Royal Commission warns woman Tony Abbott called "honest", "credible" and "heroic" that she may have to be examined further over alleged wrongdoing

Back in 2012 Australian Prime Minister (then Coalition Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott described then Secretary of the Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, as honest, credible and heroic because her war with political adversaries was embarrassing the Labor Party.

Since then widespread allegations of fraud and theft have surfaced in relation to Ms. Jackson, as well as reports of other unusual financial arrangements.

So it is no wonder that The Australian reported on 27 April 2015 that:

Royal commissioner Dyson Heydon QC has warned his inquiry is far from finished with Kathy Jackson, saying she will have to demonstrate strong ­reasons why her tenure at the Health Services Union should not be examined further.

Reopening the royal commission investigating trade union governance and corruption yesterday, Mr Heydon said he was not convinced by arguments that he should refrain from making findings about the former HSU ­nat­ional secretary while the union pursued her in civil proceedings. The union’s new leadership has also referred allegations against her to Victoria Police.

“It must be stressed that the ­issues affecting Ms Jackson should be dealt with, unless good cause is shown for a contrary course,” Mr Heydon said.

“The desirability of dealing with some or all of the issues ­affecting Ms Jackson is something to be considered later this year. It may be necessary to debate the matter, for the submissions of Ms Jackson’s solicitor ­opposed that course.”

Jeremy Stoljar SC, counsel ­assisting the royal commission, last year recommended criminal charges against Ms Jackson for submitting a “false claim” when she negotiated a $250,000 payment from Melbourne’s Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre for the HSU after a dispute over workers’ back pay, but Mr Heydon held off making findings about this in his interim report.

He said yesterday that it was more convenient to deal with ­issues surrounding Ms Jackson’s conduct in one go in his final ­report, rather than separating them too soon.

The HSU’s case against Ms Jackson is due to be heard in the Federal Court in June…….

Two national political opinion polls begun one day apart - two markedly different results

Two national political opinion telephone polls begun one day apart with two markedly different results made for some confusing headlines this week.

The clue may be in the mix of days of the week on which each poll was conducted, the fact that the first poll would possibly have included a higher number of younger voters due to the inclusion of mobile phone users and, the narrow question range in the second published poll.

POLL 1: FAIRFAX/IPSOS POLL, THURSDAY TO SATURDAY  9-11 APRIL 2015, 1404 RESPONDENTS, LANDLINE & MOBILE PHONES, MARGIN OF ERROR +/-2.6%

Financial Review 13 April 2015:

A promise to spare households more budget cuts, a focus on the economy and a raft of national security announcements has failed to help the Abbott government, with the latest poll showing Labor once more forging a strong lead over the Coalition.

The Ipsos/Fairfax media poll shows Labor leading the Coalition by 54 per cent to 46 per cent on a two-party-preferred basis, an increase from the 51-49 lead Labor held in the last such poll in early March.

Since that poll, the Coalition's primary vote has fallen 3 percentage points to 39 per cent and Labor's has risen 2 points to 38 per cent. The Greens are relatively steady on 13 per cent.

Labor leader Bill Shorten arrested a decline in his own personal ratings that showed up in the last poll. His approval rating was down a point to 42 per cent and his disapproval rating up a point to 44 per cent.

Mr Abbott's approval rating rose 2 points to 34 per cent and his disapproval rating fell 2 points to 60 per cent.

Mr Shorten has stretched his lead over Mr Abbott as preferred prime minister by 3 points. He now leads by 48 per cent to 38 per cent.

The telephone poll of 1404 voters was taken from Thursday night to Saturday night. It follows a busy period in which Mr Abbott has shrugged off the leadership insurrection that dogged him in February and embarked on a blitz of policy announcements and policy launches.

There has been a heavy emphasis on national security as well as the release of the intergenerational report, the tax discussion paper and a focus on multinational tax evasion, an issue on which Labor has seized the initiative..……

...support for the Coalition is greatest among higher-income households. Among voters with household incomes over $100,000, 49 per cent back Coalition policies and 29 per cent back Labor.

But Labor is more popular among medium and lower-income earners. Among voters from households with between $40,000 and $100,000 in annual income, 36 per cent back the Coalition and 34 per cent back Labor.

Among voters from households with annual income below $40,000, 39 per cent back the Coalition and 41 per cent back Labor.

POLL 2: NEWSPOLL, FRIDAY TO SUNDAY 10-12 APRIL, 1172 RESPONDENTS, LANDLINE PHONES, MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 3%

Channel 9 News 13 April 2015:

Labor continues to hold a two-party preferred lead over the Abbott government but opposition leader Bill Shorten has suffered a slump in ratings, the latest Newspoll shows.

