This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Question Time a JOKE!

Jump to new
Julia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Julia, Julia, i'm afraid not. Can't you see her polls have slumped because we, the great unwashed, are uneducated and don't understand 'the science is in'. A primetime TV slot on Sunday and a sh!tty assed road show that will see her spew her bile and lies on the news, radio and print is what we all need to see the light.
$6m in one weeks advertising already booked to push this crap.

There is alot of anger out there about this, and it's going to get a whole lot worse.
 
Hansard Transcripts of Labor Party dodging questions on why only 500 polluters are paying carbon tax instead of originally 1000.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her repeated statement that the carbon tax will affect 'the top 1,000 emitters'. I refer her to reports now that, just three days out from the announcement, the Prime Minister has cut that to 500. Have 500 companies suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, Prime Minister, or are the Australian people being told only half the bad news?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor””Prime Minister) (14:28): I thank the member for his question. Let me explain to the member that coverage decisions have been made which do reduce the number of big businesses who will be paying the price for their carbon pollution. The biggest 500 polluters will be, under the scheme, required to pay a price for the carbon pollution they generate. Our plan is to make polluters pay. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to make Australian families pay. So, in making those decisions about coverage, the number of big polluters who will be paying has been reduced. I would have to say that I detect a theme across the opposition's questions today. I detect an emerging theme. There are some days when you come in here and you have absolutely no idea what they are on about, but today I can tell what they are on about. They are on about their sense of disappointment because they have spent months and months and months trying to raise fear about carbon pricing. 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 sustained.
Mr Ciobo: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I ask why 500 companies have suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases.
Ms GILLARD: In answering the member's question and explaining the coverage changes that have been made in the scheme as compared with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, what I increasingly sense is a sense of disappointment from the opposition. They wanted to have their petrol price scare campaign. The Leader of the Opposition was already out claiming 6.5c a litre, and he was dead wrong. They wanted to have a campaign about how wide the scheme was covering and now they can see that scare campaign shrivelling before their eyes, because as usual they have been dead wrong. They wanted to have a cost of living scare campaign. They wanted to be out there scaring Australian families about the impacts of carbon pricing, and now of course it is clear nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or payment increases, which should actually lead the opposition to say to itself: how irresponsible they have been over the last year trying to scare Australians, making things up, as we get on with pricing carbon in the most responsible way.
We will cut carbon pollution. We will get the big polluters to pay. We will protect Australian jobs. We will provide tax cuts and payment increases. We will get this job done in a Labor way, driven by our Labor values. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition is hostage to sceptics. He is determined to rip assistance off Australian families. He wants to put an extra $720-a-year tax on them. He wants to go around scaring Australians about the prospects of their jobs. Well, we are a confident, creative nation. We have been up to the big challenges in the past. We will be up to this big challenge, and the Leader of the Opposition will be increasingly exposed as someone who went about generating fear with hollow and untruthful claims and as someone who is not ready to lead this nation””no ideas for the future, just relentless negativity and the saying of no, no, and no.
 
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:39): My question is to the Treasurer. At 2:15 yesterday in this House, you said:
We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters.
Treasurer, when did you find out that it is just 500?
Mr SWAN (Lilley””Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:40): For once I have been quoted accurately by the shadow Treasurer because I said 'up to'.
Opposition members interjecting””
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. I simply say to those who argue that they think this is an important part of the day that we can sit here in silence and not give the opportunity for questions to be asked. It would absolutely assist if people could contain themselves simply for a short period of time. The Treasurer has the call, and he should be heard in silence.
Mr SWAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government makes no apology whatsoever for not putting a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles or light commercial vehicles. But, listening to the questions from those opposite, you somehow get the impression that they now favour a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles. That is the only logical consequence you can gain from what is being said by those opposite. Those opposite are just completely embarrassed. The government's policy is very clear.
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the Treasurer was asked only when he found out it applied to only 500 companies.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: I thank the shadow Treasurer again for his question. We have been very clear that the largest polluters will be paying a price for their carbon pollution and we will be using the revenue to assist households and to support jobs. The reason those opposite are now so embarrassed is that their policy is actually to tax families and households $720 a year and give the money to the large polluters.
 
