Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Question Time a JOKE!

Jump to new
springhill

springhill

Make the drill work for YOU
Joined
20 June 2007
Posts
2,555
Reactions
11
The thread title says it all! For some God forsaken reason I tune in to watch QT every now and then. End result usually ends in me taking bites out of my couch in rage and hurling faeces at the TV.
No episode has pee'd me off more than yesterdays (June15) when this outrageous Dorothy Dixer was asked by the ALP Member for Blair to the Minister for Trade.
"Will the Minister advise the House on the risk of retaliation by Australia's trading partners if Australia fails to put a price on carbon?"

RETALIATION? In what form? Economic sanctions? Sending more illegal immigrants this way? WAR even?
You cannot be serious Shayne Neumann, you are a complete joke and a disgrace to parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/house_news/index.asp
Question and reply begin @ 29.00
 
springhill said:
The thread title says it all! For some God forsaken reason I tune in to watch QT every now and then. End result usually ends in me taking bites out of my couch in rage and hurling faeces at the TV.
No episode has pee'd me off more than yesterdays (June15) when this outrageous Dorothy Dixer was asked by the ALP Member for Blair to the Minister for Trade.
"Will the Minister advise the House on the risk of retaliation by Australia's trading partners if Australia fails to put a price on carbon?"

RETALIATION? In what form? Economic sanctions? Sending more illegal immigrants this way? WAR even?
You cannot be serious Shayne Neumann, you are a complete joke and a disgrace to parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/house_news/index.asp
Question and reply begin @ 29.00
Click to expand...

Yes PQT is a joke and I blame the speaker, Harry Jenkins, for allowing it all to happen.

As speaker he should insist Labor Ministers answer questions without diversifying away from the question ie. to desist from throwing dirt at the opposition in leiu of a sensible answer.
 
This thread sounds like a dorothy dixer. In a Share Market forum, who really gives a rats arrrs about parliament question time?
 
nulla nulla said:
This thread sounds like a dorothy dixer. In a Share Market forum, who really gives a rats arrrs about parliament question time?
Click to expand...

This is no DD thread, it is not titled 'Question Time Under Labor a JOKE', all are free to contribute, or stay out. Just opening it up for discussion.

Yes, noco, Jenkin's control over the room is flimsy at best, he looks fed up to the teeth with trying to control a bunch of baboons in suits. How long until he puts a gun to his head, or some of the members?
 
nulla nulla said:
This thread sounds like a dorothy dixer. In a Share Market forum, who really gives a rats arrrs about parliament question time?
Click to expand...
What happens in question time is more relevant than many other topics that get discussed here!

Agree that it's largely a massive waste of taxpayer funds and that the Speaker should be a lot more rigorous in his discipline.
 
More Idiocy from QT. Does Fitzgibbon have nothing better to do than worry about the cameras, he should have been ejected for that ridiculous waste of time.
This is our taxes paying for this!


Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been observing each day this week the movement of the Manager of Opposition Business and others who have been deliberately walking the corridors to block the television cameras. I have left this until today and given them the benefit of the doubt, but it is clear to me that they have a deliberate strategy to block the television cameras.

Honourable members interjecting””

The SPEAKER: Order! I am happy to respond to the point of order; I do not need help from those on my left. Over many parliaments many members have been concerned about those heads that block the view of the cameras. It amazes me that this is the most important aspect of question time. But, because it has been raised before, I now have in front of me the feed of the television that goes out. I use that to guide me in making my assessment of whether someone is deliberately blocking. I will continue to do that. It would be helpful if there were less movement but from time to time it is required. I was disappointed that I missed a segment used by one of the news outlets last night where the back of somebody's head””and I will not embarrass a Victorian member from the opposition who sits in the second row who sometimes moves around””was quite clearly noticeable, and that was unfortunate. But I do not think it was deliberate.

Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker””

The SPEAKER: The Chief Opposition Whip on this point of order or a further point order?

