne has turned out as they thought.

    Mr. Oakeshott gave a spirited defence of the present parliament and the way it is operating.

    Mr. Hockey is now talking about conventions that set the tone of the house. Ha, Ha, Ha

  53. Shane, let your cursor hover over those annoying words. They sometimes disappear for a second or two. Alternative use the down arrow, that sometimes help.

    It is lovely listening to the speaker taking the Opposition to task. They are nearly in tears at their lack of success.

  54. And it’s sadly a WordPress thing, not a scrap that anyone can do about it…I wish that WordPress would hurry up and fix it (stern looks).

  55. I didn’t quite catch it, but it seems that the PM is saying that she is concerned as it seems that Brandis may have contacted the NSW government in relationship to the Thomson issue.

  56. CU

    Thanks for the advice. I do need ot do that and am glad that it is not just myself that suffers from the problem.

  57. It appears that Mr. Brandis approached the NSW State Minister for Police after being told by the police that they would look at his allegations.

    This apparently did not suit Mr. Brandis.

    If it only merit looking at the information one day. Why on the next day make an announcement and write to Mr. Brandis that they were investigating Mr. Thomson.

    Neither Mr. Brandis or the state minister has the right to interfere with how the police conduct their inquiries.

  58. Shane, itis still an nuisance. It is hard to edit what one writes, especailly as I am one that does not appear to be able to hit the right keys.

  59. The result of Mr. Pynes action n the house this morning is that other hour and half wasted. The Liberal MP did not get to debate his concern about the harm wild dogs cause.

    Maybe the greater threat from wild dogs is in the house, on the opposition side.

    It appears that on ABC this morning most responses to the question of what occurred in parliament yesterday. Most seem to object to the actions of Mr. Abbott.

  60. Pip

    Thanks for that. Saved me a lot of work.

    Interesting analogy is that the so-called Khemlani loans affair of 1975 was really about the Whitlam govt trying to have some control of our mineral resources. Same old same old. Take a good look at who’s behind the Galileo Movement: The Lord Monckton roadshow

    It’s the golden rule!

  61. I wonder if Mr. Abbott realises with his actions that lead nowhere, he does not have much clout in this government.

    He appears to be hardening the Independents stand against him.

    It is Mr. Abbott who has been going around the country boastng that he could stop the bill.

    The truth is that this was another one of his exaggerations and the chickens and reality are now coming home to roost.

    It is not the government that is under pressure. They are deliving their agenda.

    It is Mr.Abbott that is under pressure because he cannot deliever any of his threats.

    He cannot even keep his promises. No one knows what he is going to do until he does it.

    Example is the plain packging bill last night. He was supporting the bill right up to the vote. The Opposition then voted against it.

  62. CU, I agree..Abbott has the people-skills of a flea and has always failed to realize that the more you try to bully and brow-beat a person the more likely it is that they will harden their resolve.

  63. Labor has broken no conventions in regard to Mr. Thomson.

    Mr. Howard took similar actions with the many ministers and parliamentary secretaries that were in similar plight.

    The government is able to move on with it’s agenda in parliament.

    Yes, I believe that Mr. Abbott is making a fool of himself and is only displaying how little power he has against a government he considers in disarray and unable to function.

    TomM, about half of the people in this country support the right or the Coalition and the same number the left or Labor.

    TomM, whom you support, I do not know or care less. It is only what you have to say, that I am interested in.

    Yes TomM. There is much that Labor does I do not agree with. There is much less that the Liberals do that I agree with. I do not know why, but up to the arrival of Mr. Howard, there was much I like about Liberal Policies. I do not believe I have changed. I believe they have.

  64. Sorry Min, I missed the beginning with my cut and paste. Ths will ma more sense.

    “Why does that worry you TomM.

    I have never claim to support any other side. In your mind, are only those on the right capable of making comments.

    Yes, I support Labor and see no reason to change my mind.

    If you disagree, that is OK

    If you disagree with what I have to say, that is your right.

    It would assist me if you could point out what I have said that is wrong.

    I have only gave my impressions of what is occurring in parliament.

    I feel that many on the other side of the political fence might have similar thoughts.

    Look at the faces of those sitting behind Mr. Abbott yesterday. Not a smile among them.

    The story of Mr. Thomson is a beat-up by the Opposition. Yes he has questions to answer, and that I would say should be to those investigating him. There is still a presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent. It is up to the authorities finding him guilty. One, under our justice system is not expected to prove their evidence.

    There are ongoing investigations into his actions. Fair Work Australia has a long ongoing investigation into the matter. Now thanks to Mr. Brandis and the state minister interference, there is now a NSW police investigation……

  65. ulman continues his idiocy

    things are being done Marius

    none of this stuff seems to be getting through to the electorate

    [audio src="" /]


    He also reckons that this pathetic, ignorant pairing issue is simply ‘bare-knuckle politics’

  66. Mr. Abbott is getting a hard time on ABC 24. His answers do not make ense. More slogans that heis being pulled up on.

  67. Mr. Abbott looks a litle tired. He does not like the questioninmg. Every answer is we won’t have a carbon tax.

    That is funny, I was unaware we are having a carbon tax.

  68. ‘Every answer is we won’t have a carbon tax.’

    OMG CU, that means that for once he is right. Yes, we will have an ETS with a fixed price for the first 3 years 😯

  69. Did Bob Brown put his proposal to parliament that Alan Jones be forced to apologise for the lies he made about the Canberra Police and the ficticious blockade of trucks at the so called NSW/ACT Border ?

  70. Who is supplying the information for these allegations.

    They’re plucking them out of their @rses, CU as they always do. I think it’s time the government initiated another full enquiry into the AWB scandal, children overboard etc and the extent to which current Smuggles Set members were involved. I’d start with an investigation into Senator Brandis’ role in these scandals. That should keep him occupied for a few decades.

    Min @11.16am, on behalf of fleas, I object to your comparing our people skills being on a par with Smuggles. Ours are far superior. I demand an apology to fleadom!

    CU, @11.56am, at last! Smuggles has made a truthful statement. No carbon tax, but there will be a carbon price, which fyi ToM, is exactly what Julia Gillard said before the election. It’s on the record, so pull your head out of Smuggles’ backside and do the research instead of parrotting the Parrot.

  71. Jane, profuse least fleas have a use, but for the life of me I can’t work out what this might be 😉

  72. Thank you, Min. Fleas just don’t like being connected to Smuggles even in the most nebulous way. In fact, they avoid the fellow like the plague (pun intended) because he gives them the plague. Which suggests that Smuggles may be of some use after all. 😆

  73. More whinging here about the opposition. If you don’t want every detail of your personal life and all your past behaviour examined, don’t seek a political career.

    If you have a few skeletons in the cupboard that you would prefer not to have discussed in public, get another career. If you’re a union hack that has used union funds as a personal bank account, expect this to become an issue.

    It’s bizarre the way all the barrackers here seem to think there is nothing in Thomson’s behaviour to cause some concern.

    Many union members and officials think his behaviour is a disgrace. But apparently not you lot.

  74. ToMM, yep spot on. I’ve actually been there and done that. When running I had dredged up that I’d been to a spa and it ran for several weeks in the local newspapers. Yes I went to a spa alright, with my friend N* (a girl).

    Not at all ToM re ‘Thomson’s behaviour’’s innocent until proven guilty. So far all that we have is issues referred for consideration to the police, and it is yet to be even taken to court much less a conviction.