With preferences from the Greens based on the last election, the ALP has a two-party lead of 51 per cent to 49 per cent, the poll conducted for News Corp at the weekend showed.

The Coalition has meanwhile opened a five-point margin over Labor on primary vote to be ahead by 41 per cent to 36 per cent.

The survey of 1172 voters found Mr Shorten's satisfaction fell three points to a 12-month low of 33 per cent while Prime Minister Tony Abbott's satisfaction climbed four points to also sit at 33 per cent……

UPDATE

Essential Research released an opinion poll on 14 April 2015. This survey was conducted online from the 9 to 12 March and is based on 1,002 respondents drawn from a self-managed consumer online panel of over 100,000 members 18 years of age and older. The majority of panel members have been recruited using off line methodologies, effectively ruling out concerns associated with online self-selection.

Steve Cansdell avoided humiliating defeat at the ballot box by not nominating

Disgraced former Nationals MP for Clarence, Steve Cansdell, attempted to spin his second thoughts in The Daily Examiner on 21 January 2015:

Click on image to enlarge

In the end when nominations closed there was only one candidate, so the by-election was cancelled and, the only nominee was elected by default.

Popular opinion is that people were not putting up their hands to serve as an elected councillor because democracy had finally died within Clarence Valley Council in October 2011 and, no-one wanted to be involved with what is perceived locally as dysfunctional decision making.

Labor and Liberal-Nationals voters really are like chalk and cheese

It would appear that the average Labor voter does have a different view of the world from his/her Liberal or Nationals counterpart.

Labor voters have a higher than average trust in the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). Liberal-Nationals supporters have more trust than the average in all news sources - except possibly the ABC.

Labor voters have a higher than average trust in environment groups and trade unions. While Liberal-Nationals supporters have more trust than the average in institutions such as the Reserve Bank, Parliament, religious organisations and, in business groups.

Essential Report 20 January 2015:

Q. How much trust do you have in the following institutions and organisations?

Note: ‘Total Trust’ is an aggregate figure achieved by adding ‘A lot of trust’ and ‘Some trust’

There have been few significant changes since this question was asked in July last year.

Respondents had most trust in the ABC (53%), the High Court (53%), the Reserve Bank (49%) and charitable organisations (44%). They had least trust in political parties (14%) and religious organisations (22%).

The main changes since the last poll were for TV news media (down 7% to 25%) and religious organisations (down 4% to 22%).

Compared to the average, Labor voters had more trust in the ABC (61%), environment groups (42%) and trade unions (33%).

Liberal/National voters, compared to the average, had a little more trust in the Reserve Bank (59%), religious organisations (29%), newspapers (38%), TV news (33%), Federal Parliament (39%), State Parliament (35%) and business groups (33%).

How Julia Gillard's experience inspires or discourages women to enter politics

How Gillard’s experience inspires or discourages women to enter politics

  

Does being reminded of the sexism that Julia Gillard faced as Australia’s first female prime minister challenge women to enter politics or discourage them?

“We found a polarising effect with women responding in different ways depending on their attitudes to gender roles,” said Dr Christopher Hunt, lead author of the research from the University of Sydney’s School of Psychology.

Hunt, together with the School’s Dr Karen Gonsalkorale and Dr Lisa Zadro published their findings in the European Journal of Social Psychology, last month.

“For women who hold traditional gender values - those who think that women should be modest, place their families before themselves and put a lot of importance in taking care of their home and their physical appearance - being reminded of Julia Gillard’s experiences made them want to avoid politics,” Dr Hunt said.

“However for women who rate themselves as non-conformists in regards to gender values, being reminded of Gillard’s difficulties motivated them to go into politics - she appears to be a role model for this group.”

These effects were not related to any changes in women’s belief in their ability to lead. 

“So the changes seem to be driven by thinking about how others will react to them – about the possibility of a backlash,” Dr Hunt said.

“International research shows that women in countries with more women politicians display greater interest in politics than women from countries with lower female representation. Our research suggests such role model influence changes according to women’s other beliefs and values.”

The study assessed 167 Australian undergraduate students on a measure of conformity to gender norms. They then either read statements about generic difficulties experienced by leaders or the gender-based difficulties experienced by Gillard before completing a questionnaire on their attitudes to leadership and certain occupations.

For male participants, those with high conformity to masculine norms showed a greater belief in their own leadership capabilities after reading about Gillard’s gender-based difficulties than when reading about generic difficulties, while low conforming men showed the opposite pattern.