Mr ABBOTT: 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 censures the Government for deceiving the Australian people by bringing in a carbon tax that is nothing more than a bad tax built on a lie.
We know that this is a bad tax built on a lie because what else have we been hearing for months now from this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has said day in, day out in this House that this carbon tax will make the 1,000 biggest polluters pay. What have we got today? The great disappearing carbon tax. All of a sudden it is not 1,000 it is just 500””shades of the East Timor boat people solution, shades of the climate change people's convention. This is a Prime Minister that cannot get her story straight from one day to the next. This is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted with a new tax. This is the government of pink batts. This is the government of school halls. This is the government of boat arrivals one after another, day after day, and now this government wants the Australian people to trust it. The most incompetent government in Australian history wants the Australian people to trust it with the most complex change in Australian history. They will get it wrong on Sunday, just as they have got it wrong day in, day out in this House since February of this year. Standing orders must be suspended because this government must be censured.
This is a bad tax based on a lie. It is all economic pain for no environmental gain. The biggest lie of all””the Prime Minister can turn her back on me, but she cannot turn her back on the Australian people. She can turn her back on me and pretend to be interested in the conversation of her colleagues but, I tell you what, she does not talk to her colleagues about the design of a carbon tax. She does not talk to any of them about the design of the carbon tax. She does not even talk to the Treasurer, who just yesterday thought it was still 1,000 big companies. What an embarrassment! We have got a Prime Minister who lied about the carbon tax before the election, who cannot get her story straight in this parliament, who runs away from the people at an election, who will not face the people at a plebiscite, who will not face questions in this parliament and now she turns her back. How childish, how immature, how cowardly is this Prime Minister?
This is a bad tax based on a lie, but it is not just the lie six days out from the election, the whole argument for a carbon tax is lie after lie after lie. She says that we have got to have a carbon tax to keep up with the rest of the world””wrong, just a lie, a lie that has been nailed by no less an authority than the Productivity Commission, which says there is no country in the world, not one, that is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Answer that question, Prime Minister. You can shuffle the papers all you like, but answer this question, Prime Minister: what do you think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth””
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer his remarks through the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: I say through you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister should answer this question: what does she think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth, not one, which is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme? Answer that question, Prime Minister, because that is the question””
 
Bronwyn Bishop, the speaker of the house, is blatantly bias toward her Liberal allegiance. The speaker has to be cautioned for being biased but the speaker appears untouchable. She needs a good rebuke at the least.
 
Wysiwyg said:
Bronwyn Bishop, the speaker of the house, is blatantly bias toward her Liberal allegiance. The speaker has to be cautioned for being biased but the speaker appears untouchable. She needs a good rebuke at the least.
Click to expand...

The highlight reel on the News last night was a CRACKER !! Not the first time she has been accused of bias. At least she is not abusing her Cabcharge or fiddling with male interns ... Bwahahahaaahahaaaaaaaaa
 
I reluctantly watched question time today and I could not believe how dense Bill Shorten and his MPs can be.

They kept asking the same questions over and over again regarding cuts to the aged pension and no matter how many times they were told there would be no cuts to the aged pension, in fact there was an increase of some $15 in March with a further increase in September, they persisted with their stupid questions.

Are these Labor people in denial or are just plain dumb.

The interruptions and interjections from from this rowdy mob is typical of Socialist tactics to drown out debate and an attempt to make a mockery of the parliamentary system....They are really testing the patience of the speaker and is it is any wonder so many have been suspended.......they will not desist upon so many warnings......it is an absolute joke.
 
None of the above, noco.
They are engaged in a very effective political game of convincing the electorate cuts exist when they do not.
It seems to be working extremely well for them, given the number of people who are now firmly of the belief that their actual aged pension is going to be cut.
See post earlier on another thread from sptrawler about his mother believing she is about to lose thousands off her aged pension.

Labor are applying the same principle to low income earners, people on various other benefits etc, by again saying their payments will be 'cut'.
There is a big difference between a cut in an existing payment and a change to the way it's indexed some years down the track.

Don't blame Labor. They're playing for their political survival.
Blame the government for so stuffing up the delivery and marketing of their Budget.
 

Yep the main difference is the the latter is sneakier.
 

Yes they are certainly playing games but at the end of the day, pensioners will realize over time their pensions will increase each March and September and that Labor have told them a pack of lies.

I firmly believe there are some on disability benefits who are not really entitled to it......I know of a case whereby this fellow was on a disability pension for neck problems.......he would religiously wear his neck brace when out, but when his was home he it was quite easy for him to romp around the back yard with his kids without showing any ill affects of his injury.

Yes, but it will eventually bring them unstuck.

I guess time will tell.
 
Yes, question time is a joke. The Speaker allows the government to repeat the same old platitudes "stop the boats, repair the budget, build the roads", without actually answering the question, and the Dorothy Dixers asked by the Coalition gives people like Hockey free reign to ramble on about Labor , who are no longer in government.

It's a pitiful theatre, they are not fooling anyone, and I don't think any intelligent person watching takes the process seriously.
 

They took some good lessons from Labor 2007/13....Labor were experts at it...or do you have you a short memory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...