    That’s the thing about Common Law and indeed I believe that this is WHY our law is superior to many other’s innocent until proven guilty by a court of law..not the media, not a poll but via a duly appointed Court of Law.

  75. Tom of Melb
    Mary Jo Fisher charged with ASSAULT and shoplifting, still in the Senate, still lapping up the Public Purse from the committee she has stood aside from. That is right although on charges she has not resigned from the Committee but accepting the money. So if what you say is right about not
    having things discussed in Public, where are the headlines in the Herald Sun about the Senator or are their double standards
    And last year a gay liberal got a court order preventing the public know his name, remember the blackmail case. Obviously that is one skeleton that will stay hidden. What a disgrace a practising liar.

  76. “It’s bizarre the way all the barrackers here seem to think there is nothing in Thomson’s behaviour to cause some concern.”

    That is your perception of what is happening. All most are saying, it should be treated the same way as previous incidents have been treated.

    What some are saying that Mr. Abbott could not care less about Mr. Thomson, except for the opportunity sees as a way of hurting the government.

    TomM, you more than most know that there is much more this to this story than the allegations made about Mr. Thomson.

    The deputy opposition leader has opened a pandora’s box that jusy might come back and haunt her.

    Not one word about forgotten families.

    Ms. Bishop has attack the PM and her links with Fair Works Australia/

    Ms. Bishop has ignored or maybe does not know there are also connection between Ms. Jackson and Fair Works Australia.

    Did the PM refer the matter to FW or did the union involved.

    Why would the PM have any role in this investigation. It should be between the union and FW.

    “…Fears are growing in labour movement circles that the NSW police probe into Craig Thomson could spell the end for his former union, as the house of cards that has let well-paid officials sup for decades from their members’ teat collapses.
    Yesterday, Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson announced that she would refer allegations of criminality inside the union to the NSW Police. But union insiders say the likely upshot of the probe, overseen by tenacious former National Crime Authority investigator and chief commissioner Andrew Scipione, is that the pockets of all current and former HSU officials — and not just Thomson — will be turned inside out.
    Scipione won’t need to look far. Crikey readers will recall that Jackson’s ex-husband, factional handmaiden and former HSU state secretary Jeff Jackson was accused of an eerily similar misuse of members’ funds at brothels and gastro pubs like The Lincoln in Carlton in a 2009

    Fears are growing in labour movement circles that the NSW police probe into Craig Thomson could spell the end for his former union, as the house of cards that has let well-paid officials sup for decades from their members’ teat collapses.
    Yesterday, Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson announced that she would refer allegations of criminality inside the union to the NSW Police. But union insiders say the likely upshot of the probe, overseen by tenacious former National Crime Authority investigator and chief commissioner Andrew Scipione, is that the pockets of all current and former HSU officials — and not just Thomson — will be turned inside out.
    Scipione won’t need to look far. Crikey readers will recall that Jackson’s ex-husband, factional handmaiden and former HSU state secretary Jeff Jackson was accused of an eerily similar misuse of members’ funds at brothels and gastro pubs like The Lincoln in Carlton in a 2009

    Fears are growing in labour movement circles that the NSW police probe into Craig Thomson could spell the end for his former union, as the house of cards that has let well-paid officials sup for decades from their members’ teat collapses.
    Yesterday, Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson announced that she would refer allegations of criminality inside the union to the NSW Police. But union insiders say the likely upshot of the probe, overseen by tenacious former National Crime Authority investigator and chief commissioner Andrew Scipione, is that the pockets of all current and former HSU officials — and not just Thomson — will be turned inside out.
    Scipione won’t need to look far. Crikey readers will recall that Jackson’s ex-husband, factional handmaiden and former HSU state secretary Jeff Jackson was accused of an eerily similar misuse of members’ funds at brothels and gastro pubs like The Lincoln in Carlton in a 2009 ….

    An alternative theory is that Jackson decided to call in the cops as a stop gap to halt the tide of revelations that were on the verge of snagging the HSU’s ruling clique. If she failed to act, angry members may have forged a reform ticket and demanded fresh elections.
    As she noted yesterday, the Fair Work investigation which commenced in 2009 is still being worked through. Uncomfortably for Jackson, her partner Michael Lawler is a member of Fair Work Australia and a vice president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission….

  77. KL I’ve said previously that Senator Mary Jo is a nutcase who should never have been preselected. I have no problem pointing out that she is a complete irrational fool.

    Her behaviour in parliament is bizarre, regardless of her stupidity outside parliament. It must be humiliating for South Australians to have her as a representative.

    However, her actions are a different level of magnitude to the actions of Craig.

    He got preselection as part of a union transition deal – it is the way hacks finish up in parliament because the union(s) find it convenient that is a disgrace too.
    By barrackers, I am of course referring to the usual suspects elsewhere. People here seem quite rational.

  78. I mean to post the above at GT, of course this place is overwhelmed with barrackers who don’t even bother to express the types of concerns that many union officials do.

  79. ToM, Thomson is entitled to the presumption of innocence and so does Mary Jo – who has indeed been charged. Neither have been found guilty and so both are to be presumed innocent until the Courts have found them to be otherwise. Mary Jo however has been charged which Thomson has not been.

  80. Min, reasonable people know something is entirely wrong with the expenditure of union member’s funds on prostitutes and unaccounted cash withdrawals.

    There has been plenty covered up by Thomson, the ALP and (previously) the union.

    Many union officials have expressed concern about how this reflects on unions generally.

    But here it is just more repetitive “blame the media” and “blame the opposition”. It really is quite hopeless and blinkered.

  81. ToM, it doesn’t matter what speculation there might be – we are still a Common Law country and it’s innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

    Trial via gossip does not make a person guilty. We in Australia have courts and a legal system who can view all of the evidence and who can make reasoned decisions based upon this evidence.

    I have absolutely no idea whether Thomson is guilty or not because he has not been found guilty in a court of law..all else is nothing more than gossip.

  82. No ToM, facts of law. We are a Common Law country along with the UK and the USA, and a number of others and the Rule of Law is innocent until proven guilty.

    This is one of he basics of democracy. This is one of the foundations of democracy.

  83. Min, he hasn’t been charged. So there is no reason for him or Julia (or you) to use that excuse.

    There is a case to answer and all the barrackers here are demonstrating just that. Many ALP people are furious that he was preselected and just as furious that his sleazy activities are tainting the government.

    Min, there was a time that you were capable of showing more independence of mind and analysis.

  84. TomM on his usual hypocrisy trip where he has a go at “barrackers” whilst of course projecting at its finest. This is TomM’s recent attack point after his miserable efforts of the past. Like his efforts of the past he will just keep on repeating the meme over and over whilst ignoring his own hypocrisy on the matter.

    He would be a laugh a post if he wasn’t predicable and banal in his narrow minded attacks.

    Now for his retort… wait for it.

  85. Oh I meant to add do you note when TomM came riding in here?

    That’s right, yet again when there was a full on legitimate attack on Abbott and his lies, distortions and deceits along with his failing as an opposition leader. And TomM has the gall to call others “barrackers”.

  86. ToM re there was a time that you were capable of showing more independence of mind and analysis. I find that hard to believe 😀

  87. “Min, reasonable people know something is entirely wrong with the expenditure of union member’s funds on prostitutes and unaccounted cash withdrawals”

    Yes TomM, there appears to be something wrong.