“This suggests that Gillard’s example provoked a defensive reporting of leadership capability  -  consistent with research showing that women who succeed in traditionally male domains are often perceived to be threatening,” said Dr Hunt.

The next step in continuing this work is to see if these findings were specific to politics or whether the same findings would apply to other professions.

“It would be interesting to apply this research to the business community where research has suggested gender roles are even more strictly enforced than in politics.”

Coal seam/tight gas miner Metgasco Limited's major shareholder makes the news again as Australian Senate inquiry into Queensland Government continues

Metgasco Limited's major shareholder ERM Power gets a mention in the Brisbane Times on 24 November 2014:

State Energy Minister Mark McArdle held a Liberal National Party fundraiser at the offices of one of the nation's largest energy companies, but did not declare it in his ministerial diary.

The 2013 event was held in the boardroom of ERM Power, one of many meetings between the minister, the energy company and lobbying firm SAS Group, according to documents seen by Fairfax Media.

A spokesman for Mr McArdle said the minister always complied with the reporting obligations set down by Premier Campbell Newman's demand for the most transparent and accountable administraton in Queensland's history, but the boardroom fundraiser did not fall into the category of a reportable event.

"Fundraising is carried out by the party organisation in strict compliance with state and federal laws," the statement says.

A spokesman for ERM Power said political fundraising was a "legitimate exercise of the freedom of political association and expression".

"ERM Power complies with the regulatory framework in Queensland for such activities, making the required disclosures under the Electoral Act," he said.

The documents, which the Electrical Trades Union is expected to submit to the Senate Inquiry in to the Queensland Government, show meetings and meals between the government, ERM executives and their lobbyists stretch back to 2012, soon after the LNP took office.

Locations included Minister McArdle's office, the LNP state conference and the Queensland Club.

Mr McArdle's spokesman said the minister regularly met with a wide range of stakeholders in the energy and water sectors.

So far this year:

* Mr McArdle met ERM Power representatives at The Queensland Club on February 5 to discuss "renewable energy" on February 5;

* The state government announced on March 6 it was axing the 8 cent solar feed-in-tariff paid to 40,000 Queenslanders in favour of a system where customers negotiated directly with retailers; and

* On March 11 Mr McArdle was the guest at a lunch hosted by SAS Group in the lobbying company's boardroom. 

SAS Group did not declare the event on the contact register maintained by the state's Integrity Commissioner but Mr McArdle did, listing its purpose in his diary as "boardroom lunch" and naming the lobbyists as the organiser......

Fairfax Media last year revealed that ERM, which had previously predominately donated to the Labor Party, had donated more than $25,000 to the LNP since 2010, with $1500 going to the Labor Party in the same period. 

The government appointed the company's non-executive chair, Tony Bellas, as head of its Independent Review Panel into the electricity sector in May 2012.

An ERM Power spokesman said the company, whose Brisbane office was opened by Premier Campbell Newman in April 2013, was a major Queensland employer and ASX listed entity and as a matter of good business practice maintained appropriate relationships with all of its stakeholders, including the government and opposition.

The Senate Inquiry into the Queensland government will hold its next public hearing on November 28.

The question a number of voters on the NSW North Coast are asking is: How much is ERM Power donating to the NSW Liberal and Nationals election campaigns ahead of the March 2015 state election?

Because unless the current Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government headed by Premier Baird wins re-election Metgasco Limited will lose all its North Coast coal seam gas tenements and ERM Power the value of its investment.

BACKGROUND

Details of the Senate Select Committee inquiry into Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration related to Commonwealth Government Affairs can be found here.

Christian terrorist outed online

Honi Soit mocking the Abbott Government’s scare campaign and expansion of Australia’s national security laws:

Local terrorist Rob Wilson is counting his lucky stars this week, after the Federal government once again pledged to focus a majority of its counter terrorism efforts on innocent Muslims and people fleeing Iraq, to the relief of Christian terrorists country over. The father of three and part time extremist says he is actually quite glad a majority of his work goes overlooked as a Christian extremist, as he prefers to let his work speak for itself, and he’s not in it for fame or glory.

Rob says he has been a hobbyist terrorist for some years now, tinkering away in his back shed with various detonators, when not scouring his Bible for new sins, and is always on the look out for more industrial grade manure to ad to his rapidly growing collection. While Rob says his interest is only a weekend job at the current time, he hopes that someday it might become his death.