Mr Fitzgibbon: No, Mr Speaker; a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the measures the government is taking””

The SPEAKER: No””

Mr Fitzgibbon: to assist those in the Hunter region””

The SPEAKER: Excuse me””

Mr Fitzgibbon: and the Mid-North Coast of New South Wales””

The SPEAKER: Pardon me””I will talk over you! As far as I am concerned, the Chief Government Whip will not get the call for that purpose.

Mr Fitzgibbon: I was on my feet, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. This is simply illustrative of the things that a chair has to contend with when people want to play these cute little games. I acknowledge that it happens on both sides. To do this in the first five minutes of question time and to set the atmosphere in this manner will make it very difficult from here on in, I assure you. I will attempt to have order. Before I gave the call to the Chief Government Whip for his point of order, I had given the call to the Leader of the Opposition, who had commenced and asked for a supplementary question. The Chief Government Whip can nod his head all he likes””that is something he has probably learned off others in his position. I will dictate who gets the call. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
 
A withering attack on Gillard by Abbott. If nothing else, makes for entertaining reading. :)

MOTIONS

Censure

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah””Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately””That this House censure the Prime Minister for her confirmation today that she will defy the will of both Houses of Parliament that have condemned this Government’s Malaysia people swap.

Standing orders must be suspended today because that is the only way to ensure that the will of this parliament is secured. There is no more important issue currently before this parliament than ensuring that the parliament is sovereign.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have rarely seen such pettiness surrounding what goes on when there is movement in this chamber. I would have thought that people would wish to listen to their leader. I find this surprising and I am happy to try to do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and I have to make a judgment whether standing around is distracting. I have the belief that it only becomes distracting when people react to it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr ABBOTT: This is a motion to suspend standing orders to censure this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has scurried from the chamber. Not only does this government not listen to the expressed will of the parliament; this Prime Minister will not even listen to debate in this parliament, and nothing could condemn the attitude of this Prime Minister more than the fact that she will not even sit in this parliament while questions of parliamentary sovereignty are debated. Shame on this Prime Minister!

Why is this Prime Minister running away from the parliament? I will tell you why: she is running away from the parliament because she has lost control of the parliament. There could be no more important matter for this House to debate right now than the utter shambles which is the government's policy on border protection, the utter shambles which is the government's Malaysian people-swap policy.

In the end, this motion is not about the policy of the government. This is about the sovereignty of the parliament. Mr Speaker, let me remind you what the House passed today. The House passed a resolution moved by the honourable member for Melbourne that (1) condemns the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Malaysian waters and sent to Malaysia, and (2) calls on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. That is what this parliament has done today. It has called on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. Whatever you think of the government's policy, the issue is the parliament has called on the government to abandon the policy. So this is about the sovereignty of the parliament and I ask this question, which ought to resonate right around this country: why is this Prime Minister so scared to listen to the parliament and the people of Australia?

The parliament and the people of Australia are sending a very clear message to this government and to this Prime Minister: this Malaysian people swap is just not on. It is just not on because it is cruel, it is costly and it will be ineffective. We know that members opposite are equally concerned about the government's policy on this matter. We know that members opposite have been raising this matter in caucus. We know that members opposite are very concerned that people will be sent from Australia to Malaysia, not to enjoy the standards of care and concern that they would get in an Australian processing centre but to be exposed to the norms of the Malaysian criminal justice system. And this parliament has stood up for Australian values, this parliament has stood up for Australian decency and this parliament has stood up for Australia taking proper responsibility for the people who come to these shores and now this weak, inept and soulless government is defying the will of this parliament. That is why standing orders should be suspended.

I say again that nothing could be more contemptible than the failure of this Prime Minister to sit in this parliament and listen to this debate. What is wrong with the Prime Minister of this country that she will not at least listen to debate? She may not like what is being said but, as the Prime Minister of this country, she really has a duty to listen to it. Why is the Prime Minister scared of debate? Why is the Prime Minister scared of the parliament?

This is a government which has lost control of the parliament. This is a government which has lost control of our borders. This is a government which has clearly lost its own soul””and don't members opposite know it! This is a government which is proposing to do to people who arrive on the shores of this country something that if even contemplated for a second by the Howard government would have been condemned up hill and down dale; every refugee advocate in this country would have been condemning this as the cruellest and the least humane thing that had ever been done in the history of this country. I have to say that, to their credit, some of those selfsame refugee advocates are now saying much the same thing about this government.

The problem with the Malaysian people swap is that the Malaysian government will control the people who are coming to their country, the Malaysian government is saying, quite understandably, 'We will control who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they will come.' That is what the Malaysian government is saying, and the Malaysian government is further saying, 'If they come to our country they will be treated in accordance with Malaysian standards of justice, no-one else's'””and we know what they are. I am not critical of the Malaysian government imposing its standards of justice on people in that country, but I am critical of this government for imposing on people who have come to this country the standards of justice of another country. This is why this Prime Minister is wrong and this is why the parliament has made the judgment that it made today””and this is why for defying the judgment the Prime Minister deserves to be condemned.

There is a better way. It is a way that this parliament could well consider but has not yet considered. The better way is a way which is more humane, which is more cost effective and which is certainly more proven; that is, to reopen the processing centre in Nauru. That is what this government should do. I have been to Nauru. I did not rely on someone else to assure me that this could be effectively done. I have seen where boat people will be accommodated””and well accommodated. I have seen where boat people's children will be educated””and well educated. I have seen the police headquarters which will deal with security issues involving boat people in Nauru. And I can tell you this, Mr Speaker: there are no rotans in Nauru and there are no whipping posts in Nauru. There is no need for boat people sent to Nauru to be tagged, as if tagging would somehow save them from cruel and inhumane treatment. So I say, first of all, shame on this government for a cruel and inhumane policy but, most of all, shame on this government for defying the will of this parliament. This parliament has expressed its view of the government's policy. Now I say, and I say it particularly to the member for Melbourne, it is time to punish this government for defying the will of the parliament.
 
Yeah that Mr. Speaker (real name?) has the appearance of a park bench drunk and could easily play that role in another stage production. As for the animated pollies with their repetitive diatribe; well it pays their bills doesn't it.
 
Motion seconded by Bishop, who also lets fly.


The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin””Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): I second the motion, Mr Speaker. I stand here with the coalition to defend the principles of parliamentary democracy. I stand here with the coalition to defend the sovereignty of this parliament. This parliament is a more powerful institution than this arrogant Prime Minister and this parliament will not be ignored by this arrogant Prime Minister. This parliament is an institution that is fundamental to our stability. It is fundamental to our prosperity. It cannot be ignored even by this arrogant Prime Minister.

I had thought I had seen it all from this government. I thought I had seen the depths which it was prepared to plumb. Yet it has proven me wrong: it can go lower. Not only does it trash its election promises, not only is it prepared to walk away from every philosophical base it has ever aspired to and not only is it prepared to abandon its convictions and abandon the people that voted for it; it is prepared to defy the will of this parliament as expressed by both houses of this parliament today. This is the height of arrogance and the height of disrespect to the Australian people. The Australian people elected 150 members to this House and they elected 76 senators to the other place, and a majority of those members and a majority of those senators decided today that this government's so-called Malaysian solution should be condemned, that this government should listen to the representatives elected by the Australian people and withdraw its inhumane, ill-conceived, illogical and fundamentally flawed Malaysian solution and find a better way. Yet this government has ignored it. This is the type of behaviour we see in Third World dictatorships. This is the kind of behaviour, overriding the majority of both houses of parliament, overriding the will of the parliament, overriding the views of the majority of the elected members to this place.

The character of the Prime Minister is now on full display to the Australian people. It is not an edifying sight. The arrogance and contempt for the democratic process of this nation are now on full display. Australia deserves better. Australia deserves much better than this Prime Minister, who must be censured for defying the will of the Australian people through this parliament. The nation deserves better than an arrogant Prime Minister who is willing to defy the will of the parliament in the same way that she defies the will of the Australian people. Let me take the House back to early 2010 when this Prime Minister told the Australian public that she would not challenge her leader for the leadership. She promised to be a loyal deputy, but did the member for Griffith find out she could not be trusted! She betrayed the member for Griffith, she betrayed her leader. And now she has betrayed the Australian people by her broken promise over the carbon tax. The Australian people remember how this arrogant Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet she broke that promise and has now sought to introduce a carbon tax having promised not to.