    The problem is that in spite of audits by the union and two years investigation by Fair Work Australia, they are not sure what is wrong and who to blame.

    We also cannot ignore that thee have been power struggles within the unions, which I suspect has been going on for decades.

    Something is wrong, when after all this time, there is no identification of the problem, even if there is a problem.

    TomM, it is a long time since I was in the workforce, but the field I worked in involved these unions.

    In my day it was HAREA or PSA, as well as a union that covered those who worked for the charities.

    The work in all fields was the same.

    It was very complicated what union covered what industry. What was needed was for the mess to be sorted out. The game was played hard and at times dirty.

    TomM I have been involved in other unions. They all play politics hard. To be effective, there is no choice.

    I wonder if we will ever know the truth of these allegations.

    “Many union officials have expressed concern about how this reflects on unions generally”

    Really, when did they become so thinned skinned.

  88. Mobius..should I have another try? What the heck..I may as well.

    ToM, we are a democracy, we are a Common Law country. A basis of both is innocent until proven guilty.

    All else is gossip and speculation until a person is tried and found guilty.


    According to Coorey, current deputy speaker Peter Slipper would then ‘do a Colston’ and assume the speakership with Labor support. The Fisher MP already has form on the ratting front, having famously brokered a deal with Anthony Albanese to pocket an extra $30,000 as deputy speaker last year against Tony Abbott’s wishes.

    Under the massively-unstable new paradigm, the Labor government would retain 75 seats (including Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Adam Bandt) with the Coalition on 74 (including Bob Katter and Tony Crook).

    But here’s where it gets interesting. Crikey understands that the MP referred to by Grattan is none other than Slipper, or “Slippery Pete” as he is widely known on Capital Hill. He would presumably be assisted in his decision-making by an implicit Labor threat to detonate a dirty bomb if he failed to cross the floor.

    Slipper’s document is said to be bulging.

  90. Breathtakingly stupid and partisan hypocrisy.

    On matters of sleazy and questionable behaviour by politicians I suppose you always keep your mind open, on the off chance that the police may, or may not, decide to investigate at some point.

    This place is full of self serving, partisan obfuscation.

  91. Does that mean Tom of M is leaving the Cafe, again.
    Definitely a bad week for Abbott, especially after he was creamed in QT and had a whinge to his own side after QT ended. Just like the bully he is he told those that would listen that the PM was petulant.
    And guess who displayed the most petulance, none other then Tony Abbott by banning Turnbull from attending the funeral of Margaret Olley. That was definitely a get even tactic. What leadership material NOT

  92. Many union members and officials think his behaviour is a disgrace.

    And you know that how, ToM? From the spittle flecked sh!t dribbling from Brandis and the rest of that pack of hypocrites? So far all we’ve been treated to is the usual lies, innuendo and gossip dressed up as fact by the usual suspects. And the only reason they’re pursuing it is the Smuggles Set’s gigantic sense of entitlement.

    Thomson hasn’t been charged with anything. The best you can do is pedal unfounded allegations whipped up by? Oh yes. The Smuggles Set, those paragons of honesty, integrity and veracity.

    And how do you know he has a case to answer-because Smuggles and his cheerleaders Anal and Dolt said? The police haven’t even conducted an investigation, let alone decided there is a case to answer.

    Fisher has been charged with shoplifting and assault, but I don’t notice the Smuggles Set or you, having a crack at her. Sniff sniff! Is that a gigantic pile of Smuggles Set hypocrisy I smell?

  93. Jane – another barracker excusing a sleazy MP who has spent union member’s money on prostitutes.

  94. ToM @9.46pm, any proof of that or just more Smuggle Set sh!t dribbling from your mouth? If you have proof that he did so, perhaps you should provide the police with a statement and your evidence.

    Oh wait, your evidence was mined from the Smuggles Set Bulging Book of Lies, Innuendo, Gossip and Complete Bullshit. Their Teeny Weeny Book of Facts is still awaiting its first syllable.

    Just as a matter of interest, how big will your dummy spit be when the police find zip? Nuclear? Bigger than the big bang?

  95. When legitimate questions are asked about the integrity and behaviour of an MP, barrackers like Jane prefer to close the discussion with – “have confidence the police will uncover the truth!”

    Really do you lot take yourselves seriously?

  96. ….barrackers like Jane prefer to close the discussion with – “have confidence the police will uncover the truth!”

    ToM, perhaps if you took the trouble to quote what I actually said instead of something out of the Smuggles Set grab bag of Any Lie Will Do,”barrackers” like me might take you seriously.

    But like all Smuggles Set boosters, you get pouty when you’re called on your hypocrisy.

    I really hope the NSW cops say Thomson has no case to answer; the thought of the wingnut meltdown is too delicious and if Sloppy exploded like the fat diner in The Meaning of Life and Smuggles fell on his sword, it would be the icing on the cake. One could die a very happy person. lol

  97. ‘So there is no reason for him or Julia (or you) to use that excuse.’


    I guess that means if you want to have the presumption of innocence, he’d better rush off to the police station and get himself charged with something.?

    Or even better, why not get a pollie to call the cops and see if they can move things along 😉

    The PM also got to use the issue to attack the opposition wuite effectively yestrerday

    Mr ABBOTT: Kathy Jackson is a brave, decent woman, and she is speaking up on behalf of 70,000 members. I refer the Prime Minister to her words:
    … there’s been unauthorised use of credit cards, unauthorised expenditure that is not normal union expenditure and we want answers … This union and our members require answers …
    When will this Prime Minister ask the member for Dobell to provide some answers? When will she give them herself?
    Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): As I said in answer to the earlier question, I know Kathy Jackson. I know her particularly from the days when I was shadow minister for health and she was campaigning alongside me against the destruction of the Australian health system being presided over by the now Leader of the Opposition. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against his destruction of Medicare and bulk-billing. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against his $1 billion worth of cutbacks to the public hospital system. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against the disgraceful way that Australians—
    Dr Stone: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you are aware of what it will be, Mr Speaker—it is on relevance. There is nothing in the question from the Leader of the Opposition which asks about the health portfolio or past history; it is about the issue of the day.
    The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
    Ms GILLARD: It is not my fault that they are badly drafted. On a question that specifically raised character issues in relation to Kathy Jackson, I am responding. In specifically responding to those character issues as raised, I remind the parliament about the campaign that she and others participated in because pensioners could not get the most basic dental care under the Leader of the Opposition when he was presiding as health minister. Let us remember all of the things that were happening as they sought to spread Work Choices to the public hospital system. Let us remember the real threats that there were to tie public hospital funding to the offering of Australian workplace agreements so that staff in public hospitals would have things like their penalty rates smashed away. That is what was happening when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health.
    I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that I understand that he has used Kathy Jackson’s words; and he would understand—I am sure he does understand this—that the matter is now being assessed by the New South Wales police. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition would know that because his shadow minister, Senator Brandis, has been out in a deeply concerning fashion ringing the New South Wales police minister to get the New South Wales police minister to ring the police commissioner. Senator Brandis is ringing up his Liberal mate to ring up a police commissioner. Why would this be happening? Why would I be concerned about this? I am concerned about it because I remember the days when the Leader of the Opposition was running political protection for Wilson Tuckey after he tried to intimidate the police into withdrawing a speeding fine from his son.
    So, when we look at the modern Liberal Party, what do they believe in? Saying no to everything—they believe in that; rejoicing when workers lose their jobs—they believe in that; creating a $70 billion black hole—they obviously believe in that; and from their past conduct we know they are not above putting pressure on police officers, because it has happened before, and now Senator Brandis has some explaining to do.