Despite the government’s support, it’s not all smooth sailing for Rob, with the occasional run in with the authorities inevitable in his line of work. “For a while I was getting really worried that the police had cottoned on to my plans and might shut things down,” says Rob, “there was always this van with tinted windows parked out the front, but in the end it turned out they were just after my Sikh neighbors. Apparently they’d had a whole kitchen drawer full of knives of something, so they were all taken in for questioning under anti-terror laws and nobody’s heard from them since.”…….

A tale of three political images.......

An artist created this poster in 1977:

Michael Callaghan was raised in Wollongong, graduated from National Art School, Sydney in 1974.

He became involved in printmaking through Earthworks Poster Collective, during his time as a tutor of Post Object Art at Tin Sheds at University of Sydney. Compelled by a spirit of collectivism, Earthworks produced some of the most iconic images of political activism in the 1970s, including ‘Give Frazer the Razor’.

In 1979 he set up Redback Graphix during a residency at Griffith University in Brisbane, creating an ‘alternative design agency’, turning collective political activism into an enterprise that enabled artists to earn a living while using their skills and political edge.

The first artwork Callaghan made at Redback is possibly the most recognisable poster image in contemporary Australia – If the Unemployed Are Dole Bludgers, What the Fuck are the Idle Rich?

Using the same signature bold florescent graphics and punchy humour, the Redback workshop created campaigns throughout the 80s and 90s that tackled issues ranging from unemployment, trade union issues, AIDS awareness to indigenous health and for clients that included Amnesty International and CAAMA and the ACTU.

His work is held in numerous public and private collections in Australia and overseas including the National Gallery of Australia, National Gallery of South Australia, Art Gallery of NSW, Queensland Art Gallery, Art Gallery of Western Australia, Los Angeles Institute of Contemporary Art, University of Wollongong Collection, Mitchell Library Collection, and the Powerhouse Museum. [Damien Minton Gallery]

In 1981 a student newspaper printed this:

[Australian National University, Woroni, 22 April 1981]

Chanting "Give Fraser the razor, not women's refuges", about 50 women and children from Canberra and Sydney, representing NSW women's refuges, assembled to protest against possible cuts to child-care grants to the refuges.

[The Canberra Times, 15 May 1981, p.3]

Tertiary students from the ACT, NSW and Victoria demonstrated outside Parliament House yesterday over proposed Government cuts in education funding.

The students, estimated by some of the demonstration organisers to number between 1,500 and 2,000, assembled at the ANU and marched, with a police escort, to Parliament House carrying banners and placards and shouting "Free education for all", "Not just the rich, educate the poor", and "Give Fraser the razor". .

[The Canberra Times, 14 May 1981, p.9]

In 2014 a socialist newspaper created this front page:

The Socialist Alternative has withdrawn its newspapers featuring a violent image depicting Tony Abbott getting his throat cut following a public backlash.

The image was accompanied by the headline “One cut we'd like to see” and was on the front page of its paper Red Flag.

The organisation posted the image last night on its Facebook page, prompting more than 200 comments, most of them negative.

[News Corp, news.com.au]

All three images depicted the political sentiment of sections of society at the time. 

The first during the 1977 federal election year.

The second after a 1981 Fraser Government review of federal funding. 

The third when the Abbott Government ideologically engineered a 2014-15 federal budget which began to dismantle the safety-net welfare system, public and higher education, Medicare and public broadcasting.

The reader can judge for themselves the merits of these images.

Memo to those new Australian senators due to take their seats on 1 July 2014

Memo to senators-elect Joe Bullock, Matthew Carnavan, Bob Day, Chris Ketter, Jacqui Lambie, Glenn Lazarus, David Leyonhjelm, James McGrath, Ricky Muir, Linda Reynolds, Janet Rice and Zhenya Wang,

A national price on carbon pollution came into effect on 1 July 2012.

The Australian economy did not subsequently crash and burn, as then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had predicted.

In fact the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased in the 2012-13 financial year by 2.6 per cent, labour productivity rose by 2.2 per cent over the same period, the number of employed persons grew by over 122,000 nationally and, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) stood at 2.4 per cent which was the sixth lowest cost of living figure in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 12 nation international comparison table.

Likewise, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the electricity production/consumption fell by 5 per cent between January 2012 and December 2013 according to the December 2013 quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory released in April 2014, with a national fall across all industry sectors of 0.8 per cent.

Emissions from waste and industrial processes also began to fall.

What this all means is that the so-called Carbon Tax is working efficiently and effectively in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To repeal the Clean Energy Act 2011 and associated legislation and regulations would be a wanton act of ideology-driven vandalism.

One Voter's Verdict: Hang them ALL by the neck until dead

The Daily Examiner 27 May 2014:

Hanging judge

Bob Katter reckons Joe Hockey's theft of health funding could cause closure of rural hospitals. Yes, it could.

