The Daily Wire: More pairing bastardry from the Opposition - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2

More pairing bastardry from the Opposition

#1 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 18 June 2012 - 09:50 AM

The Opposition are being bastards again by refusing to grant a pair to the Environment Minister so he can attend an environmental conference in Brazil.

The claimed reason is so he can be asked questions about the newly-announced expansion of marine parks. That reason is specious because such questions are typically on notice, can be answered by others, and the conference will be over and the Minister would be back in the country before the current session of Parliament ends on June 28.

Is there no depths to where this pack of bastards in the Coalition won't sink? Manufacturing scandals, refusing to grant pairs so Ministers can do their job or even holding off granting pairs so members can attend the birth of their child, attacking an innocent man for years. If this is the standard of conduct that they indulge in Opposition, we have no right to expect anything better if they get in to office.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:02 PM

View PostBam, on 18 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

The Opposition are being bastards again by refusing to grant a pair to the Environment Minister so he can attend an environmental conference in Brazil.

The claimed reason is so he can be asked questions about the newly-announced expansion of marine parks. That reason is specious because such questions are typically on notice, can be answered by others, and the conference will be over and the Minister would be back in the country before the current session of Parliament ends on June 28.

Is there no depths to where this pack of bastards in the Coalition won't sink? Manufacturing scandals, refusing to grant pairs so Ministers can do their job or even holding off granting pairs so members can attend the birth of their child, attacking an innocent man for years. If this is the standard of conduct that they indulge in Opposition, we have no right to expect anything better if they get in to office.


I actually suffered almost all the way through Question Time just to see what the clowns were on about.

Not a single question until around the 50min mark, and then only because they were shamed into it by the Minister in his reply to a Dorothy Dixer.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:33 PM

Quote

Greens leader Christine Milne has slammed the Opposition's tactics, saying they are further proof the Coalition does not prioritise the environment.

"It's absolutely disgraceful that the Coalition is not granting a pair to Tony Burke to be able to go to Rio," she said.

"This is a once in a decade meeting - 20 years on from the original Earth Summit in Rio. This is where the world recognises the problems we have with the global environment.

"It was Australia's opportunity to go there, learn what's happening around the world, and indeed take the leadership in terms of campaigning for the protection of oceans and the sustainability of fisheries."

Labor Senator Doug Cameron says it is "pretty crazy politics" from the Coalition.

"I think it's important that the initiatives that Australia is putting in place with marine parks is replicated across the world," he said.

"We're taking a lead on these issues and again it seems to me that it's petty brawling that means that the Minister can't go there and represent Australia's position."


Source

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 18 June 2012 - 08:55 PM

View PostBam, on 18 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:



Considering the Coalition's opposition to the carbon tax, a position supported by most Australians, it is not surprising they consider the attendance at this highly political talkfest should have lower priority than commitments at home in Australia.

In any case Australia's attendance is rather hypocritical considering a big focus of the conference is to get developed countries to sign up at least 0.7% of GDP for environmental aid by 2015. The Labor goverment which promised to commit 0.5% by 2015 delayed that commitment in the last budget and remains on 0.35%

The value of this has been questioned anyway

Quote

This breezy focus on trendy topics and unrealistic solutions is deeply disturbing. A disconnected global elite is flying to Rio to tell the world's poor to have a solar panel. Rio+20 could do more good for humanity and the planet by focusing on the top environmental problems and their simple solutions.

http://www.theaustra...x-1226398020777
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 19 June 2012 - 08:22 AM

Lomborg is not a scientist: he is an economist. His economics lacks rigour,logic and a sense of complexity. Just like your quote from the Australian.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 19 June 2012 - 08:58 AM

View Postlenxyz, on 18 June 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Considering the Coalition's opposition to the carbon tax, a position supported by most Australians, it is not surprising they consider the attendance at this highly political talkfest should have lower priority than commitments at home in Australia.

Rubbish! It's got NOTHING to do with the carbon tax. Didn't you even read the article? It was about marine parks, not the carbon tax.

Ministers attend conferences and events all the time. In this case, what the Opposition are unreasonably denying is the opportunity for the Environment Minister to meet with his counterparts in other countries, which is in the national interest. That the Opposition would put their power grab ahead of the national interest only demonstrates that they are not fit to form a government.

It's not right for the Opposition to make these demands. There's a sitting week next week when he would be back. For the Opposition to be bastards over this, just because they can't wait a week to ask questions, shows very clearly that they have no respect for the Parliamentary process. And after all that, they didn't even ask the Environment Minister any questions for fifty minutes of Question Time on Tuesday until they were shamed into doing so by a Dorothy Dixer.

You can nod your head as much as you want while saying "yes, yes, keep doing this" but if you are capable of independent thought you have to be at least a bit concerned at the utter lack of respect that the Opposition are showing for long-established Parliamentary conventions. What should really concern you is that it also creates a precedent - what if it was an Abbott-led minority Government and the Opposition were being unreasonable in refusing pairs? Would you still like it then? I doubt it.