    Click to access rhansard.pdf

    It is also using the ‘hypocrisy’ card to full effect. Something ‘barrackers’ for the other team assiduously ignore. I particularly like the way that pyne tries to tell us the Government has an ‘interity’ problem, while at the same time his ‘team’ are throwing out a written agreement for a pairing because ‘the situation has changed’. Interestingly, he forgets to note that the situation has changed only because his team wanted to change it. Nobody has forced them to, and he cannot explain why they didn’t change it years ago when this first surfaced. Even the experts appear to think that, even if this investigation into if there should be an investigation succeeds, there is nothing there to actually charge Thomson with anyway.

    But the opposition will continue to throw mud, and the media will contiue to splatter it around for them, and in the meantime, no real news will get through, which is really all the opposition want. Because the news in regards to policy is all good for the government. We just won’t hear about it, because they don’t want us to. And they is both the media and their partners the opposition.

  98. Tom, that’s the one that I just spotted too…

    Ian Dobinson, a criminal law lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney, said it was unlikely Mr Thomson would face a fraud charge under the NSW Crimes Act as suggested by the federal shadow attorney-general, George Brandis.

    It would need to be proven there had been dishonest deception in the way a financial advantage had been obtained, and this was unlikely to be proven.

    Mr Dobinson is of course spot on, what would have to be proven is a financial advantage.

  99. “This place is full of self serving, partisan obfuscation.”

    TomM, you could possibly be correct. I like to think the place is full of people who do not accept allegations, some from very dubious sources as fact.

    People who believe in the rule of law in this country.

    The truth is that we do not know whether Mr. Thomson is guilty as alleged.

    TomM, no one knows the answer to that question. No one can make assumptions until the investigations are completed. The fact that two investigation have been going on over two years without any outcome, suggests the matter is not a shut and open case.

    TomM, many of us are able to keep an open mind until facts are in.

    Mr. Thomson could be guilty as alleged. Mr. Thomson could be innocence. Mr. Thomson could be guilty of duty of care to the union. Mr Thomson could be found not to have taking due care in his management of the union.

    There are many outcomes arising from the allegations in the public arena. These allegations have grown legs of their own. Many, including Mr. Joyce have elaborated on what they believe the allegations to mean. This is not fact. Many have agendas of their own in this matter.

    The present head of the union, Ms. Jackson was careful to say there were not any new facts, only new allegations in the Telegraph.

    The union could have taken the matter to the olive in the last three years, they have chosen not to.

    Maybe many more than Mr. Thomson has reason to fear any investigation. What I have written is only conjecture on my part. Most of what is in the public arena is conjecture on the part of others.

    When it comes to the Liberal Senator, the Opposition is downplaying the case and putting their own perception on the matter, claiming the lady is mentally ill and therefore not responsible for her actions. If this is the case, why has she not taken leave from parliament until she is well again.

    The surprisingly news is that the PM was looking into the allegations in 2009. It is obvious that if the Labor found any truth in the allegations at that time, Mr. Thomson would not have been endorsed for the 2010 elections. This report has shown that our PM has her finger on the pulse.

  100. :Mr Gallagher then rang the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, who later announced the matter was being assessed.

    Senator Brandis and Mr Gallagher argued yesterday the phone calls were courtesy calls only but the government implied pressure had been brought to bear.:

    Maybe but when back in the dark ages when I worked for Doc’s, a courtesy call was taken very seriously.

    We would spend days rushing around, ensuring the Minister got what they want.

    No courtesy call was dismissed as not being important.

    Even a call from the local member was not ignored.

    Read more:

  101. Did anyone noticed, there were no factory visits or photo ops this week?

    Has the man worn out his welcome at work sites.

  102. Will some one tell me how the media is able to get hold of private banking details.

    In the last couple of days, there have been many incidents of this happening.

    Mr. Thomson and Mr. Stoner bank statements and withdrawals are there for all to see.

    Don’t we have any rights for privacy any more.

    I wonder how the brothel that gave out the alleged Mr. Thomson’s details, can ensure to their present customers that their privacy is protected.

    I am not a man or interested in going to a brothel, but I am sure I would be wary of visting one now.

  103. CU @ 8.11am – can you see the “Edit This” title which precedes the date on entries. If not, I might have to change you status..I’m sure that the boss won’t mind. 😉

  104. Barrackers here seem to think that questions of ethics and standards amongst the parliamentarians are best dealt with by the police. No place for discussion.

    Strange barrackers here.

  105. Min, I only have the edit on the site I make my post.

    It is about time I made another effort, maybe along the line of “what a week!”.

    So much is happening, it is hard to posts supporting the negatives.

    When I find something positive to say about our illustrous Opposition Leader, I promise TomM, I will be the first to write about it.

    How is yourgrand daughter going?

  106. No TomM, we believe that criminal matters are best dealt with by the police and the legal system.

    We go further, the parliament has no place to play in these matters.

    We believe in the separation of powers between the legal and parliamentary systems.

    The Opposition leader is not debating standards. The are declaring a member guilty of a crime before investigations have finished and charges laid.

    The Opposition is going further, they are exaggerating the allegations made and putting their own spin on what is in the public arena.

    We are not saying whether we believe Mr. Thomson is guilty or not. The reason for this is that we just do not know. No one else knows the answer to this, I suggest including those making the investigations.

  107. CU, I’m about to have a go at changing that – let me know if you can see edit this to the left of the date on individual comments. This will solve your spell check problem because you will be able to edit your comments.

  108. CU, thank you for asking..Millie came out of hospital on Wednesday but bubs is still there, however the good news is that she is out of intensive care.

  109. CU @9.51am exactly..well said. Of course ethics and standards are important. Perhaps T’bull should have been sacked from parliament over the Godwin Grech affair and what about Ruddock over the falsification of the Children Overboard photos and Howard too of course.

    You see it’s like this, although these are ethnics and standards they are not criminal actions. Actually Ruddock and Howard come pretty damn close via falsification of official records.

  110. That’s just partisan nonsense, police decide not to prosecute individuals for a range of reasons.

    Common law standards rely on the balance of probability, the standard for criminal prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.

    Political and ethical matters are entitled to be dealt with on the common law standard, this is the level of evidence that applies in employment law and there is no reason to seek to apply a different stand to judgments about Thomson’s behaviour.

    On the balance of probability he certainly has plenty of answers to provide, regardless of what the police choose to do.

    But regardless of this the public is entitled to insist on better standards of behaviour from parliamentarians.

    Spending your employer’s money in brothels isn’t a standard anyone should protect, and on the balance of probability this is the most likely explanation of what Thomson did.

    Have you always had this level of confidence in the police? You should try address the issue without just lapsing into a repetition of the ALP speaking notes.

  111. Min, edit is now on this site. I assume it is on all others. You have taken away my excuse for bad grammar.


  112. ToMM, Common Law simply means a legal system of case law or a system based on that of precedence..that is, a court is bound to follow the reasoning used in a prior decision stare decisis. Common Law also includes the appellate system where for example a High Court ruling cannot be overturned by a lower court.

    By ‘the balance of probability’ you mean the Burden of Proof. In criminal matters the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. And to the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

    By referring the Thomson matter to the police, it becames a criminal matter and not a civil matter.