But what it should cause is for the Australian people to storm parliament house in Canberra, drag every Liberal traitor out by the scruff of the neck, and hang them by the neck till they're dead.

When that's done, seeing as how they're there, they should then drag out all the Labour filth and hang them too!

That'll save another trip to hang them later. More economical to fix the problem all in one go.

Frank Brown

Richmond, Qld

Anthony Albanese: "Abuse of power continued over and over again" in the Australian Parliament since Abbott Government sworn in

The fight continues across the Dispatch Box over the contention that the present Speaker in the Australian House of Representatives, Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, is biased and abuses privilege.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 27 May 2014:

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): Madam Speaker, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:

That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests…..

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr Albanese: Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have.

Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.

The SPEAKER: And I have a copy of it.

Mr PYNE: The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee

to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Correct…..

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:01): Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.

They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.

Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not!

That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!

Tony Abbott:

… I've always supported an independent speakership …

Press comments from him:

I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …

Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.

This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.

Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:

… the Leader of the Opposition—

Tony Abbott—

… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.

They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.

But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:

We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …

This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.

What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.

The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold

that job!

The exchanges recorded in Hansard a day earlier which lead to Anthony Albanese speaking against Leader of the House Christopher Pyne’s motion …….

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): Madam Speaker, under standing order 103 I have a question for you in your role as the administrator of parliament. How many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER : I know the member for Watson was late into the parliament at nine o'clock this morning so he probably did not hear the statement I read on that occasion, so I will read it again.

On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take the posters down at my request and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. That is the answer to your question.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 179 of House of Representatives Practice, where it states:

For many purposes the Speaker is in effect 'Minister' for the Department of the House of Representatives and jointly with the President of the Senate is 'Minister' for the Department of Parliamentary Services.

As you would appreciate, ministers are not able to hold political functions in departmental resources. I ask again: how many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER:  I refer the member also to the Practice, which refers quite clearly that the Speaker is in charge of the domain of Parliament House, which was made quite clear from the original time of the Speaker holder back in 1901. I have said that members may use their suites for whatever purposes they see fit, and that includes you, but they may not use them for an illegal purpose. Therefore, it is not the business of either executive government or others to ask members the purposes for which they use their offices. That is the rule.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, in your role as administrator of that department, which then goes to the finances of that department, I ask: how much has the Liberal Party paid on each occasion for the use of the Speaker's dining room for fundraisers and has the ordinary $600 venue hire fee, which applies to all private dining rooms, been among the payments made?

The SPEAKER : I will not engage in debate on the question. I have made the ruling. I have said that members may use their offices for their own purposes.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, the Sunday Canberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report.

The SPEAKER: I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, House of Representatives Practice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose?

The SPEAKER: I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said.

Mr Burke: I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You have the call.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives.

It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party…..

The SPEAKER interjecting—…..

The SPEAKER (15.35): Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House….

The SPEAKER (15:36): What is the point of order?

Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about—

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call.

Ms Plibersek: You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr PYNE: You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr Bowen: Madam speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: If this is meant to disrupt debate—

Mr Bowen: No it is not.

The SPEAKER: Then I will accept the point of order.

Mr Bowen: I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, by the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment.

The SPEAKER: Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call…..

When Joe Hockey Dances

When millionaire Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey dances.....

http://youtu.be/r28mcaJLUV4

ABC News 14 May 2014:

Oakes: You were dancing in your office before you got up to give that speech, why were you dancing?

Hockey: Dancing?

Oakes: You put on a song called This Will Be the Best Day of My Life and danced with your wife.

Hockey: I think that was more about our little boy was there. I hadn't seen him for three weeks. I think that was more of the focus.

Oakes: The unemployed, the sick, the welfare recipients have been hit by the budget. They're not going to be dancing, are they?

Hockey: No, Laurie, they are not.

Oakes: Won't be the best day of their life.

Hockey: No, but it is the best day for Australia, Laurie. It's the best day for Australia because we are actually getting on with the job of building a stronger nation. That's what we're focused on, building a stronger nation. Hugely important.

When the unemployed, the sick, pensioners and low-income welfare recipients dance.....

Created image

Cartoon of the Week

The Guardian 30 April 2014
  Click on image to enlarge

Political Cartoon of the Week

From the pen of Ian Martin at laberal.blogspot.com.au

Morgan Poll of Australian federal voting intentions released on 24 March 2014 shows ALP leading

Scroll down in media release for polling breakdown, tables and graphs.

Roy Morgan Research, Morgan Poll, Media Release 24 March 2014