Keep watching the news and we will see, I understand we are talking about criminal activity mainly, but where would it stop. Senior police for instance can be stood down for some types if adultery.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Printable View
Keep watching the news and we will see, I understand we are talking about criminal activity mainly, but where would it stop. Senior police for instance can be stood down for some types if adultery.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
References to Bill Shorten's alleged dalliance raise questions about the prospect of a code of conduct.
Is the behaviour of a politician in the bedroom or even in his mistress's bedroom to be scrutinised to see if it breaches the code of conduct? How does it affect his performance in parliament?
As there is even some doubt about the veracity of the rumour, it also raises the question of what is the most unparliamentary behaviour; impregnating your PA or using a rumour about someone's personal life (which may turn out to be unfounded) to destroy someone's political career.
It could be argued that spreading rumours for political gain is more the sort of behaviour that parliament should be concerned with rather than marital infidelity.
I would have expected that if any of the tabloid journalists thought that the story had legs that it would have featured more prominently in the gutter press by now. Maybe they don't think it is true.
So what you're saying is that so long as our members of Parliament are not convicted criminals, is O.K. for them to have low morals and indulge in the lowest of acts so long as a criminal conviction does not occur when they are in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
I would have thought we should have a right to expect a much higher standard of those who would dictate to us.
In the game of politics, all parties run the risk of tit-for-tat, if one side makes unfounded allegations against the other there is just as much chance of the reverse being true.
A code of conduct, can quite easily say its O.K to commit adultry but don't use tax payer funds to do it. If you do expect to be stood down while it's investigated, to your party's detriment.
Perhaps it will cause al parties to scrutinise the background and morality of those they pre-select and offer to the electorate.
Addit: On Craig Thomson AEC today reported http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...516-1yqbs.html
" The analysis notes that the combined $196, 000 worth of salaries of Crisalee Stevens and Matthew Burke - who were employed at the HSU to help directly with Mr Thomson's bid for Parliament - had been properly disclosed in HSU third party expenditure returns for 2006/07 and 2007/08.
This afternoon Mr Thomson tweeted a short response to the electoral commission findings.
"AEC report clearly shows FWA got it wrong on electoral expenses. Wonder how widely that gets reported!"
Even in spite of the disclosures, I wonder if the members of the HSU knew they were funding the political aspirations of their National President to the tune of $196,000? None of the 5 HSU members in this office, knew that was where their HSU union dues were being spent.
As a member I wouldn't be happy but if it was properly disclosed then the whole executive is to blame not just Thompson.
They area employed by the people so should have a code of conduct. Simple in my eyes. If my minister can get away with it then so can I when employed in his department. That should scare them.
Probably a thread drift, but you're spot on DM. Surely the process that was (or wasn't) in place must be a concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
How is it that someone could, allegedly, clock up such expenses without a system of audit and review?
If I spend over $100 on the work account I must have receipts and any expenses must be justifiable. All expenses are reviewed monthly by accountants with sharp pencils (and no sense of humour;))
Nonetheless, IMHO, these (and any) alleged criminals must be first found guilty before we determine any penalty.
Absolutely they should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.
Think about it people ... They are our leaders and what is that old line?
"Lead by example"
If they don't clean up it will enable us to move further from our "fair dinkum" roots. And IMHO on average we are already too far off that mark.
I do agree with this comment.Quote:
Absolutely they should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.
Think about it people ... They are our leaders and what is that old line?
"Lead by example"
I dont like the smell off the 2 caracters recently refered to but in the same way i dont like many other TV news time waisters in the middle pecking order that dont improve my-our lives.buzzing around the failed leader promoting their future.[not refer to labour members only].
I vote for my local rep.that is our system.
I didnt vote for those fools up the coast that caused this mess but someone did...or the idiots that live in victoria.
LOTS OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR slipper/thompson [and others] and it can be assumed as they are not rioting or collecting petitionss that they feel they are the best people for the job and represent the local feeling..as sad as that is.
Our system stops citizens that have been bankrupt or criminals etc from being in parliment.Is that fair to stop people that also may have something to add or conect with their local public
recently a very public outcry was heard about a P&C selling chocolate penises.the organiser has been "run out of dodge".
did they sel'does that represent the culture of the local area?
my mum wants to know how much they are.