    Irrespective of what I might think of Thomson should he have spent employer’s money on escort services, in Australia we are still bound by the convention of innocent until proven guilty.

  113. TomM, the main reason police do not prosecute is that they have found no case to answer.

    TomM, do you really believe in this political climate they would make the decision not to prosecute if there was a case to answer.

    Sorry, I do not live in a dream world where I can pick and choose what to believe.

    Mr. Thomson will be charged even if the case is very weak. The police and prosecutors due to political interference have no other choice.

    The fire where eleven died is really sad. It appears that many where due to move the next day into new rental premises.

    There appears that two of the aunties were ill and arrangements were being made to care for them.

    It is one of the saddest press conference I have watched.

    This is the story that warrants headlines, not allegations that are up to three years old about a Labor politician. This story and what is occurring in Libya.

  114. ToMM re “Spending your employer’s money in brothels isn’t a standard anyone should protect, and on the balance of probability this is the most likely explanation of what Thomson did.”

    I think that you might have yourself a little confused. The balance of probability is the standard which the court uses, not the police. The police will look at ALL OF THE EVIDENCE not just the snippets which the MSM might choose to talk about and decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to obtain “a likelihood” of a conviction. IF the police decide not to proceed, it will be for this reason only..that they, the police believe that there is insufficient evidence.

    IF the police decide to proceed THEN it will be up to the court “on the balance of probabilities” as to whether the person is or is not guilty.

  115. Standards of behaviour by employees are dealt with on the balance of probability – parliamentarians are entitled to have the same standard applied to them.

    But barrackers here obfuscate, avoid discussion about appropriate behaviour by our elected leadership and representatives.

    I suppose they refrain from avoiding discussion about footballer’s attitudes towards women, unless the police choose to prosecute. Don’t discuss bullying in the workplace, because police choose not to prosecute.

    It really is pathetic.

  116. “Spending your employer’s money in brothels isn’t a standard anyone should protect, and on the balance of probability this is the most likely explanation of what Thomson did.?”

    Mr. Thomson has denied this. He still innocent until proven guilty.

    Sorry but it is unethical to say anything else. There is no balance of probability. It is one person’s statement against another.

    You are correct in saying in some incidents the balance of probability carries weight.

    If this is the case, why has the union not taken Mr. Thomson to court to recover the money.

    They have had a leading firm make a audit of the union’s finances and past the information on to Fair Works Australia.

    If there is any evidence they have the means to seek address in other courts. Ones, as you say only need the balance of probability.

    They have not done this. I would have thought they have a duty to recover any monies spent illegally on behalf of their members.

    Yes. TomM, there are many unanswered questions. They do not only involve Mr. Thomson.

  117. “pathetic”

    The buzz word of the week.

    The NSW Police Minister used it in describing the PM. Mr Abbott used it in his MPI speech in describing the PM behaviour during QT. We now have TomM using it.

    Do they need to copy off one another.

  118. ToMM “Standards of behaviour by employees are dealt with on the balance of probability”. Standards of behaviour by employers are purely subjective..for example, some employers might find sexual harrassment just a joke whereas others might treat the issue seriously. However either which way there is no criminal issue involved at all.

    I can say without a moment’s hesitation that I have never commented on footballers’ behaviour. Moral judgements made on hearsay, rumour and innuendo do not interest me.

  119. Yes, Min, I find it unethical for MP to state under privilege of parliament that another member is a criminal without the person being charge, let alone convicted.

    This is what I consider gutter tactics that should have no place in our parliament.

    I expect the same ethics and standards to exist for everyone, even TomM if someone made allegations against him.

  120. Bacchus, Mr. Abbott also used words, no phrases that you hear from the mouth of Mr. Bolt and finished off with Julia go away, we do not want you. Yes the words that came out of the mouth of Mr. Jones.

    I do wonder who is Mr. Abbott’s speech writer at this time.

    Who ever it is, they are not very original.

    I know his favourite is up, up, up. I wonder if he is going down, down, down.

  121. As far as ‘avoiding discussion’ pray tell can one discuss something in a fair and balanced manner without having the facts in front of one. Sorry..just cos Tony Abbott says or the shock jocks say doesn’t make it so.

    Thomson could be guilty – Thomson could be innocent but without the evidence I couldn’t possibly say one way or the other. I have stood up for neither the innocent nor the guilty camp because basically until a court makes a ruling, it’s not possible to say.

  122. Min, that is the point that TomM is deliberately ignoring. I have not heard anyone including the PM say that Mr. Thomson is not guilty.

    The PM has said that Mr. Thomson has denied the charges and that she believes him, as there is no evidence to say otherwise.

    According to this morning media, the PM made enquiries in 2009. That is unless I am mistaken before the 2010 elections. I would imagine if the PM found any evidence that showed Mr. Thomson was guilty, he would not have stood in that election.

    Yes TomM when you attempt to look at all the allegations and information in the public arena the balance of probabilities could come down on either side.

  123. CU, Mr. Thomson hasn’t even been charged yet, much less found guilty. Therefore there are still several different scenarios:

    – he won’t be charged at all
    – he will be charged and a court will find him innocent
    – he will be charged and a court will find him guilty.

    It’s not ‘speaking notes’, it’s the law.

  124. These are my beliefs. They have been formed over a long life time.

    I do not rely or trust allegations and innuendo that is in the public arena without proof.

    I like facts, not something that is possibly coming out of someone’s fertile imagination.

  125. What needs to happen for Mr Thomson to be thrown out of parliament is to be found guilty of a crime that entails more than twelve months jail.

    He needs to be sentence to a jail term of more than twelve months.

    I believe even if this was too occur, it is unlikely there will be a by-election in the next couple of years.

    Mr. Abbott is aware of this fact. Mr. Abbot’s aim is to make this government look as bad as possible.

    Mr. Abbott is not interested in standards or ethics. He is only interested in his obsession in becoming PM.

    Mr. Abbott will trash every standard, convention, promises made or any ethical belief, if it means he can be PM.

    One only has to listen to the hate speech of the deputy Opposition Leader yesterday, to learn how far they are willing to sink too.

    Mr.. Abbott is not interested in the well being of this country or it’s economy. He glorifies in all bad news, as he sees it as one step closer to reaching his target.

    The Opposition is now accusing the PM of saying she would kill to be PM and is capable of doing anything to remain PM. Ms. Bishop alleged the PM made this statement during an interview. I would not be surprise if she did. What I would be surprised if the context the PM made the statement in gives it the same meaning as Ms. Bishop has put on it.

    They believe this, because this is how they think. This is how they behave, therefore others will behave in the same way.

    They judge this government by what they would do themselves. They would cheat and lie, therefore that is how others behave.

  126. Catching up,
    I wasn’t aware that Thomson needed to be sentenced to a jail term of 12 months or more. Do you have a link for this, it’s an interesting one.

  127. Poor TomM he’s on such thin ground and has so little except innuendo he just keeps iterating “barrackers” all the while jumping up and down in the Abbott cheer squad yelling, “rah rah sis boom baa, Abbott, Abbott he’s our man, rah rah sis boom ba, Abbott, Abbott can…. yay!”

    You only have to see the evidence in TomM running in here to intonate “barrackers, look at Labor, look over there, here and everywhere but at Abbott”, every time Abbott is rightly criticised or exposed as a liar, deceiver and distorter.

    How come TomM never highlights Abbott’s and the opposition’s along with big industry and the media’s constant stream of lies yet he goes on and on and on about one lie from Gillard?

    TomM might as well put on a cheerleaders outfit with a big A on it and be doing this .

  128. I had to smile (albeit wryly)..Abbott says that Mary Jo ‘didn’t run away’ unlike Craig Thomson. Ummm, wasn’t she apprehended in the car park.

  129. I note on Sunrise this morning Hockey immediately jumped in and changed the subject whenever malfeasance and wrongdoing of the LNP was raised.

  130. CU @8.48am, any prizes for guessing which media corporation has got their grubby paws on confidential banking details? We need a full scale enquiry into Ltd News in this country.

    ToM @9.28am. You don’t want a discussion. You want everyone here to accept Smuggles Set talking points as fact. Sorry ToM, the Smuggles Set has form for lying, obfuscation and distortion of facts, so it’s very difficult to accept any of your barracking.

    The Smuggles Set includes a senator who has been charged with shoplifting and assault. That is a fact. A court date has been set: fact. It is also a fact that Smuggles has not asked her to stand down from any committees, for which she’s raking in the cash, while all this is pending.

    Craig Thomson is the subject of rumour and innuendo regarding alleged misuse of a Union credit card: fact. No charges have ever been l;aid against him: fact. In fact this affair was done and dusted in 2006: fact.

    You have no evidence that he spent a cent in brothels or did any of the other things you stridently claim he did. And now you’ve been called, you fall back on that old chestnut of police corruption.

    Why is that, are you afraid they won’t find anything, so you’d better get the smear in early? Very Smuggles Set.

    Min, the grandie has finally made an appearance? Details, please, proud grandmother.

  131. Yes indeed Mobius, the police charges are theft and assault. Charges against the person and theft are treated rather seriously by the courts. And it was not the supermarket who pressed charges, it was the police.

  132. In ToM’s defence, perhaps ToM is just such an extra-reasonable person that the political locus of ‘speaking notes’ drawn generically from the Law of the Land, and of its due processes, hard-won and developed over long-centuries as foil for the whimsy of despots and in furtherance of liberal democracy, might immediately seem a little unreasonable to any ToM-alike with extra-reason, extra-legal expertise, and an extra-good ear for factoidal hearsay at their disposal when extra-reasonably considering nominal matters of (un)lawfulness and (ab)use(s) of power and position.

  133. Thanks, Min. Have you stopped grinning, yet? Congratulations! 🙂

    Mr. Abbott is not interested in standards or ethics. He is only interested in his obsession in becoming PM.

    Spot on CU.This is the only reason the Smuggles Set is pursuing this matter. If the government had several seats in hand, it wouldn’t even have been raised. We’re all still suffering the toxic influence of the Rodent, I believe.

    Smuggles is carrying on his work moulding this country in the Rodent’s mean spirited, mendacious, malevolent, spiteful, selfish, morally bankrupt image.

    This mob has been in the gutter so long, they think it’s the only place there is. Decency, honesty and integrity are unknown qualities to them.

    ME, the Gillard “lie” is yet another Smuggles Set lie. She said there wouldn’t be a carbon tax on her watch, but that she wanted a carbon price and an ETS. And that’s exactly what will happen. No lies by Gillard, but plenty more by the Smuggles Set and their cheerleaders like ToM.

    I note on Sunrise this morning Hockey immediately jumped in and changed the subject whenever malfeasance and wrongdoing of the LNP was raised.

    ToM must use the same “Look over there!” grab bag as Sloppy, ME. They must be issued to all their loyal, unquestioning cheerleaders, along with Smuggles” Great Big Book of Porkies and the outfit.

  134. Right, so from here on, all political opinion on this site will be assessed against “the LAW” rather than what is reasonable or ethical.

    That should be a hilarious standard to hold you barrackers to!

  135. I forgot to add, today they are questioning whether Mr. Thomson has kept his NZ citizenship or not.

    They are also looking at another Labor member.

  136. “Thomson. Ummm, wasn’t she apprehended in the car park.”

    An if I read the reports correctly, she assaulted an security officer in her attempt to get in her car and drive away.

    Now I have seen people walk out without paying for one or two articles. I seen my 90 odd year old father walk out of Coles without paying. He was highly embarrassed when he got home, and found the articles under his armpit where he put them. He used to do this so his hands were free to stop himself from falling.

    A full trolley load of groceries is a little harder to forget. She as far as I can recall was alone. So kids playing up did not cause her distraction.

    It is not easy to walk out of a super market with a trolley of goods without paying. It is hard to walk out with nothing.

  137. It is not rumour and innuendo that Craig is facing, there are legitimate questions for him to address, as a community leader, as an elected representative.

    The facts are –
    • His (union/employer issued) credit card was used in transactions for prostitutes.
    • His previous employer (the union) has suggested that he issued himself a credit card without the authority of the executive.
    • There were cash withdrawals without union executive approval.

    Now the above may or may not be criminal. The police may or may not decide that they should pursue a prosecution.

    But these are issues about which the public is entitled to hear an explanation.

    Apparently all the barrackers here aren’t interested in hearing an explanation.

    It really is quite weak.

  138. AntonyG

    Australian Constitution, Part IV, Section 44.


    Any person who:

    (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

    (ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

    (iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

    (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or

    (v) 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 twenty‑five persons;

    shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

    But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

    Bold mine…

  139. Bacchus, exactly who has suggested that he should be disqualified from parliament?

    I haven’t, so I think you point is just more barracking for the sake of distracting.

  140. TomM, it is unethical to call a MP a criminal when no charges have been made and no conviction have occurred.

    It is unethical to make things up about another MP.

  141. Bacchus,
    Thanks for that one. So even if Thomson is found guilty he still may not be given a custodial sentence of more than one year so there still would not have to be a by-election.

    If he is found guilty he obviously would not be recontesting his seat at the next election but it would not give Abbott his wish in giving him a majority in the lower house.

  142. Oh do go away ToM. AntonyG said at 12:08pm…

    I wasn’t aware that Thomson needed to be sentenced to a jail term of 12 months or more. Do you have a link for this, it’s an interesting one.

    CU said she didn’t have a link – I provided one – IT”S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

  143. So what? Have I said he is a criminal?

    He has a case to answer, and it may or may not be related to criminality.

    He should explain his actions, as an elected representative, as a leader in the community, as an individual who has chosen to participate in the legislative process of the country.

    But you barrackers aren’t interested in hearing any explanation.

    You just repeat the ALP speaking notes.

  144. TomM I am sure that any lawyer would advise any client to think carefully about answering the questions you have listed.

    A person does not have to prove their innocence.

    A person is entitled to remain silent.

    Parliament is not a court of law. It should not set out to act as the police or a court.

    The information in the questions are still only allegations and innuendo. They are not proven facts.

  145. Bacchus –”Oh do go away ToM.”

    Barrackers just cannot stand dealing with inconvenient facts!!

  146. Thanks Bacchus. I did not get around to finding one.

    TomM, is once again trying to put words into our mouths and is defending the indefensible.

  147. TomM, the only thing that Mr. Abbott is a interested in is manipulating a by-election where ever he can.

    He is not interested in ethics or justice.

  148. TomM, members of the Opposition are calling Mr. Thomson a criminal within the coward’s castle.

  149. AntonyG, I think that you’re right there. It’s a first offence and as there is no element of violence it would be highly unlikely that any person would be given a custodial sentence of more than 12 months.