Quote

In any case Australia's attendance is rather hypocritical considering a big focus of the conference is to get developed countries to sign up at least 0.7% of GDP for environmental aid by 2015. The Labor goverment which promised to commit 0.5% by 2015 delayed that commitment in the last budget and remains on 0.35%

You are being rather silly taking this view, considering that the Opposition are wanting to cut foreign aid.

Quote

The value of this has been questioned anyway

This is irrelevant. This thread is discussing the Opposition's pairing bastardry. Keep to the topic or create a separate thread, please.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 19 June 2012 - 10:54 AM

View PostBam, on 19 June 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Rubbish! It's got NOTHING to do with the carbon tax. Didn't you even read the article? It was about marine parks, not the carbon tax.


The minister wanted to attend the UN Rio +20 Conference which is not about marine parks. Rio +20 is an environmental conference. The marine aspect is only a small part of that.

The working document “the future we want” has many statements like this:

Quote

We urge bold and decisive action on the objective and themes for the conference. We renew our commitment to sustainable development and express our determination to pursue the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. We further affirm our resolve to strengthen the institutional framework for sustainable development. Taken together our actions should fill the implementation gaps and achieve greater integration among the three pillars of sustainable development – the economic, the social and the environmental.
http://www.uncsd2012.org
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 19 June 2012 - 07:39 PM

View Postlenxyz, on 19 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

The minister wanted to attend the UN Rio +20 Conference which is not about marine parks. Rio +20 is an environmental conference. The marine aspect is only a small part of that.

Marine parks in Australia is a big reason why the Opposition refused to provide a pair. The essentials of the Rio conference are not relevant here.

Why do you keep bringing up the conference when the thread is about the Opposition's disregard for parliamentary convention? Why do you not want to discuss the Opposition's conduct? Have you got nothing to say on the Opposition's conduct at all?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:56 AM

View PostBam, on 19 June 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:


Why do you keep bringing up the conference when the thread is about the Opposition's disregard for parliamentary convention? Why do you not want to discuss the Opposition's conduct? Have you got nothing to say on the Opposition's conduct at all?


Your premise is that the Coalition is acting improperly against convention in not allowing certain pairs. The question is what exactly is the convention?

The home of the Westminster System of Government, The House of Commons, has not had pairing since 1995 when the then Labour opposition withdrew from the arrangement.

Back in 1911 the first NSW Labor government was on a knife edge. The premier James Mc Gowan was invited to the coronation of George V. He was granted a pair by the opposition because the purpose of the trip “was entirely outside party politics”.

My point is that the trip to Rio could be considered entirely political and therefore an argument could be made for refusing a pair. Gillard obviously received a pair for her trip to the G20 summit, a fact not mentioned.

Therefore my comments re the Rio+20 Conference are entirely relevant to the discussion on pairing.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:11 PM

View Postlenxyz, on 20 June 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Your premise is that the Coalition is acting improperly against convention in not allowing certain pairs. The question is what exactly is the convention?

The home of the Westminster System of Government, The House of Commons, has not had pairing since 1995 when the then Labour opposition withdrew from the arrangement.

That's irrelevant. The Australian Parliament is not the House of Commons. In British politics, party discipline is much less stringent than it is here, and individual members vote as they wish on routine matters. It's normal to see 20 or 30 members of a major political party voting differently to their colleagues. Furthermore, there's numerous minor parties with a few seats. Cross-party pairing is not as important there because it's often not hard to find a pair in one's own party room.

Quote

Back in 1911 the first NSW Labor government was on a knife edge. The premier James Mc Gowan was invited to the coronation of George V. He was granted a pair by the opposition because the purpose of the trip “was entirely outside party politics”.

You overlook the very pertinent point that the Opposition have been refusing pairs - or holding off granting them for as long as possible - for all sorts of matters, including allowing ALP members leave to attend the birth of children. You're surely not suggesting that attending the birth of a child is a political matter?

Quote

My point is that the trip to Rio could be considered entirely political and therefore an argument could be made for refusing a pair.

The only political motive here is the Opposition making politics by refusing to grant pairs in an attempt to further their own political ends. Pairing is a gentlemen's agreement that's been in place for more than 70 years and respected by both sides of politics. The Coalition, by refusing to honour this agreement, are not behaving in a gentlemanly manner.

What the Opposition don't realise is that they are setting themselves up for a heap of hurtful payback in the future. What if the Coalition win in 2013 but the ALP and Greens still control the Senate after July, 2014? Expect some hurt. No mandate for this legislation? Block it. Trying to break an election promise? Block it. It might end in a double dissolution election, but these are always risky.

Quote

Gillard obviously received a pair for her trip to the G20 summit, a fact not mentioned.

The refusal to grant a pair for what is obviously an important annual conference of world leaders would have been likely to backfire on the Opposition. It wouldn't have helped their own political ends, therefore they allowed it.

Quote

Therefore my comments re the Rio+20 Conference are entirely relevant to the discussion on pairing.