There is nothing this Prime Minister can say that the Australian people can trust anymore. How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister to operate this country in a democratic way, to put in place the state of the nation along democratic lines, when she is prepared to arrogantly toss aside a motion that has been passed by both houses of this parliament? How can the Australian people trust anything she says anymore? She has shown such arrogance for other nations in our region, the way she treated East Timor over the East Timor processing centre, the way she has treated Malaysia over this Malaysia solution, the way she has treated Papua New Guinea, ignoring the sovereign status of those countries. Now she is doing it to our own nation. This Prime Minister, the leader of this country, is now defying the sovereignty of this parliament and she must be censured for it. What is even more extraordinary is that this Prime Minister is not even in this chamber to answer this call. She is not even here to answer this motion. What arrogance, what contempt! This Prime Minister must be censured and she must be brought back to the House to answer to this House.
 
Almost daily we have confirmation what somebody said a while ago:

We use democratic process to empower dictators to do whatever they like for 3 years at least.

Suppose not bad, compared to one place I know that is governed by terrorist organisation, unless I got it wrong.
 
Geez The taxpayer doesn't get much for a few million $ an hour.
 
nulla nulla said:
This thread sounds like a dorothy dixer. In a Share Market forum, who really gives a rats arrrs about parliament question time?
Click to expand...

Well I know you are correct in this statement.

On the 3 times I watched 15 minutes of QT this year, I ended up on the patio with 4 empty brown bottles from the recovery process.

Would rather watch a horror movie!!!
joea
 
joea said:
Maybe we could get a rebate if we watch QT.! We can just add that to the MRRT.;)
Cheers
Click to expand...

Only if you watch it on an old style cathode ray TV, NOT one of those planet destroying 2000 inch plasmas :)
 
Question asked by Joe Hockey.
'Will the treasurer inform the house of when he was aware that only 500 big polluters will pay the carbon tax, NOT 1000 as was first claimed?'

Wayne Swan blatantly dodged the question, gutless.

Abbott then gets to his feet and delivers a brutal and truthful attack on the Govt.
Check the Hansard tomorrow, makes great reading.
 
springhill said:
Question asked by Joe Hockey.
'Will the treasurer inform the house of when he was aware that only 500 big polluters will pay the carbon tax, NOT 1000 as was first claimed?'

Wayne Swan blatantly dodged the question, gutless.

Abbott then gets to his feet and delivers a brutal and truthful attack on the Govt.
Check the Hansard tomorrow, makes great reading.
Click to expand...
Mr Abbott's retort was broadcast in "PM" ABC Radio this evening. It was quite astonishingly good. He really hits the spot at times.
 
3 guesses as to where Julia Gillard would like to sharpen her pencil after today's proceedings.
 

Attachments

  • sharp-end-cats-bum-pencil-sharpener-by-luckies-[2]-5092-p.jpg
    sharp-end-cats-bum-pencil-sharpener-by-luckies-[2]-5092-p.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 241
Julia said:
Mr Abbott's retort was broadcast in "PM" ABC Radio this evening. It was quite astonishingly good. He really hits the spot at times.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3263736.htm

But Tony Abbott opened question time by quoting a fact sheet from 2008 which says excluding petrol would not lower costs for households.

TONY ABBOTT: Any abatement that would otherwise have come from the transport sector, will have to occur elsewhere and at higher cost. Doesn't the Prime Minister's own fact sheet prove that whatever the spin, Australians will pay more for everything under her carbon tax?
Click to expand...

And the response,

JULIA GILLARD: They have spent months and months and months trying to raise fear about carbon pricing and now I think we can see written on their faces as more and more details become clear about the scheme, that they can feel it, they can feel that their scare campaign is not going to be able to be able to be sustained.
Click to expand...

It's rubbish that fails to address the point.
 
drsmith said:
It's rubbish that fails to address the point.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's what she does all the time. She must think Australians are stupid to imagine we do not see through her disingenuous non-responses.
She should consider this prevarication when she views her ever-falling poll results.
 
Top