  150. TomM so as Thomson hasn’t been convicted of anything, why all the calls for him to stand down and cause a by-election. The matter of ethics does not compute if the person (it might eventuate) isn’t actually guilty of anything.

  151. TomM, why is it so wrong for one to support the Labor government.

    I believed we live in an democracy and are free to support what ever political party we want.

    Are we supposed to feel ashamed and scared because you label us “Barrackers “.

    When one is only left with name calling during an debate, I wonder at the strength of your arguments.

    I did not know that the word “Barrackers ” was a dirty word.

    What is wrong in barracking for the party one believes in?

  152. Well just how stuffed and dysfunctional is this opposition, the one TomM barracks for?

    Today they attempted the throw back onto the PM the claim of inappropriately contacting authorities because of what Brandis had done. Another perfect example of projection, something TomM knows all about being such an expert at it.

    So it now turns out that the opposition at the time last year had put questions on notice about Gillard’s staffer contacting Fair Work Australia and had received a full and satisfactory answer with records that nothing untoward had occurred. So here they are accusing Gillard and her staffer over the exact same thing making the accusation they already had a complete answer for with proof.

    And TomM wants to see that mob in government. Please spare us.

  153. Yes CU TomM is attempting to make the term “barrackers” in regards to support for Labor as being derogatory when it is nothing of the sort. Supporting Labor at this time with a lying and deceiving Abbott in charge of a very dysfunctional opposition is a positive, not the negative TomM attempts to portray. His barracking of a vacuous Abbott is where the problem really is.

  154. Stupid barrackers, attributing opinions to me that I haven’t stated or supported.

    I haven’t said he’s a criminal, or that he should stand down from parliament.

    They’re the Liberal speaking notes, and I haven’t used then. Unlike the barrackers here, I make up my own mind.

    It is typical barracker behaviour, to assign opinion and verbal people.

    Thomson has many questions about his ethics and behaviour, he should address them.

    But you aren’t interested in having him address questions of behaviour or ethics, you just barrack.

  155. They are demanding that Mr. Thomson make an statement.

    It is acknowledge that all he can say is that he denies the allegations and is unable to say more.

    It is acknowledge that the Opposition will say that the statement is not good enough but can do no more.

    Are we stupid as the Opposition believes we are.

    All this outrage, demanding something that does not throw any new light on the matter.

    Surely they do expect Mr. Thomson to stand up and say he is guilty.

    The presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent no longer applies according to the Opposition.

  156. Barrackers just cannot stand dealing with inconvenient facts!!

    Yes ToM, we’ve noticed that you conveniently ignore the facts and press on with the lies pedalled by the Smuggles set. And you conveniently ignore all the facts showing that the Smuggles Set is utterly devoid of integrity or morals.

    Smuggles has admitted to being an inveterate liar and has been caught out time after time, and yet time after time you hold excuse him.

    They have form and plenty of it and no scruples or ethics. If they did, the embezzler Reith wouldn’t be back on their team, plotting to rob workers of their hard won rights.

  157. It is said that Mr. Abbott’s tactics are aimed at putting pressure on Mr. Thomson, hoping he will break and throw the towel in.

    That is the bullying tactics one would expect from Mr. Abbott.

  158. ToM re “I haven’t said he’s a criminal, or that he should stand down from parliament.”

    Sooo..the point of your argument is….”Thomson has many questions about his ethics and behaviour, he should address them.”

    But if he isn’t guilty, then why does he have questions about ethics and behaviour to answer?

  159. Min are you seriously contending that ethics in politics are limited to the matters the police decide to prosecute?

  160. Min, I am afraid it is up to those who are making the allegations to prove they are facts. They need to provide the evidence.

    One does not have to prove their innocence.

    Until they do this, they are just allegations and innuendo.

    That is the inconvenient truth that TomM chooses to ignore.

  161. TomM, mainly because it is nearly impossible for one to defend themselves from allegations and inuendo.

    It would not matter what he said, you would still say he is lying.

  162. TomM, are you alleging that all the Opposition does is truthful and ethical.

    Are you saying they practice the highest political standards at all times.

    Are you saying they are paragons of virtue.

  163. ToM..umm but if the person isn’t guilty…

    You seem to be saying that accusations made against a person should be up to the person to disprove – but as you noted the burden of proof is on the accuser.

    Thomson is innocent until proven guilty. IF Thomson is found to be guilty then of course it’s also a matter of ethics, but one cannot throw accusations around willy nilly because then it becomes slander should the person prove to be innocent.

  164. Point taken from Gillard..that Abbott did not make the charges against Mary Jo Fisher public until he was asked. Surely ‘ethics’ would dictate that he Abbott should have immediately come forward to proffer these..that’s if one was ethical.

  165. There is clearly a case to answer, but barackers prefer to excuse ALP politicians from answering.

    Answers might be dificult, or even unconvincing.

  166. ToM re ‘there is clearly a case to answer’. We won’t know until the police decide to press charges. There is no case to answer until they do. Until the police decide to press charges then it’s just gossip.

    If/when the police make this decision then Step Next is for the court to adjudicate on whether or not the person is guilty.

  167. Here’s a little gem courtesy of Lyn @thepoliticalsword. Once again our esteemed opposition caught in a deliberate lie which they have knowingly been concocting since February 2010.

    Then there’s this. and this and this. (From Casablanca @the politicalsword)

    Yet another gem from Feral Skeleton @thepoliticalsword today. Sen Concetta Fieravanti-Wells yesterday said in parliament that she’d heard that Craig Thomson and another Labor backbencher had been sent letters asking if they had renounced their NZ citizenship.

    Darren Cheesman, the other backbencher did some detective work and found that the letters had come, not from the AEC or other official body, but from a law firm linked to the LIEberal Party.

    Another sting attempt by the Party of Lies? Over to their biggest cheerleader to rationalise this little lot. Come in ToM.

  168. Records undermine latest Thomson attack

    Attempts by the Opposition to have the Prime Minister explain why one of her staff made inquiries into the Craig Thomson affair in 2009 have hit a snag.

    News Limited reported this morning that Julia Gillard’s chief of staff called the industrial registrar in 2009 to ask if he was investigating the besieged Labor MP, who has been accused of misusing a union credit card to pay for prostitutes.

    This prompted renewed attacks from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who claimed it showed Ms Gillard had known about the matter for a long time.

    But official records contradict the reported chain of events, and show an Opposition senator knew of the communications more than a year ago.

  169. Min you lapse back to the notion that matters of ethical behaviour in politicians are best dealt with by the police.

    This is bizarre and certainly not a standard that you have supported in the past. You’ve become very inconsistent, I think due you only hanging around with other barrackers these days.

  170. Jane, I heard Fierravanti-Wells recounting her version of the “charity worker reduced to tears” incident to the Senate, in a soft, offended tone.
    She’s up to her neck in the Lieberals dirty tricks campaign.

    For the record, the “charity worker” is no downtrodden “average Jill”, but a business woman who runs her own PR and Marketing company.

  171. Tom of Melbourne, it really isn’t worth replying to your trolling.
    If the discussion was about a Liberal in the spotlight you would be arguing in exactly the same way as Min.

  172. Stupid barrackers, attributing opinions to me that I haven’t stated or supported.

    Unless you do it, ToM?

    CU @4.00pm, of course he hasn’t because they don’t exist, yet. Nutbag HQ hasn’t invented them yet.