You are drawing rather a long bow here involving irrelevancies and political history from more than a century ago. Pairing in the Federal Parliament has been honoured by both sides, even when the absent member was obviously on a junket.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:22 AM

Yet more pairing bastardry from the Coalition. This time, it is the refusal to grant a pair to an ALP member so she can look after a sick child.

Quote

The Federal Opposition has refused to grant a Labor MP leave to return to Sydney to look after her sick child.

Michelle Rowland says she asked the Opposition for a pair on Tuesday and was knocked back yesterday with no reason given.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:33 AM

View PostBam, on 16 May 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Yet more pairing bastardry from the Coalition. This time, it is the refusal to grant a pair to an ALP member so she can look after a sick child.




Pyne is backtracking like crazy and they will now grant a pair, but the original letter doesn't lie.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

View PostHDMC, on 16 May 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Pyne is backtracking like crazy and they will now grant a pair, but the original letter doesn't lie.

Indeed. The Coalition are a pack of lying bastards over this.

Quote

This morning Coalition frontbencher Christopher Pyne said the request for a pair simply said Ms Rowland has a sick family member.

Quote

Mr Pyne insists the Opposition did not have enough information.

"It could have been a cousin, it could have been a parent, it could have been an uncle," he said.

"But if we'd known it had been Michelle Rowland's child we would have given her a pair.

Frankly, this is military-grade bullshit from Pyne and the Opposition. They knew, all right. The letter from the Opposition Whip that denies the pairing request says:

Quote

I am writing to you in relation to your request to provide a 'pair' for Ms Michele Rowland, Member for Greenway due to her child being unwell.

This letter is very clear evidence that they knew it was for a sick child and they are lying bastards to pretend otherwise.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   BOOBOO 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: 01-December 11

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:43 AM

So she knows her child is sick on the weekend, on Monday her husband decides to stay home to care for the child whilst she attends parliament then on Tuesday she asks for a pair for Thursday at a time in which there is no vote and thus no pair required. Now the child could have become more unwell by Thursday but then she wouldn't have known that on Tuesday... something is amiss!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#15 User is offline   BOOBOO 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: 01-December 11

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:43 AM

:blink:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 May 2013 - 06:02 PM

View PostBOOBOO, on 16 May 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

So she knows her child is sick on the weekend, on Monday her husband decides to stay home to care for the child whilst she attends parliament then on Tuesday she asks for a pair for Thursday at a time in which there is no vote and thus no pair required. Now the child could have become more unwell by Thursday but then she wouldn't have known that on Tuesday... something is amiss!

Yes, something is amiss. Look at the Opposition and you will find it. If the Opposition did not have form in refusing pairs for no reason at all - as they initially did in this case until it turned into a media shitstorm - then she would have had the confidence to ask for the pair on Monday, when she needed it, effective immediately. Instead, we have the Opposition's long and sordid history of refusing pairs even when it was manifestly obvious that a pair should be granted, combined with the spectre of a no-confidence motion that is probably not going to happen. There is the reason why she did not ask earlier.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostBOOBOO, on 16 May 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

So she knows her child is sick on the weekend, on Monday her husband decides to stay home to care for the child whilst she attends parliament then on Tuesday she asks for a pair for Thursday at a time in which there is no vote and thus no pair required. Now the child could have become more unwell by Thursday but then she wouldn't have known that on Tuesday... something is amiss!

What a laugh. The Opposition has been caught pulling the wings of butterflies again.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#18 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:02 PM

View PostBOOBOO, on 16 May 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

Now the child could have become more unwell by Thursday but then she wouldn't have known that on Tuesday... something is amiss!

On the form that she had to fill out called "Application for Leave from Parliament", that form includes a condition that says "Please note 48 Hours [sic] notice is requested".

Tuesday to Thursday is 48 hours.

The form that Michele Rowland filled in can be seen on a video here, about 1 minute and 36 seconds in. It clearly shows that she gave the following reason for the pairing request: "My baby has been at home & is unwell. I would be grateful to be home on Thursday night to be with her please."

Christopher Pyne is lying through his teeth when he says that Rowland did not specify that it was her child that was unwell. They're lying, playing the semantics card and then accusing the ALP of orchestrating a stunt. It's not a stunt.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by Bam: 17 May 2013 - 10:34 AM

0

#19 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:46 AM

Transcription from Doorstop Interview with Christopher Pyne
Parliament House Canberra
May 16 2013

Pyne: No if we knew that Michelle Rowland had a sick child on Monday morning she would have been given a pair to start on Monday, not Thursday at 5 o’clock. Er, now she didn’t come back and provide that information to Warren Entsch and so Warren Entsch was not aware that she had a sick infant until this morning when he read it in the Daily Telegraph.

Interviewer: But he knew it was a child on Monday… that it was…

Pyne: No we didn’t. She said that she had a, a, an ill family member.

Interviewer: An ill family member. So there’s no mention of a child?

Pyne: No. None at all.



source



That'll do me for a lie.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 17 May 2013 - 11:41 AM

Mothers, take note of this pair
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply