Printable View
What would a code of conduct achieve ? Bit like peeing in a wetsuit, makes you feel warm inside but no one really notices.
The ALLEGED offences of Slipper and Thompson are covered by current laws....Fraud, Harassment etc. If found guilty then they should be charged appropriately.
Although, thinking as I type, it would be appropriate to have a rule about wearing Budgie smugglers.;)
I have a simple code of conduct for them
I'll stand within earshot with a bloody great gun, Alex can watch the proceedings, When he says "Daddy, they're being silly" or "they're being naughty" Or "he called him a bad word" I'll shoot one.
Should have a dictatorship in by next week I reckon.
Just looked up " expedient" in my Macquarie budget dictionary, [ I know, a man of few words],:
1. tending to promote some proposed or desired object.
2. conducive to advantage or interest, as opposed to right.
3 a means to an end.
Political expediency is what keeps Thompson in Parliament, and what put Slipper in the Speakers Chair. Both sides of the house would do the same to cling to power. A code of conduct might make Joe public feel warm & fuzzy, but somehow I don't think it would change much.
But then again, it depends on what book you read out of . In my Routledges NEW Sixpenny Dictionary [ with 238 illustrations! ] published in 1892,
expe'dient, : Proper ; fit; convenient ; suitable ; . A means to an end ; a shift.
Big Red must have the same book. She should look up " con'science : Moral sense of right and wrong." Bob
BobQuote:
Originally Posted by bob10
You're nearly right Juliar has made a science out of being a con artist.
She was being expedient when she lied about being a Lesbian to get elected into student politics and now the lie is she's anti gay/lesbian rights because she's playing to the base elements in our society to stay elected.
We already have a code of conduct, called the law. Neither Slipper nor Thompson have been convicted of anything. If they are, and the penalty is more than a year in prison, they will be thrown out of parliament.
A code of conduct has great potential to be abused to silence your political opponents by accusing them of some crime, which doesn't have to be actually proven to falsely discredit someone. An example was the trumped up sodomy charges in Malaysia, used to silence the opposition leader.
Be very wary about being seduced in the currrent 'trial by media'. Its a very dangerous and slippery downhill slope towards silencing public opinion.
Yes, what a joke, the world economy is not so good and we are falling into it slowly and all we seem to be doing is watching a comedy show. If what I heard last night is true, the next bit of news is that Mrs Shorten has moved home to mums becuase Bill has put a bun in his PA's oven. More distraction, what's next. Code of conduct will just give them more to argue about and give the media more to play with while hiding what they are really doing with our laws and economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Kelly
Didn't Shorten and his wife appear together at the weekend to deny that rumour? And, even if it was true, so what? How does that affect his role in government? The media treats government like a soap opera.
I think you're mostly missing the point of a code of conduct. At present the only way an MP stops sitting in the house is if he convicted of a criminal offence.
As we've seen in this Craig Thomson affair is that the Government has managed to string the investigation out for three years, now the crimes associatiated with breaches of electorial law have had their statute of limitations pass, so crimes that may have removed Thompson from Parliament are now no more than a talking points in pubs and forums.
We should be able to expect more of the people who represent us.
A code of conduct would specify what conduct of MPs are unacceptable, and it would specify the actions that are to be taken including when an MP can continue to sit and when they can not continue to sit in Parliament when alleged breaches of the Code occur.
It will save a lot of the debate and distraction instead of increasing it.
I doubt if the government wanted the investigation strung out for 3 years. Short and quick would have suited them better. Thompson himself complained his life had been frozen for 3 years when it should have only taken 6 months.
I just think its dangerous to have any code which can be used to evict elected representatives who have not been convicted of committing any crime. It means the people in their electorate lose their voice in parliament, which is undemocratic.
Police and health workers can be stood down even when they haven't been convicted of a criminal offence and even if the grievance is not a criminal offence.
Why should our bosses be held to a lower standard?