    Min, you just don’t understand anything, do you? An allegation is a fact if it’s been made against a Labor MP. Try to keep up and just forget all that silly legal nonsense you’ve learned, it’ll just confuse you. Smuggles and his most devoted cheerleader ToM know best.

    Just repeat after ToM 1,000 times until you get it right:

    “Allegations, gossip and innuendo against a Labor MP are facts and proof of guilt and will attract an immediate jail term longer than 12 months. Senators are exempt unless it gives the LIEberal Party BOP.”

    Any LIEberal charged with a criminal offence obviously didn’t do it and the witnesses are picking on us. Allegations, innuendo and gossip directed at any member of the Smuggles Set are mischievous and not fair. ”

    ME, @4.30pm. ROFLMAO!

    Min @5.10pm, off to Indoctrination Camp with you. I’m afraid we can’t have you questioning Smuggles ethics, just because he doesn’t have any. And as I have already explained to you, gossip, innuendo and allegations are proof that a Labor MP is guilty of *. Sigh! Another 1,000 times, please.

    CU, ME and shane had better watch their step, too.

    As a matter of interest, do you think ToM is channeling Neil?

    *Enter your crime of choice.

  173. Whenever barrackers are without rational argument, they say anyone with an alternative view is “trolling”.

    Mindless barrackers are very predictable. But in their favour, they are an exclusive group, preferring only the company of likeminded barrackers.

  174. Jane, you’ve got me ROFLMAO. Where is Neil of Sydney I wonder ??


    GrogsGamut Greg Jericho

    Rofl. Watching channel 10 news in Melbourne and for analysis of Glenn Stevens’ hearing they bring on Andrew Bolt. News & comedy! Brilliant

  175. Thomson unlikely to be charged, experts sayThomson unlikely to be charged, experts say

    Ian Dobinson, a criminal law lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney, said it was unlikely Mr Thomson would face a fraud charge under the NSW Crimes Act as suggested by the federal shadow attorney-general, George Brandis.

    It would need to be proven there had been dishonest deception in the way a financial advantage had been obtained, and this was unlikely to be proven.

    ”This position is based on the facts as we currently know them and at best what we have now is an inappropriate use of a union credit card [just another type of corporate credit card],” he said.

    ”He may be in breach of union rules and even Fair Work provisions but there is no fraud.”

    Alex Steel, an associate professor of law at the University of NSW, said Senator Brandis had demonstrated a poor understanding of NSW law by suggesting charges of larceny and fraud under s 192E of the NSW Crimes Act.

    Larceny charges applied only to the taking of physical property, not to credit card debts.

  176. Using TomM’s logic of innuendo then the Deputy Premier of NSW should immediately be sacked, be sentenced and jailed.

    I want everyone to note that O’Farrell breaks yet another election promise (I’ve lost count now) he also broke his promise that he would immediately stand down any of his ministers that are implemented in a malfeasance.

    Through his whole time in opposition O’Farrell was continuously calling for Labor ministers to be stood down and sacked even if the allegation was made by an anonymous Ltd News source. Now the shoe is on the other foot he is doing exactly what he so often railed against.

    But as we are living in the Abbott upside down political universe where his lies, even admitted as such, are not lies but anything and everything the government states are lies, and as O’Farrell is on his side and has helped him with the Thomson case, maybe inappropriately meaning another of his ministers should be stood down, then the Deputy Premier is innocent until proven guilty and must be given the benefit of the doubt, unlike Thomson who is utterly guilty because Abbott says he is, which is good enough for TomM.

  177. Mindless barrackers are very predictable. But in their favour, they are an exclusive group, preferring only the company of likeminded barrackers.

    Good description of you, ToM, don’t you agree?

    Pip, Fieravanti-Wells is a piece of work isn’t she? I don’t know who’s worse, her or that waste of space Mirabella. They should be locked together in a very small room.

    I reckon Neil is at Nutbag Indoctrination Camp and has handed his badge on to ToM. ME @4.30pm has a photo of ToM proudly wearing it.

    And another gem from Lyn @thepoliticalsword.

    Min, love the Crabb link. Reading the comments, the Coalition cheer leaders still don’t geddit, do they? Like ToM, they think if the Smuggles Set makes an allegation about someone it’s a statement of fact. Evidence and proof are unnecessary; Smuggles that great purveyor of the truth, has spoken. Guilty as not charged.

  178. Someone comes along to attack a person, and when that person is defended the defenders are called mindless barrackers. This is not logical.

  179. Roswell, indeed. I personally am still stuck on the ‘mindless barracking’ ideal of innocent until proven guilty.

  180. ME, sounds like the O’Farrell government is a good preview of a Smuggles Set government. And why should we expect anything different? Unfortunately their benchmark has been set by the Rodent government-lying is endemic, hypocrisy is the gold standard and overlooked and indulged. It’s the status quo.

    I wonder if ToM will rationalise O’Farrell’s dishonesty, or admit that he’s doing everything ToM apparently despises in a politician. I’m not hopeful.

  181. “Min you lapse back to the notion that matters of ethical behaviour in politicians are best dealt with by the police.’

    innuendo is such a far better way to deal with it isn’t it

    ‘This is not logical’

    This is yomm 😉

  182. Roswell @9.15pm, well we are dealing with ToM.

    Min @9.20pm, have you been repeating your lines?

    Tom R 27.58am, another example of ToM logic.Min says that as the matter is now in the hands of the police, we have to await their decision. ToM accuses her of a lapse in judgement. Go figure.

  183. Jane, it’s quite over the top – people are speculating on whether Thomson should stand down but not ony has he not been found guilty of anything, it’s still unknown whether or not the police will press charges. The police after all are the ones who will have all available evidence, not just the snippets which the MSM might choose to publish.

  184. And not a word about a LIEberal senator who has been charged with jailable oiffences, Min How come there’s no call for her to stand down? And if she is handed out a custodial sentence of 12+ months, will we hear a word of it?

    Yet ToM and his fellow nutbag cheerleaders think allegations and gossip are enough to force a stand down, but an actual charge which could lead to a stretch in Yatala is so minor, it’s hardly worth mentioning!

  185. Just occasionally I must divest myself of my moderation/moderator role and do something naughty. 😈 It’s a bad joke, but I like it:

    Did you know that Tony Abbott can never get Hemorrhoids? Nope, he is the perfect a*sehole.

  186. Min, because I don’t profess to be polite at all times, I’m going to make a bad joke too.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if someone makes him a new one with a
    steel-capped boot one day 🙄

  187. Jane I noticed in a recent account of Mary Jo Fisher’s alleged shop-lifting debacle that the word assault [of a security guard] is now a wrestle. Funny about that.

  188. Yes, the security guard wrestled with her when she was attempting to get in her car to run away.

    I do not know if Mr. Abbott can get Hemorrhoids, but something makes him walk funny. I noticed that the walk is not a pronounce as when he first became leader, but it is still there.

  189. Pip and CU, one does not normally wrestle with a security guard…one would say, Oh dear did I forget to pay.

  190. Min, it is a little hard to walk out of a supermarket, no matter how small with a trolley load of groceries.

    I find it hard to get out pushing nothing and with my hands free.

    The lady was alone, so she cannot claim that she was distracted by screaming kids or a nagging husband.

  191. Min, I do not know what crime Mr. Thomson is alleged to have committed.

    I am so confused with all the allegations that have been made, that I am at a loss to know what the allegations are.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s